Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by tristanryan

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Hmm I feel there is just much meat in today's games as there ever was.  Some good, some bad.  Nothing has changed in that regard.

 

When you say these things it makes me wonder what good games you have actually played for any extended period of time.

 

Give me one major title released in the last recent years that would take longer than a month or two for 1 dedicated gamer to enter and more or less achieve 99.5% of every single bit of content the game has to offer.

Honestly bro, with a weeks vacation off of work i can pretty much clear up most of any game on the market today. Maybe i have more free time than most, or maybe i just dont sleep as much as the majority of people on our planet, however the point remains.. and its a pretty grim one.

 

See that is entirely circumstantial.  I've been playing WoW off and on for over 5 years, never made max level.  I never made max level in any game actually.  There is a crapload tonne of content in most games today, far more than older games on release.  It just took so long to level in older games, not becaus there was more content, but because leveling was a lot slower.

The pace of leveling and the amount of content are 2 different issues.

wait what? you never made it to max level in wow? something wich is achievable within a month of gaming casually (2 hours a day) What the hell have you been doing?

Age of Wushu

Originally posted by Phelcher

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by tristanryan

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Hmm I feel there is just much meat in today's games as there ever was.  Some good, some bad.  Nothing has changed in that regard.

 

When you say these things it makes me wonder what good games you have actually played for any extended period of time.

 

Give me one major title released in the last recent years that would take longer than a month or two for 1 dedicated gamer to enter and more or less achieve 99.5% of every single bit of content the game has to offer.

Honestly bro, with a weeks vacation off of work i can pretty much clear up most of any game on the market today. Maybe i have more free time than most, or maybe i just dont sleep as much as the majority of people on our planet, however the point remains.. and its a pretty grim one.

 

See that is entirely circumstantial.  I've been playing WoW off and on for over 5 years, never made max level.  I never made max level in any game actually.  There is a crapload tonne of content in most games today, far more than older games on release.  It just took so long to level in older games, not becaus there was more content, but because leveling was a lot slower.

The pace of leveling and the amount of content are 2 different issues.

 

 

So all you know is WoW.. and all you base your ideas on, is based on WoW... mostly.. right?  (or have you forgotten the past?)

 

*random rant with little substance* 

Come on Phelcher, you can do better than that.  If you've paid any attention on these boards at all, or even my posts on these threads you know I've been gaming since 2000 starting with EQ. 

Originally posted by Scot

And since when is PS2 bite sized? I think you are mixing up concepts here. How are you defining bite sized gaming? Having hot spots in PS2 makes it bite sized? If you are in an outfit you go where your platoon needs you to be, but then I guess outifts would not be for you? MMO's and for that matter any online game can have a grander vision than the bite sized one you keep serving up.

SInce it released? I can go in and jump into action within 15 sec of logging in, and play 15 min accomplishing something. (Get some points, take over one area, may be).

If that is not bite-size gaming, what is?

I don't have to go to anywhere i don't want and i don't even need to join a platoon. That is the power of choice. You *can* play it like COD with continuous battles.

Originally posted by Squeak69

cause i dont know about yall but when i log into a multiplayer online game im expecting to be haveing fun with my friends for a hour to several hours.

You have low expectations. I expect i can do 15 min solo and have fun. I expect i can playing with strangers in a PUG. I expect i can play with my friend if i want to. I expect it does not restrict how i want to play.

honestly i dont get why people want to turn MMOs into SP games when there are already HUNDREDS of awsome SP games out there

You are confused. Who want to turn existing MMOs into SP games? MMOs are turning into SP games to tap into the bigger market. It is MMO turning into SP games to attract SP gamers. It is not the other way around.

I play STO because I *can* play it solo like a SP game. If it is not like that, i wouldn't bother. There are plenty of greener pasture out there.

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Yeah .. and not even gamers use longevity to rank success.

How many love COD, or HALO ... and how many never spend more than 2 weeks on these games?

