Originally posted by CyberWiz

Try Ryzom, the only thing it is missing is non instanced player housing, but it offers a couple of unique things of its own ( like mobs mibrating etc ), it is a really nice mmorpg for pre-cu-nge vets, will keep you busy until Blizzard releases their Starcraft sandbox mmo :p

greetz

Ah, yes, Ryzom might fit the bill. I ought to drop by that game again one of these days.

I wouldnt go this far as to say "I am leaving till a VW comes out" but I do agree with some of the posters thoughts.. I have recently returned to an older MMO   "Istaria: tales of the gifted" it is a different experience for sure.. takes patience   crafting is still involved but as for the way this game is set up  you only really need maybe one character as you can train in anything you wish and learn like close to 20 diff professions..  I say be WARNED if you chk this out because Vista is only on the Blight server  (test server)  it will go live here soon i think.. hoping anyway. cant lvl in a day in this game or even a month..     The secret world looks interesting..  I am hoping that game developes well... mortal online as well looks appealing...    for now though I am really enjoying an older feeling of play in Istaria (used to be Horizons)     take care gamers    hope you find what you are all looking for      Kwosh

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Lobotomist

How come that game design is actually de-evolving backwards ?

It is astonishing when you think about it, how the early MMORPGs had more immersion features.

All of the fancy graphics, technology, and so forth have not enhanced the world-feel or immersion that so many of us crave in experiencing MMORPGs. 

The games do not even feel like a roleplaying . . . game:  deliver this note; level-up; level-up more; raid; raid more.  Give me a world of variety, exploration, options, features, and of course, innovation. 

 

It's actually expected and normal. The original MMOs were played by PnP gamers, MUDders, old school CRPGers (Ultima, Infocom games, Sierra games, etc). Their focus was mostly the interaction and the story. The purpose of playing was to solve the puzzles, avoid the traps and get to the gold/maiden/dragon/villain at the end.  Leveling was a nice perk that happened along the way but was not the reason for playing. As MMOs because more popular, they attracted the new gamers - a crowd that finds a game like Wizardry 8 to be 'flawed' because it doesn't tell you were to go but will cite Final Fantasy as an example of an 'epic' RPG.  The original crowd was a minority to begin with and the new crowd is HUGE. This huge crowd defines RPG by the advancement and the leveling... the acquisition of top gear and the capping of stats/skills. So that puts two forces at work:

1) the larger and newer crowd plays for advancement, not story or interaction

2) the best way to widen the audience is to lower the barrier to entry

The DikuMUD formula is the perfect fit for that, and the past decade has been spent refining it, making it more user friendly and making it as appealing to as many people as possible.

And then here's the next fun tidbit: Everyone who wants an 'immersive game world' has a completely differnt idea of what that should be, so it's an audience that you almost cannot cater to even if you tried. The OP is a classic example. He wants a 'decent' virtual world, but

- it cannot be totally open in design like Second Life

- it cannot be space themed

- it must be 3D graphics

- it must have combat

Each person pining for a 'decent' virtual world has their own set of conditionals that are deal-breakers for them - it's a very small crowd that is extremely difficult to cater to.

I'd disagree somewhat with this statement. I believe it's more of the "major houses" making MMOs all focus on the EQ/WoW way of doing it because those games happen to be successful. There just weren't any major companies who have the intestinal fortitude to take games (and their systems) like we saw in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call and even SWG(Pre-NGE) and expand upon, further refine.

No, they know that the vast majority that came with the influx of MMO players that is WoW aren't going to leave WoW. They also know that that those who do most likely aren't going to stay with their game long either. So why put all the effort into making worlds of the UO/AC calibre if people aren't going to stick around long. Heck, AoC and WAR are proving/have proven this. Both reputable IPs and both were games that focused little on the semantic "world" and more on "game". Booming populations at launch but once people saw that there wasn't much there, they left. Sure, many played through the "content" that was there, but that didn't last very long. That extra content found in non-combat systems such as UO, AC and SWG(pre-NGE) is what keeps folks playing. Heck, if the NGE had never come I'd still be in SWG.

No, speaking of the major companies, they know what they are doing. They are in the business of making money first, detailed quality games second (if that). They know they will make their money from box sales/digital donwloads, not long term player retention. That's why they only bother with the "pew-pew" content, and only really focus on that to give maybe around 1000 hours of "content". Then they'll try to sell you another "1000" hours in an expansion (again with the box sales).

