Originally posted by Cecropia

Rare?  That's the number one complaint of people that have trialed eve but failed to stay that CCP could actually do something about.

LOL, yup. Can we say: out...of...touch?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard new players complain about that feature not being in EVE since my time with the game began in '05. Mmo gamers definitely like them some real usable avatars. 

Yeah, but you can't just sate that need with a light avatar system.  To create what those players want you essentially have to create an entire avatar-centric game from scratch within EVE.  Doing that would be nearly as crazy as CU SWG.

A good product knows its audience and focuses on them.  It doesn't try to be all things to all people inside a single game.

The only thing CCP should ever do to service those complaints is to create a second avatar-centric game (which they sort of are/were..)

Originally posted by MMOGamer71

The genre is failing because by it's nature (MMORPG) it requires player interaction and server development , too many players move on to the next greatest release as if it is a competition for a "Most Games Played Award"

This. MMOs rely too much on player interaction. If there are not enough players, no one will play it because it's a multiplayer game after all. It's a vicious circle.

What makes it even more difficult for MMOs is the subscription fee. Because people are playing every month in addition to the box price people expect A LOT more from the game. People will never come back to play a game just for lolz because they have to pay more in sub fees.

Originally posted by fivoroth

Originally posted by MMOGamer71

The genre is failing because by it's nature (MMORPG) it requires player interaction and server development , too many players move on to the next greatest release as if it is a competition for a "Most Games Played Award"

This. MMOs rely too much on player interaction. If there are not enough players, no one will play it because it's a multiplayer game after all. It's a vicious circle.

What makes it even more difficult for MMOs is the subscription fee. Because people are playing every month in addition to the box price people expect A LOT more from the game. People will never come back to play a game just for lolz because they have to pay more in sub fees.

Player interaction? Really? Just how antisocial has this generation become when "player interaction" is being considered a fault?

Seeing this made me sad :(

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by fivoroth

Originally posted by MMOGamer71

The genre is failing because by it's nature (MMORPG) it requires player interaction and server development , too many players move on to the next greatest release as if it is a competition for a "Most Games Played Award"

This. MMOs rely too much on player interaction. If there are not enough players, no one will play it because it's a multiplayer game after all. It's a vicious circle.

What makes it even more difficult for MMOs is the subscription fee. Because people are playing every month in addition to the box price people expect A LOT more from the game. People will never come back to play a game just for lolz because they have to pay more in sub fees.

Player interaction? Really? Just how antisocial has this generation become when "player interaction" is being considered a fault?

Seeing this made me sad :(

You really need to read again..thats is not what he was saying.

Originally posted by Chilliesauce

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by fivoroth

Originally posted by MMOGamer71

The genre is failing because by it's nature (MMORPG) it requires player interaction and server development , too many players move on to the next greatest release as if it is a competition for a "Most Games Played Award"

This. MMOs rely too much on player interaction. If there are not enough players, no one will play it because it's a multiplayer game after all. It's a vicious circle.

What makes it even more difficult for MMOs is the subscription fee. Because people are playing every month in addition to the box price people expect A LOT more from the game. People will never come back to play a game just for lolz because they have to pay more in sub fees.

Player interaction? Really? Just how antisocial has this generation become when "player interaction" is being considered a fault?

Seeing this made me sad :(

You really need to read again..thats is not what he was saying.

Actually I read it just fine, but I'll admit I should've only replied to MMOGamer, and not both since thats who my response was directed to. I also dont agree about subscription fees either. You pay for a game that continues to expand and change, it should be expected to pay a subscription fee. B2P games, I wouldn't expect constant updates and changes.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

 

Player interaction? Really? Just how antisocial has this generation become when "player interaction" is being considered a fault?

Seeing this made me sad :(

Nothing wrong with being anti-social. It just is.

MMOs are entertainment. Whatever floats a player's boat is fine.

Originally posted by sirphobos

Originally posted by Telil

problem with this thread is that, this genre is not failing, it's thriving.

Dont get me wrong i hate the fact that it is thriving as i prefer games with so much more depth and they are getting simpler and simpler.

But even i can't deny that the genre is going from strengh to strengh.

While it's almost certainly true that there are more people playing MMOs now than there ever has been before, the average MMORPG currently is not thriving.

Right now in the US you basically have one enormous game (WoW), one game that is pretty large (SW:TOR), and a bunch of games that nobody plays.  I'd think that having 5-10 games each with about 500k subscribers would be more of a sign of a thriving genre than one game with millions of subscribers, another game with maybe 1-2 million, and a bunch of games that nobody plays, even if there was the same amount of people playing the games.

I think the culprit is that developers no longer develop games expecting people to play a long time, and people no longer buy MMOs expecting to play them more than a few months.  When I was playing RIFT I remember seeing something like this a lot:

"I'm playing RIFT until TOR comes out, then playing that until TERA comes out, then playing that until GW2 comes out".

Conversely, I never remember seeing:

"I'm playing Everquest until Asheron's Call comes out, then that until Dark Age of Camelot comes out, etc.".  MMOs a decade ago were designed for people who wanted a game that didn't end.  Nowadays MMOs are designed to give you a quick dose of enjoyment and then you move on to the next big thing.

