Originally posted by Jetrpg

Originally posted by maskedweasel

I completely agree, and have for a long time,  if you look hard enough you can see a clear evolution in each genre,  if you want to look hard enough.  It doesn't mean everything is exactly the same,  but much of what we have now, has been done before in some fashion or another -- and that doesn't make them bad.   

 

There is a differnce between similar and the same or less than another game is offering.

The call of duty games can fall under this to a degree, but graphics and other optiosn do keep expanding. BF3 was not really that much beeter gameplay than bf2 if nota downgrade, But tis graphics are vastly superior, and other things as well.

Lets look at MMOs We have seen mmos come out with much better graphics then wow, and others with some different ideas... But has any of them came out with better graphic style and quality? Maybe one or two of which failed to even met the gameplay of wow.. So. Many peopel say ehh more of the same ... no benifit in playing a new mmo, when the old one is superior.

Lets look at swtor, it did quest text better, its voiced and there a cut scene. But the graphics may be a bit higher quality with less style. So thast not really attractive. End game? Token/chest raid system. PVP BGs for "points" to buy gear. I mean classes, equipment, etc. pretty much very similar.

Crafting; a bit different, i love it, by lvl 40 on all my toons i have maxed crafting (because its new and different, i haven't done it over and over for years).

Yeah i like compaions / part of crafting... other than that the game it self doesn't play as well as wow, has far less options for specs (but not by much pretty similar). UI is far worse as they have it locked, i mean there really isn't any differnce that would entertian you for more than a few months.

Now this isn't true of all mmos , GW2 is trying new and old stuff most mmos forgot. There is terra, wildstar, even PS2 (while similar to itself rare in the market).

The issue isn't that coping = bad, its no new experinces , no improvement, no REASON to play the next mmo IS BAD.

 

 Very well said!

You know, I think that a lot of single player games get away with lack of innovation due to their relatively short lifespans.  BF3 as you said is probably worse than BF2 (no commander mode), but I sitll had a great time with it.  Reason being that I hadn't played BF:BC2 in a year or so, and hadn't played BF2 is many years.  So while it wasn't that novel, its target audience wasn't completely burned out on the concept.

But MMORPGs are different.  Many MMORPG fans are currently playing an MMORPG when the next one comes out.  And if that MMORPG is very similar to the one they are playing, then it's not going to be exciting.  And this is my problem.  I think that MMORPGs have a lot more responsibility to be "innovative" and "groundbreaking" than SP games are. 

For the simple reason that MMORPGs are ACTIVELY competing with the juggernaut game that may have come our over half a decade ago.  SP games aren't like this.  If an awesome, genre-defining, groundbreaking game comes out in 2009, then a game in 2011 that is similar won't be competing very heavily with the 2009 game (typically).  People have already finished with the 2009 game.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Creslin321

....

It is a good thing. WOW & Diablo has shown that it is more fun to focus on what people like to do .. i.e. killing stuff and getting rewarded for doing so ... then giving them a virtual world.

Some are reluctant to embrace the new world because they are nostalgic about the old, boring past. They will be left behind. I am more excited about Diablo3 than any MMO. I think it will be a much better game.

I don't understand this obsession with virtual worlds. Second Life is a virtual world.You cannot pay me enough to "play" it. I would MUCH rather play Diablo.

 It is a good thing...to you.  Personally, I would like to see a game that emphasizes the virtual world more, and we actually have a few of them on the way like GW2 and Archeage.  There are others that feel like I do as well.

Maybe it's time for a genre split.  IMO, some games are getting too CORPG-like to be considered MMORPGs anymore.  And that's fine, just call them CORPGs though.  I would be cool with that.

It is a good thing for ME, and the market. Obviously people looking for virtual world is a very minority.

Look at WOW. It still has 10M players and pretty representative of the market. What features are popular? NOT the virtual world ones. LFD & LFR are very popular and they make WOW into a much more lobby like game.

