Originally posted by XAPGames

Longevity is tough to achieve.  It's even tougher to achieve when longevity isn't a priority for the dev / publisher.

 

Some games are just quick cash grabs.  If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.

Eve & UWO achieved longevity

No current theme park copycats can compare to these 2 diamonds

Originally posted by Tezcat

We just need a graphics update for UO. The game is still going but just needs modern polish to capture the new eneration.

Nah .. we don't need an update to old ideas. I thought people want innovation instead of cloning the past.

Originally posted by Fadedbomb

Originally posted by DarkPony

I hereby want to express that the OP's statement is fully endorsed, undersigned and welcomed by the Anti Hoofed Animal Defamation League.

Dark Pony,

AHADL spokesperson.

 

Yet when I, and others, said the same thing almost a year ago in protect of SWTOR you were sharply against said notion.

 

What changed DarkPony :I?

For the love of everything that is sacred to you, myself or anyone else, I don't think that I ever opposed a similar statement or said that games are better off dumbed down with shallow learning curves or whatever. You are welcome to dig it up but I'm pretty sure that's an effort in futility.

I might have defended SWTOR by trying to point out things in which I thought it could end up being complex (or complex enough) back in the theorycrafting, post launch days, but the notion that games are more fun in the long run if they challenge you with complexity is something I never have and never will oppose, Faded.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Tezcat

We just need a graphics update for UO. The game is still going but just needs modern polish to capture the new eneration.

Nah .. we don't need an update to old ideas. I thought people want innovation instead of cloning the past.

I knew the poster child for "anti-complexity" would show up here soon, welcome to the discussion. 

<En Garde>

A large number of players, and of people on this site, do not want complexity, they want fast fun and feeling good.

Another large number claims that they want complexity and that game XYZ has this - although the game is easy mode, casual and convenient and can be solo-ed while watching TV.

Another large number claims that they want this but they buy every AAA MMORPG anyway.

Thus why should studios/publishers change anything? The current games sell by the millions because all these large numbers of players mentioned above buy them.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Tezcat

We just need a graphics update for UO. The game is still going but just needs modern polish to capture the new eneration.

Nah .. we don't need an update to old ideas. I thought people want innovation instead of cloning the past.

I knew the poster child for "anti-complexity" would show up here soon, welcome to the discussion. 

lol :)

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

Ok, prove it.

The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).

But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.

But it's not.

You see, you can't look at something that failed and then say "because it wasn't x it failed'.

So, for instance, pick your favorite "failed" mmo (if indeed they really failed, I suspect that just because "millions" of players aren't playing them some consider them failed) and then just make the statment "because it didn't have a giant pink bunny spinning around in the sky it failed".

Well, I don't know one "failed" mmo that had a giant pink bunny so of course that is the reason.

Or, we can put aside our "I like x therefore any game that doesn't succeed and didn't have X must have failed becuase of it" mentality and really look at the individual reasons they "failed".

If you want massive complexity without ruthless PVP, then why aren't you playing Uncharted Waters Online?

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

Ok, prove it.

EQ, DAoC, UO, SWG, AC = steady growth over years

SWTOR, Rift, AoC, WAR = quick cash ins that had to merge servers almost right away and cut staff.

Games, to be successful today, need to not simply be complex or easy... they need to have various depths that will cater to a large number of players. They need to be shallow enough that our kids can play with us and have a blast swimming along the surface, but deep enough that Dad can decide to really wrap his brain around the mechanics, sink into the cold, dark depths and really work on a degree of mastery. Or the simple version... easy to learn, difficult to master.

depth and complexity is the most important thing to me.

Age of Conan, Warhammer, SWTOR, STO, TSW, TERA, AION, etc? I can't do it anymore.

Looking forward to a game like ArcheAge.

Originally posted by vladww

Originally posted by XAPGames

Longevity is tough to achieve.  It's even tougher to achieve when longevity isn't a priority for the dev / publisher.

 

Some games are just quick cash grabs.  If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.

Eve & UWO achieved longevity

No current theme park copycats can compare to these 2 diamonds

 Just in terms of longevity, WoW, CoH and EQ2 have been around almost as long as Eve and UWO.

If it were obvious, then I think the devs, and even the suits would know it. Apparently, most of them don't think that's the way to go to get to the $$$ they want.

---

Originally posted by XAPGames

Some games are just quick cash grabs.  If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.

---

Quick cash grab? How do you make a quick cash grab on something taking 4-5 years of development?

The numbers:

Let's say the game cost 50M USD to make. In 6 month then, you would need to sell 1M boxes @ 50 USD per unit just to cover development costs.

Taking Rift as an example, they needed 4-5 months to get 1M units sold. At the unchanged average sale rates, they would get 16M profit at the end of the 6 month period and when you consider the game is in development for 4 or 5 years, it makes 3-4M USD profit per year for the company. Not particularly attractive business for many I guess nor a "quick cash grab".