Just a different opinion friend but in my eyes the fact that you are seeing many conversatiosn talking about " i am just playing x game until y game comes out" shows that it is thriving. the problem is because the genre is thriving, there are so many games out or coming out now.

I totaly agree with you that developers are producing short term games for a quick dollar! i just wish someone would come out and make a game through the love of seeing it come to fruition and not just to make cash. Of course cash should be a big part of it, but not at the expense of doing something you love and enjoy. It's a sad world we live in these days :(

I held out high hopes for studio 38 and Salvatore ect producing an MMO that i would fall in love with, then i played a demo on xbox of the rpg they are developing and it was all blown away, another same old same old.

If only i could win the euro millions i would try something different haha!

Originally posted by nikoliath

Originally posted by Telil

problem with this thread is that, this genre is not failing, it's thriving.

Dont get me wrong i hate the fact that it is thriving as i prefer games with so much more depth and they are getting simpler and simpler.

But even i can't deny that the genre is going from strengh to strengh.

read the OP please.... I'm taking a swipe at all the know-it-all nay sayers and doom mongers here that insist it IS failing, when it clearly isnt.

Sorry friend i joined this conversation late and dint read through it all.

No disrespect meant :)

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

 

Player interaction? Really? Just how antisocial has this generation become when "player interaction" is being considered a fault?

Seeing this made me sad :(

Nothing wrong with being anti-social. It just is.

MMOs are entertainment. Whatever floats a player's boat is fine.

People can be as anti-social as they like, but MMORPGs are a social medium. If people find fault with player interaction, they really should try games that are more suited to them.

Its like claiming the chocolate is a fault with a Hershey bar with Almonds. You dont have to like chocolate, but why not just eat almonds then? (...cant wait for my lunch break)

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

 

Player interaction? Really? Just how antisocial has this generation become when "player interaction" is being considered a fault?

Seeing this made me sad :(

Nothing wrong with being anti-social. It just is.

MMOs are entertainment. Whatever floats a player's boat is fine.

People can be as anti-social as they like, but MMORPGs are a social medium. If people find fault with player interaction, they really should try games that are more suited to them.

Its like claiming the chocolate is a fault with a Hershey bar with Almonds. You dont have to like chocolate, but why not just eat almonds then? (...cant wait for my lunch break)

MMORPGs are NOT a social medium.

MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.

It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

MMORPGs are NOT a social medium.

MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.

It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.

Keep telling yourself that buddy.

MMORPGs are both. To add some perspective look at facebook. You can certaintly have a FB account, and just post picures, or look at other people's FB, without being social. However, I don't think anyone would try to argue that FB isn't a social medium. Just because you can choose to disregard a key aspect of a system, does not mean the system isn't designed / doesn't cater towards that aspects.

Believe it or not, there may not be a 'correct' way to play a game, but there are certaintly 'better' and 'worse'. MMOs, by their very nature are social mediums. Just because the latest trend of games try to ignore this doesn't change that fact. Nearly all online multiplayer games are social mediums of a sort. You may not need to treat them this way, but there's a reason that more and more online games are encorperating more than just basic chat functions.

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by nariusseldon

MMORPGs are NOT a social medium.

MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.

It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.

Keep telling yourself that buddy.

MMORPGs are both. To add some perspective look at facebook. You can certaintly have a FB account, and just post picures, or look at other people's FB, without being social. However, I don't think anyone would try to argue that FB isn't a social medium. Just because you can choose to disregard a key aspect of a system, does not mean the system isn't designed / doesn't cater towards that aspects.

Believe it or not, there may not be a 'correct' way to play a game, but there are certaintly 'better' and 'worse'. MMOs, by their very nature are social mediums. Just because the latest trend of games try to ignore this doesn't change that fact. Nearly all online multiplayer games are social mediums of a sort. You may not need to treat them this way, but there's a reason that more and more online games are encorperating more than just basic chat functions.

Just witness how WOW is turning into more like a lobby game and how those lobby features are immensely popular.

*IF* MMOs are really social medium, primarily, then why are people complaining here about communities? The reason is precisely because they are GAME first. People play it as such whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

MMORPGs are NOT a social medium.

MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.

It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.

 

Actually "Richard Garriot" (Lord British) aka creator of the Ultima Universe and the one who coined the term MMORPG disagrees with you. If you read his "Ultimate RPG" facebook post you will see that he views MMORPG's as a social medium and that he basically says that most MMOs they have devolved into level grinds in beautiful but generic fantasy or sci-fi settings.

So who am i going to beleive. the person who created the term or someone who says they know what the term means.

Originally posted by OberanMiM

Originally posted by nariusseldon

MMORPGs are NOT a social medium.

MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.

It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.

 

 

Actually "Richard Garriot" (Lord British) aka creator of the Ultima Universe and the one who coined the term MMORPG disagrees with you. If you read his "Ultimate RPG" facebook post you will see that he views MMORPG's as a social medium and that he basically says that most MMOs they have devolved into level grinds in beautiful but generic fantasy or sci-fi settings.

