Originally posted by ReallyNow10

I wonder if devs are being sensitive to their shareholders, and we players are stuck holding the bag with games that have short term interest, but full term retail prices.

Seems fair a full box game last something like a few weeks. Most SP games last much shorter. In fact, I was playing D3 for more than 1 month now and logged 140 hrs on my main toon. That is way more than getting my money worth of a box game .. and i have not finished yet.

There is no reason why a game needs to last years. In fact, i would much rather move onto new games. Having 100 hrs of fun at $60 (or whatever standard retail box price) is a pretty good deal. That is definitely 10x cheaper than the movies.

Originally posted by rounner

Look at Vanguard: When the population is small people are too spread out, unless you add instatravel...

I would love all games to be like that. Where you can literally get lost in the world while exploring and not see a soul. Then see more people as you got to points of interest.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by rounner

Look at Vanguard: When the population is small people are too spread out, unless you add instatravel...

I would love all games to be like that. Where you can literally get lost in the world while exploring and not see a soul. Then see more people as you got to points of interest.

 

I second that, but I also understand why it can't be done, it works in EVE for instance because most of it is empty space its just an empty space streamer, so it sort of works, but there is barely anything to appreciate in between points if you decide just to go in a random direction.

Lineage 2 sort of had that to begin with, I remember when people didnt really go anywhere past the latitude of Giran so everyone sort of kept to those areas, there was still a lot of unknown as you went up and you could literally find yourself lost and alone in Hunter's Village, Oren, sea of spores area. And it added this mysticism to the areas "ohh that guy hunts up there", the fact that teleporting was also expensive ( by the standards at the time ) people werent really willing to just teleport to a place so it was a lot of fun going with a group exploring and you ended up finding all of these dangerous areas.

But the magic goes away as people progress, everything gets explored, people find the optimal places whether they are intended or not, this is mainly because developers cannot churn enough content quickly enough and adding something free form versus something everyone will have to use is just too expensive. I think a step to make this sort of unknown persist is the idea of games like Infinity: Quest for Earth, where you essentially seed ( and like Minecraft in a way ) as you go along and more stuff gets generated.

I have always been fascinated by the concept of having to prepare for your journey, a bit like Wormholes in EVE, I would love to see a game which is not in space implement this concept within a seeded world, where you have to prepare stuff because you could be literally hours/days away from any hub of people and you have to prepare tools and supplies at what not to actually endure your journey with your group, you are not really sure what you are going to find except for the already mapped areas, the ability to settle in a new remote area would be the cherry on top of the cake. This would allow for people that want to stay within the "city limits" to just stay within the pivot points of the world and people who want to do their own thing and go and explore can do so aswell.

I would also add the ability for you to be able to place a teleporter if you achieve a certain standard of "settlement" and allow the owner of that to enable/disable the teleporting from maybe the nearest teleporter to create a sort of network, so that if you wanted your city could become a new hub with ease of access of some sort, allowing for the duality of known/unknown to be decided by players and reduce the harshness of visiting your hub if you so desired and in essence create a point of interest.

Originally posted by chryses

Originally posted by ZoeMcCloskey

As I said you don't get it and you probably never will get it :)

But let me ask you this, if FE had been successful as it was and had a nice small niche playerbase who stuck to it and enjoyed it.  Would you want to come rain all over the parade and call it stupid or would you be able to live and let live?

I am totally with Zoe on this.  I am one of those players that does take time out to view the sunsets and scenary.  Most of my friends are the same but interestingly, we are all older gamers and grew up with table top / pen and paper RPG.

There is a question here about success. I played and subbed to FE for 12 months.  Its my second longest (albeit far behind EVE) MMO to date. 

I actually feel FE needed housing in some form as the crafting system and world attracted players who got into that sort of thing. Alternatively have an EVE system where guilds can actually over take bunkers and surrounding land...anyway...

Playing games like FE give an incredible realism to the world and there is great satisfaction going off track and finding rich nodes.  I found a couple of amazing spots and felt like a kid in a toy store as no other players ever turned up.

