Originally posted by Korhindi 

Two"  Community.  Even the best game will fail if it is full of smacktards, trolls, fanbois, jerks etc.  If the execution part is bad, then farmers and bots can add to this plague.  In this case, it matters not if you group or solo, pvp or carebear; if the community is bad, there is no point in playing the MMO.  Likewise, a great community can elevate a mediocre MMO to something greater than its base self.

 

Hmm.

WoW has the worst community in MMO history by far, yet it succeeds,

Ideas are easy.  We all have ideas.  Nothing anyone here has thought up is original.  Your ideas have been tossed around at many developer's brain storming sessions.    Having good ideas that work is the tough part.    THAT's hard.  Anyone can toss around ideas or throw a bunch of features in a game.  But if those ideas don't work, they're bad ideas.  Dark&Light and SB are recent examples of some cool ideas with horrible implimentation.  WAR actually has a bunch of great ideas in it as well, but so far very few are meshing at all.  

Making an innovative MMO is very, very easy.  Making an innovative MMO FUN is very, very hard.   It takes a great developer to take new ideas and actually make them fun, much less work.  Thats where Blizzard excelled.  They were able to take pre-existing ideas and make them better, something most other developers couldn't do.  Then they threw some unique ideas on top of the improved working ideas and there ya go.   Blizzard couldn't just rehash ideas.  They had to break them down and start from scratch to realize why each one was good and bad.  Too many developers think you can just throw a bunch of ideas together and call it a game...TR, D&L, SB, Horizons, VG and many more.

edit - There are plenty of other MMOs that let you solo, yet they aren't as succesful.  Bzzzt, try again=)

Advertising can't convince people to pay $15 a month.

Graphics can't convince people to pay $15 a month.

A BIG name can't convince people to pay $15 a month.

Friends can't convince people to pay $15 a month....some sad individuals do play games they find boring just because of the people.  /boggle

The ONLY thing that can convince a person to play a game month after month is gameplay.  FUN gameplay.

Originally posted by Elikal

In my opinion the main reason for most games who fail lies in oversimplification, in narrowing the game towards once niche too much. That doesnt mean that said MMO really has to close to actually fail. If a failed game is closed is part of the company ideology and of course monetary backing. Now a game is too narrowed down when it aims for ONE target audience only. MMOs who do that almost ALL failed so far.

Some of these narrowed games can be quite big and vast, but usually the defining pieces makes it really appealing for one target group only. Lets take two very different examples, Tabula Rasa and Vanguard.

TR was essentially an online shooter. If we review it honestly, everything else was just decoraton. In the core, what you did 90% of your game time was running around and shooting at things as in a shooter. So it was really interesting only for this one target audience. The rest tried it out a while and left. On top of that, TR had two fundamental flaws, because essentially the developers were unable or unwilling to admit the truth to themselves: the truth that they had created a shooter, and not a MMORPG. Now most people who love shooter prefer to make it as PVP, they dont want to shoot bots. Second, most of these guys dont need a subscription based MMO, they play online for free in TF, CS or whatever is fashion these days. So TR had ONE target audience, and everything they did went totally away from that target group's gaming habits. If you narrow a game down on one pillar, the risk is considerably higher as if you would base a MMO on several pillars.

VG, while being complex, had one defiing principle, when it was designed: they wanted to bring back the hardships of the EQ days. VG was made by EQ devs and geeks, and they thought to base everything fitting for that supposed hardcorish, EQtesque, UO-loving playerbase. For a long time VG was advertised with harsh verbal images. The devs boasted how they loved the corpse runs in underwear and to really cry from the losses of death and long, deadly journeys asf. (Or think how the "No crying in the red circle" of PotBS - backfired.) Now, however hardcorish VG really was is of no importance, but VG NEVER got a chance after that. Both the VG devs and the fans greatly overestimated the number of those willing to endure EQ/UO era hardships today. I know, the official story is, VG was brought down by bugs and performance, but really, I dont think so. I think the bugs and performance issues were more a projection screen for the fundamental flaw: the idea to revive a game concept which like the dinosaures had died out for a reason!