When D3 is out, other developers will see how popular it is to combine some MMO features into a CORPG and MMOs will move further into that direction. Those who dont like it, probably will be left in the dust.

---

Originally posted by maskedweasel
I don't think its necessarily innovation we need,  I think its diversity.  And not just in the systems we have and the games we play,  but in what players actually play.

---

Unfortunately, that means that the games won't be big sellers like companies want them to be.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

I was reading this article on IGN and felt it was appropriate here.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1215457p1.html

 

An excerpt:

"Ultimately, though, what people really need to do is ask themselves if any of the games they recently adored are really original. I love Call of Duty, but it really just expands upon what John Carmack and id did with Doom, Quake and other shooters. Or hey, I love Star Wars: The Old Republic, but I'd be crazy if I couldn't admit it learns from, and is heavily inspired by, World of Warcraft. Warcraft also wasn't the first RTS, either, but developer Blizzard helped tweak the genre in ways that have subsequently defined it for years."

 

I completely agree, and have for a long time,  if you look hard enough you can see a clear evolution in each genre,  if you want to look hard enough.  It doesn't mean everything is exactly the same,  but much of what we have now, has been done before in some fashion or another -- and that doesn't make them bad.   

 

This is an entertaining read and I think fits the tone of this thread.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_221/6582-Why-Your-Game-Idea-Sucks

And this sums it up.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Creslin321

....

It is a good thing. WOW & Diablo has shown that it is more fun to focus on what people like to do .. i.e. killing stuff and getting rewarded for doing so ... then giving them a virtual world.

Some are reluctant to embrace the new world because they are nostalgic about the old, boring past. They will be left behind. I am more excited about Diablo3 than any MMO. I think it will be a much better game.

I don't understand this obsession with virtual worlds. Second Life is a virtual world.You cannot pay me enough to "play" it. I would MUCH rather play Diablo.

 It is a good thing...to you.  Personally, I would like to see a game that emphasizes the virtual world more, and we actually have a few of them on the way like GW2 and Archeage.  There are others that feel like I do as well.

Maybe it's time for a genre split.  IMO, some games are getting too CORPG-like to be considered MMORPGs anymore.  And that's fine, just call them CORPGs though.  I would be cool with that.

It is a good thing for ME, and the market. Obviously people looking for virtual world is a very minority.

Look at WOW. It still has 10M players and pretty representative of the market. What features are popular? NOT the virtual world ones. LFD & LFR are very popular and they make WOW into a much more lobby like game.

When D3 is out, other developers will see how popular it is to combine some MMO features into a CORPG and MMOs will move further into that direction. Those who dont like it, probably will be left in the dust.

 

 

People keep saying this, but the truth is that most of the millions of people who came to the genre with WoW have never even *seen* a AAA virtual world game, because no one has made one.  They have been too busy trying to emulate WoW's success, and completely failing, to give people anything unique to try.  The truth is, no one, not you or any game developer, has the slightest clue about how many people may like a more open world game if it was done bringing some modern game design elements into account.  You have a hint by looking at stable games like EVE, but you still don't have enough information to make the call.

Who is the typical virtual world player?  I came to sandbox games from years of hardcore FPS shooter clan match gaming.  You might think that I would be inclined to play themepark combat games and raids, but I wasn't.  I found that I liked forging my own adventure, hero and non-hero, in an open world.   I suspect there is at least a very large niche community of people like me that could make some game developer a lot of cash.  If you really made it a great and polished game, it may even surprise you.

Right now, there is zero evidence to backup your claim.  You cannot use the current themepark-only player pool to make that assertion. What we do know as a fact is that a lot of those players that came from WoW, are sick and tired of WoW clones already and they are looking for something fresh with more depth.  A hybrid perhaps, but not another themepark clone.  One of the most common complaints I have seen here about SWTOR, for example, is that it *feels old*.  Guess why that is.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Creslin321

It's basically true that no game is going to be 100% original, and honestly, I don't think anyone would want that.

