Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Cuathon
This may come as a shock to you but some of us are intellectually more capable than others. It doesn't mean we are more worthwhile as human beings, it just means what it says.

 

---

The problem is that the people saying stuff like this are using MMORPG to somehow prove it. Starting with Ultima Online, and ending with Guild Wars 2, anyone with below average intelligence and up can achieve the highest measures of success in all of these games. It just doesn't take that much intelligence to be a 'master' of these games.

 

LOL, never meant to imply that I was intellectually gifted. My wife would argue otherwise. I simply pointed out that the content being marketed these days is wholly less challenging and utterly designed from the bottom up to appeal to people who prefer not to put any real thought into their games. Everything is easier and less time consuming to appeal to everyone's desire for measureable accomplishment and gratification within ever shorter gaming sessions. I found Wurm challenging. I found taking 5 new players on an expedition to an island with no players on it, fighting our way past tons of tuff mobs, building a guard tower, and eventually a city, far more challenging and fulfilling than anything I ever did in say Fallen Earth or Warcraft as an example. It required planning, effort, plenty of failures, some comical deaths, but eventually we triumphed.

That to me is more entertaining that rinse and repeat battlegrounds and mass produced quests.

Originally posted by Ciano

 

LOL, never meant to imply that I was intellectually gifted. My wife would argue otherwise. I simply pointed out that the content being marketed these days is wholly less challenging and utterly designed from the bottom up to appeal to people who prefer not to put any real thought into their games. Everything is easier and less time consuming to appeal to everyone's desire for measureable accomplishment and gratification within ever shorter gaming sessions. I found Wurm challenging. I found taking 5 new players on an expedition to an island with no players on it, fighting our way past tons of tuff mobs, building a guard tower, and eventually a city, far more challenging and fulfilling than anything I ever did in say Fallen Earth or Warcraft as an example. It required planning, effort, plenty of failures, some comical deaths, but eventually we triumphed.

That to me is more entertaining that rinse and repeat battlegrounds and mass produced quests.

To many, it is not more entertaining. In fact, i don't want to file an application to get into a guild, and commit to a raid schedule. I have done that .. it is not hard, but also not entertaining. Pick up and kill games are more entertaining, to me.

That is why MMOs are no longer "worlds" ... worlds are not that entertaining to many. It gets in the way of fun.

In fact, "rinse and repeat" battleground is hugely entertaining to many people ... look at the success of LOL.

Originally posted by Ciano

Originally posted by Slampig

Originally posted by Ciano

..... and swap romantic texts with some 40 year old man claiming to be an 18 year old college student.   That my friends is the extent of the imagination of gamers these days.

Ahh, the "burly bearded lonely truck driver mistaken for a comely young lass syndrome".

I'm not really sure that that's imagination, but I'm not sure what else to call it.

Originally posted by Onomas

 

Not a huge step up... who do you see in the news mostly for all kinds of issues and mental problems...........

movie stars, sports players, few doctors, a lot of politicians, etc.........

Societies elite are often the worst people.

If your definition of 'worst people' are people that save other people's lives every day, you have a very different mind than me; and not in a good way.

/Back on topic

Some like to read and others like to write. I don't think either activity is better than the other but I accept those that want to 'read' are larger than those who want to 'write'. Nothing wrong with that as I myself would rather 'read' as well.

Games are a disposable entertainment product for me. Don't like it? Tough.

Originally posted by jpnz

Issue with this 'golden age of gaming' is that the MMO scene at the time was very niche and was not mainstream.

If that's what you call 'golden age', then that's your call.

As someone who loves MMOs and want more people to play it, I disagree and say that's the 'dark age of gaming' where 'MMO player' = 'lived in parents basement' to a lot of people and was shun.

I ask this question to every OP that posts this kind of stuff; 'what MMO do you sub right now? Are you actually putting your money where your mouth is?'

Yes it is his call as to what his idea of the golden age of gaming is. I tend to agree with the OP more than the modern view of the current MMO ... which is an on-rails 3 week to cap experience, as being a proper MMO.  Modern MMO's are not worlds when no interaction is needed. It's thousands of single player games on a server.This is no MMO to me.  Its gaming built on the "easy button" made to give modern gamers what the developers have taught you to believe. 80 hours of graphical eye-candy to get to level 80, because more level-ups obviously means the game is bigger, and endgame content consisting of the same 4 dungeon runs over and over for drops and PvP matches because thats what you consider entertainment. I certainly don't consider this the golden age of gaming. What you have now is exactly what you were taught to accept by the game makers. Disposable games to take the disposable income of disposable players, and each time you buy the next one you are putting your money where their mouth is.