There are few, if any, mid level to major companies out there looking to make "worlds" anymore like what was done in the "first generation" MMOs. CCP/White Wolf is about the only one I can think of, and that is contingent on how they present World of Darkness Online. I pray they stick to their forumla and not change to the mainstream like Turbine did going from AC to D&D/LOTRO.

What is it people are actually looking for in a game??  flashy graphics? more quests? bigger worlds?? what?    I see this posters thoughts but  what hes asking for I doubt will totally be brought in..  older MMO's have sooo much to offer and why arnt many more playing them???   its not for lack of content.. everyone wants fast food and no one wants to wait for that excellent marinara suace to take along time to cook.. the want  ragoo and they want it now or even  a drive thru content...    i said this before but older MMO's of 10 years ago had sooo much more to offer  be it  EQ, UO, AO, AC  Horizons (Istaria) I see people drooling and falling of their computer chairs waiting for these great MMO's to come out only to throw the game discs in the waste basket... heck Im one a them  I tried AoC  (pos) IMO   I am back to older MMO's and takin my time exploring and lvling and crafting in MY time  not some molded go here manufaturered game      my adventure finally started again once i went back to an older game....    try it people   most of them have trials again  and sorry if i forgot SWG   for that game is hard to roll of the tongue as it was my VERY fav game  till NGE    anyway    heres to gaming  however you all want it    play what you want its out there   find it again.... Kwosh

Originally posted by admriker4

I've been playing MMO's (and muds) before them going back 12+ years now. Yet lately I find myself never touching my gaming rig these days. In fact I have not been subscribed to an mmo going on 3 months now, the longest drought I've ever gone.

The reason for the lack of interest, frankly I'm tired of settling for a game missing several features I desire in my gamplay.

for starters, I want a virtual world. I have played linear theme park ride games (even enjoyed some briefly) but they arent for me. Virtual worlds begin with making a home for my avatar. For some reason this key feature to MMO's is being left out of development nowadays. And if it is added, its some lame instance or seperate zone. I want my house in the actual virtual game world for all to see. Player cities will develop (whether actually designed as a game feature or not) with real housing. And from player cities comes a virtual world. Please note, a house isnt just a place to store extra gear or potions.

I want a game NOT 100% focused on combat. Crafting should be a class of its own, not some secondary skill anyone can do. If I choose to become a chef, I cant also be a warlock or bounty hunter. That also means not giving players 5 toons per server, this means no alts to allow players to become totally self-sufficient.

absolutely no level system. Its flawed on so many levels (most of which players arent even aware of). A level based system uses a damage multiplier, briefly what this means is gear and skill are actually rather meaningless. A bad lvl 80 warlock player will 99.99% of the time always kill lower level mobs and vice versa die to a higher lvl mob because of the DM. All gear and skill does is determine how fast you kill or get killed by a mob. Level systems are in essence a big fat illusion

 

Dont get me wrong, linear games like World of Warcraft or Lord of the Rings can be fun. But they are ultimately just a game you can beat. Once the quests and raids are complete, its game over until the next expansion or patch comes. I'm tired of watching my gear become useless in 2 months and having to start over.

I'm tired of doing quests because I need xp. Whatever happened to doing quests for a nice decorative item to place in your house. How about just to have created a grateful NPC that simply smiles or greets / treats you differently when you walk by because you helped them ? Questing has become all about killing things or delivering things (which usually means killing something along the way) for more XP. And how about some kidden quests, rare spawn quests, quests only available at certain times, that dont have some idiot-proof mark to indicate "hey you a quest is here"

I'm not looking for a Second Life type of game either. I dont want to see currency to credit/gold conversions and no combat system. Im not interested in any fps gankfest like darkfall or a space sim where my avatar is just a ship (eve). And Im not going to play SWG because frankly I dont trust SOE.

The only few virtual world games I see coming are fps so theyre automatically off my radar. fps means physical skills come into play thus negating gear really. You cant kill a much weaker new player even if your rifle is amazing if you cant line up those stupid crosshairs. So for me Fallen Earth and I believe Earthrise are also out. My only hope right now is Star Trek Online but lets face it, cryptic isnt exactly known for making complex virtual world.