What I don't like about this sentiment is that it can be used as an excuse for mediocrity.  Just because nothing is truly original, it doesn't mean that it's "OK" to just copy problematic systems into your game en masse.

There are still many "problems" in modern MMORPGs that are desperately in need of innovations to solve them.  For example, in an effort to reduce grind and make the games more interesting, MMORPGs have been drifting closer and closer to normal multiplayer games ever since WoW.  We've gotten to the point where we can honestly compare modern MMORPGs to lobby games like Diablo and not be far off.  In fact, the line has gotten so blurry, that Diablo 3 is being designed as almost a quasi-MMORPG with auction house and everything.

The problem here is that this really threatens the identity of MMORPGs.  I personally, would not like the concept of a virtual world to completely die off and be replaced by a bunch of CORPGs masquerading as MMORPGs.

But you can't just say "go back to how it was before" because there were problems there too.  So, if nothing is original, it would seem that you're stuck to returning to the old ways of endless, directionless grinding.  Or staying with the new way of SPRPG quests with a lobby game attached to it that takes place in a virtual world that is so insanely sharded that it feels like an SPRPG.

This is where we need innovation.  Someone has to come up with an idea to make MMORPGs interesting without turning them into normal multiplayer games.  The virtual world HAS to be preserved, because that's all that really differentiates an MMORPG from a multiplayer game.

In conclusion, I can see where folks can get confused and think that there is nothing really original.  Most innovations are incremental in that they make minor changes to an already existing concept.  So when you look at games that came out in immediate succession...it looks like there is hardly any innovation.  But try looking at games that came out a long time apart.  Look at Neverwinter Nights compared to the old SSI gold box games...there is plenty of innovation to be seen there.

I don't think its necessarily innovation we need,  I think its diversity.  And not just in the systems we have and the games we play,  but in what players actually play.  

 

We have a lot of MMO junkies out there that are tired of seeing the "same" games,  yet, if they're playing the same game and same genre for 8 years, how is it not understandable that they'd get tired of - not just similar systems - but the genre as a whole.

 

Perhaps thats one reason I enjoy SWTOR for what it is,  because in the last year I didn't sit around pining for MMOs or playing the same genre,  I played racing, sports, action adventure, FPS games,  and so on.  

 

While I agree to a point, that we shouldn't settle for less, or allow the same concepts breed mediocrity,  I also think many people lose sight of how good some of the more up to date traditional (or "defined") systems really are - even if they aren't strikingly new.  Maybe its time for a change in genre for players just as much as it is important for us to find a genre changer.

The phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" is very apt here.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Creslin321

....

It is a good thing. WOW & Diablo has shown that it is more fun to focus on what people like to do .. i.e. killing stuff and getting rewarded for doing so ... then giving them a virtual world.

Some are reluctant to embrace the new world because they are nostalgic about the old, boring past. They will be left behind. I am more excited about Diablo3 than any MMO. I think it will be a much better game.

I don't understand this obsession with virtual worlds. Second Life is a virtual world.You cannot pay me enough to "play" it. I would MUCH rather play Diablo.

 It is a good thing...to you.  Personally, I would like to see a game that emphasizes the virtual world more, and we actually have a few of them on the way like GW2 and Archeage.  There are others that feel like I do as well.

Maybe it's time for a genre split.  IMO, some games are getting too CORPG-like to be considered MMORPGs anymore.  And that's fine, just call them CORPGs though.  I would be cool with that.

It is a good thing for ME, and the market. Obviously people looking for virtual world is a very minority.

Look at WOW. It still has 10M players and pretty representative of the market. What features are popular? NOT the virtual world ones. LFD & LFR are very popular and they make WOW into a much more lobby like game.

When D3 is out, other developers will see how popular it is to combine some MMO features into a CORPG and MMOs will move further into that direction. Those who dont like it, probably will be left in the dust.

