I think it's a fairly safe assumption that a large sentiment on these forums is that there are not a lot of MMORPGs on the market that offer the kind of depth and enjoyment that we desire.

Other than WoW, Rift, Aion, and EVE, there is certainly a lack of high quality MMORPGs.  Three of these four rely on addicting game mechanics to keep players engaged, and the fourth, EVE, is probably the only popular MMORPG today that actually embodies what many here desire: a real virtual world.

The current slate of MMORPG games are attempting to iterate on what has been successfull since 2004: WoW-eque addictive gaming that correlates reward with time investment rather than player skill or exploration.

The genre needs innovation badly, but as we have seen, the companies with the cash to both innovate and support a large playerbase cannot be trusted to deliver a compelling, high quality virtual world.

Warhammer, and EA in general is probably the best example of this: http://ealouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/hello-world/

The point here is, the idea of MMORPGs as virtual worlds is dying and the new games that are "defining" the genre are slowly removing the elements of MMORPGs that make them large scale, persistent, and socially immersive experiences.

The trend is to make more customized experiences for small group or solo play, rather than something innovative that can scale to any size.  It is unfair to call future game releases in this genre MMORPGs.  The acronym no longer means what it used to.  Either the acronym needs to change, or a new one should be created for what many of us truly desire.

I don't want a modern day MMORPG, I want a MMOPVW, or a Massive Multiplayer Online Persistent Virtual World.

Am I crazy here or are a lot of other people here on the same wavelength as me?

No I think most here would agree from you.  Especially judging from the fact that there is about one post that says almost the exact same thing this one does every 3 hours or so ;).

I think the only question is that are we (the forum goers) just an extremely vocal but overly inconsequential minority?  Or do our desires actually reflect a good portion of the MMORPG market?

Our desires reflect a large portion of the MMORPG market.  If you ask many players of popular MMORPGs today, they would tell you that one of the main reasons they stay with a game is because of what the have already invested and the friends they have made.

As I said, today's MMORPGs reward time investment, and do a good job at connecting players so they can play together, but in small groups.

If you check out that link I posted about Warhammer, it is very difficult today, because of incredible game production costs, to innovate in the genre, and afford to make a great game without having to be controlled by game companies where profit is a much much higher priority than building a great product.

The reason you don't see a great game that is more in line with what I and many of us want (a true virtual world) is because there is no statistical data to prove by today's metrics that it would make as much money as a WoW-esque purely addictive game.  You can't go to an investor and say "hey I need $25 million to make the next great virtual world."

In the 90's production costs were much lower, and great game innovations could be implemented and carried to completion without having to depend on controlling corporations to make major decisions.

I'm watching the continuing trend toward mmo shooter hybrids with horrified amusement.  A widespread move in that direction will kill off MMOs for good.  Combining these two genres tacks grind and gear inequality onto a gameworld that's even shallower than the shallowest of themeparks.

If someone doesn't realize that this is not the way to go, we are all in serious need of new entertainment.  Or maybe old entertainment.  I suppose it's not too late to take up street theater?

I don't say you can't combine some shooter elements with MMOs, I don't see why you can't.  Tab-targetting can go the way of turn based combat, as far as I'm concerned.  But after sampling Earthrise, I fear game companies will bring the MMO grind to the shallow shooter's world, where there is nothing else to do at all except kill your fellow players, instead of bringing twitch-based pvp to a living MMO world. 

The game industry  today is an incredibly metrics driven industry because it is also very hit driven.  There have not been any hundred million dollar MMORPG hits that are like what we want, and so it is very hard for an investor or a big company to lend a giant amount of effort and money into a project like that and be expected to stay very hands off.

And so I say the genre as we envision it, is dying or may already be dead.

EVE model is what newer mmo's should adopt. its an mmo that MUST be small. its optimal range of players cant be in the millions. as such, with more realistic standards, it's maintaining a higher rate of success in accomplishing its own goals.

Originally posted by BaconJA89

Our desires reflect a large portion of the MMORPG market.  If you ask many players of popular MMORPGs today, they would tell you that one of the main reasons they stay with a game is because of what the have already invested and the friends they have made.

 

As I said, today's MMORPGs reward time investment, and do a good job at connecting players so they can play together, but in small groups.

