Trending Games | Wizard101 | Elder Scrolls Online | World of Warcraft | ArcheAge

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,899,287 Users Online:0
Games:751  Posts:6,267,817
Recent forum postsRSS
Active threads
Cloud view
List all forums
General Forums
Developers Corner General Discussion
Popular Game Forums
Click a status to find game forum
Game Forums
Click a letter to find game forum
A-C
2029 Online 2112: Revolution 2Moons 4Story 8BitMMO 9 Dragons A Mystical Land A Tale in the Desert III A3 ACE Online ARGO Online Aberoth Absolute Force Online Absolute Terror Achaea Adellion Aerrevan Aetolia, the Midnight Age Age of Armor Age of Conan Age of Empires Online Age of Mourning Age of Wulin Age of Wushu Aida Arenas Aika Aion Albion Online Alganon All Points Bulletin (APB) Allods Online Altis Gates Amazing World Anarchy Online Ancients of Fasaria Andromeda 5 Angels Online Angry Birds Epic Anime Trumps Anmynor Anno Online Applo Arcane Hearts Arcane Legends ArchLord ArcheAge Archeblade Archlord X Ascend: Hand of Kul Asda 2 Asda Story Ashen Empires Asheron's Call Asheron's Call 2 Astera Online Astonia III Astro Empires Astro Lords: Oort CLoud Asura Force Atlantica Online Atriarch Aura Kingdom Aurora Blade Auto Assault Avatar Star Battle Dawn Battle Dawn Galaxies Battle for Graxia Battle of 3 Kingdoms Battle of the Immortals Battlecruiser Online Battlestar Galactica Online Battlestar Reloaded Beyond Protocol Black Aftermath Black Desert Black Gold Black Prophecy Black Prophecy Tactics: Nexus Conflict Blacklight Retribution Blade & Soul Blade Hunter Blade Wars Blazing Throne Bless Blitz 1941 Blood and Jade Bloodlines Champions Boot Hill Heroes Borderlands 2 Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel Bound by Flame Bounty Bay Online Brain Storm Bravada Bravely Default Bravely Second Brawl Busters. Brick-Force Bright Shadow Bullet Run Business Tycoon Online CTRacer Cabal Online Caesary Call of Camelot Call of Gods Call of Thrones Camelot Unchained Canaan Online Cardmon Hero Cartoon Universe CasinoRPG Cast & Conquer Castle Empire Castlot Celtic Heroes Champions Online Champions of Regnum Chaos Online Child of Light Chrono Tales Citadel of Sorcery CitiesXL Citizen Zero City of Decay City of Heroes City of Steam City of Transformers City of Villains Civilization Online Clan Lord Clash of Clans Cloud Nine Club Penguin Colony of War Command & Conquer: Tiberium Alliances Company of Heroes Online Conquer Online Conquer Online 3 Continent of the Ninth (C9) Core Blaze Core Exiles Corum Online Craft of Gods Crimecraft Crimelife 2 Cronous Crota II Crusaders of Solaris Cultures Online Cyber Monster 2 Cyberpunk 2077 Céiron Wars
D-F
D&D Online DC Universe DK Online DOTA DOTA 2 DUST 514 DV8: Exile Dalethaan Dance Groove Online Dark Age of Camelot Dark Ages Dark Legends Dark Orbit Dark Relic: Prelude Dark Solstice Dark Souls 2 Dark and Light DarkEden Online DarkSpace Darkblood Online Darkest Dungeon Darkfall Darkfall: Unholy Wars Darkwind: War on Wheels Das Tal Dawn of Fantasy Dawntide DayZ Dead Earth Dead Frontier Dead Island Dead Island 2 Dead Island: Riptide Deco Online Deep Down Deepworld Defiance Deicide Online Dekaron Demons at the Horizon Desert Operations Destiny Diablo 3 Diamonin Digimon Battle Dino Storm Disciple Divergence Divina Divine Souls Divinity: Original Sin Dofus Dominus Online Dragon Age: Inquisition Dragon Ball Online Dragon Born Online Dragon Crusade Dragon Empires Dragon Eternity Dragon Fin Soup Dragon Nest Dragon Oath Dragon Pals Dragon Raja Dragon's Call Dragon's Call II Dragon's Prophet