 

 

You already have themeparks, why on earth you want more themeparks instead of something different to give you choice? If you have a nice main course for your meal, would you want another nice dessert to follow, or another main course? 

RE your 'market' comment, well fps shooters such as COD own themepark games so shall we use the same arguement and say all mmorgs should be fps shooters because it will make more money for the market? in fact using that logic we would not have mmorgs at all we would only make what attracts the biggest audiance at the time, and assume their tastes wil never change from this moment on.

Originally posted by Calerxes

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Creslin321

It's basically true that no game is going to be 100% original, and honestly, I don't think anyone would want that.

What I don't like about this sentiment is that it can be used as an excuse for mediocrity.  Just because nothing is truly original, it doesn't mean that it's "OK" to just copy problematic systems into your game en masse.

There are still many "problems" in modern MMORPGs that are desperately in need of innovations to solve them.  For example, in an effort to reduce grind and make the games more interesting, MMORPGs have been drifting closer and closer to normal multiplayer games ever since WoW.  We've gotten to the point where we can honestly compare modern MMORPGs to lobby games like Diablo and not be far off.  In fact, the line has gotten so blurry, that Diablo 3 is being designed as almost a quasi-MMORPG with auction house and everything.

The problem here is that this really threatens the identity of MMORPGs.  I personally, would not like the concept of a virtual world to completely die off and be replaced by a bunch of CORPGs masquerading as MMORPGs.

But you can't just say "go back to how it was before" because there were problems there too.  So, if nothing is original, it would seem that you're stuck to returning to the old ways of endless, directionless grinding.  Or staying with the new way of SPRPG quests with a lobby game attached to it that takes place in a virtual world that is so insanely sharded that it feels like an SPRPG.

This is where we need innovation.  Someone has to come up with an idea to make MMORPGs interesting without turning them into normal multiplayer games.  The virtual world HAS to be preserved, because that's all that really differentiates an MMORPG from a multiplayer game.

In conclusion, I can see where folks can get confused and think that there is nothing really original.  Most innovations are incremental in that they make minor changes to an already existing concept.  So when you look at games that came out in immediate succession...it looks like there is hardly any innovation.  But try looking at games that came out a long time apart.  Look at Neverwinter Nights compared to the old SSI gold box games...there is plenty of innovation to be seen there.

I don't think its necessarily innovation we need,  I think its diversity.  And not just in the systems we have and the games we play,  but in what players actually play.  

 

We have a lot of MMO junkies out there that are tired of seeing the "same" games,  yet, if they're playing the same game and same genre for 8 years, how is it not understandable that they'd get tired of - not just similar systems - but the genre as a whole.

 

Perhaps thats one reason I enjoy SWTOR for what it is,  because in the last year I didn't sit around pining for MMOs or playing the same genre,  I played racing, sports, action adventure, FPS games,  and so on.  

 

While I agree to a point, that we shouldn't settle for less, or allow the same concepts breed mediocrity,  I also think many people lose sight of how good some of the more up to date traditional (or "defined") systems really are - even if they aren't strikingly new.  Maybe its time for a change in genre for players just as much as it is important for us to find a genre changer.

 

The phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" is very apt here.

You guys have to know that innovation in gamer development is important.  The idea tha Battlefield 3 is anything even *remotely* similar to Quake 1, is just silly.  I was there for Quake 1, and it was innovative as well.  Prior to that we had Doom.

You can keep some of the same systems, but you need to evolve them in some way.   Themeparks have been drifting more and more towards a handheld and simple gameplay design that is boring an increasing number of people.  Perhaps the genre needs to swing back towards some complexity and freedom now.  It doesn't have to be a complete sandbox, but maybe people want to try something else on for a while.  

