Originally posted by vee41

Have to agree with the writer, it is nice that we have plenty of MMOs to choose from but do they all need to have pretty much the same mechanics in different graphical style and setting? Not counting the few innovative ones that take their own path, like EVE or GW2. This is of course a topic that has been discussed to death but it is still, sadly, relevant.

EvE does bring some difference to the table but it is a complete snore fest, GW2 is not different enough, plays and feels just like a couple big titles that bombed on the market.... Tera has more sustainability and depth imo... just saying.

I enjoyed the first sentence of this article.

I plan to watch on and off what the TES online demise becomes

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

He claims he hates MMOs, and makes an incorrect assumption on the longetivity of the genre, but that doesn't mean the rest of the article isn't spot it. It very much is. It's amusing to me that the pessimistic sentiments felt toward TESO are being mirrored "across the web" (which is my experience as well), one of the people of the company developing it even specifically cited the "WoW mechanic", and yet people still insist on burying their heads in the sand and claiming they see no WoW in that game. Give me a break.

His main point is exactly what a lot of MMOers are complaining about, they're tired of being fed the same drivel within a new IP. That he's not an MMOer himself isn't that relevant, especially when he's right.

For the past few years mmorpg's have been pretty stale.  On that point you're preaching to the choir here.  But the way he presents his arguments is very poor.  I'm still wondering in what parallel unixverse is Tera "offering radical departures from Everquest and WoW's tired old formula"?  Action combat is not innovative and has been done before multiple times.

Originally posted by Elikal

A REALLY good article that SO sums up my feelings about the state of MMOs in particular.

http://kotaku.com/5908402/its-time-to-take-these-old-mmo-games-out-back-and-shoot-them

Go and read the rest in the link. ^^

Well, tbh, the last person I would ask for an opinion of the genre is someone who professes to hate it, admits a grudge against it, and says he never engaged with a community in one (and therefore missing the entire point of the actual games and the only thing that lifts them above solo player games for many).

MMORPGs have always been about the communities, the people, the friendships. He never was part of that, and so he will never get it.

His view is also jaundiced as only an outsiders can be when talking about something they don't understand (and therefore 'don't like'). He comes from a very limited place and is applying a very wide false logic to a very narrow set of objects.

Therefore, opinion discarded.

Anyone got a nice wood shed we can use?

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

I enjoyed the first sentence of this article.

I plan to watch on and off what the TES online demise becomes

It should be a momentous supernova.  Or at least some spectacular fireworks along the way.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Recipe for success on MMORPG.com:

• Find someone who would say "To be clear, I've always hated MMOs.."
• Give them a microphone

 

In a pinch you can swap "MMO" and "Themepark" and achieve approx. the same results.

Originally posted by Elikal

A REALLY good article that SO sums up my feelings about the state of MMOs in particular.

http://kotaku.com/5908402/its-time-to-take-these-old-mmo-games-out-back-and-shoot-them

(YIKES! I had linked the wrong article. lol. Ok THIS is the REAL one. Gomen. Thanks TwoThreeFour.^^)

 

"Veteran designer Warren Spector, whose credits include Deus Ex and System Shock, puts it best when he said in this 2007 interview "I'm one of those people who doesn't find anything interesting at all in leveling up, finding a +3 sword or paper-dolling a character with a purple cloak. That doesn't appeal to me in any way as a human being. Put that all together and the play experience of MMOs is on par with roleplaying back in ‘87."  (OMG YES A 1000 TIMES YES!)

From cooldowns to instances to collecting ten of anything, most MMOs were, and still are, chores dressed up in the livery of a fictional universe. Aside from the basics of exploration and the lure of collecting loot and levelling up, there's been only one thing keeping people playing them, and stopping them from realising there's little difference between the banality of their daily grind to that of, say, a Farmville player."