So for now, and maybe forever this longtime cowboy has said goodbye to the MMO genre. I've stopped sleuthing for leaks about games in development, Im not even the slightest interested in turning on my gaming rig anymore. Maybe turning 40 has something to do with it but you wont see me in any lines for midnight launches until someone makes something worthwhile.
 

And we need to know this why?
 

---

Originally posted by demc
You are classifying and justifying that one formula should be the holy grail of gaming here and I find that unacceptable. Of course I am the rebel so why not push for a change? If certain people had never challenge gaming design, DnD would be non-existent. Those that push out the new technology are those that are willing to risk ridicule.

---

Incorrect. I merely stated that this was an expected and normal trend in response to the quoted statement that it was astonishing. How you derived any implied affinity for the trend or any proclamation of it as the 'holy grail of gaming' is beyond me. I think your desire to be the 'rebel' has you looking for a cause that isn't there. ;)

---

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

I'd disagree somewhat with this statement. I believe it's more of the "major houses" making MMOs all focus on the EQ/WoW way of doing it because those games happen to be successful. There just weren't any major companies who have the intestinal fortitude to take games (and their systems) like we saw in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call and even SWG(Pre-NGE) and expand upon, further refine.

---

I don't think it's so much a lack of intenstinal fortitude as it is a financial responsibility to the investors. I mean, answer this honestly:

You have 2 million that you want to invest in a project. There's one plan that has a reasonable track record of a solid return on the investment. There's a second plan that will offer the world a unique product but there is a very small target audience (thus low return on investment) and a high risk factor to it.

If I was an investor, I know what I'd go with. :) I'd love to be in a position to fund the second plan, and if I was independently wealthy i would do it in a heartbeat. However, investing is for the sake of generating a reasonable return on the money, so I would definitely go with the first plan. Wouldn't you?

That aside, I think we are both at the same conclusion: it's the indie developers that are going to make the change. By 'indie', I'm not talking about some dude with an MMO creation kit and no training in game design or programming. It's companies like Turbine, Flying Labs, eGenesis, Three Rings and the rest that have shown a solid team of dedicated people can make something truly amazing.

I'm suprised people mention EVE as a game that the OP and those similar may like. Wurm online is the obvious choice. Its completely a sandbox game, the crafting is important and almost completely non-reliant on combat (unless you are crafting leather goods and the likes were you need to kill an aminal for the raw material). All items and buildings are craftable etc. I don't want to talk to much about all wurm has going for it which people are asking for but it really is a much better choice to recommend to the OP and likes than EVE.

try some MUDs =)

Originally posted by LynxJSA 

You have 2 million that you want to invest in a project. There's one plan that has a reasonable track record of a solid return on the investment. There's a second plan that will offer the world a unique product but there is a very small target audience (thus low return on investment) and a high risk factor to it.

If I was an investor, I know what I'd go with. :) I'd love to be in a position to fund the second plan, and if I was independently wealthy i would do it in a heartbeat. However, investing is for the sake of generating a reasonable return on the money, so I would definitely go with the first plan. Wouldn't you?

 

No, absolutely not.

Look how many mainstream games are failing to get the "solid returns" they thought they'd get. The thing you fail to realize/mention is that the competetion for the big budget "low risk" games is huge and even companies with good reputations investing millions into these projects are falling short on the type of "solid returns" they expected to get. Times change and so does the demand. The "very small target audience" as you put it, know what they want and there are very few games that would compete with new game targeting them and its not like they are such a small market that it couldn't be done.

Originally posted by ozmono

No, absolutely not.

Look how many mainstream games are failing to get the "solid returns" they thought they'd get. The thing you fail to realize/mention is that the competetion for the big budget "low risk" games is huge and even companies with good reputations investing millions into these projects are falling short on the type of "solid returns" they expected to get. Times change and so does the demand. The "very small target audience" as you put it, know what they want and there are very few games that would compete with new game targeting them and its not like they are such a small market that it couldn't be done.

There's a few misconceptions there. The first is that you feel that since the mainstream games aren't a zero risk investment, a high risk indie game would be any less risky. There is no data to date to support that. Your 'fail to realize' sentence was just a rewording of the first. Your second is the ambiguous 'times change and so does the demand' statement which seems to indicate, without any supporting evidence, that there is a current shift in demand away from the popular Diku design on MMOs. With EQ2 and LOTRO doing well and WOW's numbers rising as large indicators, it's hard to find data supporting this shift you seem to be alluding to. Your third was the false assumption that there is some single defintiion for the 'very small target audience' which is indicated by your statement that they know what they want. A cursory review of the posts on these very forums show that other than pie-in-the-sky wishlists, there is no single feature list that seem to be overwhelmingly accepted by any group of any significant size.

