Originally posted by Moaky07

STE2000

 

I would say you dont have a clue IMO.

Most folks dont want a second life out of their game...instead they wanna log in and have fun with friends.

They want the content there,,,they dont want to pay for a MMO then have to make their own content.

It gets downright old listening to you sandbox folks go on and on about how much the system is wanted in gaming....cause it isnt.

Those that are interested in siming already have second life and the original sims. Have at it....but spare us the screaming at the top of your lungs trying to make your niche crowd appear as the majority of players...as it is widely known PVE content laden games are the top selling around.

Bonus if they include PvP for those that enjoy that type of play.

What they cant include is a sandbox game, at the same time, as a title only has so much money at start up. So its either produce the best polished PVE or PvP game they can...or try to mix/match and fail from the lauch of the game, cause the game couldnt be made into a top notch product due to lack of money to cover all the various things being attempted. Sort of like SWG.

This is read as "get over it"...I doubt you ever see a game that is PVE content laden and a sandbox ever. Nor do I think you will ever see a company pour WOW type start up money into a sandbox...they will be niche games with very little investment as they have proven not to be very popular.

To build that type of game(a full sandbox along with a full PVE) would probably run 100M or more....with no guarantee of success. YOu think a company is willing to gamble that much? Pfft yeah OK.

I think it's possible.  Games like Ultima Online and Everquest has more innovative features and they were made using a much smaller budget then games today.

"I would say you dont have a clue IMO.

Most folks dont want a second life out of their game...instead they wanna log in and have fun with friends.

They want the content there,,,they dont want to pay for a MMO then have to make their own content."

Then I suggest you try mIRC, I hear its a good "chat" game.

Astonishing and Bizarre Worlds

The genius, I think, of J.R.R. Tolkien was his ability to create a "whole fantasy world" complete with geographies and languages.  Magical realism blossomed and were subject to the laws and rules of physics in these worlds. 

Today, there is a total lack of any sense of adventure or exploration in MMORPGs.

Exploration creates high adventure and intellectual excitement in games.

 

 

I couldnt agree more with this.

Everything seems innovative when a game is new, esspecially a genre.  Don't give the early developers too much credit though.  They had a very uninformed playerbase with ZERO expectations to cater to.  Its quite easy to make people happy who think running around in an empty field is COOL, much less waiting for a 1/2 hr to travel someplace.   People were having fun just chatting with someone in another state;) 

Cleaning up old features and making them FUN or removing things everyone hated is more innovative than just slapping a bunch of things together and calling it a game.

Originally posted by Josher

Everything seems innovative when a game is new, esspecially a genre.  Don't give the early developers too much credit though.  They had a very uninformed playerbase with ZERO expectations to cater to.  Its quite easy to make people happy who think running around in an empty field is COOL, much less waiting for a 1/2 hr to travel someplace.   People were having fun just chatting with someone in another state;) 

Cleaning up old features and making them FUN or removing things everyone hated is more innovative than just slapping a bunch of things together and calling it a game.

I think it's pretty easy way out to look at it that way. 

It's true that in EQ and UO that there were some things that you don't have from current games, but there are many things from those games that aren't in games today.

EQ was the game I played the most of all MMOs.  There was a lot of monster grinding, but there were a lot of neat places to venture in the world.  The dungeons were very complex compared to today's game.  In befallen you could fall through trap holes in the ceillings.  To get you needed keys which dropped off monsters in the dungeon.  It's likely you could not kill said monsters by yourself.  Very dangerous place.  There were all kinds of secret doors in the dungeons.  There was a scret passage between upper guk and lower guk.  In Sebellis you had to swim through underwater passages to get to certain places.  In Velious dungeons there were slippery paths in which you could fall to your death.  There was one where you had to jump over a large hole or land in a bunch of monsters far below.  If you died there it was almost impossible to get your corpse.  Sol A/B had an entrence in which you had to swim through lava.  It was almost impossible without the right fire resistance.  There were ways to get to different planes like the plane of air.  I believe that required a wizard, but I forget.  Overall it was really neat to explore that world compared to exploring the worlds available these days.