DragonSky DragonSoul Dragona Dragonica Dragons and Titans Drakengard 3 Dream of Mirror Online Dreamland Online Dreamlords: The Reawakening Drift City Duels Dungeon Blitz Dungeon Fighter Online Dungeon Overlord Dungeon Party Dungeon Rampage Dungeon Runners Dungeon of the Endless Dynastica Dynasty Warriors Online Dynasty of the Magi EIN (Epicus Incognitus) EVE Online Earth Eternal Earth and Beyond Earthrise Eclipse War Ecol Tactics Online Eden Eternal Edge of Space Einherjar - The Viking's Blood Elder Scrolls Online Eldevin Elf Online Elite: Dangerous Embers of Caerus Emil Chronicle Online Empire Empire & State Empire Craft Empire Universe 3 EmpireQuest Empires of Galldon End of Nations Endless Ages Endless Blue Moon Online Endless Online Entropia Universe EpicDuel Erebus: Travia Reborn Eredan Eternal Blade Eternal Lands Eternal Saga Ether Fields Ether Saga Online Eudemons Online EuroGangster EverEmber Online EverQuest Next EverQuest Online Adventures Evernight Everquest Everquest II Evony Exarch Exorace F.E.A.R. Online Face of Mankind Fairyland Online Fall of Rome Fallen Earth Fallen Sword Fallout 4 Fallout Online Family Guy Online Fantage Fantasy Earth Zero Fantasy Realm Online Fantasy Tales Online Fantasy Worlds: Rhynn Faunasphere Faxion Online Fearless Fantasy Ferentus Ferion Fiesta Online Final Fantasy Type-0 HD Final Fantasy XI Final Fantasy XIV Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn Firefall Fists of Fu Florensia Flyff Football Manager Live Football Superstars Force of Arms Forge Forsaken Uprising Forsaken World Fortnite Fortuna Forum for Discussion of Everlight Freaky Creatures Free Realms Freesky Online Freeworld Fung Wan Online Furcadia Fury Fusion Fall
G-L
GalaXseeds Galactic Command Online Game of Thrones: Seven Kingdoms Gameglobe Gate To Heavens Gates of Andaron Gatheryn Gauntlet Gekkeiju Online Ghost Online Ghost Recon Online Gladiatus Glitch Global Agenda Global Soccer Gloria Victis Glory of Gods GoGoRacer Goal Line Blitz Gods and Heroes GodsWar Online Golemizer Golf Star GoonZu Online Graal Kingdoms Granado Espada Online Grand Chase Grand Fantasia Grepolis Grimlands Guild Wars Guild Wars 2 Guild Wars Factions Guild Wars Nightfall H1Z1 Habbo Hotel Hailan Rising HaloSphere2 Haven & Hearth Hawken Heart Forth Alicia Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Helbreath Hellgate Hellgate: London Hello Kitty Online Hero Online Hero Zero Hero's Journey Hero: 108 Online HeroSmash Heroes & Generals Heroes & Legends: Conquerors of Kolhar Heroes in the Sky Heroes of Atlan Heroes of Bestia Heroes of Gaia Heroes of Might and Magic Online Heroes of Thessalonica Heroes of Three Kingdoms Heroes of the Storm Hex Holic Online Hostile Space Hunter Blade Huxley Icewind Dale: Enhanced Edition Illutia Illyriad Immortals USA Imperator Imperian Inferno Legend Infestation: Survivor Stories Infinite Crisis Infinity Infinity Iris Online Iron Grip: Marauders Irth Worlds Island Forge Islands of War Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted Jade Dynasty Jagged Alliance Online Juggernaut Jumpgate Jumpgate Evolution KAL Online Kakele Online Kaos War Karos Online Kartuga Kicks Online King of Kings 3 Kingdom Heroes Kingdom Under Fire II Kingdom of Drakkar Kingory Kings Era Kings and Legends Kings of the Realm KingsRoad Kitsu Saga Kiwarriors Knight Age Knight Online Knights of Dream City Kothuria Kung Foo! Kunlun Online Kyn L.A.W. LEGO Universe La Tale Land of Chaos Online Landmark Lands of Hope: Redemption LastChaos League of Angels League of Legends - Clash of Fates Legend of Edda: Vengeance Legend of Golden Plume Legend of Katha Legend of Mir 2 Legend of Mir 3 Legendary Champions Lego Minifigures Online Lichdom: Battlemage Life is Feudal Light of Nova Lime Odyssey Line of Defense Lineage Lineage Eternal: Twilight Resistance Lineage II Linkrealms Loong Online Lord of the Rings Online Lords Online Lords of the Fallen Lost Saga Lucent Heart Lunia Lusternia: Age of Ascension Luvinia World
