Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

If I had penny for each : "Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.

Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.

Unfortunately only "complex" MMO games today are either rhutless PVP oriented (like EVE) or below todays standards (either too old or made by low budget indy developers)

When will developers understand this? Make a game that challenges player. That you have to research online. Ask people for help. Figure out things.

Not just grind on autopilot with straight line road ahead of you...

So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame

complex as in proper RPG mechanics and harsh penalties for doing things wrong.. lots of depth as well..

but then again a lot of people want easy access with everything given to themm.

We all like different things.

I hereby want to express that the OP's statement is fully endorsed, undersigned and welcomed by the Anti Hoofed Animal Defamation League.

Dark Pony,

AHADL spokesperson.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

Ok, prove it.

---

Originally posted by Lobotomist

"Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.

---

This poor ridden boredom fest still have major market share with WoW in lead.

When will minority of forum posters understand the blatantly obvious truth provided by undeniable facts?

when will devs understand / see this....never! they see $$ signs could care less about anything else ..its why you see more n more mmorpgs soo sadly done and easy..some / most of the mmo's that had been released could easyly been put on a console with the "not so beefy grafix" and the easy mode they plop into their crap pile of a game ....+ alot of companys are still trying to bank on the WoW factor trying to strike it rich...they wont change their ways untill the sheep stop buying pretty boxes filled with the "new flavor of the month" and "dissapointment"

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

Ok, prove it.

The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).

But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.

My name is xDayx. And I support this message.

Maybe. A good indication would be TSW's Investigation Missions. The rest of the game is debatable, but these quests in particular have already sparked alot of hate and frustration threads.

Also, i have a feeling many in-game are using spoliers just after 5 minutes of not figuring it out. Does that count as an example?

We just need a graphics update for UO. The game is still going but just needs modern polish to capture the new eneration.

It does not matter if a game is complex or simple, people will still play it, and it will still be a success, as long as the game is FUN TO PLAY.

The problem's start when Devs try to define what players as a whole will actually find to be fun to play.

Ask 100 different players what they find fun, get just as many different answers.

I wouldn't say CoD and WoW are shining examples of complexity but they are shining examples of survivability.

I don't think your theory is very solid.

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

Ok, prove it.

The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).

But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.

But I'm really starting to think that long term player retention of a large number of subscribers isn't the real goal of most MMO's developed today, they the being designed to be "consumed" in a short period of time and discarded, much like the single player titles they are all starting to resemble.

I will say that complexity in design is something "I" desire in my MMORPG's, but I'm thinking from the popularirty of LOL and other Dota type titles, (and current MMORPG's for that matter) that the greater market place doesn't share in my taste.

So yes, complex design filled with the proper amount of timesinks is what is needed for long term subscription retention, but I just am not sure that's the goal anymore.

I personally agree with you, but I honestly think you're wrong.

Most players I've encountered want a challenge that will take them 2-3 goes to complete and they want that repeated as they progress. Modern gamers don't think along the same lines of old school gamers. Imagine a modern gamer getting stuck on that friggin platform above the dog Spellbound Dizzy for hours and days as they reset back to the start each time that piece of garbage dog gets them? (Yes I may have smashed my C64 off a wall at that point). Or on any number of puzzles and platforms in older games? They'd quit within the first 10 goes.

Gaming has changed and evolved, it's now so mainstream that it has to cater to the mainstream audience, and they don't like challenges that make them feel useless and frustrated.

I actually miss the obscene rage gaming used to give me :(

Longevity is tough to achieve.  It's even tougher to achieve when longevity isn't a priority for the dev / publisher.

Some games are just quick cash grabs.  If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.

Originally posted by Byrhofen

It does not matter if a game is complex or simple, people will still play it, and it will still be a success, as long as the game is FUN TO PLAY.

The problem's start when Devs try to define what players as a whole will actually find to be fun to play.

Ask 100 different players what they find fun, get just as many different answers.

Originally posted by DarkPony

I hereby want to express that the OP's statement is fully endorsed, undersigned and welcomed by the Anti Hoofed Animal Defamation League.

Dark Pony,

AHADL spokesperson.

 

Yet when I, and others, said the same thing almost a year ago in protect of SWTOR you were sharply against said notion.

What changed DarkPony :I?

This could just as well say people want "deep" gameplay. Someone else made this analogy in another thread (which I could give proper credit, but can't recall who/when it was posted), but chess has pretty simple rules, but deep gameplay. A game does not neccessarily have to be complicated, but instead, make the systems that are there more meaingful.

For example (purely anecdotal) If I am playing EvE, I don't think to myself "man, I love how overly complicated some of these interfaces are. The way parts of the game manages to get in the way of itself at times really makes this a five star title in my book". No, instead, I admire how the conflict in one region affects the market in another. I like how the ships/weapons/etc that I made are used by other players to achieve their goals. I enjoy how the systems, be they simple or complicated, work together within the game to provide that "deep gameplay". I felt the same in SWG. It wasn't that the systems were overly complicated, but how the interdependance was there and encouraged deeper gameplay, or maybe the oft-used term heard by CCP staff "emergent gameplay" is really what I'm getting at.

Now, I'm sure my overly generic comments on EvE can be disputed, but hopefully the overall point came across. At any rate, it seems like some of the current titles have confused accessible with disposable.

Originally posted by RoyalPhunk

Originally posted by Byrhofen

It does not matter if a game is complex or simple, people will still play it, and it will still be a success, as long as the game is FUN TO PLAY.

The problem's start when Devs try to define what players as a whole will actually find to be fun to play.

Ask 100 different players what they find fun, get just as many different answers.

 

This x 1000

SWG was fun pre-cu, and even in the CU it was decent, but above all else it was fun BECAUSE it was complex. Yet, SWG's developers (and ip holder, LucasArts) got greedy when they saw WoW's success, and started catering to the vocal minority while the vast majority were too busy actually playing the wonderful product they had (albeit riddled with bugs that they continued to ignore all the way through the CU, and NGE).

I don't think it's as simple as saying "Complex MMO = Success" as I think it also requires a developer willing to not fork customers over with piss poor business decisions.

I completely agree with the op, I don't know how many times I've been puking all over the dumbed down MMOs of today here on the forum. The shining example is WoW, look at the learning curve... granted its for kids but the learning curve is more flat than anything. I say bring back the complexity we had in Anarchy Online etc!