| 839 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
8/05/12 12:18:35 AM#521
Originally posted by kartool Do i need to tell you? Its been documented a thousand times. You know and i know what they are. Dont be a fool.
What you fail to understand is that the crap being made today ARENT MMOs. Ask those that love these types and they will tell you. There lobby based co-ops and nothing more. There are no more MMOs. Get over yourself and stop drinking the coolaid.
|
|
|
8/05/12 12:24:06 AM#522
Originally posted by Psychow
Got a call to come over to this girls house that wanted to hook up with one of my boys and djr told me her cuz was there and wanted to meet someone. So i show up and lay on the charm. At some point during the night someone said "STOP IT NOW I MEAN IT" and i said "ANYONE WANT A PEANUT?" She fell in love wtih me right then and there =) |
|
|
8/05/12 12:56:41 AM#523
Originally posted by kantseeme I love modern mmos (WoW, RIFT, SWTOR etc) and I will tell you 'yes they are MMOs.' You don't think so? That's fine but you shouting 'This is what an MMO IS!' is pointless. Wonder why there seems to be more haters on the internet? Read this by an actual marketing guy to find out why. |
|
|
8/05/12 1:02:22 AM#524
Well I wouldn't say that it's dead, but the Sandbox genre is definately not healthy. Maybe some of the new sandboxes will breathe some life back into the whole sandbox genre.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick. |
|
|
8/05/12 1:05:43 AM#525
Originally posted by eyelolled I disagree. Sandbox (with EVE Online leading the charge with 400k) are doing better than ever. Are they on par (in terms of $$$ / sub number) with 'themeparks'? No they are not, but there are more subs in sandbox mmos than ever before. Wonder why there seems to be more haters on the internet? Read this by an actual marketing guy to find out why. |
|
|
8/05/12 1:10:22 AM#526
Originally posted by jpnz Sure Eve is doing reasonably well, but you can't deny that there is a definate cry for more quality sandboxes. All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick. |
|
|
8/05/12 1:24:21 AM#527
Originally posted by chilipin Yeah but they wont lock it because there are'nt too many sales invloved for them to do anytrhing. The'll bann you for a popular game. Or ignore you for a semi-popular game. Its all about profits here.
|
|
|
8/05/12 1:25:53 AM#528
Originally posted by eyelolled More are on the horizon, like Archage / Repopulation etc We have more people playing Sandbox MMOs and more actual Sandbox MMOs as well. Same applies to themeparks. That's why this thread's title is factually wrong. :) Wonder why there seems to be more haters on the internet? Read this by an actual marketing guy to find out why. |
|
|
8/05/12 1:29:59 AM#529
No its really dead.
|
|
|
8/05/12 6:32:42 AM#530
Originally posted by Axehilt EVE's virtual world is primarily considered interesting because of the large scale mechanics that it generates and the freedom it gives, specifically in terms of player~agent interactions. Not because it is supremely interesting to constantly interact with as a world space in and off itself.
You can certainly create game worlds which have those large scale mechanics and also have more consistent "interest" on the basis of the player protagonist actually directly interacting with the game world. I have given general examples as to how already, so I wont go over that again.
You have to be somewhat careful with the term "interesting" as some people find one thing interesting, whilst others may find it quite boring. The same goes for the term "shallow". For me you make the world more engaging, increase the interaction between the player, the game world and the agents within the game world. EVE has the model for the agent part, it has less engagment on the direct player to world part (which is primarily down to the scope/ship avatar model in fairness).
