Wrong.  The reason the games don't stick is because they're shit.

It doesn't matter whether the game is a themepark, sandbox, or whatever it is you sensationalist fucks try to categorize MMOs as - we just want a game that isn't terrible. 

Considering that the only decent computer game is Planescape: Torment, we've got a long way to go.

We'll game hop because the games are bad, or we'll stick with it because we have a community there already.

Originally posted by Royalkin

 

In order to actually usurp World of Warcraft, there will have to be created a game that is as different from it as night and day, it must be well funded, and be the creation of AAA talent, and it must seize precisely the right moment, but I don't think any currently known game has the potential.

Sure.

Sorta like how LoL is about as different from WOW as you can get...and thus sold amazingly.

Seems like we have plenty of players able to see how corporations run in and copy successful formulas.  But some of those players are completely dissatisfied with MMORPGs and instead of actually seeking innovation (by not playing MMORPGs) they stay with the same genre.

Funny how that works: If you don't try different things, you won't experience different things.

I don't mean to sound 100% in approval of how much gameplay variety MMORPGs have, because I do see a lot of games which soullessly copy-paste things and end up with a much worse version what they're trying to copy.  But I do feel like gamer rage hits a certain point and you have to wonder why these players bother sticking with a genre they clearly hate.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Royalkin

 

In order to actually usurp World of Warcraft, there will have to be created a game that is as different from it as night and day, it must be well funded, and be the creation of AAA talent, and it must seize precisely the right moment, but I don't think any currently known game has the potential.

Sure.

Sorta like how LoL is about as different from WOW as you can get...and thus sold amazingly.

Seems like we have plenty of players able to see how corporations run in and copy successful formulas.  But some of those players are completely dissatisfied with MMORPGs and instead of actually seeking innovation (by not playing MMORPGs) they stay with the same genre.

Funny how that works: If you don't try different things, you won't experience different things.

I don't mean to sound 100% in approval of how much gameplay variety MMORPGs have, because I do see a lot of games which soullessly copy-paste things and end up with a much worse version what they're trying to copy.  But I do feel like gamer rage hits a certain point and you have to wonder why these players bother sticking with a genre they clearly hate.

Yes, it stands to reason that if something leaves a bad taste in your mouth, you spit it out, you don't continuously taste it.

I think there might be some level of psychology in what you point out, whereas those of use who started with sandboxes (specifically SWG) continuously struggle to find it's equal. Similarly, those who started with themeparks (specifically WoW) do the same. Regardless though, each never find that game, they don't exist. This longing is purely psycological, and not merely the 'rose tinted glasses' argument, but a more deeply rooted issue.

Perhaps the hatred is the result of an unfufiled longing, regardless of being created within the person's own mind. I think this is evident in how some people say things such as, "Game X did this much better.", or "Game X was better than Game Y", and proclaim these statements as some how being profound, when in reality they are simply products of a relative nature.

However with that said, there could also be some legitimacy in this rage and hatred, because in the end it is increasily difficult to continously play and enjoy a game that is for all intents and purposes identical to its predecesors. It stands to reason, that some would be raging and the notion of "eating crap with a spoon, and being forced to enjoy it.".

Eventualy someone is going to have to break out of this mundane model that we are stuck with, otherwise the genre that we enjoy, will die. Gamers are people, and people are fickle. Regardless though, I do think that developers are more to blame, and investors are also to blame. As long as investors believe that the overtly linear themepark model is successful, they will continue to only place their money into areas that tow the line, and as such developers do not have much choice if they want to produce a well funded experience. Therefore the only logical choice is to cut the investors out of the loop, and find other sources of capital. Kickstarter seems like a good baseline for this idea.

Lastly, and on the same note, I don't think that its necessary for a game to have multiple-million subscribers in order to successful. Games are a business just like any other, and businesses exist to make profit. Provided the developer doesn't spend 500 million dollars producing the game, then several hundred thousand subscribers who are very happy, will make a game succesful in the eyes of the bottom line. The point being, developers shoud pick and audience and serve them well, rather than attempting to please everyone, where no one is entirely satisfied. People have differing opinions, its not possible to force everyone into the same peg and expect them to enjoy the experience. Diversity is a good thing.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally posted by Khaeros

Wrong.  The reason the games don't stick is because they're shit.