M-Q
MU Online Mabinogi Maestia: Rise of Keledus MagiKnights Magic Barrage Magic World Online Manga Fighter MapleStory Martial Heroes Marvel Heroes Marvel Super Hero Squad Online Marvel: Avengers Alliance Mass Effect 4 MechWarrior Online Megaten Meridian 59 : Evolution Merlin MetalMercs Metaplace Metin 2 MicroVolts Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor Midkemia Online Might & Magic Heroes: Kingdoms Might & Magic X: Legacy MilMo Minecraft Mini Fighter Minions of Mirth Ministry of War Monato Esprit Monkey King Online Monkey Quest Monster & Me Monster Madness Online MonsterMMORPG Moonlight Online: Tales of Eternal Blood Moonrise Mordavia Mortal Online Mourning My Lands Myst Online: URU Live Myth Angels Online Myth War Myth War 2 Mythborne Mytheon Mythic Saga Mythos N.E.O Online NIDA Online Nadirim Naviage: The Power of Capital Navy Field Need for Speed World Nemexia Neo's Land NeoSteam Neocron Nether Neverwinter Nexus: The Kingdom Of The Winds NinjaTrick NosTale Novus Aeterno Oberin Odin Quest Odyssey RPG Ogre Island Omerta 3 Online Boxing Manager Onverse Oort Online Order & Chaos Online Order of Magic Original Blood Origins Return Origins of Malu Orion's Belt Otherland Forums OverSoul Overkings Oz Online Oz World Pandora Saga Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen Panzar Parabellum Parallel Kingdom Parfait Station Path of Exile Pathfinder Online Perfect World Perpetuum Online Persona V Phantasy Star Online 2 Phantasy Star Universe Phoenix Dynasty Online Phylon Pi Story Picaroon Pillars of Eternity Pirate Galaxy Pirate Storm Pirate101 PirateKing Online Pirates of the Burning Sea Pirates of the Caribbean Online Pixie Hollow Planeshift Planet Arkadia Planet Calypso PlanetSide 2 Planetside Planets³ Playboy Manager Pocket Legends Pockie Ninja Pockie Pirates Pockie Saints Pokémon X and Y PoxNora Prime World Prime: Battle for Dominus Priston Tale Priston Tale II Prius Online Prodigy Project Blackout Project Gorgon Project Powder Project Titan Forums Project Wiki Project Zomboid Puzzle Pirates Quest for Infamy Quickhit Football
R-S
R2 Online RAN Online RF Online ROSE Online Rage of 3 Kingdoms Ragnarok Online Ragnarok Online II RaiderZ Rail Nation Rakion Rappelz RappelzSEA Ravenmarch Realm Fighter Realm of Sierra Realm of the Mad God Realm of the Titans Realms Online Reclamation Red Stone Red War: Edem's Curse Regnum Online Remnant Knights Renaissance Repulse Requiem: Memento Mori Rift RiotZone Rise Rise of Dragonian Era Rise of Empire Rise of the Tycoon Risen 3: Titan Lords Rising of King Risk Your Life Rivality Rockfree Rohan: Blood Feud Role Play Worlds Roll n Rock Roma Victor Romadoria Rosh Online Roto X Rubies of Eventide Ruin Online Rumble Fighter Runes of Magic Runescape Rust Rusty Hearts Ryzom S4 League SAGA SD Gundam Capsule Fighter Online SMITE SUN Sacred 3 Sagramore Salem SaySayGirls Scarlet Blade Scions of Fate Seal Online: Evolution Second Chance Heroes Second Life Secret of the Solstice Seed Serenia Fantasy Seven Seas Saga Seven Souls Online Sevencore Shadow Realms Shadow of Legend Shadowbane Shadowgate Shadowrun Online Shaiya Shards Online Shattered Galaxy Sho Online Shot Online Shroud