Originally posted by GTwander

[mod edit]

[mod edit]

Using trinity is not innovative because it has been the dominant mechanic for years. However according Ariannae's logic not using trinity is not innovative either.

See the fault yet? You are uninnovative if you both use trinity or you don't. If trinity has no part in game being innovative or not, you cannot call a game uninnovative on that basis.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by GTwander

[mod edit]

[mod edit]

Using trinity is not innovative because it has been the dominant mechanic for years. However according Ariannae's logic not using trinity is not innovative either.

See the fault yet? You are uninnovative if you both use trinity or you don't. If trinity has no part in game being innovative or not, you cannot call a game uninnovative on that basis.

Yep, because it's a trend, like fashion.

Not innovative, just cycling back to an old fad in order to alleviate an overused current one.

~If they wanna do something innovative, they should try something that hasn't been done yet. I will admit that some aspects of combat mechanics fall into that line, like GW2's weapon = hotslots getup, but the idea of not having a trinity itself has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Yep, because it's a trend, like fashion.

Not innovative, just cycling back to an old fad in order to alleviate an overused current one.

 

~If they wanna do something innovative, they should try something that hasn't been done yet. I will admit that some aspects of combat mechanics fall into that line, like GW2's weapon = hotslots getup, but the idea of not having a trinity itself has nothing to do with it.

So you're happy with the "damned if you do damned if you don't "-logic?

Hahaahahaha.

That's the essence of game theory when you consider player psychology. Pretty much everything falls under that, because you can't please everyone, and anything you do within the scope of a game can be both detrimental AND complimentary. Risk management is more important than lofty design.

Originally posted by GTwander

Hahaahahaha.

That's the essence of game theory when you consider player psychology. Pretty much everything falls under that, because you can't please everyone, and anything you do within the scope of a game can be both detrimental AND complimentary. Risk management is more important than lofty design.

...

Whats with the red herrings? Someone else help me please.

"Damned if you do and damned if you don't" had nothing to do with whether something is innovative or not, and everything to do with game design itself.

[mod edit]

Think there's some drinking going on in here?  Can I have one?

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

I disagree. I think players are ruining the experience.

If players did not want what is offered to them, then devs would be scrambling to find what players DO want. It seems devs have found what most players want. They must have because players flock to the new games and spend loads of cash for them.

Many players complain and moan about today's games. Many players support these new games with their money. Why would devs create something different? The current formula is working great for them.

^^this^^ that's why i am no longer buying EA games (not even the single player games from EA) and since the WOTLK i quit giving money to the mmo from blizz too.

No money for TSW either......the only ones i bought in the last months is D3 (because i like a good hack and slash to kill time) and GW2 (mostly because its free, it didnt change gaming at all but they took questing to the next lvl and i love it).

But most people still pay for crappy games, will they ever learn......time will tell.

There hasn't been that much change in the last 10-15 years... The biggest movies and games are sequals, or are based on some god knows how old concept (see all the superhero movies?,TSW etc...) and the makers... Still most watched are Simpsons, Disney & Pixar. Consoles are still from Sony, M$, Nintendo with no ambitious competitor in sight.

When i watch at the range 2000-2010 only things i see originals i can't trust,because of human minds bad way of sugar coating everything in your youngest age -_-' (Born -95) 

I Agree on the need of young blood. But strongly DISAGREE on pinning all the fault to the developers.

Rather it be movies, music or games..  Eye Candy + Hype = PROFIT....... Simple but true...... Sadly

Originally posted by oubers

But most people still pay for crappy games, will they ever learn......time will tell.

If only all the other players made the same smart decisions I do.

Damn them for being different people with different ideas.  Damn them.

Originally posted by Badnesso
I feel like Movies, products, services etc.. Have begun taking a downward spiral sense around 1998. And not to long after mmo's joined in. All developers care about these days is money just like the rest of the world. I can't find a single mmo where I can't buy gear or advance by spending money. If that's not bad enough there's constantly an arrow pointing to where I need to go zone by zone it's like one huge race to max out your character, only to buy the next expansion and start all over. Mmo's used to target adult and teens I'm guessing they made mmo's to toned down and easy these days is for children 6-13 and the $$$ subscriptions just weren't enough cash flow for their greed. Cause we all know children spend money With no concept of its value.

 Corrected that for you.

Raph Koster started doing it with Ultima Online, even went so far as to blame those under him for the downturn of his games...with all 3 MMOs he was in charge of and to this day continually states at the Game Developers Conferences that game makers have to understand that its their job to tell gamers what they do or do not like while still somehow push the idea that games should be open for gamers to create content...durp.

