I do not believe in western style of MMORPG or Asian style MMORPG. If you just say, will here I am as a gamer, then there is such a thing as an immersive, fun and adventurous experience. Who creates that experience should not be limited by their style.

We need to open ourselves to be more accepting and but also be more outspoken about our good, creative and enriched ideas.

Developers will most likely just ignore us If we voice negatively our ideas to improve the genre and be judgmentally critical to their current pieces of work.

I believe that gameplay should be intuitive, smooth and flowing.

Good game design in my opinion should healthily promote community and player interactivity. The game should be adventurous, explorative, immersive and nice.

 

I'm personally optimistic myself that there will be a new EQ pre LDoN with an amazing community and all the magic of the versatile playable races, art style and magical items.

And I also believe we will a new generation Ultima Online type game that blows everyone away. Whether that is in 2011, 2015 or even 2020 remains to be said.

This picture sums up some of the heart and magic of Everquest.

So you want us to judge a game with an unbiased/fair attitude? BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you op, but gamers are tough bunch to please. That being said, I refuse to play any Asian style MMORPG, no matter how good it is .

I think the problem is not with the mentality of players (though it is), personally, I think it's in a dev team not aiming at the right market. Some people simply don't like a certain kind of game; I dislike racing games for the most part, so a racing MMO is not going to ever tempt me, but there are those that is will - and the more time they spend trying to attract people like me, the less time they have to put [useful] things in that keep the intended demographic playing.

That's why I design games for a certain kind of player, and try to keep a range of that in my portfolio. If every game I had in it were to be made, they would each have a comfortable number of players due to little overlap in playstyle and design philosophy. For instance, I got a game dedicated to RPers, and already see how people are going to hate it - but that doesn't change the fact that the intended market I am going for will most likely love it.

As for a new UO - I highly doubt it. We are past the MMO infancy where UO and EQ1 were "magical", and nothing is going to capture that feeling, just like your first kiss/car. Only those new to MMOs will find their "new UO", and only because it would be their first - and most likely the best one they ever do, and base all future decisions for a game based on that playstyle. That is why some people don't get sandboxes, the first MMO they played wasn't one - but in my case it was - and that affects my tastes.

Originally posted by GTwander

I think the problem is not with the mentality of players (though it is), personally, I think it's in a dev team not aiming at the right market. Some people simply don't like a certain kind of game; I dislike racing games for the most part, so a racing MMO is not going to ever tempt me, but there are those that is will - and the more time they spend trying to attract people like me, the less time they have to put [useful] things in that keep the intended demographic playing.

That's why I design games for a certain kind of player, and try to keep a range of that in my portfolio. If every game I had in it were to be made, they would each have a comfortable number of players due to little overlap in playstyle and design philosophy. For instance, I got a game dedicated to RPers, and already see how people are going to hate it - but that doesn't change the fact that the intended market I am going for will most likely love it.

 

Yes I don't disagree. I don't think a game can properly appeal to all styles of players. There will most likely always be someone who loves a certain developers work and also someone who dislikes It. You can't please everyone. I think It is somewhat superfluous to have a game that ''caters'' to all players, because that doesn't really work, unless you have like 4 separate games that are each individual worlds within one game and sell It as one game.

You cannot really have a solo and grouping game in one, because the playerbase will lead to one side, and that is usually the side of least resistance. You can have a grouping game with the ability to occasionally solo if you can't find a group or are having trouble getting a group together or you can have a solo game that has the possibility of grouping open If people want to.

all the points you mentioned are being addressed by the game devs, its just that not all such games make it to the big scene. then theres how the community itself reacts to the game. even if the game devs make a really good game that promotes community interactions, if the community is filled with bad players, then the overall feel of the game would also drop.

Originally posted by Valotros

I don't think a game can properly appeal to all styles of players. There will most likely always be someone who loves a certain developers work and also someone who dislikes It. You can't please everyone. I think It is somewhat superfluous to have a game that ''caters'' to all players, because that doesn't really work, unless you have like 4 separate games that are each individual worlds within one game and sell It as one game.

You cannot really have a solo and grouping game in one, because the playerbase will lead to one side, and that is usually the side of least resistance. You can have a grouping game with the ability to occasionally solo if you can't find a group or are having trouble getting a group together or you can have a solo game that has the possibility of grouping open If people want to.

Maybe you haven't heard of a little game called WOW, where PVE, PVP, and soloing are all within the same game, and attracted a huge playerbase?

Players aren't rigid.  Their tastes are many.  The game which flows around their tastes and offers 4 styles, 2-3 of which any given player will like, will do well.  As can the game that excels at offering just 1 of those 2-3 styles.

Did you really make a second account to quote more Bruce Lee?

Are you going to advise us to be shapeless and flow ....while simultaneously having a rigid viewpoint of the exact structure MMORPGs must take?  Of what can and cannot work?

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Valotros

I don't think a game can properly appeal to all styles of players. There will most likely always be someone who loves a certain developers work and also someone who dislikes It. You can't please everyone. I think It is somewhat superfluous to have a game that ''caters'' to all players, because that doesn't really work, unless you have like 4 separate games that are each individual worlds within one game and sell It as one game.

You cannot really have a solo and grouping game in one, because the playerbase will lead to one side, and that is usually the side of least resistance. You can have a grouping game with the ability to occasionally solo if you can't find a group or are having trouble getting a group together or you can have a solo game that has the possibility of grouping open If people want to.

Maybe you haven't heard of a little game called WOW, where PVE, PVP, and soloing are all within the same game, and attracted a huge playerbase?

Players aren't rigid.  Their tastes are many.  The game which flows around their tastes and offers 4 styles, 2-3 of which any given player will like, will do well.  As can the game that excels at offering just 1 of those 2-3 styles.