 

Go and read the rest in the link. ^^

Elikal,maui aui man,you have EVE...besides that

We vets of now days are rly luck,we are living a time when the old fashion mmos are staying behind

Play TSW to test,i think it worth the try,besides its a themepark its MUCH DIFERENT of the old mmos,take a close look at www.thesecretworld.com

But the score willbe when archeage is released,with archeage we will definetly enter a new age for mmorpgs,it will be released around 2013

Originally posted by AdamTM

I never take anything Kotaku writes seriously.

I think ihe panders to a subsection of the mmorpg community who lap it up like loyal dogs.

:D

Originally posted by dubyahite
"To be clear: I've always hated MMO games. "

This disclaimer is in every damn Kotaku article about MMOs that I read. They are openly hostile to MMOs in general and their writers don't play them.

This article also states that the mmo genre is dying and that soon noone will make MMOs any more.


I find it hard to take them seriously on any topic related to MMOs. They simply have no credibility on the subject am frequently don't know what the f they are talking about.

Some will say that their outside perspective on the genre is valuable, but I disagree. They dont know what they are talking about and they are very clearly biased.

Kotaku is useless when it comes to discussing MMOs.  That article was utterly a waste of time to read.

The fact he doesnt see the difference between pre-WoW and post-WoW MMORPGs means he really shouldn't be wasting his time writing uninformed garbage.  Now if he wants to talk specifically about the WoW type of theme park, thats fine, but he is lumping the UO/EQ/AC/DAoC/AO/FFXI/SWG/EQOA/EVE era of MMORPGs when the genre was highly creative with the current crop is ridiculous.

What so many people seem to forget is that, at least in the west, is that if you remove WoW from the picture, the genre was more successful pre-WoW than post-WoW.

Originally posted by SuperXero89

Article kinda lost all credibility when it stated that TERA offers a radical departure from WoW's tired old formula.

The gimmick in TERA is VERY flashy, I'm sure it's not hard to be confused...

Originally posted by teakbois

The fact he doesnt see the difference between pre-WoW and post-WoW MMORPGs means he really shouldn't be wasting his time writing uninformed garbage.  Now if he wants to talk specifically about the WoW type of theme park, thats fine, but he is lumping the UO/EQ/AC/DAoC/AO/FFXI/SWG/EQOA/EVE era of MMORPGs when the genre was highly creative with the current crop is ridiculous.

 

What so many people seem to forget is that, at least in the west, is that if you remove WoW from the picture, the genre was more successful pre-WoW than post-WoW.

 I don't think so at all.  EQ peaked at 450k subscribers and was by far the most successful western type MMO before wow.  UO I'm told got close, DAOC, AO,AC did not get close.  ao maybe a 1-1.5 players total spread among 5 games (assumming that people didn't flow back and forth between them which did happen).

Today there are hundreds of games boasting anywhere from 5000 to 300,000 subscribers.  Swtor alone beast the entire western market pre wow.  Lotro, EQ2, CoH, Eve... have all held fairly steady for many years at 100-300,000 subscribers each.  So those games alone rival pre-wow, now add in 100+ other western type games that have held steady at 5000-100,000 and you have a market many many many times the size of the market pre-wow, even when your remove.

Now there is an argument that a particular game was more successfull, but the market today (with wow removed) still has many many many more subscribers, there are many many many more games - all measures of a healthy and successfull genre.

Edit - I also think the genre is just as creative.  The problem is people are being selective in the games they look at.  They look at wow like games and say all post games post wow are identical, the genre is less creative and ignore all the other games that are nothing like wow.

There were 5 titles that had some differences, a lot of similarities but some key differences.  Today there are over 400 MMO's on this site alone, there are more than 5 that are significantly different. 

Hmm, an article by a person who states they hate MMO's, from what he writes doesn't really understand them all that well (especially from their early days) and somehow people consider his viewpoint valid?

I'm not disagreeing that MMO's need some change, but like most rants/whines on this topic the article is long on complaints however very short on actual ideas on what he would do better to change things.

