| 839 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Foomerang
Advanced Member
Joined: 11/10/05
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still |
You haven't played an mmorpg worth playing for years yet ;) Some of us have, and I think thats why we continually plead our case on these forums heh Themepark is not a sub genre, its an excuse. |
|
8/03/12 1:34:52 PM#402
Originally posted by Foomerang There is none. I started with UO (quite around end of beta .. not a good game), EQ (quit in a year .. too much camping), AC (quit soon), .. LOTRO/DDO/DCUO (good that F2P .. play once in a while). WOW is the only one i played more than a year .. and i never play only ONE game. Too boring. |
|
|
8/03/12 1:38:40 PM#403
Originally posted by kantseeme
|
|
|
8/03/12 1:45:30 PM#404
Basically the new age MMO's DERAILED the genre. The whole point of MMORPG's is MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER not solo everything. It's so retarded and disheartening to see this genre become derailed from microshops and instances. I use to think WoW was the culprate behind this but as of lately its just the developers greed and misconception on what a MMORPG should be.
FFXI, EQOA, EQ1, DAoC those are MMORPG's. Your new age stuff is garbage. Go play a single player game if you want to solo on a MMORPG. Ah when will we be vindicated? I'm only a gamer but I'm almost certain if I could get investors and a team of developers to do what I say we could turn this genre around finally. No instances, no microshops, no F2P! If you want F2P go read a book, updates aren't free ever. Time to fix this genre. |
|
|
8/03/12 1:52:48 PM#405
Originally posted by Xoshua
I want to be in a small group co-op dungeon. And I do play other games, like D3. But why shouldn't i be playing MMOs if MMOs are providing that to me? LOL .. you can turn back progress, and turn back the trend? I will believe it when i see it. No F2P? I bet even WOW will go F2P in 1-2 years. There is no vindication ... only preferences. If yours are not in-line with the market .. will .. supply & demand always works. |
|
|
8/03/12 2:01:41 PM#406
Originally posted by Foomerang I agree. |
|
|
8/03/12 2:02:49 PM#407
Originally posted by Foomerang Damn nice post OP. DamonVile- Games built for disposable players are now apparently built by disposable employees. |
|
|
8/03/12 2:08:28 PM#408
Originally posted by nariusseldon
|
|
|
8/03/12 2:11:25 PM#409
We should not have to change our preference if this was OUR genre to begin with! You guys wanting everything hand fed to you is the reason the market has slipped. Go get a job if you cant pay for P2P. Go play D&D in person.
A MMORPG is suppose to be a virtual world. You say the market has changed, if thats so why does everyone come on these boards and complain about how the genre is dead? Death SHOULD kill your experience, make you walk for hours because YOU DIED. Now you die and theres no consequence. Walking SHOULD take 20 minutes! It's a virtual world, when you start and for a long while you SHOULD have to walk for long periods of time. It will build a sense of accomplishment when you finally DO get to travel faster. Microshops and F2P fail. Hard. P2P is the way the MMORPG needs to be. Content comes out, that content isn't made for free. People need to be payed for their work. Seriously go troll another thread, this thread is how MMORPG's are dieing because people like you try to justify the cancer the new MMO's cause. Time to fix this genre. |
|
|
8/03/12 2:20:59 PM#410
Originally posted by bunnyhopper I guess that means your argument is "Tic Tac Toe is great, even though only a few pl players like it. I love it!" then there's not much point to trying to explain to you how it's a shallow game (or in the case of travel-heavy MMORPGs, an unavoidable shallow part of a larger game.) What the hell does e-sport PVP have to do with anything? We're talking about games, and how to make them more engaging, meaningful, and deep by not allowing a shallow part of the game to drag down the experience. What have you got against game depth that you try to defend non-gameplay (travel) so vigorously? It is irrelevant whether travel enables deeper experiences. Because despite getting those deep experience, you're still locked into this non-interactive, shallow game mechanic. The simple fix is to make that shallow mechanic deeper. You're arguing the status quo for its own sake, at the cost of player freedom and better gameplay. |
|
|
8/03/12 2:30:17 PM#411
Originally posted by nariusseldon Camp checks were great places to conversate with your fellow gamer. They even had camp checks in Nusibe in VG. Some of the best times i had gaming was talking with others. The devi room in the clock tower in Ragnarok. Would sit there for hours with people talking and killing devis for a chance at the hat to drop. Travleing was great aswell. Stoping to help others you may see along the road or harvest. Lots of things happen "On the way" Your problem is you want these CO-OP features in MMOs and they simpley dont belong. Go back to D3 and stay out of MMOs.