UO had a lot of things that were unique as well.  It may be the only game every to have open PvP.  It incoroprated the ability to pickpocket other real players.  It had boats you could buy and sail around in, but that could be stolen from you by losing the deed for the boat.  The same with houses.  Crafting was an important part of the game.  There was a lot to do other then kill things.

Generally you don't see these things in games today.  I enjoy World of Warcraft, but it doesn't have the same requirement in terms of difficultly level or exploration. 

Originally posted by declaredemer

I have been offered to play several MMORPGs for FREE, and I have rejected the offers.  The only game I play for FREE is WAR, and I could not pay-to-play anyway because I boycott all EA products.  Trust me, it was difficult to not pick-up a copy of Left 4 Dead: I love slaying zombies.  Not sure why.  Just love it!

 

Do We Want an Adventure Game or Roleplaying Game?

I hate to answer my own question with a question, but why not both?  Why not have features to log-in and accomplish tasks and also deep, but optional, Questing?  

The lack of Questing and character customization makes me feel like I am playing a single-player game, but what is worse for ME is that single-player games are better.

Single-player games for ME have more world immersion (GTA IV), exploration (Elder Scrolls), and character customization (Fallout 3) than MMORPGs.

Do We Want an PvP Game or Roleplaying Game?

I hate to answer my own question with a question, but was the failure of AoC and WAR too much PvP? 

PvP can be a bonus, but it should not be the focus on a game. 

I think other games (Call of Duty, e.g.) deliver PvP in a much more fun, intense, and exciting way than any MMORPG on the market.

 

Astonishing and Bizarre Worlds

The genius, I think, of J.R.R. Tolkien was his ability to create a "whole fantasy world" complete with geographies and languages.  Magical realism blossomed and were subject to the laws and rules of physics in these worlds. 

Today, there is a total lack of any sense of adventure or exploration in MMORPGs.

Exploration creates high adventure and intellectual excitement in games.

 

Innovation:  Meaningful Player Tools

Some games have player housing.  Big deal.  Everyone's house looks the same.  Why not allow players to customize design their houses, not just the interior?  

MMORPGs are missing big opportunities for their failure to innovate, and I think player tools is but one feature where this should be employed.  Let players design Quests, items, dungeons, etc.  Why not?  Do you have contractual duties to graphic card makers that you must (must) create games that half the market cannot play? 

(Please see WoW's subscription numbers and then review WoW's system requirements; do this at least three times.) 

One of the most fun games I ever played online was Vampire:  The Masequarade.  Players could assume the role of NPCs and take story-telling to incredible levels and sophisticated depths. 

Empower the player.

 

 

 

Indeed, I quit.  Or have I?  I think the industry has quit on ME.

Yes.  You could have my stuff - if only I had anything to give.  For the past few years, MMORPGs have been so dry for me that I never really got into any.  Since EQ/UO, the only MMORPG that I found to be any good was SWG.

 

 

 

 

Go rent left for dead. But in all honesty, it is made by valve.

I love have valve HQ is only a couple miles away from my house.

Originally posted by declaredemer

.....

Do We Want an PvP Game or Roleplaying Game?

I hate to answer my own question with a question, but was the failure of AoC and WAR too much PvP? 

PvP can be a bonus, but it should not be the focus on a game. 

I think other games (Call of Duty, e.g.) deliver PvP in a much more fun, intense, and exciting way than any MMORPG on the market.

 ..... 

 

 It really is time for you to leave if you think CoD4 has the best PVP. ITs really good but it doesnt have the politics, depth, backstabbing, and roleplaying that I experienced in EVE. Nor did I ever feel pure depise for another player in an FPS like I do in MMORPG.

You claim you want all this innovation but did you even give Tales of a Two cities, EVE Online, or even Ryzom a chance? I see a lot of people talking about they want innovation yet they bypass the unique titles out there

This post tells me you just want more non-innovative titles like Call of Duty 4 rather then a unique MMO. At least I can say my money went to EVE before I took a break.

op im with ya to a certain degree. MMOs have become something other than what I originall invisioned.