Do you have any data to support the specific feature list  and the market size you are referring to? You had stated as fact that they know what they want and that a new game offering it would cater to them, so I am curious what that is based on.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by ozmono

No, absolutely not.

Look how many mainstream games are failing to get the "solid returns" they thought they'd get. The thing you fail to realize/mention is that the competetion for the big budget "low risk" games is huge and even companies with good reputations investing millions into these projects are falling short on the type of "solid returns" they expected to get. Times change and so does the demand. The "very small target audience" as you put it, know what they want and there are very few games that would compete with new game targeting them and its not like they are such a small market that it couldn't be done.

 

There's a few misconceptions there. The first is that you feel that since the mainstream games aren't a zero risk investment, a high risk indie game would be any less risky. There is no data to date to support that. Your 'fail to realize' sentence was just a rewording of the first. Your second is the ambiguous 'times change and so does the demand' statement which seems to indicate, without any supporting evidence, that there is a current shift in demand away from the popular Diku design on MMOs. With EQ2 and LOTRO doing well and WOW's numbers rising as large indicators, it's hard to find data supporting this shift you seem to be alluding to. Your third was the false assumption that there is some single defintiion for the 'very small target audience' which is indicated by your statement that they know what they want. A cursory review of the posts on these very forums show that other than pie-in-the-sky wishlists, there is no single feature list that seem to be overwhelmingly accepted by any group of any significant size.

Do you have any data to support the specific feature list  and the market size you are referring to? You had stated as fact that they know what they want and that a new game offering it would cater to them, so I am curious what that is based on.

 

Firstly, please don't tell me what I feel. I don't " feel that since the mainstream games aren't a zero risk investment, a high risk indie game would be any less risky. " I do however feel that because indy games don't have the competition that mainstream games have the cost of creation is much lower therefore your 2 million dollars is going to get you a bigger % of profits that may or may not result in a larger overall dividend.

Secondly my second sentence isn't a rewording the first, for the most part its expanding on it and giving reason (the reason being far bigger competition).

As for the shift, you assume I'm talking about a shift that has already happened when infact I'm not. What I am saying is that the same old thing isn't going to be a good investment for ever and I say that in the context of the mainstream having lots of competition.

No I have no data for a specific feature list, I didn't even mention one common feature so I don't need any data in that regard. We are talking about a hypothetical "small target market" and by definition they have similiarities and we aren't talking about demographics we are just talking about opposing the normal feature list. Okay now that is clear it should also be said identifing what 10 thousand people want and how to go about it is much easier than 10 million people. Its not really a case of them "knowing what they want " and I should've chosen my words more carefully.

Infairness your post was a well thought out arguement and mine wasn't. However due to the lack of information and thought I put into my post and the seriousness in which you responded to it you've ended up assuming alot of things that I was not saying.

Finally as for supporting evidence, I think I've explained myself in a way which I don't need any. However my second sentence still does, I'm refering to AoC and WAR and such falling short of what they thought/said they expected to acheive. I said this because I wanted it to be clear that I would rather be a larger investor in a niche game than a smaller investor in a huge mainstream game because they aren't as "low risk" as people would make you believe. Now I really couldn't be bothered getting the sources of the information on WAR, AoC and the likes of which where they said they'd expected much higher numbers than they'd got but I will if you feel its inaccurate.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

 

---

Originally posted by demc
You are classifying and justifying that one formula should be the holy grail of gaming here and I find that unacceptable. Of course I am the rebel so why not push for a change? If certain people had never challenge gaming design, DnD would be non-existent. Those that push out the new technology are those that are willing to risk ridicule.

---

Incorrect. I merely stated that this was an expected and normal trend in response to the quoted statement that it was astonishing. How you derived any implied affinity for the trend or any proclamation of it as the 'holy grail of gaming' is beyond me. I think your desire to be the 'rebel' has you looking for a cause that isn't there. ;)

You are in fact stating there is no reasone to change the mainstream. Read what you wrote here in regards to me being the rebel to a cause that is non-existent. You are convinced there is not need to change the current design even though voices are asking fo the changes. 