The EQ/UO hardship ideology didnt die out because of some evil scheme or accident, it died out because it was inferior to the accessibilty of other, modern MMOs. Like a man with a sword dies in a war fought with guns. Some things cant be turned back. Once NPCs didnt have that symbol over their head, indicating the quest giver. You had to ASK everyone. Both SWG and EQ2 started that way, and EQ2 added the overhead symbols when WOW made them popular. Now VG was FULL of tiresome timesinks. 90% of all the VG "hardships" werent difficult or challanging, 90% of them were just mere timesinks. And when VG was launched, the vast majority of potential MMO gamers just didnt want such timesinks anymore. SO VG was based on one target audience: the leftover dinosaurs who still accepted such timesinks. Only because of THAT the bugs and performance issues brought VG down. If VG would have been bug free and with good performance it still would not have fared better than AoC.

VG didnt die because of the death penalty or any old school features brought in by eq1 or uo.  it died because the game was fucked up, you couldnt play for more then 10 mins w/o crashing or memory leaks and all that crap. and it lagged its ass off every step of the way.

also the game was unfinished, and never had half the features they promised. *cough* age of conan *cough* lol

VG still doesnt have some of the things promised when it launched. i played it in beta and it sucked then but hoped it would improve at launch, i had already pre ordered the uber edition

and boy did i regret it, i loved the gameplay for what it was worth but damn the game was just unplayable and that made it unbareable

so your wrong, maybe thats what killed it for you but for pretty much all of the other people it wasnt death penalties that made them quit

and not npc's not having a stupid ass bubble over their heads makes the game better imo

i get more into the game when it requires me to think and not just go durrr and follow the pretty arrows and lines and click on bubble people

No, WoW was the first MMo that let you solo successfully, the FIRST. I know, I was there before and after. Since then others have copied that very successful strategy, but WoW won a lot of  players first.

I find myself agreeing with several posters in this thread, some good points but perhaps the best ones are how WoW has left its mark on the genre and I think most would agree its a mixed one at best.  So both good and bad have come from WoW.  What I personally think will rival its dominance is when a developer breaks from the class based system. 

Currently, everything is spoon fed with class designs, time sinks, specs, it makes every type of MMO a clone and slave to comparison of anything else made the same way.  The next big evolution of MMOs will happen when Devs break from this mold and allow you take a much more active hand in the growth of your character AND a dynamic enviornment.  Until then, everyone will imitate the cash cow and wonder why, though they have done things differently and in theory better, people don't stick with their product. 

WoW's development lead is huge, the time investment for its target audience is also huge, to lure that away a Dev company has to really break out of the mold, and the only real way to create the sort of addicted enthusiasm that WoW has is with virtual sandbox elements and game elements to where no mater what time you play, you can acheive as much as prime time players do, and lay a foundation for a sold, interactive community that provides its own content.  Put the tools out there and the players will amuse themselves for a lot less development cost than creating new instances, rewards, etc. 

I agree and don't agree.

But if i were 30 again i would Play EQ, yes again and have twice the fun this time round. Bubble less and arrow less for me.

I would rather take a week to find an NPC than have my destination pointed out for me.

I remember in EQ i ran into an NPC by a River that would not talk to me for a very long time, then one day i just tapped em for no reason and h spoke to me, was the beginning of a very fun Quest for my Paladin.

The Soul Bane Sword, God that was fun.  But that was then and now is now and things are way to easy because the new players want to ALT + TAB to another game or ALT, where the have Bots running,  like Gods of War or many other games that now have Programmed Bots in game. Sad but true. Most are called AFK programs but it's just another form of Botting. anyway no matter online gaming is becoming  nothing more than a log in and check out you level and leave. /ramble off :)

Originally posted by Novaseeker

Originally posted by Korhindi 

Two"  Community.  Even the best game will fail if it is full of smacktards, trolls, fanbois, jerks etc.  If the execution part is bad, then farmers and bots can add to this plague.  In this case, it matters not if you group or solo, pvp or carebear; if the community is bad, there is no point in playing the MMO.  Likewise, a great community can elevate a mediocre MMO to something greater than its base self.

 

 

Hmm.