"Where success actually requires a community of players to survive"

Well said sir very well said. I remember raiding was frickin raiding and 25-40-10 ppl w/e the case may be, we had to work yogether and figure it out and wipe and pick ourselves off the floor then come back and do it all over again untill we mastered it! I misss that shit

ATITD, EvE and Wurm are all like this. Although ATITD lacks combat.

Its clearly possible for an individual or a small company to make a successful cooperation based MMO that makes a profit. So why can't a major company who has access to marketing, superior art assets and dozens of industry veterans?

Originally posted by Cuathon

ATITD, EvE and Wurm are all like this. Although ATITD lacks combat.

Its clearly possible for an individual or a small company to make a successful cooperation based MMO that makes a profit. So why can't a major company who has access to marketing, superior art assets and dozens of industry veterans?

Its not as profitable.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Cuathon

ATITD, EvE and Wurm are all like this. Although ATITD lacks combat.

Its clearly possible for an individual or a small company to make a successful cooperation based MMO that makes a profit. So why can't a major company who has access to marketing, superior art assets and dozens of industry veterans?

Its not as profitable.

Not as profitable sure. But still profitable. It certainly wouldnt bomb as hard as SWTOR.

Originally posted by VendettaDFA

 

Yes it is his call as to what his idea of the golden age of gaming is. I tend to agree with the OP more than the modern view of the current MMO ... which is an on-rails 3 week to cap experience, as being a proper MMO.  Modern MMO's are not worlds when no interaction is needed. It's thousands of single player games on a server.This is no MMO to me.  Its gaming built on the "easy button" made to give modern gamers what the developers have taught you to believe. 80 hours of graphical eye-candy to get to level 80, because more level-ups obviously means the game is bigger, and endgame content consisting of the same 4 dungeon runs over and over for drops and PvP matches because thats what you consider entertainment. I certainly don't consider this the golden age of gaming. What you have now is exactly what you were taught to accept by the game makers. Disposable games to take the disposable income of disposable players, and each time you buy the next one you are putting your money where their mouth is.

Yes cause speaking on behalf of me is always a good debating tactic. ROFL. 

I wasn't taught to accept anything as I always treated video games as disposable entertainment products. I'm pretty sure the mainstream does as well.

I buy / sub a game with my friends or those I know from the SA community and play. Finish / get bored and move on to the next game.

My playstyle and thinking is the majority so that's where the $$$ is.

It might not be your playstyle or thinking but that's irrelevent. Free-market is working as intended.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Cuathon
 

Its not as profitable.

Not as profitable sure. But still profitable. It certainly wouldnt bomb as hard as SWTOR.

Why make less money when you can make more money?

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Cuathon
 

Its not as profitable.

Not as profitable sure. But still profitable. It certainly wouldnt bomb as hard as SWTOR.

Why make less money when you can make more money?

oh we can clearly see them making more money with the latest MMO's..?

what we are trying to say is why make a game to attract millions wich is not of a good enough quality to suport said millions. in the long run the game will take so much time and money to develop evrything for evreyone of a bad to mediocre quality and people will move on in an instant resulting in a very minor profit.

Instead they could make a good/ near perfect quality game for a smaller targeted audience, wich will have a greater longlivity = more money or atleast a  stable game (hello EVE online)

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Cuathon
 

Its not as profitable.

Not as profitable sure. But still profitable. It certainly wouldnt bomb as hard as SWTOR.

Why make less money when you can make more money?

Or you could make 5-6 targetted games for niche parts of the player base for the same amount of money and ignore the marketing campaign saving a hundred million in advertising because niche players find and play niche games. Further they accept inferior graphics because gameplay is king and you save on the art budget. Even further they are more dedicated to their games and stay longer and pay more.

Just because someone owns a company doesn't mean they understand people or capitalism. Before we had a dozen 100mil+ AAA free to play games out trying to make the next WoW made sense but now the rich assholes need to grow a set and dive into a new strategy.

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by VendettaDFA

 

Yes it is his call as to what his idea of the golden age of gaming is. I tend to agree with the OP more than the modern view of the current MMO ... which is an on-rails 3 week to cap experience, as being a proper MMO.  Modern MMO's are not worlds when no interaction is needed. It's thousands of single player games on a server.This is no MMO to me.  Its gaming built on the "easy button" made to give modern gamers what the developers have taught you to believe. 80 hours of graphical eye-candy to get to level 80, because more level-ups obviously means the game is bigger, and endgame content consisting of the same 4 dungeon runs over and over for drops and PvP matches because thats what you consider entertainment. I certainly don't consider this the golden age of gaming. What you have now is exactly what you were taught to accept by the game makers. Disposable games to take the disposable income of disposable players, and each time you buy the next one you are putting your money where their mouth is.