It doesn't matter whether the game is a themepark, sandbox, or whatever it is you sensationalist fucks try to categorize MMOs as - we just want a game that isn't terrible. 

Considering that the only decent computer game is Planescape: Torment, we've got a long way to go.

We'll game hop because the games are bad, or we'll stick with it because we have a community there already.

Yes, I would concur that the reason people leave games and return to a previous game is both because the current game is 'shit', however what makes them so is the point. Simply calling a game 'shit', really does nothing to quantity why you feel a certain way, or why you chose to return to a previous game. Once again, that is pigeon-holing people, and it is inherently false logic. Also, while some might return to a previous game simply because they have friends there, that in of itself, won't in the long run, provide a profound enough reason for them to continue playing. Because, as you say if a game is 'shit', then the community won't save it.

Most of what you say is relative to your own standards, opinions, and expectations. Surely there are others who will disagree with you and greatly so.

Sage words, OP!

I too preach for years that PURE themeparks without ANY sandbox elements, like SWTOR, just can not function. NO amount of story can ever keep people busy long enough! I said that during the development of SWTOR time and again. I still don't understand why developers are so resisting sandbox elements like the goat against the rope.

Only a return to adding sandbox elements, the MMO genre can really return to good. And yes, despite the many flaws, I also loved SWG for what it offered. I never experienced such an alife world! Best MMO time I ever had.

Just speaking for myself, I am definitely NOT happy with the current pure themeparks which catch me just 3-4 months. That feels like a waste of time to me. I feel MMOs are way too narrowed down to killing. Anything games like UO and SWG had beside killing is almost entirely gone. It really can't be THAT difficult to add!

On top, modern games often just lack "soul" or "heart". SWTOR is again a bad example for this. Anyone remembers simple graphics games like Grandia II or Ultima V? THEY had heart and soul! And it's no rose tinted glasses, since I love such games still. Recent example? "To the moon" by Freebird Games: http://freebirdgames.com/to_the_moon/

It's a short, small game. But it is so full of soul, of dreams, of meaning! And it has totally simple graphics. That is what I mean, when I say, I am not a demaning locust player. I want something with substance, with feeling! And in a MMO I want to feel "at home", and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!

Originally posted by Elikal

and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!

Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Elikal

and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!

Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.

When everyone is "the hero" is anyone really a hero? By trying to write every player into the story as the great hope in a game despite what actions they take or what they actually accomplish in the game all it does is remove any depth or meaning.

That said, personally I enjoy themeparks for the most part but ones that completely revolve around combat just seem boring and repetitive. Having well-made noncombat elements such as truly interactive stories that are more involved than simple quest-grinds, crafting that takes more effort than just gathering stacks of materials and going afk until you've leveled up, well-done housing systems (instanced or not), and even other minigames are really the key to bringing a good name back to themeparks. As they are currently, they just seem to be a very diluted single-player action RPG until endgame when you're forced to engage in multiplayer to advance. That's great for the "babby's first MMORPG" types but I think the majority of this genre's gamers are past that stage.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Elikal

and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!

Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.

It's not the 1000s others that bother me, it's the narrowing down to being hero. And what good is a so called "personal story" when everyone around me has it?

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Royalkin

 

In order to actually usurp World of Warcraft, there will have to be created a game that is as different from it as night and day, it must be well funded, and be the creation of AAA talent, and it must seize precisely the right moment, but I don't think any currently known game has the potential.

Sure.

Sorta like how LoL is about as different from WOW as you can get...and thus sold amazingly.

Seems like we have plenty of players able to see how corporations run in and copy successful formulas.  But some of those players are completely dissatisfied with MMORPGs and instead of actually seeking innovation (by not playing MMORPGs) they stay with the same genre.

Funny how that works: If you don't try different things, you won't experience different things.

I don't mean to sound 100% in approval of how much gameplay variety MMORPGs have, because I do see a lot of games which soullessly copy-paste things and end up with a much worse version what they're trying to copy.  But I do feel like gamer rage hits a certain point and you have to wonder why these players bother sticking with a genre they clearly hate.