 

So who am i going to beleive. the person who created the term or someone who says they know what the term means.

All the original MUDs were social games. RPGs come from MUDs and MOOs and whatnot. Just because some console morons have colonized the genre doesn't mean that its about their dumb crap.

Narius is completely incapable of understanding the concept of cultural colonization.

Originally posted by OberanMiM

 

 

Actually "Richard Garriot" (Lord British) aka creator of the Ultima Universe and the one who coined the term MMORPG disagrees with you. If you read his "Ultimate RPG" facebook post you will see that he views MMORPG's as a social medium and that he basically says that most MMOs they have devolved into level grinds in beautiful but generic fantasy or sci-fi settings.

 

So who am i going to beleive. the person who created the term or someone who says they know what the term means.

Let him. UO is a very old game that few plays. And Lord British has no successful game for ages. The last one, Tabula Rasa, is a themepark and it flopped badly.

The MMORPG genre has moved on.

And there is nothing to "believe". People play the game as they wish. If people do not want to socialize, are you going to force them? I play a game as i please. Don't u?

Originally posted by Cuathon

 

All the original MUDs were social games. RPGs come from MUDs and MOOs and whatnot. Just because some console morons have colonized the genre doesn't mean that its about their dumb crap.

Narius is completely incapable of understanding the concept of cultural colonization.

So? Genre moves on.

And RPG did NOT come from MUDs & MOOs. RPGs comes from table top games.

You don't like it .. so ... the market moves on. You can get out of it and don't play.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Let him. UO is a very old game that few plays. And Lord British has no successful game for ages. The last one, Tabula Rasa, is a themepark and it flopped badly.

The MMORPG genre has moved on.

And there is nothing to "believe". People play the game as they wish. If people do not want to socialize, are you going to force them? I play a game as i please. Don't u?

Actually no the genre hasn't moved on. Its just a different console hybrid mmo genre is trying to usurp its name..

At its core , which comes from pnp rpg games (that means "pen and paper role playing game" for the young). you need other people to truely role play in addition to an open choice in what your character can do or become.

In my opinion Skyrim (a single player game) is more of a MMORPG than some of the current games labeled as such because it at least tries to stay true to part of its history (albeit not the multiplayer part). And I am in no way implying Skyrim is one, just it ranks higher on sticking to what is a true MMORPG than some of the other games that claim to be in that genre.

A lobby based, heavily instanced game where your characters is railroaded through a storyline talking about how epic and how they alone will save everything (while at the same time everyone else around them) is not a MMORPG. There is no immersion.

EQ was a themepark/sandbox hybrid game. A great deal of it revolved around combat but it also had so many non combat things you could do, explore, hang out, socialize. And your character wasn't put on the pedastle of being the "unique" savior of the world.

Originally posted by OberanMiM

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Let him. UO is a very old game that few plays. And Lord British has no successful game for ages. The last one, Tabula Rasa, is a themepark and it flopped badly.

The MMORPG genre has moved on.

And there is nothing to "believe". People play the game as they wish. If people do not want to socialize, are you going to force them? I play a game as i please. Don't u?

 

Actually no the genre hasn't moved on. Its just a different console hybrid mmo genre is trying to usurp its name..

At its core , which comes from pnp rpg games (that means "pen and paper role playing game" for the young). you need other people to truely role play in addition to an open choice in what your character can do or become.

In my opinion Skyrim (a single player game) is more of a MMORPG than some of the current games labeled as such because it at least tries to stay true to part of its history (albeit not the multiplayer part). And I am in no way implying Skyrim is one, just it ranks higher on sticking to what is a true MMORPG than some of the other games that claim to be in that genre.

A lobby based, heavily instanced game where your characters is railroaded through a storyline talking about how epic and how they alone will save everything (while at the same time everyone else around them) is not a MMORPG. There is no immersion.

EQ was a themepark/sandbox hybrid game. A great deal of it revolved around combat but it also had so many non combat things you could do, explore, hang out, socialize. And your character wasn't put on the pedastle of being the "unique" savior of the world.

For reasons I totally understand Skyrim  gets used as a good example of how to do things on this board more so than even UO.

From a framework standpoint I think Skyrim has gotten everything right.

Originally posted by Stathis1

By the way, many moorpgs are addictive. It's their nature. And eventually people get burned. And they essentially search for the next addiction, and that is not good, because companies make money from that but for the players it's bad. Games like daoc were not that addictive, at least for me not, but they were good nevertheless exazctly because of that, because you would login, play for a while, do some pvp, maybe a dungeon, and then logout and you had a good time and fun, it wasn't a big mindless grind to get the X weapon or armor, which while it's mindless can also be addictive for many., because the famous pvp of daoc was also more about tactics and not gear. So, all things in good measure, that is the key to success.

DAoC's strat was about abusing class mechanics and grinding RR.

Not saying it wasn't fun, but really if you were competitive or trying to do something it still took a lot of time... unless you were a stealther with a box buffer .. or you played in the lowbie battlegrounds.