 

If you check out that link I posted about Warhammer, it is very difficult today, because of incredible game production costs, to innovate in the genre, and afford to make a great game without having to be controlled by game companies where profit is a much much higher priority than building a great product.

 

The reason you don't see a great game that is more in line with what I and many of us want (a true virtual world) is because there is no statistical data to prove by today's metrics that it would make as much money as a WoW-esque purely addictive game.  You can't go to an investor and say "hey I need $25 million to make the next great virtual world."

 

In the 90's production costs were much lower, and great game innovations could be implemented and carried to completion without having to depend on controlling corporations to make major decisions.

You better watch out.  Thinking like this could get you burned at the stake around here.

Originally posted by Robokapp

EVE model is what newer mmo's should adopt. its an mmo that MUST be small. its optimal range of players cant be in the millions. as such, with more realistic standards, it's maintaining a higher rate of success in accomplishing its own goals.

Well I would also say that it is small because it is Sci-Fi themed and you can't control your character like you can in a fantasy MMO (although you will be able to soon).

I think a fantasy game, with a similar approach, and a good sized team/budget, could make something with over a million players.  Darkfall had potential, but its full loot approach with a tiny indie team and no marketing is why that will never get anywhere close.

Yes lots of people want virtual worlds.  But those people also want different things from those worlds.

There are people simply interested in having the ability to build fortresses, pretend they're kings, and lay siege to someone else's fortress - and there's a large enough majority that has absolutely no interest in a game that panders to self-important 14 year olds seeking the throne through rehashed PvP mechanics.  Regardless of whether or not it labels itself a virtual world.

My point is simply saying a game needs to be a "virtual world" leaves a lot left unsaid.  You identify Eve Online as a virtual world, but you could just as easily make that argument for a game like Second Life.  Two games that have about as little in common as lasers and dinosaurs.

So yes, people can be in agreement they want games that differ from the current crop of popular titles on the market.  But the ways in which they can differ vary so extravagantly from one to the next that attempting to lump them together under a common phrase as ambiguous as "Virtual World" is misleading.  Everyone has their own ideas of what they want from their own virtual world and beyond having that common desire its much harder to reach agreement.

It's unlikely there will be a single game, or even a single movement, towards some type of "virtual world" genre that will appeal to everyone.  It's much more likely that people will gradually branch out over a long time-line, exploring indie titles that offer more of the mechanics they're looking for, until the industry is able to build up a large enough selection of games to satisify everyone.  Honestly I already see it happening now, if you know where to look, and I suspect even using a new acronym would simply result in a dizzying array of unforseen games all attempting to apply it to themselves.

I think the problem is that newer games are very antisocial in nature. Many people choose to solo, and when they do group, it is because an objective requires a group. If you try to be social, people react by making you feel like they are bothering them. This isn't true in some of the older games oddly enough, such as Furcadia, Graal Online, Tibia, Runescape, Maplestory, Ragnarok Online, etc (never played UO or EverQuest, so I can't say for them)  as the communities in these games actually behave like a community and not people playing a multiplayer game as if it  were a single player game. The older games provided less direction for a player, where as a game like WoW dangles a carrot in front of your face all the time, metaphorically speaking. Newer games also tend to have things like a "dungeon finder" , instances, and other features that support antisocial play, protecting each individual PC but doing a disservice to the entire community. 

As far as open sandbox games, they are out there but people like you won't go and play them. It is either not enough of a game like Xyson, or has a few quests in it  like many of the several sandbox games, and this turns off sandbox purists. All in all, there are quote a few games that let you leave a mark on its persistent world.... Vanguard, Ryzom, LinkRealms, Istaria, etc... GO AND PLAY ONE.

No.  The acronym means what it always has, a game that has the potential for a large population to be playing at the same time.  Virtual worlds, sandbox, themepark.... these are just little subgenre's withing the MMO world.

You state there are only a few games that are good.  I state that since the MMO's inception there have always only been a few games that were good.  Pretty much like any industry, there may be hundreds of companies but really only 3-4 that will dominate.

