On these forums, you constantly see things like "MMORPGS need to have more of this", "That is the most important feature of a successful MMORPG", and my favorite "They need to be creative and make an original, unique, and innovative MMORPG that's just like Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies". 

It seems like most of us assume that all mmorpgs have the same goals in mind, and it's just a question of how well they meet them.  Should this really be the case?

Not too long ago, I read Designing Virtual Worlds by Richard Bartle.  One of the points he repeatedly emphasizes is that ideas that work well for some virtual worlds do not work as well for others.  This seems logical, and in retrospect it seems almost ridiculous to expect them to all need the same features to be good.

I mean, take another form of entertainment, like books.  You don't hear people say, "Every book needs a twist ending!", or "Books will fail without a tragic romance!".

Even players who want change still seem to think this way.  An example is the thing I said in the first paragraph.  I want a good sandbox too, but I'm forced to admit there's a difference between a new idea and an old idea that was never developed to its full potential.  And players who advocate different ideas generally seem to think that ALL mmorpgs should implement those ideas.

Another thing I see players to is assume every game has the same target audience, especially when talking about new ideas for games.  "The majority of players don't want a game like that",  or "That game would be the WOW-killer".  Isn't it possible that a new game wouldn't even be competing with WOW?  Take TV for example.  A show doesn't need to "beat" American Idol or whatever to be successful, nor does it have to appeal to the American Idol audience.  It seems to me like mmorpgs are the same way.  There are niches to be filled, and there is profit in those niches. 

Anyway, it seems to me like we're so used to seeing clone after clone that we've forgotten there could be other ways.  I think it's important that we remember that there is room in the market for more than one type or mmorpg.

I agree for example for people who like simplicity espically kids and for a first mmorpg should go to world of warcraft its easily fun for most of them because unlike mmorpg vets there not looking for the depth, freedom, content, and features that we are looking for, you also have cox which is a mix of depth, freedom, and simplicity its also good for first time mmorpgers but it just isnt enough for vets.

We just need mulitple mmorpgs that are for everyone, you have the sandbox games listing ryzom as the top, anarchy online as the second, and maybe eve as the third simply because it doesnt offer enough variety in pve in my opinion. So eve should be listed as hardcore pvp I only played the free trial so I may be wrong.

As you can see we already are starting to get the variety the problem is that there is not much yet and most companys are still making lame clones, and free mmorpg grinding anime crap with item malls.

Originally posted by Angelbound

I agree for example for people who like simplicity espically kids and for a first mmorpg should go to world of warcraft its easily fun for most of them because unlike mmorpg vets there not looking for the depth, freedom, content, and features that we are looking for, you also have cox which is a mix of depth, freedom, and simplicity its also good for first time mmorpgers but it just isnt enough for vets.

Passive aggressive much?

Lots of  "Vets" play World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft is the pinnacle of a particular style game. The majority of MMORPGs on the market are in the same genre of MMO as WoW.

I'm sure the forum people on mudconnect.com would tell you what a vet is. Beyond that, the majority of  "Vets" come from UO or EQ.

Many of which play World of Warcraft, or have played.

As to the topic, there is an underlining model in most of the titles beyond the wizards and warriors type fantasy worlds. Its the leveling progression system.

Its far to common in my opinion. There are so many ways you can mark a persons progression other then with experience points. Experience seems to be the most commonly used, adopted method though.

Why this is, i have no idea.  I'd like to see another skill based progression system in a major MMO.

I want to level up a skill to the next rank based on how much i use that skill, not how much i used other skills to achieve that next level.

I totally agree with the OP. Sandbox skill system i think is the future.

I always liked the idea that you had to adventure to teach your character new stuff, and then using that new stuff is what made it better, stronger.

Maybe even being able to teach others new skills once you had mastered them. How come you can't go to someone who is a master at something, in most games, you still have to go to an NPC trainer to upgrade their skill? Are all PC characters inherently have teaching disabilities?

I concur.  Which is why I made

http://hpmmo.blogspot.com/

It's more than about just one game.  Its about what games are in general. 

Many vets might play wow but I have seen many quit, there really is not much else out there I garuntee if there was a much better variety they would not be playing wow. Agressive? Hardly its a fact that wow is alot more linear and simple compared to older mmorpgs its just another gear grind in the end, I know some older ones where to but atleast it allowed you more freedom as far as choices go in progression and group exp was much more encouraged and your skills would truly shine in groups. World of warcraft is a decent mmorpg for what it is but it simply lacks many things older ones had or have.

I don't think we the gamers have forgotten that, I think it's the producers. Or more to the point, producers don't care about filling niches and making "groundbreaking" or "unique" games. They *want* to make a "successful" MMOG and make lots of money. The best way to do that is look at what make MMOGs like WoW so successful and try to emulate that. Mainstream producers aren't going to make the truly unique MMOGs. For that we need to look to and support those smaller, independant developers...