See above
You obviously dont know what TREND means.
With over 5 mil people still paying 15 a month? I just dont know about your ilk anymore.
Your right here. Its about preference. I prefer not to spend my money on these garbage MMOs. Cant even call them MMOs any more. need to find a new name for them. These CO-OP Lobby RPGs? No thats not right. Theres no RPG in these new "MMOs" How about CFRLG? (Co-Op Face Roll Lobby Game) How does that sound? |
|
|
8/03/12 2:38:59 PM#412
Originally posted by kantseeme
Great minds think alike. You hit the nail on the head. :) Time to fix this genre. |
|
|
8/03/12 2:47:32 PM#413
Originally posted by Xoshua understand where your coming from. The problem is no one is making this game for us. They jumped on the Blizzard fast track to making money idea and failed horribly. Look at the list of games that have tried to follow the WoW business model and just died 1-3 mouths into its launch.
Now that the market is encompassed with these types of MMOs, people are getting tired of it. And sooner or later someone with make a real MMO and the numbers will justify it being part of the MMO market again. And that's when you'll start to see these current MMOs fall from grace. Hell there already falling from grace. "OMG AC is going to be god's give to MMOs" No it wasn't "OMG WAR is going to be god's gift to MMOs" No it wasn't "OMG SWTOR is going to be god's gift to MMOs" No it wasn't "OMG RIFT is going to be god's gift to MMOs" No it wasn't "OMG Aion is going to god's gift to MMOs" No it wasn't Any other games come to mind that i left out? |
|
|
8/03/12 3:06:35 PM#414
I like turn based mmorpg. But no game company makes turn based mmorpg. They keep catering to the wow clone or even the sandbox people. There are 10 times more sandbox games than turn based mmorpg. Do I complain all day on the forum? NO! Get a life. Go play Eve. |
|
|
Foomerang
Advanced Member
Joined: 11/10/05
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still |
Well if thats true, then you started playing a genre that you didn't like or really understand and now it has changed into something you've wanted all along: MMO versions of console action/adventure games. I can definitely see your pov on this topic now. Themepark is not a sub genre, its an excuse. |
|
Foomerang
Advanced Member
Joined: 11/10/05
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still |
this isnt about sandbox. its about choice of playstyles. you want turn based combat? thats cool. this isnt a thread about having one or the other, its about the more the better. not sure why you're ranting when we're on the same side heh Themepark is not a sub genre, its an excuse. |
|
8/03/12 3:17:44 PM#417
I hear you completely and I agree with much of what you wrote. Nevertheless, I do not share your sentiments about F2P. F2P, to my mind, is actually what is going to save this genre.
The reason the WoW generation single-player games online took over the industry was because the pay to play model values the casual gamer above the hardcore gamer. Everything became oriented around "casuals" and that is why the genre has become console-gamish. When you have subscription based games, it doesn't matter if you login twice a week or whether you play 15 hours a day, both players are paying the same amount. However, there are a lot more players who will only play part-time than there are full-timers, so these games naturally become oriented toward keeping those players over the hardcore types.
With F2P the duality companies worry about ceases to primarily be between casual and hardcore, but instead becomes between players playing for free, and players who are buying stuff. The free players are just there to give the game life, but the important players are the ones who actually buy stuff -- as far as the company is concerned. And which players buy stuff? The players who are jumping from game to game? No. It is the players who are in love with the game and who invest a lot of their time and energy into it. That doesn't necessarily mean hardcore types, but it certainly is a step in that direction.