In fact, why is longevity even considered? It should be fun.

Is a movie better because it is longer? Is a book better because it is longer? Why should games be better if they are longer?

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Yeah .. and not even gamers use longevity to rank success.

How many love COD, or HALO ... and how many never spend more than 2 weeks on these games?

In fact, why is longevity even considered? It should be fun.

Is a movie better because it is longer? Is a book better because it is longer? Why should games be better if they are longer?

im sorry but the ENTIRE COD series is still played in multiplayer by vast amount of people.

and Halo is the #1 co-op game out there, i love the game the lore and how i can co-op with my friends and when we are done with that on legendary we stil play a 2 months multiplayer. Aftter that i sometimes play the MP im not really a big shooter fan hence i stop playing it but be asured tons of not millions are still playing online. and when the next sequal is released the old ones don't get discarded no people still play those online asswell.

persistant worlds where an MMO forte this brought longlivety with it. something wich went down the drain the way MMo's are developed now. why do you think evry game now has a Multiplayer? to increase longlivety and increase income.

So please take your bullshit elsewhere . what do you do for work btw? your doing a lousy job if you can spend the entirety of it on a forum.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Yeah .. and not even gamers use longevity to rank success.

How many love COD, or HALO ... and how many never spend more than 2 weeks on these games?

In fact, why is longevity even considered? It should be fun.

Is a movie better because it is longer? Is a book better because it is longer? Why should games be better if they are longer?

And yet again....they were talking about MMORPG's, NOT console gaming, or movies, etc.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Yeah .. and not even gamers use longevity to rank success.

How many love COD, or HALO ... and how many never spend more than 2 weeks on these games?

In fact, why is longevity even considered? It should be fun.

Is a movie better because it is longer? Is a book better because it is longer? Why should games be better if they are longer?

I beat Halo 4 SP in a weekend.  Haven't picked it up since.

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Yeah .. and not even gamers use longevity to rank success.

How many love COD, or HALO ... and how many never spend more than 2 weeks on these games?

In fact, why is longevity even considered? It should be fun.

Is a movie better because it is longer? Is a book better because it is longer? Why should games be better if they are longer?

im sorry but the ENTIRE COD series is still played in multiplayer by vast amount of people.

and Halo is the #1 co-op game out there, i love the game the lore and how i can co-op with my friends and when we are done with that on legendary we stil play a 2 months multiplayer. Aftter that i sometimes play the MP im not really a big shooter fan hence i stop playing it but be asured tons of not millions are still playing online. and when the next sequal is released the old ones don't get discarded no people still play those online asswell.

persistant worlds where an MMO forte this brought longlivety with it. something wich went down the drain the way MMo's are developed now. why do you think evry game now has a Multiplayer? to increase longlivety and increase income.

So please take your bullshit elsewhere . what do you do for work btw? your doing a lousy job if you can spend the entirety of it on a forum.

Not me.  I own all of the Halo and COD games and I don't think I've played multiplayer on any of them.  I play the single player campaigns and move on.  I have no interest whatsoever in multiplayer or PvP.

So yes, take your bullshit elsewhere.

Originally posted by ClaudeSuamOram

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Yeah .. and not even gamers use longevity to rank success.

How many love COD, or HALO ... and how many never spend more than 2 weeks on these games?

In fact, why is longevity even considered? It should be fun.

Is a movie better because it is longer? Is a book better because it is longer? Why should games be better if they are longer?

And yet again....they were talking about MMORPG's, NOT console gaming, or movies, etc.

All of which are entertainment products.  Stop pretending MMOs are something magical.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Yeah .. and not even gamers use longevity to rank success.

How many love COD, or HALO ... and how many never spend more than 2 weeks on these games?

In fact, why is longevity even considered? It should be fun.