 

 

 

---

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

I'd disagree somewhat with this statement. I believe it's more of the "major houses" making MMOs all focus on the EQ/WoW way of doing it because those games happen to be successful. There just weren't any major companies who have the intestinal fortitude to take games (and their systems) like we saw in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call and even SWG(Pre-NGE) and expand upon, further refine.

---

 

I don't think it's so much a lack of intenstinal fortitude as it is a financial responsibility to the investors. I mean, answer this honestly:

You have 2 million that you want to invest in a project. There's one plan that has a reasonable track record of a solid return on the investment. There's a second plan that will offer the world a unique product but there is a very small target audience (thus low return on investment) and a high risk factor to it.

If I was an investor, I know what I'd go with. :) I'd love to be in a position to fund the second plan, and if I was independently wealthy i would do it in a heartbeat. However, investing is for the sake of generating a reasonable return on the money, so I would definitely go with the first plan. Wouldn't you?

That aside, I think we are both at the same conclusion: it's the indie developers that are going to make the change. By 'indie', I'm not talking about some dude with an MMO creation kit and no training in game design or programming. It's companies like Turbine, Flying Labs, eGenesis, Three Rings and the rest that have shown a solid team of dedicated people can make something truly amazing.

 

This is part of a design document as well as personal observations over the last nine years of gaming. I know some of you could  care less but we are in a period of MMOG development that needs adjustments to mainstream design to hold casual players interests in gaming least they flock away to other means of entertainment.

I am writing this out so maybe others can relate to why the desire to have a virtual world without a DnD design and continuous killing be the driving force in a game. I do believe there should be a player versus player in a game but the player versus player game needs to have rules to enforce fair gaming and there needs to be a reason behind the warfare. Some may disagree on this but rich story line in PvP would really add immersion value to the game play. Many games seem to fail to deliver this IMHO.

I played DAoC on Coop server after 2 years of Lanclot. I was tired of the same old same old in the frontiers and wanted to enjoy a bit of adventuring and questing. I had grown tired of the player versus player aspect. After reaching a level of 50 on Coop I found that all everyone else did was raid keeps or raid the dragons or Sidi. I personally love adventuring and doing story lines weather I am in a group or solo did not really matter. However finding the people that have the same liking seems a daunting task. Even guilded I played alone most of the time because I was out in territory that was rather remote.

I for one wanted a little more than just go to raid on Saturday and Sunday nights in DAoC . I really did like to adventure into SI and ToA areas but then some dipshit designer decided that only groups of players in raid force should be successful exploring the territory. Ya know what I mean? I had to spend hours trying to talk others into adventuring to explore the beautiful landscape and see the creatures instead of running their bots in keep raids to farm out seals. I moved to EQ and then EQ2 at release too BTW and had 2 subs going. I was also writing a novel and trying to make a game that cratered to my liking with a story that was believable and had immersion.

I split my time between my game design and the two games but again some dipshit designer made much of EQ and EQ2 a group centric game and again grouping was the driving force to adventuring. I took on WoW for a couple months but hated the cartoonish design. At least I could adventure somewhat. I really don't see much adventuring being done in any game today because the game is designed to do one thing and that is Level. DnD Online was fun for awhile but there were times I had to sit and wait an hour to group to get a story finished and I was rushed through the story so fast I missed most of the dialog. I really screwed me on the overall meaning but at lest I finished it. AC2 was actually fun up to around level 50 but again lack of other players and much of the game designed around grouping, kind of forced me unsub it. At this point I decided to shit can my novel because I was on the same old level as all the other designers of gaming and what I wrote was a copy of the now WoW clone so deleted it and after 6 years of the DaoC I just could not stand playing anymore and I missed my house most after leaving the game. I took a couple months break then started working on Whren again. The next 3 years I split my time playing games online and offline (Oblivion was fun) and writing, programming and designing.

I started playing Linage 2 for awhile then AO. I went back to EQ2 for awhile and then DAoC again for a month. When AoC came out I played it for a couple months.

What I found in every game is the monsters or opposition lined up along a path and you fight your way toward the end of that path. The DnD design is there in every game to fight to the treasure, maiden or some such ending. You have to go the route of this design weather solo or grouped. There is not a multi-outcome here as it is set in hard code to do exactly what the developer wanted.