Sure, some titles are planning to make some changes, but face it, we who enjoy MMORPG's like progression mechanics.  We may disagree on how that might best be implemented, but a MMORPG without a decent form of progression would be sort of like.... GW2 I suppose.    Not so much an MMORPG anymore.

OK, just kidding, but seriously, are we really looking for an Adventure game MMO, where people just live in the world?  I'm not, I like killing stuff and getting rewarded for (the key point), just killing stuff for the fun of it isn't, well, fun.

So yes, I'd like to see more radical departures from the standard theme park formula (and no TERA is not one, though it has its moments of enjoyment) but like the author of the article, I'm not really full of any new, good ideas, most of mine are retreads from earlier days that I think could use a revist.

The old mmo's are fine. The newer ones have deliberately delivered a shallower, highly segmented experience that caters to solo play. Of course there is lack of interest.

The mmo as a world simulator was the expectation. The expectation that the simulation would have greater fidelity and depth as the genre matured. Instead the simulation was tossed and we ended up with rpg's with multiplayer. Which is fine, but its not worth a monthly fee to belong to.

Once WoW hit it big, the rest of the development world (or rather the investors who fund them) slammed on their breaks and ceased looking ahead and only looked to the side, and then backwards and said "I want to make THAT much money!"

The MMO genre is fine, just no one making them anymore. Just making knockoffs, and calling them MMO's

i think the quote he used about not liking character advancement at all was even more telling than his i hate MMOs statement.  Even if you agree with the premise of the article that 'traditional' (read wow - clone since that seems to be what he means)  MMOs are over done, which I do, I hardly want this guys input as he dislikes the most fundementally important aspect of an MMO.

Originally posted by Paradigm68

The old mmo's are fine. The newer ones have deliberately delivered a shallower, highly segmented experience that caters to solo play. Of course there is lack of interest.

The mmo as a world simulator was the expectation. The expectation that the simulation would have greater fidelity and depth as the genre matured. Instead the simulation was tossed and we ended up with rpg's with multiplayer. Which is fine, but its not worth a monthly fee to belong to.

Once WoW hit it big, the rest of the development world (or rather the investors who fund them) slammed on their breaks and ceased looking ahead and only looked to the side, and then backwards and said "I want to make THAT much money!"

The MMO genre is fine, just no one making them anymore. Just making knockoffs, and calling them MMO's

This post is the also my opinion on what is wrong the industry.

AKA Turbine's make of AC2. When  AC1 was much finer example of a game, and AC2 a mimickery of easy-mode gaming.

MMO's got shit on by Sony with EQ.

Root of evil stuff Sony.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by teakbois

The fact he doesnt see the difference between pre-WoW and post-WoW MMORPGs means he really shouldn't be wasting his time writing uninformed garbage.  Now if he wants to talk specifically about the WoW type of theme park, thats fine, but he is lumping the UO/EQ/AC/DAoC/AO/FFXI/SWG/EQOA/EVE era of MMORPGs when the genre was highly creative with the current crop is ridiculous.

 

What so many people seem to forget is that, at least in the west, is that if you remove WoW from the picture, the genre was more successful pre-WoW than post-WoW.

 I don't think so at all.  EQ peaked at 450k subscribers and was by far the most successful western type MMO before wow.  UO I'm told got close, DAOC, AO,AC did not get close.  ao maybe a 1-1.5 players total spread among 5 games (assumming that people didn't flow back and forth between them which did happen).

Today there are hundreds of games boasting anywhere from 5000 to 300,000 subscribers.  Swtor alone beast the entire western market pre wow.  Lotro, EQ2, CoH, Eve... have all held fairly steady for many years at 100-300,000 subscribers each.  So those games alone rival pre-wow, now add in 100+ other western type games that have held steady at 5000-100,000 and you have a market many many many times the size of the market pre-wow, even when your remove.