A lot of people eat these crap games up .....but processed cheese also sells.

Of course then you come here to express an opinion and get told that its not the fault of lack of innovation but yours lol.

Go play some retro games and or more console. This genre is messed up.

To the op, your opening comments killed it for me.

Your boycotting EA products, but then your playing WAR?

Look, these are games. If the game looks fun, play it.
Its really as simple as that.

Whoever works at EA are big boys and can take care of themselves.
NO need to bring the granola-hippy boycotting BS into something so simple.

The biggest problem I have with MMOs is their expansions.  In addition to adding a new area to level in, why not change the old areas with it.  Change some of the scenary for crying out loud.  How many times do you have to kill Van Cleef in WoW before him and the Defias are gone?  Why do I get a mission to kill the exact same boss every 2 or 3 days in CoH? How many times do I have to defend Aht Urghan when I've already killed every mob out in the wilds that would've raided in FFXI? I mean the Lich King in WoW is threatening the entire world and you never feel it until you go to the instance he's in.  Villains in CoH are trying to bomb places, cause mayhem, steal, etc.  but you can't touch them unless they're in a magical area where you  and them are allowed to meet.  The Past is threatened in FFXI, but nothing actually changes in the future if you never go back to save the past (dont' get me wrong, FFXI is my 2nd favorite MMO hehe).
 

I'm not saying that once you kill a boss the game should change for everyone.  At least make it change in the expansions.  I kind of liked DDO and AoC because these games changed after you killed a boss in an instanced area.  They didn't change that much, but enough that it gave you the feeling you actually defeated the bosses and they won't hassle the world ever again.  Is it too much to ask in an expansion to actually change the entire game a little bit, instead of just adding a new zone with the same old stuff?

As for PvP and roleplaying, I believe these should go hand in hand.  If I was a knight in the middle ages and someone disrespected me, we'd fight it out.  Not be all "Oh I can't attack you for no real reason at all, please continue harassing me".  The problem with PvP in about 99% of the games is that it isn't done right.  DAoC did it right.  Yes you couldn't go into the PvE areas of another realm, but it wasn't because of some magical on/off switch.  It was because there was a huge gate/keep in your way with a thousand+ soldiers protecting it (although they did 1 hit kill you, which was kinda lame hehe).  It felt like with 1000 of your realmmates you could not break through to raid your enemies PvE areas, not just because it was 'immoral' or the devs didn't want you to.

DAoC also didn't alot with Player Tools.  Housing was great in DAoC.  Yes the size of your house was almost the same as everyone else, but there are so many additions and changes that can be made, no house looks like the next, unless you didn't change a thing and someone did the same hehe.  When I bought my first house in DAoC, I spent about 2 weeks just standing inside and outside of it, decorating and moving things around until I found the perfect set up of how I wanted .  Crafting in DAoC was an intregral part.  If you went on a siege raid in the frontiers and didn't bring someone to build you a catapult or trebuchet, you were doomed to begin with.  Albeit crafting in DAoC was LONG and TEDIOUS (major understatements lol) but eventually It paid off when you got your Grand Master Title.  You could actually make a living off crafting, and not have to go out and kill things for money. In other games you get to the maximum crafting level and you never touch the thing again, save for a few times.

I know this post is coming off as a DAoC fanboi post (and I am hehe).  It's just that DAoC did do alot of things right (and some things wrong *cough* ToA *cough*).  I remember getting lost several times when I first started playing.  I've never been lost in any MMO since.  I hate knowing exactly where I am going and exactly what I'm supposed to do when I get there.  Where's the fun in that?  Let me explore and find out if I run due north I run into mobs that one hit kill me.  Don't put a mountain range I can't pass in my way so I don't do it (WoW!).  Let the noobs go into areas they're not supposed to.  When they die, they'll learn not to go there (or well most of them will lol) or they'll ask for an escort through the area if they're going somewhere.