 

 

Consider me as clicking LIKE on your post a whole lot :)  I agree too on the housing in FE, that is one thing I just always felt was missing and I think it would have helped them retain more players.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by ZoeMcCloskey

As I said you don't get it and you probably never will get it :)

But let me ask you this, if FE had been successful as it was and had a nice small niche playerbase who stuck to it and enjoyed it.  Would you want to come rain all over the parade and call it stupid or would you be able to live and let live?

You and narius obviously aren't having the same conversation at this point. He said game developers create what their audience wants. You seem to have read "I don't like it, so it's stupid."

 

You are right, but I do know what he was saying.  I was just asking if he also feels in that "I don't like it so it is stupid" manner.  There do seem to be a lot of members here, who if they don't like the style of a game will bash that game and anyone who plays it :/

He hasn't though, which is good.

What is needed is not every game to come along and try to be the next WOW or try to outdo WOW.  Need some who are happy being what they are even if that means a nice solid niche market where they make some profit and hold onto their customers for years.  Eh, I can dream :P

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

I wonder if devs are being sensitive to their shareholders, and we players are stuck holding the bag with games that have short term interest, but full term retail prices.

 

Seems fair a full box game last something like a few weeks. Most SP games last much shorter. In fact, I was playing D3 for more than 1 month now and logged 140 hrs on my main toon. That is way more than getting my money worth of a box game .. and i have not finished yet.

There is no reason why a game needs to last years. In fact, i would much rather move onto new games. Having 100 hrs of fun at $60 (or whatever standard retail box price) is a pretty good deal. That is definitely 10x cheaper than the movies.

 

The monthly, quarterly, and yearly subscriptions refute your point.  MMORPG's are meant to last for years, and to generate revenue beyond the initial box games.

Now, if you are satisfied with the current crop of on-rails "splash and crash" WOW clones, hey, you have a 100 games to choose from.

But you have no argument is saying players who want more should accept less.

I agree. This idea of MMOs where all is crammed with stuff is really apalling. It doesn't invoke the feeling of a world, but a themepark in the worse sense of the word.

It's what I loved about SWG and Fallen Earth. But god forbid people have to WALK or SEEK their quest mobs! :(

Without reading all 5 pages I sure hope Anarchy Online is mentioned in this thread. 1, HUGE seamless map not counting the expansions.

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

I wonder if devs are being sensitive to their shareholders, and we players are stuck holding the bag with games that have short term interest, but full term retail prices.

 

Seems fair a full box game last something like a few weeks. Most SP games last much shorter. In fact, I was playing D3 for more than 1 month now and logged 140 hrs on my main toon. That is way more than getting my money worth of a box game .. and i have not finished yet.

There is no reason why a game needs to last years. In fact, i would much rather move onto new games. Having 100 hrs of fun at $60 (or whatever standard retail box price) is a pretty good deal. That is definitely 10x cheaper than the movies.

 

The monthly, quarterly, and yearly subscriptions refute your point.  MMORPG's are meant to last for years, and to generate revenue beyond the initial box games.

Now, if you are satisfied with the current crop of on-rails "splash and crash" WOW clones, hey, you have a 100 games to choose from.

But you have no argument is saying players who want more should accept less.

all it says is that there are people out there willing to give companies money for the same repetitive crap they have been playing for 2 months straight. It doesn't make it right hence y a lot of sub games are going to the f2p route because they cannot sustain p2p.

MMO are meant to be played for fun not forever. There's a reason why companies have a shrink on payroll, so they can find ways to manipulate players to play the same content by offering "rewards". Hence why raids and gear grind exist.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by rounner

Look at Vanguard: When the population is small people are too spread out, unless you add instatravel...

I would love all games to be like that. Where you can literally get lost in the world while exploring and not see a soul. Then see more people as you got to points of interest.

 

*all the games*?

Thanks but no thanks. I don't play games to be lost in the world. Thank god not all the games are like that.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by rounner

Look at Vanguard: When the population is small people are too spread out, unless you add instatravel...

I would love all games to be like that. Where you can literally get lost in the world while exploring and not see a soul. Then see more people as you got to points of interest.

 

*all the games*?

Thanks but no thanks. I don't play games to be lost in the world. Thank god not all the games are like that.

well, better said "all the games I play".