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Ariannae

Pro-tip; There is not a chance in hell that Blizzard would be even a fraction of the company they currently are if they had released their past few titles with the playerbase that they had during the time of Diablo 1/Warcraft II/ Starcraft. [mod edit]

That's because people used to make games THEY wanted to play.

Now they make ones that "market research leans towards"... but in a way, they are right - because the major demographic they are hitting will eat shit with a smile.

Why would i care what devs want to play? I want them to make games that *I* want to play. If "market research" is how they find out what *I* want to play, so much the better.

Its the players that ruin the mmo's 99.9 percent of the time.

Game developers do what their masters, the executives who run gaming software houses tell them to do. The minds of execs are full of projected population levels, pie charts breaking down play usage time and so on. They are not full of great stories and innovative play. Execs minds are focusing on making a MMO that is a cash cow, not a virtual brave new world.

So stop blaming the devs, they don't call the shots.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Ariannae

Pro-tip; There is not a chance in hell that Blizzard would be even a fraction of the company they currently are if they had released their past few titles with the playerbase that they had during the time of Diablo 1/Warcraft II/ Starcraft. [mod edit]

That's because people used to make games THEY wanted to play.

Now they make ones that "market research leans towards"... but in a way, they are right - because the major demographic they are hitting will eat shit with a smile.

Why would i care what devs want to play? I want them to make games that *I* want to play. If "market research" is how they find out what *I* want to play, so much the better.

 

Because when devs make game that *They* wan't to play they give it a 110%!  I can't believe that you'd rather play a game that has been made just because *You* wanted it, rather than a game that has been made with effort. The Dev's don't make the games for *You* they make them for *US*!

Edit2:Ofc...The Devs work under exe's, as mentioned above... One day ill make a comment without anything needing to be edited :D

To answer OP's question:

No, Money is ruining the MMO experience.

Originally posted by Badnesso

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

Well, money pays the bills and keeps food on the table. I'd say that if you where in the same position, you'd choose money over making some random people on the internet happy with a virtual world. Oh, and even if devs want to do it, the production cash doesn't come from them. It coms from suits which feel that way.

Don't get me wrong, i would love for companies to improve the genre, but that's no going to happen.

 

And that's what the American economy is coming to in a nutshell...lol

There has been a shift in American businesses over the past few decades from being run by engineers, scientists and mathematicians to being run by MBA's.  Quality has been sacrificed to keep costs down to stay competitive in a global market.  The masses have trouble seeing past the end of their own nose.  They would rather buy some piece of junk that will break in two months because it saves them money in the short term.

Maybe one day the imbecile MBA's in charge will realize that there is a market for quality goods.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Ariannae

Pro-tip; There is not a chance in hell that Blizzard would be even a fraction of the company they currently are if they had released their past few titles with the playerbase that they had during the time of Diablo 1/Warcraft II/ Starcraft. They would have fallen into a black abyss and been forgotten by the gaming world simply because the playerbase back then didn't buy into garbage on a plate.

That's because people used to make games THEY wanted to play.

Now they make ones that "market research leans towards"... but in a way, they are right - because the major demographic they are hitting will eat shit with a smile.

Why would i care what devs want to play? I want them to make games that *I* want to play. If "market research" is how they find out what *I* want to play, so much the better.

 

There you have it folks. This generation's attitude summed up in just 3 simple sentences.

Originally posted by Shariest

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Ariannae

Pro-tip; There is not a chance in hell that Blizzard would be even a fraction of the company they currently are if they had released their past few titles with the playerbase that they had during the time of Diablo 1/Warcraft II/ Starcraft. They would have fallen into a black abyss and been forgotten by the gaming world simply because the playerbase back then didn't buy into garbage on a plate.

That's because people used to make games THEY wanted to play.

Now they make ones that "market research leans towards"... but in a way, they are right - because the major demographic they are hitting will eat shit with a smile.

Why would i care what devs want to play? I want them to make games that *I* want to play. If "market research" is how they find out what *I* want to play, so much the better.

 

Because when devs make game that *They* wan't to play they give it a 110%!  I can't believe that you'd rather play a game that has been made just because *You* wanted it, rather than a game that has been made with effort. The Dev's don't make the games for *You* they make them for *US*!

Edit2:Ofc...The Devs work under exe's, as mentioned above... One day ill make a comment without anything needing to be edited :D

I don't care about effort. I care about the end result.

A boring game (to me) is still boring if the devs put in 120%.

A fun game is still fun if the devs put in 90%. I would rather play a game that is fun to me. That is the ONLY measure that matters.