 

WoW has the worst community in MMO history by far, yet it succeeds,

You are cetainly entitled to your opinion, but my experience has not shown WoW to have the "worst" community.  In my experience that honor has gone to the bot ridden F2P asian grinders with Silk Road online being at the head of the smacktard class.  Early AoC also struggled in this regard too.

Originally posted by Senadina

No, WoW was the first MMo that let you solo successfully, the FIRST. I know, I was there before and after. Since then others have copied that very successful strategy, but WoW won a lot of  players first.

Are you serious city of heroes predates that game and people could solo easy to max level.

Originally posted by Seeker728

Currently, everything is spoon fed with class designs, time sinks, specs, it makes every type of MMO a clone and slave to comparison of anything else made the same way.  The next big evolution of MMOs will happen when Devs break from this mold and allow you take a much more active hand in the growth of your character AND a dynamic enviornment.  Until then, everyone will imitate the cash cow and wonder why, though they have done things differently and in theory better, people don't stick with their product. 

What he said. 

Some one, at some point, will break away from these simplistic themeparks with their cheap, micro-waveable content and ultra linear game play.

Originally posted by Tatum

Originally posted by Seeker728

Currently, everything is spoon fed with class designs, time sinks, specs, it makes every type of MMO a clone and slave to comparison of anything else made the same way.  The next big evolution of MMOs will happen when Devs break from this mold and allow you take a much more active hand in the growth of your character AND a dynamic enviornment.  Until then, everyone will imitate the cash cow and wonder why, though they have done things differently and in theory better, people don't stick with their product. 

 

What he said. 

Some one, at some point, will break away from these simplistic themeparks with their cheap, micro-waveable content and ultra linear game play.

What does that even mean? Are you comparing MMORPGs to a t.v. dinner or something??

Originally posted by WesKhan1

Originally posted by SonofSeth

Originally posted by WesKhan1 

So I'll say it again, there is no "best" or "superior" game.  Popularity means nothing.  Sales mean nothing.  It's all opinion.  Look up something called "Band Wagon Appeal".  Kind of relates to what I'm trying to say (even though I wouldn't understand how you don't get what I'm saying in the first place).

 

Oh please, that's just a cop out. Huge sales also don't have to mean a product is subpar. "Band Wagon Appeal"  also works when a smaller group is openly revolting something popular, it's just a smaller band wagon, but still a wagon, with a band playing the same song over and over and over and over...

 

So it was a bad example.  Anyways, I still don't understand how you can think a game is better simply because of sales and popularity.  Like I said before, if that was the case then Halo and Counter-Strike would be the "best" or "superior" FPSs.  Where I would argue that UT2k4, Call of Duty 1, and Rainbow Six 3 were the best FPSs.  It's opinion.  Simple as that.

But you are the one trying to turn this into a numbers argument. I'm not saying WoW is good because it has many people playing, I'm saying all those people come to WoW because it's good.

I believe diferent rules apply to games. Movies and music, all of those are passive entertainment, short, one hour, two hours affairs ) that even if it wasn't as good as you thought, well, at least you didn't waste too much of your time, but it's over.

Not so much with games, if you want to finish a game, you have to endure, and why would you endure if you aren't having fun? This goes for all games and even more so for a subscribtion based mmorpg.

I believe you when you say that you are not enjoying it, and I really don't want to change your mind on that, what I want is for you is not to use some random point, like number of people playing and base your whole argument on that.

I hold WoW and...   let's say Grim Fandango in the same place (actually, Grim Fandango is for me still the best video game ever made, but I love adventure games), WoW has millions of people playing the subscribtion every month and Grim Fandango was a commercial flop. Regardless of that, both games have a clear vision, great execution, amazing art style, setting like no other (in immersion at least), memorable characters and great gameplay, and some other things, but this is just to make a point.

The biggest difference is that WoW came at exactly the right time, and Grim Fandango came at exactly the wrong time.

I hope that resolves that issue.

As for the topic of this thread, I basicly agree with OP. This are mmorpgs we are talking about, if I want a niche expirience, I play a single player game and scratch that itch. When I play an mmorpg, I expect a whole world (universe) filled with all sorts of content, playstyles and story elements. I want to feel like I'm somewhere and that place is "real", for that to happen, it can't really be a niche setting. A niche game would be more like a mistress, something exciting and new to try but ultimately, you come back home.