As far as themeparks go, I think TSW and GW2 are on the right track.  They are innovating and breaking down walls.  I get the impression with TSW that they aren't even marketing that game as a mass-market MMO.  I think they will be more than happy if it is a stable niche title.  I also think that if they do it right, it could grow to be much larger than that just because so many people are bored.  GW2 throwing the holy trinity out the door is another great idea.

I have been playing FPS games for a very, very long time, and I have never become bored with the genre.  MMO developers (and their corporate masters) think they have been playing it safe, but they failed to see that WoW was a perfect storm of timing, fun and accessibility that we may only see once per decade if ever again.  Game companies need to get back to reality and start looking for audiences from 500k to 1 million people.  If they get more, good for them.

Tons of original concepts come up all the time.

If the game you're discussing is in a genre, that means it's been defined and probably not original.

Meanwhile tons of innovative games get made all the time.  Problem is, like most innovation or mutation, most of it is complete garbage.  But still, there's a lot of it out there.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Tons of original concepts come up all the time.

If the game you're discussing is in a genre, that means it's been defined and probably not original.

Meanwhile tons of innovative games get made all the time.  Problem is, like most innovation or mutation, most of it is complete garbage.  But still, there's a lot of it out there.

Another problem, might I add, is that a lot of good ideas tend to not make it past certain authoritative figures in the gaming industry. Basically, the developers aren't allowed to make the game great, because their bosses think it's too big a risk. 

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Right now, there is zero evidence to backup your claim.  You cannot use the current themepark-only player pool to make that assertion. What we do know as a fact is that a lot of those players that came from WoW, are sick and tired of WoW clones already and they are looking for something fresh with more depth.  A hybrid perhaps, but not another themepark clone.  One of the most common complaints I have seen here about SWTOR, for example, is that it *feels old*.  Guess why that is.

Of course there is.

UO is a sandbox ... EQ is more a themepark. EQ got WAY more subscriptions than UO.

Eve is a sandbox ... only 300k users after so many years.

Keep sticking your head in the sand. Better yet, will YOU invest your OWN money into a virtual world game? I won't..

Originally posted by Bladestrom

 

You already have themeparks, why on earth you want more themeparks instead of something different to give you choice? If you have a nice main course for your meal, would you want another nice dessert to follow, or another main course? 

RE your 'market' comment, well fps shooters such as COD own themepark games so shall we use the same arguement and say all mmorgs should be fps shooters because it will make more money for the market? in fact using that logic we would not have mmorgs at all we would only make what attracts the biggest audiance at the time, and assume their tastes wil never change from this moment on.

 

 

More choices in themeparks are good. Different settings, different mechanics .. and so on ...

It is a matter of perspective. MMOs are still big enough. OTOH, old graphics adventures .... no one cares about that genre anymore (abate a small market niche). So yes, let's make more FPS and less graphics adventures.

I won't clamor for something I won't play, would you?

Originally posted by ironfungus

 

Another problem, might I add, is that a lot of good ideas tend to not make it past certain authoritative figures in the gaming industry. Basically, the developers aren't allowed to make the game great, because their bosses think it's too big a risk. 

Good ideas are a dime a dozen. Put 5 reasomably smart people in a room for 3 hrs and you have more good ideas than you can implement in 10 years.

Making a good game is about execution and implementation. Not innovative ideas.

Somehow i think the autor of the article make it more unclear than it should be. And i'm not very sure he grasp the processes of creativity they learn you in some art schools for ex.

Life is feeding from the dead, it is principle of life, it have nothing to do with anything here, and it certainly excuse nothing, and even less lack of originality, if this can even exist.

As computer gaming is, it is more about the intention behind some projects, well more like the lack of intention. When you really don't want to make anything new, but yet want to sell a new product, then you are definitely copying an older one, that's not hard to understand. The product won't be the same exactly for sure, but still.

Now when you want to make something else from the old, you usually just take your inspiration from something else. Now will you succeed or not, is an other question. But at least you tried. So its more a question of intention poured in your project.

