Originally posted by jpnz

 

... Someone may want an MMO that they'll play for years, but they are the minority.

I don't know one MMO player IRL that doesn't look for that in an MMO.

Older games had this because it took more work to achieve anything in those days. Levels came slower,  death had consequences, corpse runs, ammo count, item selling took place in chat, etc.

These days it's expected that you shouldn't even really have to log in to buy or sell items in your favorite game. One of FFXIV's largest failing was a trade setup that required that you go find a relevant sales person (which I always found funny given that FFXI was one of the first "auction house" games)

Relevant conversation tends to be kept to a minimum on servers and the average median age of players is closer to 16 than the 26 it used to be 10+ years ago... At least it would appear so given the nature of what does go on in most area chats.

I personally think it's just fine to be a content locust provided that you don't blame the game for your game hopping.  Anyone willing to blow through content truly had no interest in the journey but only in getting to the ending.

Persoanlly, If it was me, I'd save myself the money by reminding myself that the good guys win and the hero gets the girl (or kid, exonerated, the treasure, etc) in almost every fantasy story.

Me? I enjoy the journey.

Actually, put the book down for a while, had dinner, etc.

Enough mud-wrestling for one night, I supposes.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Oh boy, oh boy! Tell us again what "real MMORPGs" are, huh, will ya? Gee mister, did you have to walk to school in six feet of snow and uphill both ways?

It's something like your beloved GW but not something like D3... if that doesn't do it for you you can always try wikipedia or the urban dictionary... shrug.

But then, I guess you had to do a lot of defending of the original GW's status as a real MMORPG back in the day didn't you? Tha probably gave you some idea.

PS. GW made my cut, but just barely... GW2? No question.

Originally posted by Kyleran
How come all of you are posting on these forums tonight and not playing your favorite games? Me, I'm stuck at the mall watching my wife shop for Christmas. Ugh!

It never ceases to amuse me when the guy with 15000+ posts wonders why the people with a few hundred posts are posting and not playing.

Thanks for the laugh.

Originally posted by Kyleran
How come all of you are posting on these forums tonight and not playing your favorite games? Me, I'm stuck at the mall watching my wife shop for Christmas. Ugh!

I wish i am playing (still have D3 farmign to run, and COD campaign to go over). However, I am working right now, and posting in-between analysis run.

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by Kyleran
How come all of you are posting on these forums tonight and not playing your favorite games? Me, I'm stuck at the mall watching my wife shop for Christmas. Ugh!

 It never ceases to amuse me when the guy with 15000+ posts wonders why the people with a few hundred posts are posting and not playing.

Thanks for the laugh.

Naw, he was just grousing because he got dragged to the mall on TG weekend.  I'd be a little uptight, too; damn female-type womenzes. 

Don't worry, that post-count viagra you ordered is working fine in this here thread--looks like you're cruising with 40 posts or so.

Originally posted by Kyleran
How come all of you are posting on these forums tonight and not playing your favorite games? Me, I'm stuck at the mall watching my wife shop for Christmas. Ugh!

Newborn in the house in conjunction with the other kids so don't have the time to run in the field or dungeons for a bit yet. Was crafting when I wrote that.

Waiting on the baby's formula to heat up while I'm writing this.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Scot

Because the OP and others on here do not realise that this is making the industry eating itself.

Solo game profitability are based on a couple of months play. MMO’s are not. Without  assured long term profit, funding for MMO’s must come into question.

Gaming companies have tried to ensure profit by making their games more polished at launch. But that comes with a price, less time is spent on end game. The MMO game format is becoming more like the solo game format with each MMO release.

As I have said on here before, I like solo games, but why can’t we have long term sustainable MMO’s as well? I am happy to have both types of games, why are you advocating only one kind? Gaming as a form of entertainment is better with more types of games and gameplay. Why do you want to straightjacket MMO’s into the streamlined easyMMO version?

YOu can .. but if play style is such that players will play a few month and move on, the dev needs to design as such.

Why do you want to straightjacket MMOs into the long term commited version? There is no reason why people should not play MMOs as short term game. They are already doing so, whether you like it or not.

Nariusseldon is at it again. Read the very sentence after the one you made red. I am for both types of MMO's and any combination between. Streamlined themeparks are not to my taste, but that does not mean I think they should not exist!

People that hate mmorpgs yet insist on playing mmorpgs and screw it for everyone else.

People that hate mmorpgs yet insist on playing mmorpgs and screw it for everyone else everywhere.

Originally posted by Scot

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Scot

Because the OP and others on here do not realise that this is making the industry eating itself.

Solo game profitability are based on a couple of months play. MMO’s are not. Without  assured long term profit, funding for MMO’s must come into question.

Gaming companies have tried to ensure profit by making their games more polished at launch. But that comes with a price, less time is spent on end game. The MMO game format is becoming more like the solo game format with each MMO release.

As I have said on here before, I like solo games, but why can’t we have long term sustainable MMO’s as well? I am happy to have both types of games, why are you advocating only one kind? Gaming as a form of entertainment is better with more types of games and gameplay. Why do you want to straightjacket MMO’s into the streamlined easyMMO version?