Yes cause speaking on behalf of me is always a good debating tactic. ROFL. 

I wasn't taught to accept anything as I always treated video games as disposable entertainment products. I'm pretty sure the mainstream does as well.

I buy / sub a game with my friends or those I know from the SA community and play. Finish / get bored and move on to the next game.

My playstyle and thinking is the majority so that's where the $$$ is.

It might not be your playstyle or thinking but that's irrelevent. Free-market is working as intended.

On behalf of you? hardly.

There are 6 pages of this thread as evidence that you are not the majority, only that you are arrogant in thinking you are. You have an opinion that is no more or less relevent than anyone elses - /discussion over.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Loss? We gain an immense amont of gameplay. Now we have MOBA, lobby style MMO, arena pvp .. none of these styles are available in the beginning. Choices are good. Rejoice!

 

Many of the things we hail as a revolution these days we had back in the 90's and 00's, sure not as fleshed out as they are now, but i dont see the fact that those playstyles suddenly came to your attention as a vindication for the loss of any particular playstyle.

Would you, if the tables were turned?

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by VendettaDFA

Originally posted by jpnz

 

Yes cause speaking on behalf of me is always a good debating tactic. ROFL. 

I wasn't taught to accept anything as I always treated video games as disposable entertainment products. I'm pretty sure the mainstream does as well.

I buy / sub a game with my friends or those I know from the SA community and play. Finish / get bored and move on to the next game.

My playstyle and thinking is the majority so that's where the $$$ is.

It might not be your playstyle or thinking but that's irrelevent. Free-market is working as intended.

On behalf of you? hardly.

There are 6 pages of this thread as evidence that you are not the majority, only that you are arrogant in thinking you are. You have an opinion that is no more or less relevent than anyone elses - /discussion over.

I was talking about actual real-life where sub numbers and $$$ are measured, reported and audited; as in FACTS.

Free-market has been saying one thing for the past 7 years; 'make WoW clones!'.

Whether you think I'm arrogant in thinking 'Facts are facts' doesn't change that.

Btw, how does saying 'These are the facts' come through as arrogant?

'It is a fact that the sky is blue' - that is arrogant? LOLWUT?

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Cuathon
 

Its not as profitable.

Not as profitable sure. But still profitable. It certainly wouldnt bomb as hard as SWTOR.

Why make less money when you can make more money?

Or you could make 5-6 targetted games for niche parts of the player base for the same amount of money and ignore the marketing campaign saving a hundred million in advertising because niche players find and play niche games. Further they accept inferior graphics because gameplay is king and you save on the art budget. Even further they are more dedicated to their games and stay longer and pay more.

 

Just because someone owns a company doesn't mean they understand people or capitalism. Before we had a dozen 100mil+ AAA free to play games out trying to make the next WoW made sense but now the rich assholes need to grow a set and dive into a new strategy.

I get the strong feeling you are not basing your arguments on reality. Hundred million in advertising... Yeah right.

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by VendettaDFA

Originally posted by jpnz

 

Yes cause speaking on behalf of me is always a good debating tactic. ROFL. 

I wasn't taught to accept anything as I always treated video games as disposable entertainment products. I'm pretty sure the mainstream does as well.

I buy / sub a game with my friends or those I know from the SA community and play. Finish / get bored and move on to the next game.

My playstyle and thinking is the majority so that's where the $$$ is.

It might not be your playstyle or thinking but that's irrelevent. Free-market is working as intended.

On behalf of you? hardly.

There are 6 pages of this thread as evidence that you are not the majority, only that you are arrogant in thinking you are. You have an opinion that is no more or less relevent than anyone elses - /discussion over.

I was talking about actual real-life where sub numbers and $$$ are measured, reported and audited; as in FACTS.

Free-market has been saying one thing for the past 7 years; 'make WoW clones!'.

Whether you think I'm arrogant in thinking 'Facts are facts' doesn't change that.

 

Btw, how does saying 'These are the facts' come through as arrogant?

'It is a fact that the sky is blue' - that is arrogant? LOLWUT?

Where are you comming up with these so called facts?

WOW has been succesfull yes for 8 years i don't see any of these Wow clones as being succesfull. alot have either shut down or are in a very shaky situation. how do you call that being succesfull? It does not say Make Wow clones anymore. it says oke WoW does great but the clones are failing we need a new method. that is what the free market is saying. the Suits are just too slow to realise it.

and again targeting a smaller audience with a very good game will bring in more money then going for those millions of people with a half assed game because it needs so many features.