Is a movie better because it is longer? Is a book better because it is longer? Why should games be better if they are longer?

im sorry but the ENTIRE COD series is still played in multiplayer by vast amount of people.

and Halo is the #1 co-op game out there, i love the game the lore and how i can co-op with my friends and when we are done with that on legendary we stil play a 2 months multiplayer. Aftter that i sometimes play the MP im not really a big shooter fan hence i stop playing it but be asured tons of not millions are still playing online. and when the next sequal is released the old ones don't get discarded no people still play those online asswell.

persistant worlds where an MMO forte this brought longlivety with it. something wich went down the drain the way MMo's are developed now. why do you think evry game now has a Multiplayer? to increase longlivety and increase income.

So please take your bullshit elsewhere . what do you do for work btw? your doing a lousy job if you can spend the entirety of it on a forum.

Not me.  I own all of the Halo and COD games and I don't think I've played multiplayer on any of them.  I play the single player campaigns and move on.  I have no interest whatsoever in multiplayer or PvP.

So yes, take your bullshit elsewhere.

oke so why are ALL single player games putting out a multi-player now a days? please elaborate me.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Phelcher

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by tristanryan

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Hmm I feel there is just much meat in today's games as there ever was.  Some good, some bad.  Nothing has changed in that regard.

 

When you say these things it makes me wonder what good games you have actually played for any extended period of time.

 

Give me one major title released in the last recent years that would take longer than a month or two for 1 dedicated gamer to enter and more or less achieve 99.5% of every single bit of content the game has to offer.

Honestly bro, with a weeks vacation off of work i can pretty much clear up most of any game on the market today. Maybe i have more free time than most, or maybe i just dont sleep as much as the majority of people on our planet, however the point remains.. and its a pretty grim one.

 

See that is entirely circumstantial.  I've been playing WoW off and on for over 5 years, never made max level.  I never made max level in any game actually.  There is a crapload tonne of content in most games today, far more than older games on release.  It just took so long to level in older games, not becaus there was more content, but because leveling was a lot slower.

The pace of leveling and the amount of content are 2 different issues.

 

 

So all you know is WoW.. and all you base your ideas on, is based on WoW... mostly.. right?  (or have you forgotten the past?)

 

*random rant with little substance* 

Come on Phelcher, you can do better than that.  If you've paid any attention on these boards at all, or even my posts on these threads you know I've been gaming since 2000 starting with EQ. 

In general... not specific to you. 

Secondly, those WoW reference was in response to your using it as a high mark. But the post was not specifically directed @ you.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Are you a player, or a Wall Street investor..?

Success to player's is determined by how long WE.. AS A PLAYER BASE sustain the classics and buy into them. You think sales = success...  yeah, but for whom... the dev's, or the players. So which is it, u a player, or a pseudo-businessman shill'n about here..?

Because, some people may claim that GW2 is a success... but how can they claim that yet, as it is not yet 5 or 10 years old. These latest 5 years of cashgrabs have resuilted in nothing but flops turned free to play, etc.. 

.. but who is still playing Warhammer Online, or Age of Conan anymore, etc.

None of those^ games have the staying power Everquest had..  you are not going to call off of work, or devorce your wiife over any of the current games on the market. Yet, that was an everyday affair during Evercrack's era.

So, MONEY doesn't define sh!zz...  only how well the game was marketed. Longevity determines the classics. (ie: player's all-time favorites.)

Lastly, ever play Lineage I & II   <--  Compared to those... what modern game is going to have that kind of success..? Most have already restructured and we are seeing these cheesy businessmen's deals die out, turning free to play because their only "vision" they had for their game, was their wallet.

Originally posted by ClaudeSuamOram

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Yeah .. and not even gamers use longevity to rank success.

How many love COD, or HALO ... and how many never spend more than 2 weeks on these games?

In fact, why is longevity even considered? It should be fun.

Is a movie better because it is longer? Is a book better because it is longer? Why should games be better if they are longer?

And yet again....they were talking about MMORPG's, NOT console gaming, or movies, etc.