I guess I'm just and old mmo fan. My top 3 MMOs are DAoC (obviously lol), FFXI, then EQ (EQ might be 2nd if SOE wasn't running the game).  All 3 of these are considered old and outdated.  And they are, but they did most things right.  You aren't going to ever please 100% of your players 100%, but you can please 100% of your players at least 51%, so they don't at least hate your game.

Wow that turned out longer than I thought.  Short version:

-Expansions should do more than just add an area, class, or race.

-Quests, especially those involving story-line bosses, should change the feel of the game.

-PvP should not be an on/off switch.  If you want PvE only areas, be creative about it.

-Make things the player makes, owns, or does unique.  Don't make all armor, houses look the same.

-Make crafting an integral part of your game, not just something to do when your players get bored of quest/mob grinding.

-Make crafting in endgame viable.  I didn't spend a ton of money and time crafting, just to never touch it again after I max it out.

-Let the noobs get lost! Don't tell people exactly where to go, and exactly what to do when they get there.  We aren't monkies.

-Look to the shortcomings of previous MMOs and build on those.

-Look at what previous MMOs did right and spin off your own version of it, don't outright copy and paste it.

That's pretty much what that big long rant above is saying

Originally posted by ste2000

Moak, so far who has been proved to be wrong is you and devs who think like you, which as lately are more and more.
Every game after WoW which followed the path you describe has underperformed, so apparently that's not what people wants.

All the description you gave of a MMORPG is good and well, except you can do what you described in a Multiplayer environment, you don't have to play a MMORPG to play and have fun with your friends
You,  like most of the players who approached the MMORPG world with WoW, do not get the original concept of MMORPG.

First of all you got this idea that virtual worlds equal games like Second life, that's not what virtual world means to me, since this kind of game never appealed me.
My main focus, like I believe many of the MMORPGs players, is the combat, not building stuff.
Virtual worlds in MMORPGs don't have to have total freedom either like in sandboxes, in order to be enjoiable, you can very well have a linear game, either PvP or PVE centered, with a certain amount of freedom, but where devs are very still in control.

Talking about Sandboxes vs Linear.
Playing a sandbox, contrary to what you think, doesn't equal having a second job, in fact they are far less time consuming than "modern" linear games.
Recent linear games  hooks you to play massive amount of hours a day to level fast and get the uber gear.
Sandbox can be played at your own pace, there is not a clear goal to achieve, so you don't have to put up insane amount of hours trying to reach lvl 80 ASAP, or raid 5 hours hoping that the epic piece you were looking for months drops.
In sandboxes, you log on and enjoy the community and the game much more, and if you only play few hours you don't feel guilty of logging out because there is nothing you have to keep up with.

Also although I made Darkfall example, I wasn't talking only about Sandboxes.
Linear games too can have a world that feel alive if devs stop copying WoW.
EQ and EQ2 did have a good feel at the beginning.
DAoC and AC had the virtual world feeling where you felt part of the world and part of the community, this isn't something possible only in Sandboxes.
For your info I do appreciate both sandboxes and linear games, problem is that as lately linear games are all shit, see the reasons above, sandboxes give more chances of a fun game even if it is not AAA quality, but making a fun linear game with a live and breathing world, is very well possible if devs stop being lazy.

All the latest games, feel souless, those games are not design for community interaction, and because people don't feel they belong to that world they refuse to pay a monthly fee when they can get the same excitement from a regular multiplayer game which is free.

The mistake you do, like many devs out there, is to think that who wants to play a MMORPG wants the same thing you look for in a normal single game or multiplayer game.
I am convinced that Single games, Multiplayer games and MMORPGs are very different kind of games and cater for very different playstiles, and I think I am right.
Well at least none of the so call AAA games you praised so much has a subscription base of more than 500K (excluding WoW), which can prove me wrong, it looks to me that the market doesn't look so eager to play the games you describe after all.


 

I am wrong am I?

Before WOw it was EQ...the game that I would play till this very day if I was subbed atm. That is cause I couldnt get into WOW...it just didnt tickle the MMO fancy for me.

It seems to me that since the launch of EQ, the industry has been dominated by a linear game. Right now 2 linear games are doing well that I know of....WoW with its goldmine of customers and LoTRO.