of the Avatar SideQuest Siege on Stars Sigonyth: Desert Eternity Silkroad Online Skyblade Skyforge SmashMuck Champions Smoo Online Soldier Front Soul Master Soul Order Online Soul of Guardian South Park: The Stick of Truth Space Heroes Universe Sparta: War of Empires Spellcasters Sphere Spiral Knights Spirit Tales Splash Fighters Squad Wars Star Citizen Star Sonata 2 Star Stable Star Supremacy Star Trek Online Star Trek: Infinite Space Star Wars Galaxies Star Wars: Clone Wars Adventures Star Wars: The Old Republic StarQuest Online Starbound Stargate Worlds Starlight Story Starpires State of Decay SteelWar Online Stone Age 2 Stormfall: Age of War Stormthrone Storybricks Stronghold Kingdoms Styx: Master of Shadows Sudden Attack Supremacy 1914 Supreme Destiny Sword Girls Sword of Destiny: Rise of Aions SwordX Swords of Heavens Swordsman
T-Z
TERA TS Online TUG Tabula Rasa Tactica Online Tales Runner Tales of Fantasy Tales of Pirates Tales of Pirates II Tales of Solaris Talisman Online Tamer Saga Tank Ace Tantra Online Tatsumaki: Land at War Terra Militaris TerraWorld Online Terraria Thang Online The 4th Coming The Agency The Aurora World The Banner Saga The Black Watchmen The Chronicle The Chronicles of Spellborn The Crew The Division The Epic Might The Hammers End The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing 2 The Legend of Ares The Lost Titans The Matrix Online The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot The Missing Ink The Mummy Online The Myth of Soma The Pride of Taern The Realm Online The Repopulation The Secret World The Sims Online The Strategems The West The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Theralon There Therian Saga Thrones of Chaos Tibia Tibia Micro Edition Tiger Knight Titan Siege Titans of Time Toontown Online Top Speed Topia Online Torchlight Torment: Tides of Numenera Total Domination Transformers Universe Transistor Transverse Traveller AR Travia Online Travian Trials of Ascension Tribal Hero Tribal Wars Tribes Universe Trickster Online Trove Troy Online True Fantasy Live Online Turf Battles Twelve Sky Twelve Sky 2 Twilight War Tynon U.B. Funkeys UFO Online URDEAD Online Ultima Forever: Quest for the Avatar Ultima Online Ultima X: Odyssey Ultimate Naruto Ultimate Soccer Boss Uncharted Waters Online Undercover 2: Merc Wars Underlight Unification Wars Universe Online Utopia Valkyrie Sky Vampire Lord Online Vanguard: Saga of Heroes Vanquish Space Vector City Racers Vendetta Online Victory - Age of Racing Vindictus Virtonomics Vis Gladius Visions of Zosimos VoidExpanse Voyage Century Online W.E.L.L. Online WAR (Warhammer Online) WAR2 Glory WYD Global Wakfu War Thunder War of 2012 War of Angels War of Legends War of Mercenaries War of Thrones War of the Immortals WarFlow Waren Story Warflare Wargame1942 Warhammer 40,000: Eternal Crusade Warhammer 40K: Dark Millennium Online Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes Warkeepers Warrior Epic Wartune Wasteland 2 WebLords Wild West Online WildStar Wind of Luck WindSlayer 2 Wings of Destiny Wish Wizard101 Wizardry Online Wizards and Champions Wonder King Wonderland Online World Golf Tour World of Battles World of Darkness World of Heroes World of Kung Fu World of Pirates World of Speed World of Tanks World of Tanks Generals World of Warcraft World of Warplanes World of Warships World of the Living Dead WorldAlpha Wurm Online Xenoblade Chronicles: X Xenocell Xiah Xsyon Xulu YS Online Yitien ZU Online Zentia Zero Online Zero Online: The Andromeda Crisis Zodiac Online Zombies Ate My Pizza eRepublik