That direct engagement can indeed be improved upon in other games (as already demonstrated), whilst at the same time keeping the vital open, player agent interlinked systems and meta games in place. |
|
|
8/05/12 8:00:51 AM#531
Originally posted by jpnz
That doesn't mean you have to have PvP. But you need some way to give that meaning for a cohesion so that players want to do that on large scales. Guilds in games are only the start. But overall, Sandbox games are suffering from lack of content due to lack of funding. And in a pretty big way. Once upon a time.... |
|
|
8/05/12 8:09:42 AM#532
Originally posted by bunnyhopper That "engagement" with the entire rest of the game is what's missing. Interaction with the surroundings, with the other players, and with all that happens in the game world. In today's games, you just aren't a part of anything more than your own character. The rest doesn't matter. The seeker of wisdom climbs the mountain to it's peak to ask the venerable old sage at the summit a simple but deeply unsettling question. A question that many have asked themselves throughout history. "Master, what is the meaning of life" he asked. The old monk raised his aging bald head and looked upon the seeker. His reply would shake him to his core. "Stop playing Themeparks and you might find out." Once upon a time.... |
|
|
8/05/12 8:37:30 AM#533
Originally posted by travamars
|
|
|
8/05/12 8:40:15 AM#534
Originally posted by jpnz
|
|
|
8/05/12 8:50:56 AM#535
The real question is: are these new MMOs really MMOs? To me the answer is no. There's absolutely nothing "massively multiplayer" about them other than your standard "large" persistent PvP zone that all games seem to have now (usually just tossed in there as an after thought to quiet down the OWPvP fans). So in a sense, yes massively multiplayer online role playing games are dead due to all the abusive instancing, sharding and other counter nature segregations. Planetside 2, now THAT is an MMORPG. Large seamless persistent world with thousands of players in the same playing field. edit: minus 10 internetz for not reading the posts just before mine... |
|
|
8/05/12 11:07:06 AM#536
Originally posted by jpnz Theamparks arent even Theamparks anymore. Dont even have to go to the park to ride the rides. They just strap you into a VR helm and whoosh. Off you go to the next VR ride.
And to say that sandboxs are doin well isent right. to menton AA and repop is to say the market itself is crying out for these sandboxs today because the market is saturated with these watered down Miller 64 verions of MMOs.
Thats why your seeing an influx of sanboxes being made. Not because the sandbox market is doin well. It because the genre as a whole is falling apart and needs to get back to its roots. |
|
|
8/05/12 11:14:38 AM#537
Originally posted by bunnyhopper "EVE's virtual world is primarily considered interesting because of the large scale mechanics that it generates and the freedom it gives, specifically in terms of player~agent interactions. Not because it is supremely interesting to constantly interact with as a world space in and off itself." I think we can agree I'm aware of this, given that EVE is one of the strongest examples of the exact type of shallow travel I'm criticizing. The state of travel in EVE is in part the basis of my critique on dull travel. "You have to be somewhat careful with the term "interesting" as some people find one thing interesting, whilst others may find it quite boring. The same goes for the term "shallow". For me you make the world more engaging, increase the interaction between the player, the game world and the agents within the game world. EVE has the model for the agent part, it has less engagment on the direct player to world part (which is primarily down to the scope/ship avatar model in fairness)." I hope we can also agree that EVE's travel can't really be considered "interesting" by any stretch, given that 99% of the time nothing eventful happens and you've only spent 5-15 minutes watching your ship jump. The 1% of the time may be really interesting -- possibly even interesting enough for some to stick through potentially hours of uninteresting travel to experience, and still consider it worth it -- but travel itself definitely isn't. "That direct engagement can indeed be improved upon in other games (as already demonstrated), whilst at the same time keeping the vital open, player agent interlinked systems and meta games in place." Right, which is what I've been arguing in favor of the whole time. Deep+Deep is better than Deep+Shallow. (At least when it comes to mandatory game mechanics. With optional ones, shallow/zen activities can be fine.)
|
|
|
8/05/12 11:48:13 AM#538
Originally posted by Axehilt
The point I was making was that it would be far, far better to actually debate on purely the mechanical level and the ability to interact and engage with mechanics. As opposed to using such highly subjective terms like "interest" and "fun". But yes, as I have mentioned before, travel can be vastly improved via direct engagement with the game world (not just it's agents).
Which is clealy what I have been advocating, I feel the debate has arisen due to conflicting methods of adding that depth. I have strongly advocated generating it via interacting with the game world without needing to ram in extra buttons, skills, minigames etc. If you are not actually against that (which you seemed to be originally), then fair enough, there is nothing to debate really. |
|
|
8/05/12 12:10:02 PM#539
Originally posted by Charas I regularly see 60+ player rift events in Rift. Every day. You don't call Modern Warfare 2 an RPG just because it has RPG elements, do you? So then why would you call Planetside 2 a MMORPG when it's a MMOFPS? |
|
|
8/05/12 1:36:32 PM#540
Originally posted by kantseeme
ARPG means combat + progression these days. |
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 18, 2013 8:05 AM
- Page Created in 0.531 seconds -