The 2 EQ titles each have a few subs as well...but nothing shattering. There are also games around like CoH.

The only sandbox out there doing well that I know of is EVE. Since I havent ever played it I dont know its appeal, but it seems to be the PvP rather than the sandbox.

This market of game play is still growing, and WoW was the one to bring it to mass appeal. But until such time that those 10M actually look for something else, and more folks  join the MMO ranks...I just dont see more than 1 or 2 games having "super" numbers.

Most will stay around the 100 to 200k mark which we are presently seeing. Which I would think is turning a profit for original IPs.

For this industry to continue to grow, companies need to quit dumping junk on the market. No way a game should fail a yr after launch. Just leaves a bad taste in folks mouths.

If you cant put out a polished game then dont bother.

Which is what several of these games suffered from since WoWs launch...not that in any way "linear" isnt the way to go vs sandbox.

My theory, but it is only a theory, is that there are hundreds of thousands of us playing either (1) WoW or (2) WAR or (3) something else until a deep, creative, innovative, and immersive world is released.

All I have decided to do, unlike hundreds of thousands out there, is not pay-to-play until this game is released. By paying-to-play I am contributing to the problem.

Every subscription to WoW, or whatever, tells developers that what they are doing is working.

Hey OP, it's ok to quit. 

There are so many great single player RPG's out right now, I'm playing fallout 3 and I'm going to start Oblivion for the first time, then The Witcher, or Dragon age,  mass effect.

Good lord, it's RPG heaven out there.  So yes, it's ok to quit MMOs.  You can still come back to these forums and make of people.

Originally posted by Moaky07

STE2000

 

I would say you dont have a clue IMO.

Most folks dont want a second life out of their game...instead they wanna log in and have fun with friends.

They want the content there,,,they dont want to pay for a MMO then have to make their own content.

It gets downright old listening to you sandbox folks go on and on about how much the system is wanted in gaming....cause it isnt.

Those that are interested in siming already have second life and the original sims. Have at it....but spare us the screaming at the top of your lungs trying to make your niche crowd appear as the majority of players...as it is widely known PVE content laden games are the top selling around.

Bonus if they include PvP for those that enjoy that type of play.

What they cant include is a sandbox game, at the same time, as a title only has so much money at start up. So its either produce the best polished PVE or PvP game they can...or try to mix/match and fail from the lauch of the game, cause the game couldnt be made into a top notch product due to lack of money to cover all the various things being attempted. Sort of like SWG.

This is read as "get over it"...I doubt you ever see a game that is PVE content laden and a sandbox ever. Nor do I think you will ever see a company pour WOW type start up money into a sandbox...they will be niche games with very little investment as they have proven not to be very popular.

To build that type of game(a full sandbox along with a full PVE) would probably run 100M or more....with no guarantee of success. YOu think a company is willing to gamble that much? Pfft yeah OK.

i would say you are the one who doesn't have a clue..if you dont want to play in a virtual online world then boot up your xbox and stop stagnating mmo's with ridiculous views of what mmorpgs are supposed to be.

Originally posted by ronan32

Originally posted by Moaky07

STE2000

 

I would say you dont have a clue IMO.

Most folks dont want a second life out of their game...instead they wanna log in and have fun with friends.

They want the content there,,,they dont want to pay for a MMO then have to make their own content.

It gets downright old listening to you sandbox folks go on and on about how much the system is wanted in gaming....cause it isnt.

Those that are interested in siming already have second life and the original sims. Have at it....but spare us the screaming at the top of your lungs trying to make your niche crowd appear as the majority of players...as it is widely known PVE content laden games are the top selling around.

Bonus if they include PvP for those that enjoy that type of play.

What they cant include is a sandbox game, at the same time, as a title only has so much money at start up. So its either produce the best polished PVE or PvP game they can...or try to mix/match and fail from the lauch of the game, cause the game couldnt be made into a top notch product due to lack of money to cover all the various things being attempted. Sort of like SWG.

