| 251 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
9/02/11 5:51:42 AM#121
Coyote, you nailed it. No one wants to risk being different. |
|
|
9/02/11 5:58:17 AM#122
OMG! This brought back so many memories.. I loved this! Wonderful read!! "Huntress" |
|
|
9/02/11 6:10:02 AM#123
Originally posted by fischsemmel Pretty much. Too bad EQ was before my time, huh?
|
|
|
9/02/11 6:24:18 AM#124
Those of us who played hardcore games like EQ back before it was dumbed down have since grown up and have careers and families. We can't play an MMO the same way we used to (8+ hours at a time) but we are still a legitimate (and dominating) base of players/customers of online gaming.
If this isn't true for you, then you either have a seriously dysfunctional family of your own, you're a kid, or you still live with your parents. |
|
|
9/02/11 7:00:19 AM#125
Originally posted by JPTX |
|
|
9/02/11 7:23:12 AM#126
I’d like to address this “market share” issue.
Kind of interesting, actually, as this describes the EXACT problem even though this was likely not the poster’s intent.
Market share. That’s what it is about. NOT good games.
Sometimes I wonder if these folks believe that every writer should attempt to write the next Harry Potter rather than crafting their own imaginative story. Certainly such an effort would have quite the potential to reach an already existing market.
Then the writer could analyze and copy the style and plot elements, switch a few things around, and then make a great profit off the mindless masses.
Soon, every book, every movie, every work of "art", would be simply attempts to follow the mold. No creativity, no imagination whatsoever. Cardboard cutout books and movies!
Can you imagine the market share!!
But wait, you say, the people would never accept the same regurgitated trash over and over again. You’re nuts Scrog!!!
Oh, we wouldn’t? *cough*
Game devs who are in it for “market share” are akin to Picasso being in it for the money.
And you see the result. Once devs want to make great games again, let me know. Until then, we get "the mold" and money grubbing sellout devs driving the bus. But wait Scrog you heartless bastid, what about them trying to make a living? Oh, cry me a river. Do you think that people stop writing songs or playing an instrument and plying thier craft any way that they can EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE TO WORK A REGULAR JOB TO EAT? People who have passion for thier craft find a way. Simple as that. I think it's pretty obvious where dev passions lie. Greenbacks. |
|
|
9/02/11 7:37:07 AM#127
Most books and movies do retell the same basic stories over and over again. It's the presentation that changes. That's one of the reasons Harry Potter was so popular, it used some existing mythology (find the Holy Grail, defeat Mordred, the boy king, stop the invading army, etc.), but it was set in a new setting with characters that many people could relate to. A lot of our entertainment works this way. Thousands of years ago, cultures that had no contact with each other told a lot of the same stories. It's not really all that surprising that our games would continue this trend. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
9/02/11 7:50:07 AM#128
Originally posted by lizardbones Somewhat a myth as the concept is WAY overstated. I play guitar and try to write songs. Your comment would be akin to saying "why bother, all of the good ones have already been written". Sure, songs can contain the same elements such as hooks and so forth, but that doesn't mean that they are anything at all alike. For example, let's take a famous book (or trilogy). The Lord of the Rings. Sure, it has a bad guy, an item, a journey, just like many other books. Would you say then, the Dragonlance is a copy? Not even close. Tolkien is WAY to verbose for my taste. I don't need to read a two-page description of a meadow. Get on with it man!!! On the other hand, I consider the character development in Dragonlance to be unparalled. Those last two things that I mention have NOTHING to do with common plot elements. There have been many failed attempts to use this same mold as well. Just as we see in the world of games, sure, you can use a basic template, BUT if that's ALL that your game or book is, you will FAIL. |
|
|
XAPGames
 Elite Member
Joined: 3/30/10
Don't expect great artwork from a coder. It just doesn't happen. |
9/02/11 7:52:58 AM#129
Originally posted by Scrogdog
And why market share? The bottom line is corporate profits.
Stockholders own the company. They are represented by the board of directors The actual operations is headed by the CEO, hired by the board. CEO says "we want the market share (corporate profits) and that becomes the focus of the development. Everyone else down the line is a peon. Artists, creative writers, programmers, network administrators... even the managers that oversee them. Peons.
Yes maybe some shops strive for excellence and won't cave in. But that only happens a few times until they get the reputation as being "uncooperative" and then they can't get work.
Some will argue that games have always been about money. I beg to differ. One of the reasons we used to have GOOD games is that small publishers took pride in their reputation with gamers. But no longer, there are very few small publishers left.