Numbers won't fit there. Not saying it is impossible to make but hard to pull off in context of western MMORPG, they are very expensive to make.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by vladww

Originally posted by XAPGames

Longevity is tough to achieve.  It's even tougher to achieve when longevity isn't a priority for the dev / publisher.

 

Some games are just quick cash grabs.  If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.

Eve & UWO achieved longevity

No current theme park copycats can compare to these 2 diamonds

 Just in terms of longevity, WoW, CoH and EQ2 have been around almost as long as Eve and UWO.

It doesn't matter how LONG they're around. What more matters is the pattern of growth. And CoH is a pre WoW unique/deep MMO. As is/was EQ2, which didn't do so well once it started following WoW.

Originally posted by 7star

If it were obvious, then I think the devs, and even the suits would know it. Apparently, most of them don't think that's the way to go to get to the $$$ they want.

It's obvious to us because we're immersed in the culture. The suits don't play MMOs, they probably don't know the first thing about them. they're trained to follow trends and not to take risks, because thats what works in most industries.

SWTOR proves that doesn't work here. All the failed WoW clones, LotRO, AoC, WAR, Rift, Aion, have proved that.

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

Ok, prove it.

EQ, DAoC, UO, SWG, AC = steady growth over years

SWTOR, Rift, AoC, WAR = quick cash ins that had to merge servers almost right away and cut staff.

 That doesn't prove it.  It may be the reason but there are too many other Z variables that need to be taken into account, including the number of games available at the time. 

And several modern games have just as many subscribers as Daoc, Uo, SWG, and AC did. 

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by vladww

Originally posted by XAPGames

Longevity is tough to achieve.  It's even tougher to achieve when longevity isn't a priority for the dev / publisher.

 

Some games are just quick cash grabs.  If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.

Eve & UWO achieved longevity

No current theme park copycats can compare to these 2 diamonds

 Just in terms of longevity, WoW, CoH and EQ2 have been around almost as long as Eve and UWO.

It doesn't matter how LONG they're around. What more matters is the pattern of growth. And CoH is a pre WoW unique/deep MMO. As is/was EQ2, which didn't do so well once it started following WoW.

 The pattern of growth only matters if the variables are similar, starting off at 5000 and growing to 200,000 is good.  However it still is 200,000.  Starting at 1.7 million and ending up with 200,000 may be bad however they are still at 200,000.

The end result is the same.  So if games are judged by longevity and user base the two games are equal. 

edit:  Complexity just to be complex isn't any good and IMO does not inspire a better games.  However a system that creates emergent gameplay (complex or not) is good. 

EQ was not complex.  There were 3-10 buttons you pressed (depending on your class) and that was itt.  Wow has 3 x this amount, yet WoW is considered simple and is vastly more complicated when developing states in terms of gear score, enchants, transmog....

However aggro mechanics, threat mechanics... all combined to make EQ in many ways more interesting but it wasn't complicated.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

Ok, prove it.

The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).

But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.

But it's not.

You see, you can't look at something that failed and then say "because it wasn't x it failed'.

So, for instance, pick your favorite "failed" mmo (if indeed they really failed, I suspect that just because "millions" of players aren't playing them some consider them failed) and then just make the statment "because it didn't have a giant pink bunny spinning around in the sky it failed".

Well, I don't know one "failed" mmo that had a giant pink bunny so of course that is the reason.

Or, we can put aside our "I like x therefore any game that doesn't succeed and didn't have X must have failed becuase of it" mentality and really look at the individual reasons they "failed".

I very much understand your point of view and you are right in your overall approach to how games should be "judged". (i.e. by leaving one's own subjectivity at the door).

But ...

The lack of complexity is a reaccuring theme in many games in the past years. To exagerate it a bit: the catering for impatient, window licking water heads who want their epics right away and can't deal with unexpected set backs or any perceived injustices in their multiplayer games. This results in an overkill of streamlining game mechanics (cross realm dungeon finders, teleporting anywhere, pointers and breadcrumbs, cookie cutter battlegrounds, simplified crafting, etc), as well as dumbing down anything that could be deemed "too complex for the average gamer".

I.e. a logical result of a game designer's quest to aim for the biggest possible target audience.

The problem is though, that by doing so, they leave experienced gamers out in the cold because we devoured their simplified content in a very short time and are left boring our brains out V_V

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

Ok, prove it.

EQ, DAoC, UO, SWG, AC = steady growth over years

SWTOR, Rift, AoC, WAR = quick cash ins that had to merge servers almost right away and cut staff.

 

And several modern games have just as many subscribers as Daoc, Uo, SWG, and AC did. 

First, that's not much of an accomplishment, considering most people were on dial up back then and those games were made by like, 30 people on no budget with no publishers.

If games that took 100MILLION to make can't even keep up with the shriveled old grandfathers of the genre then... something's wrong.

Second, I'm not talking about sub numbers, I'm talking about growth. There hasn't been a single WoW clone that has grown after launch and had to open new servers, only the opposite.