<
>
 Thread (6 posts)
Arioc  5/03/07 3:52:01 PM
#1

Rank: 58/100 Rank: 58/100 Rank: 58/100 Rank: 58/100 Rank: 58/100

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/13/04
Posts: 119

"Vae Victus!"

So I often read these and other MMORPG forums because like many of you, I grew up with UO, AC, EQ1 and played some D&D in my youth. I'm 29 now and still think back to when MMO's were first branching into the 3D realm with Meridian 59 and the possibilities of a truly open ended, giant fantasy world.


In the beginning allot of developers tried to think big, and with limited art resources and bandwidth did a good job of expanding our expectations of what defined an MMO. I think for the most part many of us have had some enjoyment in these games, even if ultimately we tired of them or found our tastes had changed to more specific elements of the genre.


Now-a-days I see alot of splintered camps, people shouting for an entirely PVP designed open ended sand-box world of massive tactical and one on one combat in a fantasy setting (I believe AoC is proposing to offer some of that). Others want a raid game, with large time investments to make rewards more meaningful (ala the Vanguard, EQ2 and WoW's out there that focus on End-Game raiding). And a few of us who want a big open ended sandbox world with a smaller scope. Groups for end-game rather then raids, a huge majority of solo or duo able content in a massive world that's "Filled" with quests, not just big for the sense of travel. I knew I got that vibe from Asherons Call 1, the world felt big but the portal ring ways made travel pretty easy, and there was always some sort of creature on my radar as I ran across the world, even if I didn't see it (probably why vanguard feels so barren, you can't see mobs on your radar so if you don't see the beetle hive behind the rock as you run by the area feels barren.. or it just is :D ).


With so many specific tastes and demands from us gamers who've distilled what elements in the MMO we really yearn for, can any one game truly satisfy us? I know I for one do not like forced PVP, I enjoy it as an option for end-game, but want it to be optional. I also do not enjoy raids, I like play sessions to last a few hours, and never to be scheduled ahead of time so that it feels like a second job. When I have to devote my Saturday to a raid or else my guild will frown upon me,I feel like I've lost my weekend and thus the game becomes a second job. Likewise I don't enjoy a world devoted to crafting or diplomacy but enjoy those elements in the world. I guess Asherons Call 1 back in the hay-day was more my taste, big seamless world, lots of interesting Points of Interest and a pretty good sense of critters dwelling in the world rather then being in a region designed for a specific level range. Running across the beach hunting dillo's to occasionally have to skirt a cluster of higher level mobs which were wandering down the coast. That sort of mix made the world feel more dynamic rather then sectioned off for specific level ranges.


Sorry, going off on a tangent. What my point is, (about time I got to it) can there possibly be a game that satisfies one faction of MMO player without alienating others? Often some of these designs seem counter to others, so there does not seem to be a way to do everything in one. Should game be categorized for PVP, for Sandbox, for Raid?

 

Arioc Murkwood
Environment Artist
Ceridan  5/03/07 6:00:32 PM
#2

Rank: 1/100 Rank: 1/100 Rank: 1/100 Rank: 1/100 Rank: 1/100

Novice Member

Joined: 7/26/03
Posts: 21

Simple answer....Nope.
 
Arioc  5/03/07 6:09:44 PM
#3

Rank: 58/100 Rank: 58/100 Rank: 58/100 Rank: 58/100 Rank: 58/100

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/13/04
Posts: 119

"Vae Victus!"
Nope to what? Explain.

Arioc Murkwood
Environment Artist
ignisfatuus  5/03/07 6:25:20 PM
#4

Rank: 31/100 Rank: 31/100 Rank: 31/100 Rank: 31/100 Rank: 31/100

Apprentice Member

Joined: 10/24/06
Posts: 34

It's rather simple, really: you cannot please everyone.  No matter how inclusive a game may be, someone is going to feel alienated or demand more of what they like, whether it be raiding or PvP.  Rather than try to please everyone, it would probably be wiser to cater to one group instead of watering down various aspects of the game in an ill-advised "Big Tent" approach.  Take WoW for instance, a runaway success by any means.  The game is intrinsically PVE, but they decide to tack on PvP as an afterthought.  That, in turn, created all kinds of balance problems that are plaguing the game. 

Why not do one thing well?  As long as it holds appeal for enough subscribers to garner a reasonable profit, this would seem the wisest approach. 
 
turnipz  5/03/07 9:36:23 PM
#5

Rank: 32/100 Rank: 32/100 Rank: 32/100 Rank: 32/100 Rank: 32/100

Apprentice Member

Joined: 2/06/07
Posts: 531

Bad example I think as balance problems can always be fixed by a person with enough knowledge of the game.  Anyways heres a good example of 2 people discussing whether a game should be turn based like lineage 2 or free flowing like diablo 2.

A) Duels in D2 weren't just about gears and levels (although yes they were a factor).Real time combat dueling like in D2 was also requiring skill to be successful unlike the "click and watch" system of most popular mmo.It was very important to know how to move/teleport on the field so that you could avoid attacks and it was also important to have a good timing.I don't know if you dueled at the higher echelons of the game but saying that it didn't require skills is uninformed to say the least.

B) 'aim'? Theres a few flash games on the net that you could play if you want to aim.. regardless of it being on auto attack, it saves a lot of time and makes it a more balanced game cause if the archers had the ability to aim...a majority of the archers would miss, especially when they are lagging. While other characters can just double click and it auto-locks. Making the game similar to just making it capable to point, aim and shoot would destroy that part of the game. There's no point in it unfortunately. The game is fantastic as it is, and I can't say much if you're not one to like playing MMO' rpgs. Gunz seems to be a point and shoot. But if you don't learn to butterfly before lv 21 you're pretty much in the same situation....



-They cant even decide a thing as simple as that, so there is no way to satisfy them both with the same game.
 
Ohaan  5/04/07 1:33:26 AM
#6

Rank: 47/100 Rank: 47/100 Rank: 47/100 Rank: 47/100 Rank: 47/100

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/20/06
Posts: 485

Be like water
Originally posted by Arioc

Sorry, going off on a tangent. What my point is, (about time I got to it) can there possibly be a game that satisfies one faction of MMO player without alienating others? Often some of these designs seem counter to others, so there does not seem to be a way to do everything in one. Should game be categorized for PVP, for Sandbox, for Raid?

I agree that some of the different MMO models and features are mutually exclusive (ie counter to others). Consequently no single MMO can be all things to all players.

Sure some have included aspects of different models in a single title but the result is really multiple games of varying sizes under the same program (like battlegrounds in WoW).

MMOs with steep level curves and heavy itemization make for poor PvP games due to ganking issues from higher level and better equipped players. Plus PvP oriented players often don't have the patience for months of grinding to make a toon competitive.

The MMO market is still growing so there are still lots of new players to the genre who eat up 'smorgasboard' titles. Hopefully there will come a time when the industry starts to recognize the market for purists be they PvE, PvP, sandbox, etc.