I wanted to be able to log in and take a new unexplored route to some remote place just to do it and not have to use the DnD design to get there. I don't mind taking on a few encounters along the way mind you but the primary focus of almost every game is to kill something or die trying. No game I see made allows a person to resolve things and change the world around them to allow a peaceful solution. Suppose I had to travel this route but in order to travel the route I had to obtain a faction by doing something so the encounter was peaceful. I mean I could be mister e-peen with whack a mole mentality and just over power them or if I decided to join them because I felt their efforts were my beliefs and I betray my own faction to do that too. I could lay out my own house or city here and become their protector against others that tried to harm them (meaningful PvP). You see where I am going here? I wanted to be able to make changes to the world around me and the changes mattered. I think others want that but there is no real virtual world design anywhere that can do this as of now.

DaoC came close with PvE factions this but the separation of realms and not being able to cross over or betray or work on a treaty so to speak between the realms left it still missing that immersion value. DaoC did give meaning to PvP and that was the design though and it came closest to being what I liked but it still was missing the immersion I wanted.

January this year I decided to scrap the project because it is very complex and beyond an indie developer. Some of the responses I got were to continue so I picked it up again. However I do have doubt that a piece of epic work like this would ever reach mainstream so don't hold your breath but don't just wave it off either.

Originally posted by declaredemer

I have also QUIT every MMORPG until an MMORPG with

• World Immersion,
• Character Customizations (much (much) more than just looking differently), and
• Innovation
  • Player-empowerment tools
  • Evolving world (really, evolving; not just an expansion)
  • New methods of zone-wide, server-wide cooperative gameplay
  • Exploration that is meaningful, real, and rewarding
  • Real estate customization and ownership:  design cities, fortifications; yes, design them, not just build them or plop them down. 

is implemented.

 

If we subscribe to games we dislike such as WoW, developers will just keep copying WoW features and making other WoWs with slight differences. 

 

I am totally disenfranchised from this industry.  I think the only game I am looking forward to is Dragon Age: 0rigins (2009) because of player-tools to develop worlds, characters, content, items, etc.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age:_Origins

 Edit:  I just hope the toolset is intuitive and user-friendly.  The Neverwinter Nights 2 toolset was awful.

 

Edit 2:  I am not even buying MMORPGs to "try" them anymore, even though I used to buy them all to try them . . . and I would try them with excitement because I would want to explore a "world."

I have not experienced an MMORPG world . . . I cannot even remember. 

 

Exactly what I think too, declaredemer. There just is nothing of that sort comming out in the MMO world. The motto for MMO companies these days is "Build em fast, build em cheap, and copy WoW."

WoW has been such a huge sucess that every company seems to think, if they copy as many WoW aspects as they can, they too can have a blockbuster hit. But who is gonna leave one game for another, that is almost the exact same thing? Why leave friends/guild/characters n all that you enjoy, just to start over in the same game but different name?

People who love WoW, aren't going to leave it for a clone. People who kinda like WoW but want something new...aren't going to leave WoW for a clone. And people who don't care for WoW aren't going to go rushing off to play a WoW clone.

I feel UO-pre AoS and SWG pre NGE had it right. Crafting that mattered, skills, housing, good PvE and PvP.  But seems no companies wanna touch that type of gameplay these days. After all, these games weren't as successful as WoW.

I am going on a few months now without a sub. I will admit to playing some 'free servers' of some games. But I wait for a game that has it all. I find more of what I enjoy in single player games such as Oblivion and in the future 'Dragon age". For over ten years now I have hardly looked at single player games. Now I look forward to them comming out...cause I don't expect much from the current crop of MMOs. Vanguard came pretty close to what I enjoy...but the lack of population was the killer for me.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

 

---

Originally posted by demc
You are classifying and justifying that one formula should be the holy grail of gaming here and I find that unacceptable. Of course I am the rebel so why not push for a change? If certain people had never challenge gaming design, DnD would be non-existent. Those that push out the new technology are those that are willing to risk ridicule.

---

Incorrect. I merely stated that this was an expected and normal trend in response to the quoted statement that it was astonishing. How you derived any implied affinity for the trend or any proclamation of it as the 'holy grail of gaming' is beyond me. I think your desire to be the 'rebel' has you looking for a cause that isn't there. ;)

 

 

 

 

---

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

I'd disagree somewhat with this statement. I believe it's more of the "major houses" making MMOs all focus on the EQ/WoW way of doing it because those games happen to be successful. There just weren't any major companies who have the intestinal fortitude to take games (and their systems) like we saw in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call and even SWG(Pre-NGE) and expand upon, further refine.