Let me say a deep and sincere thank you to all repliers: we have here really contorversial issues and we all as I see debated them fair and rational. Who could have thought. It shows, we as a community are better than we think. ;)  No matter what your positions are, so far all replies were sincere and genuine.

As my title said, its a theory. It sure is a narrowing down to a few points I felt were dominating reasons. In reality, there are always many reasons, and sure some may have totally different ones. Let me just add, that these conclusions are really my analysis, not my opinion about the games themselves. I spent for instance considerably more time on Vanguard than WOW. I played VG about a year and WOW only a few weeks, so I like VG much more than WOW.

I still get this feeling that there are some widespread misconceptions about why MMOs fail, and for some reasons the community is not ready to look at the MMO past with a really open eye. I have the greatest respect towards UO and EQ, like one would have to a founding father. But similarly I see we have 2008, and even tho their accomplishments were great for their time, we have advanced in our own right.

Either way, thanks for sharing your elevated thoughts, a good discussion.

OP, do not confuse lack of challenge with oversimplification.

User Interface should be very, very simple and intuitive; indeed all game mechanics should be.

"Challenge" however is more of how tough and risky objectives are, and has little to do with how complex be the game mechanics.

Are you serious city of heroes predates that game and people could solo easy to max level.
 

Are you serious? I played CoH at launch and No Way could you solo to max. Now you can but not when it came out. When it launched you couldn't opt out of missions so if you had 3 hard ones you were just stuck. They have changed this game a lot in terms of  difficulty.

More or less it seems that a relative theme is that "niche" games fail because they don't appeal to a wider audience.  While oddly enough one could argue that most MMO's fail because they are NOT niche games and try to appeal to a wide audience.

I suppose it also depends on what one deems as a failure.  There are many games still running that some (including myself) would consider failures.. yet they most likely are making a profit (success at the company level).

The most odd concept in todays market from my point of view is this:

Making a profit is no longer considered a success.

If you are making a profit but have less than a million (or 10 million) subs you have failed.

You know why games fail?  Because they follow a flawed core design.. that was considered a success because it had more subscribers at the time.  No one looked at the long term implications of the design.. and most every MMO out there will not survive long term... as there is nothing in the design to make the game appeal long term.

(that's like 3 pages condensed into a paragraph as I doubt anyone would read my entire thoughts on that).

Originally posted by Aeroangel

Originally posted by Tatum

Originally posted by Seeker728

Currently, everything is spoon fed with class designs, time sinks, specs, it makes every type of MMO a clone and slave to comparison of anything else made the same way.  The next big evolution of MMOs will happen when Devs break from this mold and allow you take a much more active hand in the growth of your character AND a dynamic enviornment.  Until then, everyone will imitate the cash cow and wonder why, though they have done things differently and in theory better, people don't stick with their product. 

 

What he said. 

Some one, at some point, will break away from these simplistic themeparks with their cheap, micro-waveable content and ultra linear game play.

 

What does that even mean? Are you comparing MMORPGs to a t.v. dinner or something??

I'm saying that, what passes for "content" in most of these games is a lot like microwave food:  cheap, fast, easy, and flavorless. 

Originally posted by Tatum

Originally posted by Aeroangel

Originally posted by Tatum

Originally posted by Seeker728

Currently, everything is spoon fed with class designs, time sinks, specs, it makes every type of MMO a clone and slave to comparison of anything else made the same way.  The next big evolution of MMOs will happen when Devs break from this mold and allow you take a much more active hand in the growth of your character AND a dynamic enviornment.  Until then, everyone will imitate the cash cow and wonder why, though they have done things differently and in theory better, people don't stick with their product. 

 

What he said. 

Some one, at some point, will break away from these simplistic themeparks with their cheap, micro-waveable content and ultra linear game play.

 

What does that even mean? Are you comparing MMORPGs to a t.v. dinner or something??

 

I'm saying that, what passes for "content" in most of these games is a lot like microwave food:  cheap, fast, easy, and flavorless. 