MMORPG.com Discussion Forums

General Discussion

General Discussion 

The Pub at MMORPG.COM  » Remember the good old MMO's? Taking off my rose-colored glasses and seeing reality

29 Pages First « 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 » Search
578 posts found
  Holophonist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2031

9/23/13 9:33:25 PM#501
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
Originally posted by lizardbones

 

Well fine.

UO tried the "old school" route, and they only made it to 250k by adding Trammel and letting Feluca become a wasteland.

EQ tried the "old school" route and got thoroughly trounced by EQ2 & WoW.

Pick any "old school" MMORPG, even the ones that were AAA games and the same pattern repeats itself.

People keep bringing up this "old school" market and how great it is. If this were true, there should be some evidence to support it, other than the cries of of the disenfranchised on forums.

 

 

Lol, you are comparing old games to new games.   I think most people are talking about moving the genre forward down a different path.  The problem is most people can't wrap their minds around the concept  of a path outside of following WoW casual gaming.  

Yup, this is a point that is so often overlooked. I feel like a lot of this started with UO's decision to introduce Trammel in the face of the supposed "hemmorrhaging playerbase." As if there weren't organic, simulation-based, sandbox ways to deal with rampant PKs. Raph Koster himself said Trammel wouldn't have been his first choice and some of the natural next steps for UO in his mind would have been things like player cities and sieging.  

  Loktofeit

Elite Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 12401

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ArcheAge, and Combat Arms

9/23/13 9:43:49 PM#502
Originally posted by Holophonist

Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.

You're not the only one that makes the above mistakes. It's RAMPANT here. I'm trying to discern whether it's the result of a lack of command of the language or the inability to differentiate between opinion and fact. 

What I think Quirhid is pointing out is that you present opinion as fact, and then base your conclusion on what you have derived from that. 

"Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive?"

The issue there is that you are saying that it is true, thus the reasonable request for you to provide proof that it is. 

"And wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica. Wikipedia is very reliable. You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for these kinds of things." -fivoroth

  FinalFikus

Hard Core Member

Joined: 3/01/13
Posts: 910

"We're up all night to get lucky"

9/23/13 9:47:55 PM#503
No he didn't loktofiet. He clearly stated "whether it is true or not" in the very next sentence. C'mon. Im not even reading most of it and I had no problem understanding. Im stupid too.

"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  Holophonist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2031

9/23/13 9:50:55 PM#504
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Holophonist

Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.

You're not the only one that makes the above mistakes. It's RAMPANT here. I'm trying to discern whether it's the result of a lack of command of the language or the inability to differentiate between opinion and fact. 

What I think Quirhid is pointing out is that you present opinion as fact, and then base your conclusion on what you have derived from that. 

"Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive?"

The issue there is that you are saying that it is true, thus the reasonable request for you to provide proof that it is. 

The quote itself INCLUDES the acknowledgement that it's not provable, or at least that I can't prove it. 

 

And by the way, I don't believe for a second that I'm misusing the language half as much as people on both sides of these discussions. I see other sandbox advocates and themepark advocates not only omitting the "In my opinion..." that you seem to think needs to precede every opinion, but they outright say things are facts when in truth they're opinions. It's pretty obvious that Quirhid takes issue with me in particular because he has a grudge of some sort or doesn't like how bluntly I argue. 

  DSWBeef

Apprentice Member

Joined: 8/11/09
Posts: 777

9/23/13 10:02:28 PM#505

IMO it stems down to big businesses making these high budget themepark wow clones and get initially good box sales then people realize its the same old crap all over again and leave. This in turns makes the devs go F2P. Swtor is the best example.

 

Weve seen what small indie devs can do with limited money (wurm online, embers of caerus, ect ect) sandboxes are much cheaper to make as they dont need VO for quests, lots of dev time on quests, ect ect. Thats why we see more indie devs go the sandbox route, its cheaper and if they pull it off its amazing.

Playing: Archeage Alpha, World of Warcraft, and Diablo 3
Waiting on: Archeage, Everquest Next and The Black Desert

  Holophonist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2031

9/23/13 10:11:15 PM#506
Originally posted by DSWBeef

IMO it stems down to big businesses making these high budget themepark wow clones and get initially good box sales then people realize its the same old crap all over again and leave. This in turns makes the devs go F2P. Swtor is the best example.

 

Weve seen what small indie devs can do with limited money (wurm online, embers of caerus, ect ect) sandboxes are much cheaper to make as they dont need VO for quests, lots of dev time on quests, ect ect. Thats why we see more indie devs go the sandbox route, its cheaper and if they pull it off its amazing.