This is read as "get over it"...I doubt you ever see a game that is PVE content laden and a sandbox ever. Nor do I think you will ever see a company pour WOW type start up money into a sandbox...they will be niche games with very little investment as they have proven not to be very popular.

To build that type of game(a full sandbox along with a full PVE) would probably run 100M or more....with no guarantee of success. YOu think a company is willing to gamble that much? Pfft yeah OK.

 

i would say you are the one who doesn't have a clue..if you dont want to play in a virtual online world then boot up your xbox and stop stagnating mmo's with ridiculous views of what mmorpgs are supposed to be.

So anyone not sharing your view of, what an MMO's should be, is "stagnating" the market.  So as long as they share the same view as you, it's A-OK eh?  Friend, in the real world, we call that being a hyprocrite.

Originally posted by GreenChaos

Hey OP, it's ok to quit. 

There are so many great single player RPG's out right now, I'm playing fallout 3 and I'm going to start Oblivion for the first time, then The Witcher, or Dragon age,  mass effect.

Good lord, it's RPG heaven out there.  So yes, it's ok to quit MMOs.  You can still come back to these forums and make of people.

Indeed! 

I was not going to mention it, but I have been having a total BLAST with single-player games.

Fallout 3

Great game.  I have not gotten far.  I just started.  The world is... depressing.  You almost ask yourself at times, "how did the world get like this?"  Then, in a split nanosecond, you realize it is a game.

Definitely a game worth buying.

Grand Theft Auto IV

When I got back from my trip overseas, I had to replace my harddrive because it was fried.  Now I cannot get the display settings right. 

Great story.  Awesome graphics. Exploration.  Cool means of travel - from car to helicopter to limo to fancy cars to speed bikes.  Great game.  Excellent game.

Left 4 Dead

You know, I am not that crazy about this game.  I have not tried it online yet, been busy with two games (World in Conflict and Fallout 3).  It seems fun.  I have not played much of it.  Seems like a mixture of zombies from the traditional zombie to the 4 Weeks Later (is that the title?).  I need to give it more time.

World in Conflict

Cool strategy game.  Imagine the Russians invaded the USA.  Been having fun, interesting combat and engaging story.

Assassin's Creed

Just started it today, kind of like it.  Been stuck in this one spot, though.  Not enough playtime to discuss.

Commentary

It is strange, somewhat incomprehensible, that single-player games are offering deeper, more fun, and better worlds than MMORPGs.

And, the irony of it is that I used to play MMORPGs for a deep world experience that I could not get from playing single-player games!!

I agree with ste2000.

Originally posted by declaredemer

My theory, but it is only a theory, is that there are hundreds of thousands of us playing either (1) WoW or (2) WAR or (3) something else until a deep, creative, innovative, and immersive world is released.

 

 

All I have decided to do, unlike hundreds of thousands out there, is not pay-to-play until this game is released. By paying-to-play I am contributing to the problem.

 

 

Every subscription to WoW, or whatever, tells developers that what they are doing is working.

Vote with your wallet. Smart.

i'm not sure why would anyone would boycott EA games. Is it because of SPORE? lolz.

Why boycott EA?

I played Madden (before they started sticking year numbers on it) and one of their basketball games from about that time ("Bulls vs Blazers and the NBA playoffs"), and they were awful.  Not just mediocre, but incredibly awful.  Madden at least had the excuse that the natural comparison to Tecmo Super Bowl would make a lot of games look bad, but there wasn't a dominant basketball game of that era.

This was the sort of thing that made one wonder, how could they possibly think that game was ready?  It's not like they could simply release an unfinished game and patch it later, as this was long before that became practical.  EA, I concluded, was the poster child for the "graphics over gameplay" movement--and the graphics weren't very good, either.  The graphics have greatly improved since then, of course, but a predilection to focus mostly on fluff like graphics and neglect gameplay is not the sort of bad habit that companies are likely to shake.

Given a choice between a company known to make stunningly awful games and one about which I didn't really know anything, it wasn't a hard choice.  That's why I haven't picked up a new EA game in about 15 years or so.