YOu can .. but if play style is such that players will play a few month and move on, the dev needs to design as such.

Why do you want to straightjacket MMOs into the long term commited version? There is no reason why people should not play MMOs as short term game. They are already doing so, whether you like it or not.

Nariusseldon is at it again. Read the very sentence after the one you made red. I am for both types of MMO's and any combination between. Streamlined themeparks are not to my taste, but that does not mean I think they should not exist!

And if you read a couple of sentences forward you'll see a derogatory term for modern MMOs. Pff...

Originally posted by Quirhid

Yes, please. More new games more frequently. Let the old ones die - move on. Lets speed up the cycle.

I have to ask.. how does one add pictures to a post.. Do I need some URL to a 3rd party?

Originally posted by Rydeson

I have to ask.. how does one add pictures to a post.. Do I need some URL to a 3rd party?

WYSIWYG editor (in Your Profile).  And yes, links to exterior URLs.

I think your a troll or something.

If you want to talk about popularity, Wow and games like wow are very far down the list. I hear the same crap from

alot of people on this forum, "wow is the biggest most successful" which is just flat out bullcrap!. If anyone took a

minute to use the brain they were born with, they would use ratio's and %'s to tell which games were more popular.

Take EQ,UO,DAOC,EVE,WOW, RO whatever you want, Look at the number of players when the game turned gold and

compare it to the number of people online, creating a ratio or %. Let me give an example again *sigh* (how many

times do i have to re-type this?)

Lets say UO had 100,000 users in 1997, lets says in 1997 10,000,000 people were online globally. Meaning

1% of people online played UO, 1 in 100 people.

Now lets say wow had  1,000,000 users in 2004 (numbers jump to 10 mil was after china expansion) in 2004

there was say 500,000,000 people online globally.  that would mean 1 in 500 people play wow, 0.2%.

Im sure if you were to compare everquests % and ratios, you would see a game like wow isnt as "popular"

as alot of the older games. Hell even meridan had a higher % of players at one point. As you can see despite

how many actually played wow, the ratio's show wow was not nearly as popular.

People also tend to forget multi accounts into these factors too, Games like UO, EQ, nexus,Meridan did not allow

people to run multiple instances of a game " You are allready Running Ultima online" Now later on this changed

because companies saw how beneficial to them this could be. So when you think of wow and eve as examples

use those ratio's and divide that by the average accounts per player.

I could seriously go on and on , on that.  And to the people that said "we didnt have as many options in games

back then" Hell i played more games back then , than i do now. Ive been playing computer games since oregon

trail.  Now yea, u might have more games online total now, thats a given... but the quality of games to pick

from are crap. let me give yet again another example ill try to keep it simple. (times arent exact, Played tons

of games so just trying to make a point)

Right now (2012) the games i have to pick from in their primes are,  1. Rift  2. Archage 3. Diablo3 4.SWTOR

5. PS2 6. GW2 7. Repopulation 8. Eden eternal  9. FF 14 10. Tera 11. The secret world

In 2005 The games i had to pick from in their prime were... 1. WOW  2. FF11 3. Maplstory  4. Lineage2  5. EQ2

6. Trickster Online 7. RYL  8. Mir 3g  9. Rose Online 10. Gate to the heavens 11. Ragnarok online 2

12.  EVE 13.  Vendetta online 14. Trickster Online 15. Vanguard 16. City of heros 17.Conquer online 18. Dofus

19. FLYFF 20. Guildwars 21.Knight online 22. MU Online.. 23. Runescape 24. Ryzom

In 2000 range the games i had to pick from were... 1. Nexustk 2. Darkages 3.Ragnarok 4. Lineage 5. EQ 6. daoc

7. elemental saga 8. Legend of Mir 9. ultima online 10. SWG 11.   12. Diablo2 13.  El kardian

14. Savage Eden 15. Subspace 16. Meridan 59 17.  Pristontale 18. Fairy Lands 19.  Do Online 20. Asherons call

21.  Graal 22.   23. Ogre island 24. UnderLight 25. Utopia

Truth is the 2007-2009 era had more games than these 3, however... were they quality? few. Also ive grouped a few from

later games because their primes were infact in beta.  But as for comparing todays mmorpgs to games of 2004 or 2000

is hardly comparable. I had more games to pick from before 2009 than after 2009 for sure. And no i dont count all

the browser or 99% of the f2p games. i dont consider most quality. But even in 2000 i had waaay more options for

a quality game than i do now.

O

I don't think much of easyMMO's and I am not a fan of Flight Sims either. But That does not mean I want to see the end of easyMMO's or flight sims. I think there is room for all types of gameplay not just one.

Indeed I do not think we could just go back to something like UO or DAOC and copy and paste with upto date graphics for a great modern MMO. It is more complex than that. It is those who say today's MMO's are the only way to make them and we can learn nothing from the history of MMO's that seem to want only one type of gameplay.