I think sandboxes in general are going to be cheaper to produce than themeparks. The fact that sandboxes often have "player generated content" should alleviate some of the pressure on devs to produce expansions and new content. The flipside to that is that the games themselves probably have to have deeper/more complex systems. And those systems have to work organically with each other to produce a virtual world where people can indeed make their own content.

  Scot

Hard Core Member

Joined: 10/10/03
Posts: 5278

9/24/13 2:18:08 AM#507
Originally posted by Holophonist
Originally posted by DSWBeef

IMO it stems down to big businesses making these high budget themepark wow clones and get initially good box sales then people realize its the same old crap all over again and leave. This in turns makes the devs go F2P. Swtor is the best example.

 

Weve seen what small indie devs can do with limited money (wurm online, embers of caerus, ect ect) sandboxes are much cheaper to make as they dont need VO for quests, lots of dev time on quests, ect ect. Thats why we see more indie devs go the sandbox route, its cheaper and if they pull it off its amazing.

I think sandboxes in general are going to be cheaper to produce than themeparks. The fact that sandboxes often have "player generated content" should alleviate some of the pressure on devs to produce expansions and new content. The flipside to that is that the games themselves probably have to have deeper/more complex systems. And those systems have to work organically with each other to produce a virtual world where people can indeed make their own content.

No one here can think sandbox will some how save the genre? Every MMO out there is going to be hit by the change in what the playerbase now expects and the back biting number of MMO's. You can go niche and expect to have fewer players, but that has its own issues. Sandbox has a temporary advantage in that not as many sandbox games are out, but that advantage is already starting to fade. I do think modding could be the saviour of MMOs, but you can mod a more themepark game too. It is the complexity you mention that will be the issue for a sandbox, downgrading the graphics has been one solution that does not go down well.

As a proponent of themeparks in a sandbox sandwich I want the best of both worlds, but it is a big ask.

  Holophonist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2031

9/24/13 7:13:34 AM#508
Originally posted by Scot
Originally posted by Holophonist
Originally posted by DSWBeef

IMO it stems down to big businesses making these high budget themepark wow clones and get initially good box sales then people realize its the same old crap all over again and leave. This in turns makes the devs go F2P. Swtor is the best example.

 

Weve seen what small indie devs can do with limited money (wurm online, embers of caerus, ect ect) sandboxes are much cheaper to make as they dont need VO for quests, lots of dev time on quests, ect ect. Thats why we see more indie devs go the sandbox route, its cheaper and if they pull it off its amazing.

I think sandboxes in general are going to be cheaper to produce than themeparks. The fact that sandboxes often have "player generated content" should alleviate some of the pressure on devs to produce expansions and new content. The flipside to that is that the games themselves probably have to have deeper/more complex systems. And those systems have to work organically with each other to produce a virtual world where people can indeed make their own content.

No one here can think sandbox will some how save the genre? Every MMO out there is going to be hit by the change in what the playerbase now expects and the back biting number of MMO's. You can go niche and expect to have fewer players, but that has its own issues. Sandbox has a temporary advantage in that not as many sandbox games are out, but that advantage is already starting to fade. I do think modding could be the saviour of MMOs, but you can mod a more themepark game too. It is the complexity you mention that will be the issue for a sandbox, downgrading the graphics has been one solution that does not go down well.

As a proponent of themeparks in a sandbox sandwich I want the best of both worlds, but it is a big ask.

Well you talk about the temporary advantage that sandboxes have and how it may not last. It doesn't have to. What I'm claiming is simply that the market isn't currently catering to the people it's supposed to. I think sandbox players are underserved. I don't expect sandboxes to ever be more popular than themeparks, but I do expect them to be more popular than they are right now.

 

And yes, the complexity of a sandbox is going to be an obstacle to overcome. However I think it's an intellectual problem more than it is a cash problem. I don't think it's necessarily expensive to design interesting, deep, complex systems. I just think it's hard.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10861

I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos

9/24/13 8:36:59 AM#509


Originally posted by FinalFikus

lets forget about old school and talk about the new school.

Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.

Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old school

DDO- fail

LORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old school

WAR-dead

AOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old school

Tabla rasa-dead

Vangaurd-fail

Final fantasy- looks like it will join the old school

Rift-joins the old school

Star trek-join the old school

COH-dead

Aion- joins the old school at least here

Fallen earth-old school

Guild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxes

Guild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxes

Star wars old republic- lol

 unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).

Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers.  Plus all the new tech.

Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.

Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.

 




Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money.

The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.

I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  Vermillion_Raventhal

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 6/01/04
Posts: 1036

9/24/13 11:47:47 AM#510
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by FinalFikus

lets forget about old school and talk about the new school.

 

Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.

Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old school

DDO- fail

LORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old school

WAR-dead

AOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old school

Tabla rasa-dead

Vangaurd-fail

Final fantasy- looks like it will join the old school

Rift-joins the old school

Star trek-join the old school

COH-dead

Aion- joins the old school at least here

Fallen earth-old school

Guild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxes

Guild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxes

Star wars old republic- lol

 unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).

Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers.  Plus all the new tech.

Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.

Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.

 




Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money.

The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.

 

 

Again that's an assumption and not really true.  The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish.  Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.

  Loktofeit

Elite Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 12401

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ArcheAge, and Combat Arms

9/24/13 12:04:19 PM#511
Originally posted by FinalFikus
No he didn't loktofiet. He clearly stated "whether it is true or not" in the very next sentence. C'mon. Im not even reading most of it and I had no problem understanding. Im stupid too.

If someone is building both their argument and the reasoning behind it on a particular statement, you really feel it is irrelevant whether that statement is true or not? Are you truly trying to make that claim?

"And wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica. Wikipedia is very reliable. You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for these kinds of things." -fivoroth

  Quirhid

Elite Member

Joined: 1/28/05
Posts: 5610

Correcting wrongs on the Internet...

9/24/13 12:48:16 PM#512
Originally posted by Holophonist
Originally posted by Quirhid
 
Then please do explain your position again, only differently. I've given you that courtesy over a dozen times (although in vain).
What courtesy are you talking about? In this very discussion you've been ignoring 90% of what I've been saying, and the 10% you do respond to either has little bearing on the overall discussion or you just flat out don't understand. 
What I am trying to do is to make you understand my point. And I've tried to explain things differently when you haven't followed my meaning. But fine if you don't want to do that... Fine.
 
And I'm not going to explain anything differently, I'm going to repost what I said the FIRST time. This after you said I had no rational arguments to back up what I say:
Gives me a chance to pick it apart then.
 
"1. I've given a TON of rational arguments for why I'm in favor of old school games. Oh there is some rationale behind it, just not very sound.
 
I've explained how watering down works. Yes you have, you made fairly risky assumptions there though, which make me think your argument about watering down is rather weak.
 
I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. This phenomenon is commonplace. Nothing to get giddy over. No, you all but outright blamed the companies for making profit. I have a strong suspicion that this part of the argument only stems from the fact that you are displeased by the fact how companies are not catering to you. You're just venting. I forgive you.
 
Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." Because you erroneously think that the market 10 years ago would be the same as today. Its not. It is rather naive to think so.
 
How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? I mind when you pollute the forums I read with faulty logic and bitter tirade about today's companies, games and their players.
 
And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on."  Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Let me Google that for you.
 
 
I pick on those little phrases because your arguments rests on them. There's no point in entertaining wild theories and claims when I can direct my attention where it all went wrong. I'd rather treat the disease, not the symptom, you see?
 
I would be shocked to find out if you didn't care much about the validity of your rationale. Do you even care if your logic is sound when the conclusion you've arrived to is the one you want. Not the correct one, not the most likely one, but the one you like the most. And you act like its the truth.
WRONG. Pretty much every time you're ignoring the points my argument rests on and leading us off into a bunny trail that doesn't matter.
 
And there are no "wild theories" here. Please do tell me what wild theories I've presented, because my "theories" are all extremely tame. In fact at this point I'm pretty sure you're just attributing everything a sandbox advocate has said to me.
 
You can keep insisting that I skew arguments or evidence to fit my opinion, but you never point out how. Every one of my posts is FAR MORE exhaustive than the best of yours. Did you ever consider that you're the one that has an agenda? That you just flat out don't like how bluntly and directly I argue that you'll do or say anything to make it look like I'm wrong? Because so far you've said some pretty indefensible things in your ongoing crusade against me. You said WoW had no effect on the market. You said Haven and Hearth was touted as "THE ONE" by sandbox advocates.
Everything you have is speculation and conjecture. You make assumptions and assertions which cannot be proven to be valid. You completely missed my point when I tried to explain to you a fault in your logic with the watered down theory. I explained it twice if not thrice, but it didn't sink in. You were so adamant that "WoW is watered down" that you didn't care if your rationale was faulty.
 