The problem today, and especially on something as large and complex as an MMORPG, is that it takes HUGE bags of money to fund a project to release. That means Mister CEO calls all the shots.
Maybe there have been a few examples where this didn't happen (GuildWars' ArenaNet cooperative agreement with NCSoft perhaps) but on a big budget MMO, the bottom line is return on investment (your market share) and nothing else matters. Make it as commercially viable as possible, and ship it.
Sad huh? BTW: OP and Scrogg, great posts! Currently in development Wizards and Champions (formerly ActionMMORPG) |
|
9/02/11 8:00:35 AM#130
Correct, Action. We must now consider the fact that we are more or less trapped in some sort of harmonic feedback design cycle. It may not be possible to extricate ourselves at this point. It is because of the idea that expensive means good. You must be kidding. Another thing I do is to play board wargames. I just found this place where you can actually download wargames for a couple of bucks, print them out on a few sheets of paper and play. Surely, historical wargames (sorry, this ain't call of duty folks) are a niche market in itself, but again, what matters is a GOOD game! Not even necessarily quality components! I mean, I've played a great game that cost $4, and nine sheets of paper and a bit of printer ink. It could also have been released with a nice mounted and laminated board and counters! Full color rule book! And if you act now, a GI Joe figurine ready to be painted! Of course, the game now costs $25. How much was gameplay affected? Zero. Glitz and glamour do not make a game good. |
|
|
9/02/11 8:26:15 AM#131
Recurring themes isn't the same thing as copying. Most stories are a recombination of elements that people have already seen. That doesn't mean something new can't be made, just that something totally new and never seen before is pretty rare. You're more likely to have a recombination of existing ideas in a new way than a totally new thing. Even with music, whatever you're creating is based off of everything you've heard before...it all mixes together in your brain and you're going to recombine it into something new. It will still be music, it will still have a certain beats per minute (even if the beats per minute changes throughout the song) and you'll still use musical notes and certain chains of musical notes to get a certain effect that you want. The song will be new and never heard before, but the elements of the song have been used before by somebody else. Games work the same way. Most elements of video games have been used before. Video games have only been around since the 70's, so there are probably new elements that can be created that we've never seen before, but for the most part, a game may be new, but the elements that make up the game have been used before. ** edit ** I think ActionMMORPG hit on something with mmorpg. They are expensive to produce. We've all seen what happens when a small studio tries to do an mmorpg. Mostly they're pretty cr@ppy. That doesn't mean a big studio will automatically make a good game either, but it just takes a lot of resources to make an mmorpg compared to a good FPS or single player RPG game. The more resources it takes, the more likely your end result is going to shoot for mass market appeal. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
9/02/11 8:38:17 AM#132
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point, Lizard. Tony Iommi INVENTED heavy metal (in my opinion). People who innovate do just that. Sure, you could say that he used a D sus 7 chord just like a lot of others, but really, that observation is irrelevent. I could point to a million games that innovate and have never seen before systems. I saw a review on youtube recently for a game called Coral Sea (carrier battles - WWII - pacific theatre). Check this out; you don't even know who will play first or IF you will even get to take actions at all when planning your turn! Each player has a counter. On one side there is a picture of cards, on another a picture of a map. Both players choose a side secretly and then simultaneously reveal them. If both players play the card side, then both players play cards (to refit and buy new units and such). If one plays cards and another map, then one player plays cards and one takes actions on the map. If both play the map side, however, a die is rolled and potentially the person who does not have the initiative can do nothing in thier turn! That's innovation, my friend. Sure, one could say "does it use cards? Does it use counters? Are there supply rules?". Of course, but what point are you trying to make with that observation? *shrug* I'm definitely buying Coral Sea. :) |
|
|
9/02/11 8:39:18 AM#133
I agree with Coyote on every point but one - the corpse run. My experience with the corpse run is that i die over and over just trying to retrieve my stuff, usually losing most of it in the process and setting my development back to a point where I feel like I am eating my own puke to survive.