So what passed for content back in UO??  Chat text?  What content did UO have exactly?  It certainly wasn't anything Origin created.  The players made it up, which means its NOT really content, since I couldn't care less what a few LARPers yap about in their virtual houses=)

UO didn't have any quests that would fill more than a night's worth of you time.  The dungeons were simplistic and easy.  The PvP couldn't be considered any more content related than smacking someone in WOW on a PvP server while they quested.   What real content racked your brain and challenged you in UO, since cheap and linear is ussually the hate speech of the UO gamer.  I know, smacking that tree to raise you sword skill was the stuff of legends.  You and your buddies ganking that poor sap as soon as he exited town was also the most skilled acts of gamedom I've ever experienced=)

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by Tatum

Originally posted by Aeroangel

Originally posted by Tatum

Originally posted by Seeker728

Currently, everything is spoon fed with class designs, time sinks, specs, it makes every type of MMO a clone and slave to comparison of anything else made the same way.  The next big evolution of MMOs will happen when Devs break from this mold and allow you take a much more active hand in the growth of your character AND a dynamic enviornment.  Until then, everyone will imitate the cash cow and wonder why, though they have done things differently and in theory better, people don't stick with their product. 

 

What he said. 

Some one, at some point, will break away from these simplistic themeparks with their cheap, micro-waveable content and ultra linear game play.

 

What does that even mean? Are you comparing MMORPGs to a t.v. dinner or something??

 

I'm saying that, what passes for "content" in most of these games is a lot like microwave food:  cheap, fast, easy, and flavorless. 

 

So what passed for content back in UO??  Chat text?  What content did UO have exactly?  It certainly wasn't anything Origin created.  The players made it up, which means its NOT really content, since I couldn't care less what a few LARPers yap about in their virtual houses=)

UO didn't have any quests that would fill more than a night's worth of you time.  The dungeons were simplistic and easy.  The PvP couldn't be considered any more content related than smacking someone in WOW on a PvP server while they quested.   What real content racked your brain and challenged you in UO, since cheap and linear is ussually the hate speech of the UO gamer.  I know, smacking that tree to raise you sword skill was the stuff of legends.  You and your buddies ganking that poor sap as soon as he exited town was also the most skilled acts of gamedom I've ever experienced=)

Funny, I don't think I mentioned UO in my post...

But, since you asked, I do think that player driven content has much more potential than static, scripted quests.  The funny part is the amount of time and resources it takes (as far as I know) to create an expansion pack worth of these quests that players will just burn through within a week.

Originally posted by Tatum

 

Funny, I don't think I mentioned UO in my post...

But, since you asked, I do think that player driven content has much more potential than static, scripted quests.  The funny part is the amount of time and resources it takes (as far as I know) to create an expansion pack worth of these quests that players will just burn through within a week.

You didn't need to mention UO=)  You said themepark and linear.  WHenevr someone says that, they're talking about all the amazing things UO offered and how all new MMOs are boring trash for simpletons.  Its quite transparent=)

So, hows that potential working out after 10 yrs?  Those 2 tries to resurect UO in an updated form crashed and burned as well.  Player driven content in MMOs is like playing ONLY the mods for FPS games.  They're OK to really bad, nothing compared to the actual game and certainly not worthy of a price tag on their own merits.

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by Tatum

 

Funny, I don't think I mentioned UO in my post...

But, since you asked, I do think that player driven content has much more potential than static, scripted quests.  The funny part is the amount of time and resources it takes (as far as I know) to create an expansion pack worth of these quests that players will just burn through within a week.

 

You didn't need to mention UO=)  You said themepark and linear.  WHenevr someone says that, they're talking about all the amazing things UO offered and how all new MMOs are boring trash for simpletons.  Its quite transparent=)

So, hows that potential working out after 10 yrs?  Those 2 tries to resurect UO in an updated form crashed and burned as well.  Player driven content in MMOs is like playing ONLY the mods for FPS games.  They're OK to really bad, nothing compared to the actual game and certainly not worthy of a price tag on their own merits.

Let me make this really simple:  I didn't play UO.  There it is. 

Sorry if I'm not sold on the WoW model of gaming just because millions of non-gamers love it...