You state that 3 of thoese 4 use addicting mechanics.  I state that the current medical definition of addiction has no place in MMO's as there is no chance of a disregulating receptor, however there could be abuse.  I also state that these mechancis have been in MMO's again since their inception.

I also state that their are MMO's that cater to you, you just aren't playing them for whatever reason (bad launch, low pop...)

So no the name doesn't need to change, and the genre has not changed significnatly.  Again thats been a consistant message on these boards - people have been playing the same game with different name/grahics for 10 years.

Maybe that is the problem, the genre hasn't changed enough.

Venge

Originally posted by carrie01

I think the problem is that newer games are very antisocial in nature. Many people choose to solo, and when they do group, it is because an objective requires a group. If you try to be social, people react by making you feel like they are bothering them. This isn't true in some of the older games oddly enough, such as Furcadia, Graal Online, Tibia, Runescape, Maplestory, Ragnarok Online, etc (never played UO or EverQuest, so I can't say for them)  as the communities in these games actually behave like a community and not people playing a multiplayer game as if it  were a single player game. The older games provided less direction for a player, where as a game like WoW dangles a carrot in front of your face all the time, metaphorically speaking. Newer games also tend to have things like a "dungeon finder" , instances, and other features that support antisocial play, protecting each individual PC but doing a disservice to the entire community. 

As far as open sandbox games, they are out there but people like you won't go and play them. It is either not enough of a game like Xyson, or has a few quests in it  like many of the several sandbox games, and this turns off sandbox purists. All in all, there are quote a few games that let you leave a mark on its persistent world.... Vanguard, Ryzom, LinkRealms, Istaria, etc... GO AND PLAY ONE.

I agree games like this exist, but I am arguing that the reason they aren't popular, and why the AAA titles keep trying to emulate WoW, is because no one has funded a project since the early 2000's with a virtual world vision.

And to the guy who said I was being ambiguous about "virtual world," I am referring to an online game where every area is accessible by all players.  I am not supposing that there is some magical game that appeals to everyone here, but that a new class of games needs to be developed today that fits the bill for what I would call a virtual world.

Being bored with the current offering of mmos does not necessarily mean that the genre is dying.

I too would like to see some bigger better more open ended worlds. But there is a lot of ground to cover between there and the death of mmo's

Originally posted by BaconJA89

And to the guy who said I was being ambiguous about "virtual world," I am referring to an online game where every area is accessible by all players.  I am not supposing that there is some magical game that appeals to everyone here, but that a new class of games needs to be developed today that fits the bill for what I would call a virtual world.

I didn't say you were being ambiguous, I said the term was ambiguous since it lacked a universal definition.  I could spend 10 minutes writing up various game ideas that met the definition of a game "where every area is accessible by all players."  You could argue that current games already have all areas accessible to all players if players put in enough time, or you could argue that it simply implies all of the content should be easy so players which aren't very good can still succeed.  It could be used to make an argument simply for a sandbox game that has no combat whatsoever.  Or it could be used to define a game where I'm permitted to watch players access content I can't reach myself.

The point is not to find some ridiculous "magical game that appeals to everyone."  The point is to find a definition that's accepted by everyone.  That's the point of creating new acronyms and new genres.  It's not simply done because BaconJA89 is disappointed with the current game selection - its not even done because there are thousands that are also disappointed.  It's done because there's a common genre definition that warrants it.  And I suspect each of those thousand players would provide his own definition, wildly different from your own, that would make an entirely new genre term no less meaningless than MMORPG already is.

That's all I was trying to say.  Games aren't built by common dissatisfaction with a feature, rule, trend or what have you; they're built by common acceptance of another.

For my playstyle, WoW really killed my interest in MMORPG's.  I stuck with EQ1 and DAoC for a long time.

I have played games since WoW came out.  (Aion, Rift, Vanguard, Warhammer, FFXIV), but for the most part I quit those games in the manner of months or weeks.

Rift - Cool ideals, too watered down 

Vanguard - Awesome game, but not enough play it because its not like WoW.   I place it up there along with DAoC and EQ1.

Warhammer - didn't even play 2 weeks

Aion - Good game(#4 on my list), but my favorite role was hard to PVP with

FFXIV - Game controls me off.

It seems all the games that come out nowadays are catered to the casual gamer.  Those game mechanics that casual gamers like tend to make the world feel less immersive.