Those are quiet different behaviors. Its not because life is made from the old that you can excuse someone lack of originality. They are definitely original games around, and yes they do use old mechanism and principle, but when people play them, they feel original.

And breaking what work is a method they learn you in those schools to try to make something original, that's a well know method in fact used by a lot. I think Picasso is not the only to think it can work. Once more we are back the principle of "life feeding from the dead". My kids are definitely original, and they are not clones. Cloning is done by few cells and some inferior entities, and guess why they are inferior? ye they bring nothing new. Not that its bad by itself, it's just that it is not good either...

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Right now, there is zero evidence to backup your claim.  You cannot use the current themepark-only player pool to make that assertion. What we do know as a fact is that a lot of those players that came from WoW, are sick and tired of WoW clones already and they are looking for something fresh with more depth.  A hybrid perhaps, but not another themepark clone.  One of the most common complaints I have seen here about SWTOR, for example, is that it *feels old*.  Guess why that is.

Of course there is.

UO is a sandbox ... EQ is more a themepark. EQ got WAY more subscriptions than UO.

Eve is a sandbox ... only 300k users after so many years.

Keep sticking your head in the sand. Better yet, will YOU invest your OWN money into a virtual world game? I won't..

Almost every theme park MMORPG outside of WOW (and perhaps now SWTOR) - lucky to have 150K subs after 6 months and most go F2P because the model is so successful. Not!

Looking at EVE or UO and saying they were less popular than the listed counterparts is a very complicated question.

Who knows how popular a sandbox style game like EVE would have been with a fantasy format that had fully developed avatars, which many players favor, a little more focus on user friendliness in the interface and overall design, and properly funded what the result may have been. 

Perhaps it would have sold millions of copies, but since no one has ever attempted it the world may never know.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Right now, there is zero evidence to backup your claim.  You cannot use the current themepark-only player pool to make that assertion. What we do know as a fact is that a lot of those players that came from WoW, are sick and tired of WoW clones already and they are looking for something fresh with more depth.  A hybrid perhaps, but not another themepark clone.  One of the most common complaints I have seen here about SWTOR, for example, is that it *feels old*.  Guess why that is.

Of course there is.

UO is a sandbox ... EQ is more a themepark. EQ got WAY more subscriptions than UO.

Eve is a sandbox ... only 300k users after so many years.

Keep sticking your head in the sand. Better yet, will YOU invest your OWN money into a virtual world game? I won't..

So you picked a sandbox , UO, that was popular during the pre-WoW days (1997 launch), which makes it irrelevant for this discussion.  Then you picked one of the most niche sandbox games ever made, EVE, which is completely space-based and your avatar is a space ship.  Not to mention the fact that despite EVE's very, very steep entry curve and lack of mass appeal, it has been stable and slowly growing for years.  300k users is nothing to sneeze at.  It's doing so well that CCP has the funds to make a console game along side it.  How many AAA themeparks have come and gone, or now sit with nearly empty servers, since EVE was created?

My statement stands.  Most of the gamers who came to the MMORPG genre with WoW have never even experienced sandbox gameplay, let alone seen a AAA sandbox built by a game company.  The ones that have come out since have been low-budget indie games.  There is no evidence today that a polished, modern sandbox game would be a failure out of the box.

I look at companies like CCP with EVE and I see a much more realistic business model for most game developers.  If these companies would set their targets at 500k-1M people instead of tens of millions, we would see some great diversity in the genre.

Guild Wars 2 and The Secret World coming out this year.

both are trying to do something different, its hard to call either game a WOW/EQ clone.

There not the sandboxes many people on here want, but they are definetly a different kind of theme park to the norm.  (you could say TSW has some sandboxy elements to character building and PVP, but its mostly theme park)

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Right now, there is zero evidence to backup your claim.  You cannot use the current themepark-only player pool to make that assertion. What we do know as a fact is that a lot of those players that came from WoW, are sick and tired of WoW clones already and they are looking for something fresh with more depth.  A hybrid perhaps, but not another themepark clone.  One of the most common complaints I have seen here about SWTOR, for example, is that it *feels old*.  Guess why that is.