Originally posted by Scot

I don't think much of easyMMO's and I am not a fan of Flight Sims either. But That does not mean I want to see the end of easyMMO's or flight sims. I think there is room for all types of gameplay not just one.

Indeed I do not think we could just go back to something like UO or DAOC and copy and paste with upto date graphics for a great modern MMO. It is more complex than that. It is those who say today's MMO's are the only way to make them and we can learn nothing from the history of MMO's that seem to want only one type of gameplay.

 

Going back to 15 year old gameplay ideas? That s the best hope of a genre?

I will say look forward instead of back. Instead of traditionals, devs should consider other type of online gameplay and fuse with MMO features.

I suppose there is a niche market for old ideas, and i have no problem if some games are like that. However, don't expect me to spend time in a revived UO, unless the gameplay is redesigned to be more assessible.

Originally posted by Orenshii

 

I think your a troll or something.

 

If you want to talk about popularity, Wow and games like wow are very far down the list. I hear the same crap from

alot of people on this forum, "wow is the biggest most successful" which is just flat out bullcrap!. If anyone took a

minute to use the brain they were born with, they would use ratio's and %'s to tell which games were more popular.

Take EQ,UO,DAOC,EVE,WOW, RO whatever you want, Look at the number of players when the game turned gold and

compare it to the number of people online, creating a ratio or %. Let me give an example again *sigh* (how many

times do i have to re-type this?)

 

Lets say UO had 100,000 users in 1997, lets says in 1997 10,000,000 people were online globally. Meaning

1% of people online played UO, 1 in 100 people.

 

Now lets say wow had  1,000,000 users in 2004 (numbers jump to 10 mil was after china expansion) in 2004

there was say 500,000,000 people online globally.  that would mean 1 in 500 people play wow, 0.2%.

Im sure if you were to compare everquests % and ratios, you would see a game like wow isnt as "popular"

as alot of the older games. Hell even meridan had a higher % of players at one point. As you can see despite

how many actually played wow, the ratio's show wow was not nearly as popular.

 

People also tend to forget multi accounts into these factors too, Games like UO, EQ, nexus,Meridan did not allow

people to run multiple instances of a game " You are allready Running Ultima online" Now later on this changed

because companies saw how beneficial to them this could be. So when you think of wow and eve as examples

use those ratio's and divide that by the average accounts per player.

 

I could seriously go on and on , on that.  And to the people that said "we didnt have as many options in games

back then" Hell i played more games back then , than i do now. Ive been playing computer games since oregon

trail.  Now yea, u might have more games online total now, thats a given... but the quality of games to pick

from are crap. let me give yet again another example ill try to keep it simple. (times arent exact, Played tons

of games so just trying to make a point)

 

Right now (2012) the games i have to pick from in their primes are,  1. Rift  2. Archage 3. Diablo3 4.SWTOR

5. PS2 6. GW2 7. Repopulation 8. Eden eternal  9. FF 14 10. Tera 11. The secret world

 

In 2005 The games i had to pick from in their prime were... 1. WOW  2. FF11 3. Maplstory  4. Lineage2  5. EQ2

6. Trickster Online 7. RYL  8. Mir 3g  9. Rose Online 10. Gate to the heavens 11. Ragnarok online 2

12.  EVE 13.  Vendetta online 14. Trickster Online 15. Vanguard 16. City of heros 17.Conquer online 18. Dofus

19. FLYFF 20. Guildwars 21.Knight online 22. MU Online.. 23. Runescape 24. Ryzom

 

In 2000 range the games i had to pick from were... 1. Nexustk 2. Darkages 3.Ragnarok 4. Lineage 5. EQ 6. daoc

7. elemental saga 8. Legend of Mir 9. ultima online 10. SWG 11.   12. Diablo2 13.  El kardian

14. Savage Eden 15. Subspace 16. Meridan 59 17.  Pristontale 18. Fairy Lands 19.  Do Online 20. Asherons call

21.  Graal 22.   23. Ogre island 24. UnderLight 25. Utopia

 

Truth is the 2007-2009 era had more games than these 3, however... were they quality? few. Also ive grouped a few from

later games because their primes were infact in beta.  But as for comparing todays mmorpgs to games of 2004 or 2000

is hardly comparable. I had more games to pick from before 2009 than after 2009 for sure. And no i dont count all

the browser or 99% of the f2p games. i dont consider most quality. But even in 2000 i had waaay more options for

a quality game than i do now.

O

Your info is so skewed. 

All you are saying is that geeks and nerds are early adapters and so were online first, and geeks and nerds like video games.

Therefore since there was a greater percentage of people that played EQ of the total online than today that makes it more popular.

Flawed logic.  They were the same market, early adapters and video game lovers.

Conversely many of that same group left EQ and other games when more casual games became more friendly - so I guess they weren't really that great.  Also even Smedley stated that over 1.5 milion people tried EQ and didn't stick around, so again I guess not that popular.

All EQ was, was a great game for the people that liked it back then.  Many tried it and didn't like it.