-Instances

-Small worlds

-Fast travel

EQ1 had so many small details that helped make the world feel like a real, massive world.  Those elements you won't find anymore.

I call it the WoW syndrome.  Since I am but one guy who doesn't find the same enjoyment in MMORPG's since WoW's changing of the genre and now we have millions of new casual subs, I doubt I will ever again see a game that made me feel like Eq1, DAoC, or Vanguard made me feel.

I have been pretty disappointed lately. I started 1999 in Ultima Online and loved it for all its dangers/risk, player created content, drama, its felt like a proper world and I was happy in that sandbox.

After that lured by pastures greener and eyecandy I went to DAoC which was still good and then I started an odysse through I think most of released MMORPGs on the market.

Latest for me was Rift, really enjoyed it at the start, leveled up, had fun but once the novelty wore off and I was at max level I got bored again. So I sat back and thought why as the game itself is not a bad game. My conclusion is that it doesn't matter which modern mmo I play these days, in the essence they are all the same. Level up, gear up, raid, gear up more for higher raids.  I do not have the feeling of a persistent world, of danger/risk. If I die, nothing happens, I do not loose anything, pay my fine, either to repair gear/soul or whatever but I cannot loose anything.

Maybe that sounds odd but I miss those times when I would have died and didnt make it back to my body and lost my gear, or that evil PK robbed me blind.  Heck , even going mining in Ultima was more adrenaline pumping than most of e.g. WoWs raid content :P

I think in order to appease the masses and have a viable business model mmorpgs have lost quite a bit of soul.

In the old days in Ultima you had to find good friends which you trust to go out and hunt and be somewhat safe from PKs etc. My guild got founded there and we still play together after like 12 years because of that strong bond created in that dangerous workld :)  

When MMOs became more and more mainstream and companies smelled the big bucks games changed, it was considered that being able to play e.g. evil in a RPG world is something you have to protect your players from and thus Trammel got created. It surely boosted subscriber numbers but I think thats the point when MMORPGs took a turn for the worst.  I am not talking about not being able to pk or to thief in Ultima, I mean games became safe in general.  You die ? no biggie, just rezz, pay some coins and all your gear and loot is by magic on your body.  Oh that content is too hard ? No worries, just wait a bit and we nerf it to bits so everybody can play it with eyes closed.  I think you see what I mean,  by taking away risk/danger everything becomes just trivial. Content is being spoonfed and I mostly feel like you play on rails.

I recently reopened my Ultima Online account out of curiosity and rolled on Siege Perilous, a server which kind of emulates the "old" ruleset as near as you can get it on official servers and I must admit I am having a blast. The game is not all all pretty and shows clear his age but the gameplay is still wicked.  Despite the lack of eyecandy, top notch graphics and triple A features I haven't seen a game this free which make you feel that you actually live in a fantasy world.  Its a very laid back community and it just feels proper :)

I wish there were more not level but skill based games out there (and yes I tried EVE, Mortal and Darkfall ;P) which offer this degrees of freedom of choice in the world. The thrill of being ambushed and robbed or that you have to be carefull in dungeons to not die somewhere were you cant recover your body and loot.  I think that sense of danger/risk is something most games miss these days and that what I mostly miss..

There never have been more MMO players then now...

And GW2 will soon breath even more blood intoo the genre...

The MMO genre has the future...

And its still shining bright.

When one game dominates for 6 years and people are playing it just out of a lack of anything better to do, these feelings are supposed to happen. Eventually games will stop trying to be WoW lite and will actually come up with some revolutionary gameplay and WoW will be defeated and the genre will flourish once again. 50 years from now if we're lucky to still be alive, we'll be able to look back and see there were several cycles like this one.

Just because more people play MMORPG's doesn't mean the games are better, it just means more people now have access to computers that can play them and have the internet connection to do so.

Back when EQ1 came out  the amount of people on the internet was drastically lower.

8 years ago, you might have been right.  This is not 8 years ago.   MMOs are now a multibillion dollar section of the gaming industry as a whole and have been for some time.  MMOs that would have [i]floundered and died years ago[/i] still stay on because the business is highly profitable, and the players are only increasing.