There is another major factor as to why both of those games did so well...the original Warcraft RTS series, and for LoL it was Warcraft 3. Those RTS games were insanely successful (I still see Warcraft 3 in videogame stores, which along with Starcraft is utterly unheard of for games that old) and built up an unheard-of fanbase, including myself, and at least for me THAT was the biggest drive to try WoW; to live in the world that I had played in with those RTS games for ten years. I'm sure a lot of other people had the same idea. And League of Legends is a complete spinoff of the Warcraft 3 modded map DotA.

No other MMO that I know of has had other games before it within the same world and lore build up as much of a throng of followers as the Warcraft series has. Nothing else comes even remotely close. The original three Warcraft games and their expansions sold millions of copies each, and even though it's a different genre Blizzard's reputation was also helped with the Starcraft series, which also sold into the double-digit millions between all the versions. I would personally say that at least 50% of WoW's unrivalled success came from the reputation Blizzard earned through the Warcraft/Starcraft series and the already established loyal fanbase of millions.

And as for League of Legends, I would attribute 100% of its success to Warcraft 3, and more specifically the DotA map. If DotA had not been created, and had not become almost stupidly popular (I heard of some people buying Warcraft 3 ONLY to play DotA and not the rest of the game), League of Legends probably wouldn't exist at all.

That's another major thing that all of these new themepark MMOs lack: that established reputation and millions-strong fanbase of their game worlds and lore that built up over years. The companies that are cranking out these stupid themepark clones just don't seem to realize this as well.

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Elikal

and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!

Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.

It's not the 1000s others that bother me, it's the narrowing down to being hero. And what good is a so called "personal story" when everyone around me has it?

Apparently good enough when the game is fun. Just look at D3. Does anyone care every other player is going through the same story?

Sure, it is not a MMO. However, it has enough modern MMO elements (i.e. the most important core .. small group combat centric gameplay, with easy crafting and AH) and MMOs should learn from it.

.

Originally posted by lizardbones

Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.

** edit **
* Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.

Has to be a reason crafting in older MMOs was more exciting than just your basic MMO today. Something is missing, and players should want to stick around for years. This is why they need to build Worlds and not Games ala content you just play through.

If you have a neighborhood/community built by player housing/building and things like that with friends/guildmates. I'd have to think there is a less chance you'll leave the game. People get attached to sandbox-esque games. It beings with - removing levels, removing quests, removing competetion between players (don't take this for easy content, more so what GW2 is doing), an actual crafting system and probably more 3 faction type MMO cause people seem to like that.

It would be a start at least. As you said the the audience for these games are also a lot different. The 16 year olds I played with in UO aren't the same 16 year olds you run across today who complain about EVERYTHING.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Elikal

and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!

Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.

It's not the 1000s others that bother me, it's the narrowing down to being hero. And what good is a so called "personal story" when everyone around me has it?

Apparently good enough when the game is fun. Just look at D3. Does anyone care every other player is going through the same story?

Sure, it is not a MMO. However, it has enough modern MMO elements (i.e. the most important core .. small group combat centric gameplay, with easy crafting and AH) and MMOs should learn from it.

Different games/genres should be different, scripted or too complex encounters work fine within a fixed loot table system, not so much in d3, imo.

With that said i find it interesting, if not confusing, that wow seems to move towards "diablo" gameplay and d3 to the opposite direction...

As for crafting, well, its all fun and games until you realize it costs money, and you can very well end up paying much more only in the fees, not even counting mats (occasionally look at the sell pice of an item), due to rng than you would pay for a similar item on the ah, it needs some work still, for example i am still looking for a reasonable explanation why mats have tiers or why those pages/tomes even exist, if adding sockets to every item (for a fee) is a shallow and dull mechanic, what is gathering some extra superfluous paper that has a quite good drop rate then?

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by UOvet

Originally posted by lizardbones

Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.

** edit **
* Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.

Has to be a reason crafting in older MMOs was more exciting than just your basic MMO today. Something is missing, and players should want to stick around for years. This is why they need to build Worlds and not Games ala content you just play through.