---

 

I don't think it's so much a lack of intenstinal fortitude as it is a financial responsibility to the investors. I mean, answer this honestly:

You have 2 million that you want to invest in a project. There's one plan that has a reasonable track record of a solid return on the investment. There's a second plan that will offer the world a unique product but there is a very small target audience (thus low return on investment) and a high risk factor to it.

If I was an investor, I know what I'd go with. :) I'd love to be in a position to fund the second plan, and if I was independently wealthy i would do it in a heartbeat. However, investing is for the sake of generating a reasonable return on the money, so I would definitely go with the first plan. Wouldn't you?

That aside, I think we are both at the same conclusion: it's the indie developers that are going to make the change. By 'indie', I'm not talking about some dude with an MMO creation kit and no training in game design or programming. It's companies like Turbine, Flying Labs, eGenesis, Three Rings and the rest that have shown a solid team of dedicated people can make something truly amazing.

 

Well, as a new investor at this specific time, no, I wouldn't. I see the arguement for those investors shortly after WoW's successful climb started, sure. Maybe even for 3 years (up to 2007) after WoW's launch. Starting in 2008, however, my view on the "WoW method to MMO creation) as a potential investor would have leveled and most likely started declining. Recently, after the launches of AoC and WAR and looking at how they aren't even approaching the 1 million subscriber mark, much less 12, well, I'd be assured it isn't the way to go.

I would, however, have the observation that noone has tried to further develop UO/AC formulas and, reading the pulse of the MMO community as being stale on these WoW Generation MMOs (as in, they try them out, realize it's wholely similiar to WoW, but WoW does it better and they already have an existing time investment in WoW, so they go back to WoW), I'd make the call that if I was going to continue to invest in MMO companies at all, it would be in one with a goal to not mimic WoW. It would certainly be in a company that subscribes to the belief in grabbing subscribers for years, and developing aspects of the game to facilitate that.

And yes, if I were lucky enough to win a lottery of about $100 million+ I'd fund a project trying to capture the spirit of AC1. I honestly believe it's going to take a single wealthy person that played UO and AC from their launches to make a serious effort down those paths of those kinds of MMO. Unless that happens, were stuck with the "Disposable MMO".

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

I would, however, have the observation that noone has tried to further develop UO/AC formulas and, reading the pulse of the MMO community as being stale on these WoW Generation MMOs (as in, they try them out, realize it's wholely similiar to WoW, but WoW does it better and they already have an existing time investment in WoW, so they go back to WoW), I'd make the call that if I was going to continue to invest in MMO companies at all, it would be in one with a goal to not mimic WoW. It would certainly be in a company that subscribes to the belief in grabbing subscribers for years, and developing aspects of the game to facilitate that.

I'm with you on that. I think that devs who have tried to recapture UO have focused too much on the combat aspect and not so much the community/interaction tools. There was an article I had read recently (but can't remember where) that pointed out how a lot of MMOs go for the big number up front rather than start with a small core and build up the playerbase from there. I think that will factor into the success of any future MMO that deviates from the fantasy diku design that dominates the market now.

Originally posted by LynxJSA
.....

And then here's the next fun tidbit: Everyone who wants an 'immersive game world' has a completely differnt idea of what that should be, so it's an audience that you almost cannot cater to even if you tried. The OP is a classic example. He wants a 'decent' virtual world, but

- it cannot be totally open in design like Second Life

- it cannot be space themed

- it must be 3D graphics

- it must have combat

Each person pining for a 'decent' virtual world has their own set of conditionals that are deal-breakers for them - it's a very small crowd that is extremely difficult to cater to.

Exactly this. He turns up his nose at Fallen Earth and Earthrise as well because "omg i think they will be FPS!" Rest assure he will turn up his nose at Mortal online as well

Next, he will surely turn up his nose at Wurm online and linkrealms "omg the graphics are not up to par!"

We are already a small crowd. People like they the OP are no help. just leave the site already no need for a huge will and testament

Originally posted by admriker4

eve - i just dont like space sims. Ive tried to love that game several times but just cant find any joy in it. Its a very good sandbox game but its just not my cup of tea.

Ultima - too old, 2d graphics no thanks. If I want an old-school thrill I'll play Fallout 2 or Birth of the Federation.