You see, with subscription models, companies cater to players who just play a bit now and then, because those are precisely the types of players who won't hurry to endgame disappointment and who will not finish content before new content is released. So everything is about the quick fix, not the epic adventure, because casuals don't have time for epic. Friendships and bonds aren't well established because no one sticks around long enough or logs in at the same times, the community because more impersonal and meanspirited.
In otherwords, subscription models cause developers to prioritize players who only feel lukewarm about the game to begin with. If the players you are primarily listening to are the one's who are already a bit bored, is it any wonder that these games seem a bit boring to the rest of us? We are being pulled into "casuals" players' reality.
But with free2play, companies cater to players who are most interested in the game, players who love the game enough to pay. The percentage of players who actually pay is going to be quite small. Casuals just come and go, they feel no real incentive to pay, they already get their fix without doing so. That means there is a fundamental shift away from people who just feel lukewarm about the game toward players who love it. This is precisely why I expect free2play to result in an explosion of much more interesting games. The niche player becomes all important under the F2P era, no longer the casual, which means a lot of games going after something special, not every game trying to be the next WoW.
The F2P era -- which replaces the WoW era in my opinion -- is really only beginning. Though F2P games have been around for awhile, it usually was an admission of a games failure rather than representing the status quo of the industry. But that is changing, and pay2play is rapidly becoming the minority position, and indeed may even become extinct soon. The brilliance behind free2play is it actually uses the very thing that has been eroding the genre and flips the whole thing on its head. Free2play is fundamentally a result of the "casuals" takeover of the industry, but the result is casuals rapidly decline in importance and more dedicated players return to being the center of the industries attention. |
|
|
8/03/12 3:24:00 PM#418
Originally posted by Zorgo Bravo! Outstanding post that I think hits the nail on the head! |
|
|
8/03/12 3:32:08 PM#419
Originally posted by laokoko 10X more sandbox mmos then theamparks? Do tell.
EDIT: Wait a sec. turn based MMORPGs... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_MMORPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiplayer_browser_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_role-playing_game This? Theres more sandbox games then these types? ROFL!!!!!! |
|
|
8/03/12 4:11:00 PM#420
Originally posted by Axehilt No, what that means is merely that your argument about "forcing" is inherently wrong. Which is also "what the hell" e-sport was mentioned for.
What have I got against depth? That's rather an odd thing to say, given this entire time you have been going on about the fact that the deep mechanics travel through a game world can provide "don't count", "don't matter". I actually think depth matters, what you seem to think matters is to be permanently mashing buttons.
"it is irrelevant whether travel enables a deeper experience". No it is not irrelevant at all. It is also really rather funny to call it shallow gameplay: "What are you doing fella?" "Well i'm walking over to that keep there, some friends are meeting me on the way" "What walking?!!! You mean you are not bouncing up and down on your head whilst juggling balls?" "Er no, i'd rather just walk over there thanks" "Wow thats shallow crap, go watch tv". As to why am I "defending" travel. Well given I have pointed out it can drive depth and interlinks with mechanics and can't simply be replaced. Given the fact I have pointed out some people enjoy it (however few). Given the fact that I feel it is a complete and utter joke to think it has to be made into some form of minigame and given the fact that I have pointed out that by improving the game world is what is really needed. Then I think it should be pretty obvious why I am "defending" travel through an open, virtual world.
Making the game world more dynamic, more interesting, more alive. With the landscape subtly altering, with player cities springing up, with unique and dynamic encounters. People having to pick through the terrain, take cover, look for the next safe route. That is what makes travel through it fun, not "hurr play a quick game of Tetris to increase movement speed to warp factor six".
I'm not seeking the status quo at all, I believe that the base mechanics or travel should be kept simple, what should be improved is the game world you travel through and your interactions within it. Not minigames to move. |
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 20, 2013 4:01 AM
- Page Created in 1.061 seconds -