 

If you have a neighborhood/community built by player housing/building and things like that with friends/guildmates. I'd have to think there is a less chance you'll leave the game. People get attached to sandbox-esque games. It beings with - removing levels, removing quests, removing competetion between players (don't take this for easy content, more so what GW2 is doing), an actual crafting system and probably more 3 faction type MMO cause people seem to like that.

 

It would be a start at least. As you said the the audience for these games are also a lot different. The 16 year olds I played with in UO aren't the same 16 year olds you run across today who complain about EVERYTHING.

Considering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.

I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming.

"Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.174642-Only-30-Percent-of-WoW-Players-Get-Past-Level-10

Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.

Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.

Originally posted by wrightstuf

Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.

Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.

I'm lost to the fact how it's difficult figuring out what YOU WANT TO DO IN A GAME? I guess when you're never given any freedom in a game really you'd have a hard time. Why does someone have to be told what to do? It's kind of sad in reality.

It's obvious if you have 5 swordsmanship you shouldn't be trying to tackle a dungeon with dragons, etc.

Originally posted by Banaghran

With that said i find it interesting, if not confusing, that wow seems to move towards "diablo" gameplay and d3 to the opposite direction...

Because both games (genre) have elements that are fun.

- D3 type small group combats (hence, dungeon finder in WOW)

- WOW type AH, social network/friend list

This convengence is the future of this type of gaming.

Originally posted by wrightstuf

Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.

Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.

Doesn't make sense to me, I know what I want in games.   I know that I DON'T WANT TO F*ING KILL 10 WOLVES.  I don't want to do the same boring thing over and over again to try and get some virtual fish biscuit.  The entire genre is getting stupid.   Too many people have been brainwashed by WoW clones into thinking that they need to be told what to do to get their fish biscuit.  And somewhere along the way someone tricked them into thinking that was fun. 

All we can do is keep our wallets shut and our forum criticism NEGATIVE so that these WoW clone social experiments die off and developers start making good games. 

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by UOvet

Originally posted by lizardbones

Considering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.

I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming.

"Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.174642-Only-30-Percent-of-WoW-Players-Get-Past-Level-10

 

Originally posted by BigHatLogan

Originally posted by wrightstuf

Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.

Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.

Doesn't make sense to me, I know what I want in games.   I know that I DON'T WANT TO F*ING KILL 10 WOLVES.  I don't want to do the same boring thing over and over again to try and get some virtual fish biscuit.  The entire genre is getting stupid.   Too many people have been brainwashed by WoW clones into thinking that they need to be told what to do to get their fish biscuit.  And somewhere along the way someone tricked them into thinking that was fun. 

All we can do is keep our wallets shut and our forum criticism NEGATIVE so that these WoW clone social experiments die off and developers start making good games. 

As I posted above, that's only 30% of the gamers who tried WoW. WoW had what, 12M+ players? That means there's 28M+ gamers out there who might just want a real Sandbox game and aren't worried about having their hands held, like this poster.

Edit to add: Even if a AAA Sandbox only kept 30% of that 28 Million, they'd have 8,400,000 subs. Sounds like it's worth the risk to me.

Originally posted by BigHatLogan

Originally posted by wrightstuf

Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.

Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.

Doesn't make sense to me, I know what I want in games.   I know that I DON'T WANT TO F*ING KILL 10 WOLVES.  I don't want to do the same boring thing over and over again to try and get some virtual fish biscuit.  The entire genre is getting stupid.   Too many people have been brainwashed by WoW clones into thinking that they need to be told what to do to get their fish biscuit.  And somewhere along the way someone tricked them into thinking that was fun. 

All we can do is keep our wallets shut and our forum criticism NEGATIVE so that these WoW clone social experiments die off and developers start making good games. 

No. It *is* fun. Just look at Diablo 3. Sold 6.3M in a week. I found it ultra fun.

Essentially, it is nothing but kill 1000000 mobs and people LOVE it. It does not pretend to be anything else, unlike MMO. It is pure and simple. Kill and get loot.

Now, the combat mechanics are pretty deep and interesting, but still it is about KILL and LOOT.

Relax

Archeage is coming ftw