A Tale in the Desert - never tried it but I'm told it has no combat system at all so no thanks

 

I mention SWG because at launch it had nailed the virtual world simulation down. Now thats no longer the case, its crafting system while still somewhat decent is utterly pointless with a loot-based linear theme park NGE design crushing older code. Besides I won touch a game regardless when I have no guarantee that the development team wont violate the cardinal rule of mmo's and change the core game mechanics.

Basically I want a classic combat rpg system like wow with a player run economy like swg had with total interdependance within the community. This means items decay, raid gear isnt better than crafted gear (instead a player would loot crafting components that require a player-crafter to utilize). This also means you cant allow 7 toons per server or everyone will have crafting / gathering alts to avoid interdependance. And crafting should never ever be a secondary skill everyone auto gets. If you want to be a chef, you either cant be a warlock or a weak one (because you spend those limited skill points in chef rather than warlock)

 

I dont think you will bother but try Well Online its right along what you are asking for. Next time before posting yet another Will & Testment people feel free to ask your fellow sandboxers for suggestions.

 As was stated already, Ultima Online really is that game you have been searching for, lol. Pre-T2A atleast. I still enjoy logging on from time to time to redesign a castle here and there, or attempt to catch comeone in Felucia to get a quick PK on. And I do so love not having to see LVL 80 or whatever, the Skill system just seems so much more natural. Are you a LVL 10 at driving or do you feel bout 25% of your potential?

Classic EQ was a virtual world.

I gave up waiting for one, I'm playing WOW and screw the rest. At least WOW is good at being a Theme Park.

Future looks a bit better with Mortal Online, if they can pull that game.

Well, what OP wants is not going to happen.

People want games, not another life.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Well, what OP wants is not going to happen.

People want games, not another life.

Incorrect. Some people want games. Some people want detailed worlds that take in the many facets of sentient existence, not just combat.

Not going to argue which side has "more" as, just as it's true in all aspects of real life, more people prefer the easy, less resistant route to gratification. That said, there is a healthy number of people who enjoy investing large amounts of time in gaming and have the time on hand to do so. And they prefer MMO worlds where content/game systems are in place that meaningfully make use of a user that has plenty of time to play.

If fine if you don't have the time to do so, but don't generalize it to seem as if there aren't plenty of MMO gamers out there who do. Enough to provide a long term (not the 6 months and I'm out mentality of the majority of players) loyal subscription base if only a mid to high "caste" game company would make one. Field of Dreams had it right. "If you build it, they will come". And to clarify, I'm speaking of games like UO and AC in specific and not about any other game.

Originally posted by altairzq

Classic EQ was a virtual world.

 

I gave up waiting for one, I'm playing WOW and screw the rest. At least WOW is good at being a Theme Park.

 

Future looks a bit better with Mortal Online, if they can pull that game.

Ha ha ha ha ha ...

EQ is a huge grind-fest  & campfest ... 100x worse than WOW. I played EQ since its beta for a few yrs. There is really very little "world" aspect to it.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Well, what OP wants is not going to happen.

People want games, not another life.

 

Incorrect. Some people want games. Some people want detailed worlds that take in the many facets of sentient existence, not just combat.

Not going to argue which side has "more" as, just as it's true in all aspects of real life, more people prefer the easy, less resistant route to gratification. That said, there is a healthy number of people who enjoy investing large amounts of time in gaming and have the time on hand to do so. And they prefer MMO worlds where content/game systems are in place that meaningfully make use of a user that has plenty of time to play.

If fine if you don't have the time to do so, but don't generalize it to seem as if there aren't plenty of MMO gamers out there who do. Enough to provide a long term (not the 6 months and I'm out mentality of the majority of players) loyal subscription base if only a mid to high "caste" game company would make one. Field of Dreams had it right. "If you build it, they will come". And to clarify, I'm speaking of games like UO and AC in specific and not about any other game.

Sure. There is always the niche market but mainstream production is trending towards where most of the audience is. MMOs are VERY EXPENSIVE endeavors and I don't see developers gimping themselves by confining to a niche.

Sure, there will be some attempt like DF but for most major production, casual is the way to go (just look at how JGE is heading).

May I suggest Two Worlds.  It's cheap to get now, and online play is free.  I've been playing that online for a few days, and most of the gamers there were willing to party it up, and high levels give you free stuff if you announce your a noob.  Maybe that could tide you over till you find what you're really looking for.