Now there is an argument that a particular game was more successfull, but the market today (with wow removed) still has many many many more subscribers, there are many many many more games - all measures of a healthy and successfull genre.

Lets look at early/mid 2004:

EQ: 450k

DAoC: 250k

UO: 200k

SWG: 300k

EvE had been out over a year and had only 50k at that point

CoH had just launched and had 175k, but not really counting it.

Now we have

EvE: 400k (but its a pre-WoW game)

Rift:  300k (best guess, but its somewhere between 200k and 400k)

Yes, I left out SWToR.  Why?  because its population is in a freefall, and its been out only 6 months.  

pre WoW:  5 games were released that had spans where they were over 200k for 2 or more years

post WoW:  1 game (LOTRO) with a possibility of 2 more, but I think its very unlikely Rift will make it and while  SWTOR may because of the IP, but the odds arent in its favor.

Im not going to dispute there is more players, especially since f2p has muddied the waters.  But games were clearly more successful back then, and Im not buying its because the market is saturated.  

Originally posted by teakbois

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by teakbois

The fact he doesnt see the difference between pre-WoW and post-WoW MMORPGs means he really shouldn't be wasting his time writing uninformed garbage.  Now if he wants to talk specifically about the WoW type of theme park, thats fine, but he is lumping the UO/EQ/AC/DAoC/AO/FFXI/SWG/EQOA/EVE era of MMORPGs when the genre was highly creative with the current crop is ridiculous.

 

What so many people seem to forget is that, at least in the west, is that if you remove WoW from the picture, the genre was more successful pre-WoW than post-WoW.

 I don't think so at all.  EQ peaked at 450k subscribers and was by far the most successful western type MMO before wow.  UO I'm told got close, DAOC, AO,AC did not get close.  ao maybe a 1-1.5 players total spread among 5 games (assumming that people didn't flow back and forth between them which did happen).

Today there are hundreds of games boasting anywhere from 5000 to 300,000 subscribers.  Swtor alone beast the entire western market pre wow.  Lotro, EQ2, CoH, Eve... have all held fairly steady for many years at 100-300,000 subscribers each.  So those games alone rival pre-wow, now add in 100+ other western type games that have held steady at 5000-100,000 and you have a market many many many times the size of the market pre-wow, even when your remove.

Now there is an argument that a particular game was more successfull, but the market today (with wow removed) still has many many many more subscribers, there are many many many more games - all measures of a healthy and successfull genre.

Lets look at early/mid 2004:

EQ: 450k

DAoC: 250k

UO: 200k

SWG: 300k

EvE had been out over a year and had only 50k at that point

CoH had just launched and had 175k, but not really counting it.

 

Now we have

EvE: 400k (but its a pre-WoW game)

Rift:  300k (best guess, but its somewhere between 200k and 400k)

 

Yes, I left out SWToR.  Why?  because its population is in a freefall, and its been out only 6 months.  

 

 

pre WoW:  5 games were released that had spans where they were over 200k for 2 or more years

post WoW:  1 game (LOTRO) with a possibility of 2 more, but I think its very unlikely Rift will make it and while  SWTOR may because of the IP, but the odds arent in its favor.

 

 

Im not going to dispute there is more players, especially since f2p has muddied the waters.  But games were clearly more successful back then, and Im not buying its because the market is saturated.  

 

 

 

 

 

 Some of those games were more successfull.  CoH at release broke 250, it stabilized to this day at abotu 150.  Thats comparable to your UO and Daoc. 

Swtor still has 1.3 million subs as stated by them just a little while ago.

Today post wow - Eve 300,000, CoH, 150,000, lotro ~300,000, EQ2 ~100,000, Swtor 1.3 million and tens of thousands more scattered among hundreds of games.

Thats the difference.  A game may be better or worse, the genre by every measurable data is better.

And market may or may not be saturated by you cannot deny there is a 100 fold increase in the number games and that significantly changes things.