I just realized how bad my grammer is espically on this thread, my apologies. I will try to take more time on my posts in the future.

Originally posted by Kabbax

Originally posted by Angelbound

I agree for example for people who like simplicity espically kids and for a first mmorpg should go to world of warcraft its easily fun for most of them because unlike mmorpg vets there not looking for the depth, freedom, content, and features that we are looking for, you also have cox which is a mix of depth, freedom, and simplicity its also good for first time mmorpgers but it just isnt enough for vets.

 

Passive aggressive much?

 

Lots of  "Vets" play World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft is the pinnacle of a particular style game. The majority of MMORPGs on the market are in the same genre of MMO as WoW.

I'm sure the forum people on mudconnect.com would tell you what a vet is. Beyond that, the majority of  "Vets" come from UO or EQ.

Many of which play World of Warcraft, or have played.

 

As to the topic, there is an underlining model in most of the titles beyond the wizards and warriors type fantasy worlds. Its the leveling progression system.

Its far to common in my opinion. There are so many ways you can mark a persons progression other then with experience points. Experience seems to be the most commonly used, adopted method though.

Why this is, i have no idea.  I'd like to see another skill based progression system in a major MMO.

I want to level up a skill to the next rank based on how much i use that skill, not how much i used other skills to achieve that next level.

I totally agree with the OP. Sandbox skill system i think is the future.

I always liked the idea that you had to adventure to teach your character new stuff, and then using that new stuff is what made it better, stronger.

Maybe even being able to teach others new skills once you had mastered them. How come you can't go to someone who is a master at something, in most games, you still have to go to an NPC trainer to upgrade their skill? Are all PC characters inherently have teaching disabilities?

 

 

They should make games where you swing your sword a million times to level up your sword skill for people that like that sort of thing, but personally I couldnt' think of anything more unrealistic or boring.

How do you get good at something in real life? You practice right? Who wants to roleplay practicing? Not me.

I mean, if you wanted to get really good at throwing a knife, for example, you wouldn't practice by getting in fights then throwing a knife. You'd go in the backyard, and make a target and throw a knife every day for a couple of hours.

Same thing with a bow. You wouldn't practice with a bow by going deer hunting, you'd set up a target, and practice a couple hours a day until you got good, adn THEN you'd go deer hunting.

I have an imagination. I can IMAGINE I went and shot a bow at a target a million times to get better, without actually seeing that on the screen.

I'll take the skill points, and then spend them, instead of doing something over and over and over to raise my skill. That just feels retarded to me.

But, they should make those games for people that like them.

Grandfathers clause of stupidity.

As Darkholme said, it's not the players who have forgotten that games don't all have to be the same, it's the developers.  That's an over generalization but if we're going to start placing blame let's at least place it where it belongs.  We, the players, have very little control over the production of games.

One of the big problems I see is that devs are always trying to appeal to a bunch of different demographics all in the same game.  So they cram a bunch of conflicting things together all in one game and it just creates problems and then we, the players, go at each others throats because of it when really the devs are to blame.

The OP pointed out that games don't all have to appeal to the same audience.  That's true.  Now get the developers to understand that you'll have done something good for the genre.

Originally posted by Angelbound

I agree for example for people who like simplicity espically kids and for a first mmorpg should go to world of warcraft its easily fun for most of them because unlike mmorpg vets there not looking for the depth, freedom, content, and features that we are looking for, you also have cox which is a mix of depth, freedom, and simplicity its also good for first time mmorpgers but it just isnt enough for vets.

We just need mulitple mmorpgs that are for everyone, you have the sandbox games listing ryzom as the top, anarchy online as the second, and maybe eve as the third simply because it doesnt offer enough variety in pve in my opinion. So eve should be listed as hardcore pvp I only played the free trial so I may be wrong.

As you can see we already are starting to get the variety the problem is that there is not much yet and most companys are still making lame clones, and free mmorpg grinding anime crap with item malls.

      I have to disagree with you...The problem with sending your kids to WoW as theior first MMO is that they are going to expect all MMOs to hold their hand and be extremely casual friendly......Id rather have my kid go to a tough MMO where there were some consequences for dying and where they have to earn everything......While there is definitely room for niche games it seems that most companies today are only going to try for what sells and not to find that unique niche game that can draw 250k........While alot of people love WoW it has completely changed the MMO genre (and not in very many good ways) and we're going to see these easy hand-holding, casual friendly games until companies feel they wont sell anymore......

I'm not saying that players are responsible for the current situation.  I'm saying that it's started to deeply affect the way we view games.  Even people who want something different, like sandbox, tend to act like EVERY game needs to be different in the same way.