Other than that, spot on. MMORPG est mortis. Long live the MMOG! Bleh. |
|
|
9/02/11 8:57:01 AM#134
Agreeing to disagree is a time honored tradition. Your description of the game sounds to me like the game is new, even if it is composed of familiar elements. That's the real challenge though. You have all these things that people know about and you have to create something new out of them. You can still make a new component (like adding an element of random chance at the start of your turn), but most of what you work with is going to be familiar components. I would go so far as to say that creating something totally new and never seen before would be bad when you're trying to sell a game. Something can be so new that people can't even see it, much less know if they want to buy it. Especially when it's something as expensive as an mmorpg. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
9/02/11 9:04:13 AM#135
Yes Lizard, I know what you are saying. Like when a scientist says "I stand on the shoulders of giants". Building upon previous work, and using that work as a template are two totally different things. In fact, continuing along the same path as the previous person may be exactly the wrong thing to do. It is precisely BECAUSE a given scientist might "break the mold" that he or she is considered great. |
|
|
9/02/11 9:59:20 AM#136
Stop being so reasonable. It is very hard to have a volatile discussion with a reasonable person. :-) Actually, I agree. You look at around at everything that's come before, and decide to do something new. I think scientists get a little bit of a pass though, since they can come up with something totally new that nobody has never, ever heard of, things so incomprehensible that people just don't understand it, and it's OK. They're supposed to do that. Oops. I sat here for like a half hour discussing the impossibility of faster than light travel with a coworker and did not post this message. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
9/02/11 10:09:58 AM#137
Props to the OP...I've been trying to articulate this for a while now. Very well put. I don't think anyone would disagree with the point that modern MMORPGs have become more focused on the actual action based game play than it has been about the evironment & community in a virtual world.
The point where I see people have it mixed up is that they think the MMORPG players today are the same as the MMORPG players of old. And that the MMORPG audience has spoken with their dollars and said that "theme park" styled MMORPGs are the model of choice.
I disagree.
I contend that the current MMORPG playerbase has been co-opted by former casual gamers that previously prefered short cycled casual game experiences like RPGs, FPS, Social Media Games, and other console games. Where these players would have quit EQ or UO and gone back to playing Madden 98'.....they now continue to play MMOs because the developers have removed all those barriers to entry. They have lowered the learning curve to the point where a competent 5 year old can effectively play World of Warcraft (thats no exageration). Why you ask? Look at the pricing structure of MMORPGs & look at the pricing structure of single player RPGs & FPS games. You can't justify charging a gamer playing Dragon Age a monthly fee. BUT you can charge them monthly if they are playing a MMO. not only do you get the Box Sale (as you would for any other casual game), you also get to charge a followup $15 a month for setting up a "persistant" world for them to chat with their buddies in. So now you have a situation where WOW holds around 60% of the MMORPG marketshare....of which the majority are probably hack n' slash fans, and have little interest in woodworking, cartogrophy, or player housing. In the not so much words of Ronald Regan......I didn't leave traditional MMORPG gaming, traditional MMORPG gaming left me. |
|
|
9/02/11 10:17:19 AM#138
2 things 1) Market forces will drive the design. Game companies are just that... companies. They will create whatever makes them more profit. It's the curse/blessing of capatilism. Innovation is driven by the all-mighty dollar. Unfortunately the 'masses' seem to be brainless, selfish twits and thus if you aren't a brainless, selfish twit then you are a niche market. We all know how much funding niche markets are likely to bring in....
2) MMORPGs are what they are. If you don't like any of the new ones (read... MMOs since WoW), then quit paying for them. As long as they are still making a buck they will produce the same crap.
Personally, I quit paying for these games a long while ago. And until someone strives to bring most of what you talked about back into a game i won't be giving any of them my money. What I'd REALLY like to see is an updated version of UO (before EA got their stinking hands on it) |
|
|
9/02/11 10:26:41 AM#139
I don't think anyone would argue that MMORPG have become more approachable, but they haven't gotten any easier. They haven't gotten any harder either. They've never been that hard. There are stories of 4 and 5 year old Everquest 1 players. Ditto for Ultima Online. The game mechanics for most MMORPG are not really all that difficult to grasp and not all that hard to execute. The difference would be the patience required to play (imo). Everything else is pretty much true. The games are more approachable and players that would not have played UO or EQ in the past are now playing MMORPG and driving the market. It's not just the games themselves that are more approachable, it's the image of the games as well. They appear more mainstream and socially 'OK'. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
9/02/11 10:32:03 AM#140
Lizardbones I'd be really curious to see a 4 - 5 year old play original EQ without outside influence and see how far they get compared to WoW or some other newer game. In fact, take the same child and have him play different games and maybe we might get a clearer picture. With any game you can sit a kid in your lap and guide them through the mouse clicks and paths that need to be taken for success. Likewise any child could simply be given the controls and set free to wander aimlessly through virtual space. Can they really play the game and grasp some of the more difficult concepts without over bearing hand holding though? |
|