Did you really make a second account to quote more Bruce Lee?

Are you going to advise us to be shapeless and flow ....while simultaneously having a rigid viewpoint of the exact structure MMORPGs must take?  Of what can and cannot work?

Kinda makes sense, but didn't UO also have the same lack of grindiness as well as uniqueness to individuals playing as WoW does?
 

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Valotros

I don't think a game can properly appeal to all styles of players. There will most likely always be someone who loves a certain developers work and also someone who dislikes It. You can't please everyone. I think It is somewhat superfluous to have a game that ''caters'' to all players, because that doesn't really work, unless you have like 4 separate games that are each individual worlds within one game and sell It as one game.

You cannot really have a solo and grouping game in one, because the playerbase will lead to one side, and that is usually the side of least resistance. You can have a grouping game with the ability to occasionally solo if you can't find a group or are having trouble getting a group together or you can have a solo game that has the possibility of grouping open If people want to.

Maybe you haven't heard of a little game called WOW, where PVE, PVP, and soloing are all within the same game, and attracted a huge playerbase?

Players aren't rigid.  Their tastes are many.  The game which flows around their tastes and offers 4 styles, 2-3 of which any given player will like, will do well.  As can the game that excels at offering just 1 of those 2-3 styles.

Did you really make a second account to quote more Bruce Lee?

Are you going to advise us to be shapeless and flow ....while simultaneously having a rigid viewpoint of the exact structure MMORPGs must take?  Of what can and cannot work?

His mind is so open that his brain fell out. I agree with you - few, but some, games manage to combine multiple things into a neat little package for most to enjoy.

Of course, it's fun to argue. Groupers will say that they're not satisfied with WoW (or any other mass-appeal game) because "grouping only occurs at level 80!", while soloers will complain that they're "forced" to raid... to group... at 80 if they want to progress any further. Those are like extreme liberals vs. conservatives, though. As my grandpappy used to say, "They ain't never happy till one of em dun't get what he wants. No compromise." See, now I'm throwing my grandpappy's quotes in here.

I don't want to be too harsh on the OP, though. I do agree when he says, "I believe that gameplay should be intuitive, smooth and flowing. Good game design in my opinion should healthily promote community and player interactivity. The game should be adventurous, explorative, immersive and nice." I'd just add that variety is the spice of life, and the more activities (preferably non-combat as well) the devs can add in, the more people will want to play because there will always be something to do. Even in Runescape, which is grind, at least you had variety - quests, mini-games, dozens of skills, resource farming, etc. While some of the activities themselves could be less boring, the combination of them always gave me something to do.

I disagree when he thinks there is no western or "Asian" style. Most gamers can look at an MMO and say, "That looks Asian (and possibly insert F2P Grinder)". Fewer can look at an MMO and call it western because it's generally what they already expect, so to them it's normal and doesn't require a label. Easier to identify that which is different than what is normal.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Valotros

I don't think a game can properly appeal to all styles of players. There will most likely always be someone who loves a certain developers work and also someone who dislikes It. You can't please everyone. I think It is somewhat superfluous to have a game that ''caters'' to all players, because that doesn't really work, unless you have like 4 separate games that are each individual worlds within one game and sell It as one game.

You cannot really have a solo and grouping game in one, because the playerbase will lead to one side, and that is usually the side of least resistance. You can have a grouping game with the ability to occasionally solo if you can't find a group or are having trouble getting a group together or you can have a solo game that has the possibility of grouping open If people want to.

Maybe you haven't heard of a little game called WOW, where PVE, PVP, and soloing are all within the same game, and attracted a huge playerbase?

Players aren't rigid.  Their tastes are many.  The game which flows around their tastes and offers 4 styles, 2-3 of which any given player will like, will do well.  As can the game that excels at offering just 1 of those 2-3 styles.

I have played WoW and I find It personally doesn't perfectly deliver group play. Sure, there's content in WoW where you can do soloing and if you want grouping ( except for end-game ) but the race to end game is mostly a solo journey.

Final Fantasy XI and old school Everquest were group based games, but you could solo to some degree if you wanted to in Everquest, It just wasn't as effective as grouping.

Where as with WoW if you look at the effort It takes to get a group going and sustain one compared to just soloing, most people will solo, thus It is not really a groupers game, but more so a soloers who likes to group on occasion and raiders game.

I personally didn't find World of Warcraft to be the amazing game everyone makes It out to be. But you seem keen on believing that World of Warcraft is some kind of ''perfect'' all embodiment game that is the landmark in MMORPG's. I personally would have to disagree.

Just because a game is popular doesn't really mean anything as far as I am concerned. There's lots of things in this world that are really popular, doesn't make them good or better than something with less attention.

Also I'm offended that you call me someones alt because I have similar thoughts or like Bruce Lee.

Originally posted by drel

Kinda makes sense, but didn't UO also have the same lack of grindiness as well as uniqueness to individuals playing as WoW does?
 

Didn't play UO.  However on a broad level, EVE is a successful modern UO: a player-run world simulation.  But as expected, world simulation is (as it always has been) less popular than a game.  Not that most players don't care about popularity, because what matters is whether the game is fun to them.  But popularity pays the bills for developers, and impacts how much development can go back into the game.

Valotros, WOW isn't perfect, it's merely less imperfect than the majority of games which came before it.  It's a solid game, and has the most enjoyable combat system of any MMORPG I've been able to try so far.

The point isn't about popularity.  The point was that WOW appealed to most (not all) styles of players, and that was one of the key factors of its success (of which there are many.)  So while your statement (of trying to appeal to all players) is true, it's also a little misleading.  Because by appealing to most players, WOW has done quite well for itself.