So? MMORPGs are not games? MMORPGs are not entertainment products?

In fact, that makes a lot of sense than talking about Macdonald's and fast foods, don't you think?

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Phelcher

LONGEVITY is how you rank success....

 

 

No it's not, income is the only way to rank success today.  The biggest Hollywood movies stay in theaters for a few weeks at most, then they go to DVD within a few months.  It's the ones that make lots of money that matter, not the ones that languish in the theaters.

Yeah .. and not even gamers use longevity to rank success.

How many love COD, or HALO ... and how many never spend more than 2 weeks on these games?

In fact, why is longevity even considered? It should be fun.

Is a movie better because it is longer? Is a book better because it is longer? Why should games be better if they are longer?

im sorry but the ENTIRE COD series is still played in multiplayer by vast amount of people.

and Halo is the #1 co-op game out there, i love the game the lore and how i can co-op with my friends and when we are done with that on legendary we stil play a 2 months multiplayer. Aftter that i sometimes play the MP im not really a big shooter fan hence i stop playing it but be asured tons of not millions are still playing online. and when the next sequal is released the old ones don't get discarded no people still play those online asswell.

persistant worlds where an MMO forte this brought longlivety with it. something wich went down the drain the way MMo's are developed now. why do you think evry game now has a Multiplayer? to increase longlivety and increase income.

So please take your bullshit elsewhere . what do you do for work btw? your doing a lousy job if you can spend the entirety of it on a forum.

Not me.  I own all of the Halo and COD games and I don't think I've played multiplayer on any of them.  I play the single player campaigns and move on.  I have no interest whatsoever in multiplayer or PvP.

So yes, take your bullshit elsewhere.

Don't pretend you present the market.

In fact, COD multiplayer is in the top 10 of xfire, beating out 90% of the MMORPGs.

I agree, smaller play time is better in this day and age. Take raids for example...it can take easily an hour or more to do a raid, and that isn't counting the many hours (or days) of getting a group together.

That is main issue with MMOs and why they are failing. Only a very very small percentage of MMOers are able to raid, and so they miss out on a lot of content. If raids could be finished in 20-30 minutes, way more of the MMO would open up.

Originally posted by TheScavenger

I agree, smaller play time is better in this day and age. Take raids for example...it can take easily an hour or more to do a raid, and that isn't counting the many hours (or days) of getting a group together.

 

That is main issue with MMOs and why they are failing. Only a very very small percentage of MMOers are able to raid, and so they miss out on a lot of content. If raids could be finished in 20-30 minutes, way more of the MMO would open up.

so you turn on your computer instantly have your raid kill 6 bosses in 20 mins complete the entire thing and mabey have some loot and you think that is fun?

You can do a heroic dungeon in that time amount, if you cannot spend 2 hours to do a LFR stop playing mmo's altogether seriously. stop being entitled to evrything evrywhere. 

i want to drive a ferrari asswell but i sadly do not make enough money so i have a normal car. im in no way entiteld to that ferrari.

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by TheScavenger

I agree, smaller play time is better in this day and age. Take raids for example...it can take easily an hour or more to do a raid, and that isn't counting the many hours (or days) of getting a group together.

 

That is main issue with MMOs and why they are failing. Only a very very small percentage of MMOers are able to raid, and so they miss out on a lot of content. If raids could be finished in 20-30 minutes, way more of the MMO would open up.

so you turn on your computer instantly have your raid kill 6 bosses in 20 mins complete the entire thing and mabey have some loot and you think that is fun?

You can do a heroic dungeon in that time amount, if you cannot spend 2 hours to do a LFR stop playing mmo's altogether seriously. stop being entitled to evrything evrywhere. 

i want to drive a ferrari asswell but i sadly do not make enough money so i have a normal car. im in no way entiteld to that ferrari.

 True but if Ferrari wants to go after people like you they will find a way to deliver the product in a way you can affort.

Just like MMO's actually. hmm