Different systems can work differently for different target markets and settings.  Furthermore, every game does not need to be a variation on the same system.  I'm sure there are new ideas to be found unrelated to the linear-sandbox continuum.  Finally, there is more than one type of mmorpg player.

Why is the linear, timesink grindfest considered "mass market"?  It seems to me like it's as much of a niche as anything.  I'll bet the main reason people who play that are more numerous is because there are more games and marketing targeted at them than any other market.

Originally posted by gillvane1

Originally posted by Kabbax

Originally posted by Angelbound

I agree for example for people who like simplicity espically kids and for a first mmorpg should go to world of warcraft its easily fun for most of them because unlike mmorpg vets there not looking for the depth, freedom, content, and features that we are looking for, you also have cox which is a mix of depth, freedom, and simplicity its also good for first time mmorpgers but it just isnt enough for vets.

 

Passive aggressive much?

 

Lots of  "Vets" play World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft is the pinnacle of a particular style game. The majority of MMORPGs on the market are in the same genre of MMO as WoW.

I'm sure the forum people on mudconnect.com would tell you what a vet is. Beyond that, the majority of  "Vets" come from UO or EQ.

Many of which play World of Warcraft, or have played.

 

As to the topic, there is an underlining model in most of the titles beyond the wizards and warriors type fantasy worlds. Its the leveling progression system.

Its far to common in my opinion. There are so many ways you can mark a persons progression other then with experience points. Experience seems to be the most commonly used, adopted method though.

Why this is, i have no idea.  I'd like to see another skill based progression system in a major MMO.

I want to level up a skill to the next rank based on how much i use that skill, not how much i used other skills to achieve that next level.

I totally agree with the OP. Sandbox skill system i think is the future.

I always liked the idea that you had to adventure to teach your character new stuff, and then using that new stuff is what made it better, stronger.

Maybe even being able to teach others new skills once you had mastered them. How come you can't go to someone who is a master at something, in most games, you still have to go to an NPC trainer to upgrade their skill? Are all PC characters inherently have teaching disabilities?

 

 

 

They should make games where you swing your sword a million times to level up your sword skill for people that like that sort of thing, but personally I couldnt' think of anything more unrealistic or boring.

Virtually Every single MMO does this.  Actually I've only played one that didn't.  Even the much talked about WoW does this.  Yes your total possible ability goes up with each level but (pulling numbers out of the air) at level 20 say your 2h sword skill is 45/100, at level 21 it will be 45/205, meaning you aren't any better at using that sword unless you actually use it.

How do you get good at something in real life? You practice right? Who wants to roleplay practicing? Not me.

I mean, if you wanted to get really good at throwing a knife, for example, you wouldn't practice by getting in fights then throwing a knife. You'd go in the backyard, and make a target and throw a knife every day for a couple of hours.

Same thing with a bow. You wouldn't practice with a bow by going deer hunting, you'd set up a target, and practice a couple hours a day until you got good, adn THEN you'd go deer hunting.

I have an imagination. I can IMAGINE I went and shot a bow at a target a million times to get better, without actually seeing that on the screen.

I'll take the skill points, and then spend them, instead of doing something over and over and over to raise my skill. That just feels retarded to me.

But, they should make those games for people that like them.

Venge Sunsoar

Originally posted by Neanderthal

As Darkholme said, it's not the players who have forgotten that games don't all have to be the same, it's the developers.  That's an over generalization but if we're going to start placing blame let's at least place it where it belongs.  We, the players, have very little control over the production of games.

One of the big problems I see is that devs are always trying to appeal to a bunch of different demographics all in the same game.  So they cram a bunch of conflicting things together all in one game and it just creates problems and then we, the players, go at each others throats because of it when really the devs are to blame.

The OP pointed out that games don't all have to appeal to the same audience.  That's true.  Now get the developers to understand that you'll have done something good for the genre.

One of my buzz-phrases back around the time between the release of Ultima Online: Renaissance and Ultima Online: Age of Shadows was... "developers are more and more pandering to the lowest common denominator of the gaming public in order to make the most sales". This is even more true now than it was back then. As I've said before, the face of the "gamer" has changed a lot in the last decade. Mostly I blame the crossover of console games and gamers into the realms that used to be predominantly PC gamers. In order to make games and gaming more "mainstream", games are many times "dumbed down"  to appeal to a wider audience. This is not a trend we're likely to see change as long as there is lots of cash to be made by the bigger producers.

Well any good parent would know wow is not for there kids I agree with this 100 percent I would not want my kid playing hardly any online games unless I know there not going to get addicted, I would likely have them play cox over wow. The community is really bad for kids anyways, but I was stating sadly it is many kids first mmorpg and there parents let them play it because it looks cartoony without actually testing out the game for more then an hour.