Of course there is.

UO is a sandbox ... EQ is more a themepark. EQ got WAY more subscriptions than UO.

Eve is a sandbox ... only 300k users after so many years.

Keep sticking your head in the sand. Better yet, will YOU invest your OWN money into a virtual world game? I won't..

So you picked a sandbox , UO, that was popular during the pre-WoW days (1997 launch), which makes it irrelevant for this discussion.  Then you picked one of the most niche sandbox games ever made, EVE, which is completely space-based and your avatar is a space ship.  Not to mention the fact that despite EVE's very, very steep entry curve and lack of mass appeal, it has been stable and slowly growing for years.  300k users is nothing to sneeze at.  It's doing so well that CCP has the funds to make a console game along side it.  How many AAA themeparks have come and gone, or now sit with nearly empty servers, since EVE was created?

My statement stands.  Most of the gamers who came to the MMORPG genre with WoW have never even experienced sandbox gameplay, let alone seen a AAA sandbox built by a game company.  The ones that have come out since have been low-budget indie games.  There is no evidence today that a polished, modern sandbox game would be a failure out of the box.

I look at companies like CCP with EVE and I see a much more realistic business model for most game developers.  If these companies would set their targets at 500k-1M people instead of tens of millions, we would see some great diversity in the genre.

This is where Warhammer went wrong.  Trying to be the next WOW, they should have made it more DAOC like and catered to their niche audience, would probably be pulling EVE like subs today if it did.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Right now, there is zero evidence to backup your claim.  You cannot use the current themepark-only player pool to make that assertion. What we do know as a fact is that a lot of those players that came from WoW, are sick and tired of WoW clones already and they are looking for something fresh with more depth.  A hybrid perhaps, but not another themepark clone.  One of the most common complaints I have seen here about SWTOR, for example, is that it *feels old*.  Guess why that is.

Of course there is.

UO is a sandbox ... EQ is more a themepark. EQ got WAY more subscriptions than UO.

Eve is a sandbox ... only 300k users after so many years.

Keep sticking your head in the sand. Better yet, will YOU invest your OWN money into a virtual world game? I won't..

Almost every theme park MMORPG outside of WOW (and perhaps now SWTOR) - lucky to have 150K subs after 6 months and most go F2P because the model is so successful. Not!

Looking at EVE or UO and saying they were less popular than the listed counterparts is a very complicated question.

Who knows how popular a sandbox style game like EVE would have been with a fantasy format that had fully developed avatars, which many players favor, a little more focus on user friendliness in the interface and overall design, and properly funded what the result may have been. 

Perhaps it would have sold millions of copies, but since no one has ever attempted it the world may never know.

 COH, AION, DAOC, GW  - are / were sucessful themeparks

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Right now, there is zero evidence to backup your claim.  You cannot use the current themepark-only player pool to make that assertion. What we do know as a fact is that a lot of those players that came from WoW, are sick and tired of WoW clones already and they are looking for something fresh with more depth.  A hybrid perhaps, but not another themepark clone.  One of the most common complaints I have seen here about SWTOR, for example, is that it *feels old*.  Guess why that is.

---

Of course there is.
UO is a sandbox ... EQ is more a themepark. EQ got WAY more subscriptions than UO.
Eve is a sandbox ... only 300k users after so many years.
Keep sticking your head in the sand. Better yet, will YOU invest your OWN money into a virtual world game? I won't..

---

So in other words only money counts and not creativity originality that combines with fun depth and real virtual world in a sandbox settings, no lets make only games that mass likes that bring in the cash.

Result mainly hold hand themeparks and hold hand these days is art to make it extremely easy for all you casuals who hate doing even a small task and already complain you had to walk for 10meters:P