I defend my positions vehemently simply because I choose them carefully and sparingly. I'm not just posting theories willy nilly only to have to eat my words.
I admit your defense of the strawman you made from Loktofeit's argument in that one thread was quite remarkable. We still don't know why you did it though. And it is still a strawman.
 
You say WoW is dumbed down or watered down. You say they're not as deep as... whatever game you happen to like. And you've tried very hard to make a distinction between popular games and "good games". It is like anything you don't enjoy yourself can't be good.
 
Look at your posts. You are very rude.
I'm rude when other people are rude. If you're going to be arrogant and condescending while at the same time ignore things when you can't think of anything to say to them, then you've given up your right to play the victim.
 
Saying a game is watered down or dumbed down is NOT inherently rude. What is it with you and this over the top PC attitude? It's rude to say something is inferior to something else? My gosh man, if somebody is offended by that, they need thicker skin. And by the way, one of my best friends who I've known for half of my life LOVES WoW. Again, you're projecting some kind of personality onto me that doesn't exist. 
 
Also, I do indeed think some things are good even though I don't enjoy them. EvE mainly. Also some TV shows like Homeland. Mmmm I never could get into Harry Potter, but I acknowledge that they're good books. Again, you're just assuming things about me because it fits your narrative.
You get what you're asking for. If you are polite, I am polite. When you are not, why should I? You won't find me throwing ad hominems around though. And when have I played the victim?
 
It is rude to call something inferior when it isn't. It is rude when you choose to talk with derogative and antagonizing terminology. Are you expecting people just accept their game is a "WoW clone" when they think it isn't? Watered-down when they think it isn't?
 
It is arrogant to automatically assume that just because someone share your view must not know as much as you do. And it is arrogant to imply your preference is better than someone else's.
 
You don't get to decide what is good and what is not. It is not up to you. You can't say which is fast food and which is fine dining, because everyone's preference is their own. Just like you would say your friends game is trash, he might say your game is trash, and you both would be right. You have no right, no expertise, no authority to claim the high ground or set any standards. You just don't get to do that.
 
Only objective measure of quality available to us, is the sales & sub numbers.
 
Hey that "one coder", the indie dev? He was also the designer. He was a one man project. But I am anxious to find out: How do you know a design is good?
If he's making decisions that involve blatantly copying other games then I'm going to point that out. I'm not saying if he writes code then he's off-limits from people criticizing him. I'm saying I'm not criticizing the person that has nothing to do with my criticisms. If there's some young guy working at X Company doing his job and creating the content he's supposed to create, I'm not criticizing him. This isn't Nazi Germany, I'm not expecting him to make a point and stand up to whoever is responsible for what I think are bad decisions. That really should be obvious.
 
And how do you expect me to answer a vague question like that? The question is about if I've been insulting to developers. And I'm saying I'm only addressing the people in charge of the things I'm criticizing. Again, should be intuitive, but somehow you don't get it. You seem to think some indie developer is going to get distraught when I put down bigger, greedier developers and praise indie developers....
Nevermind then. You made a vague statement. I thought you might have an explanation. Still, you only assume they are greedy. They might be hard working people trying to make a game they themselves want to play. But you call them greedy, lazy and clueless. How do you know if they are any of those things?
 
You are venting. I forgive you.

I am not attacking you I am attacking your arguments. You're the one making personal comments. I just can't be arsed to dust off old threads that have reached the point of ad nauseam. Declaring yourself victor or "right" on the basis of that doesn't speak highly of you.

ARE YOU EVER GOING TO STOP IGNORING POINTS? This is a perfect example of a moment in a discussion where YOU will claim that we're just going around circles and I'm being stubborn, but in reality you're not even coming close to responding to the original point. If we're going around in circles, it's because I'm chasing you around as you run away from the main and original point.

 

Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?

 

Arguing with you is always so pointless because you are simply incapable of having a cohesive, sequential discussion. As soon as I respond to something inaccurate you've said, you change the subject to something else.

I guess I didn't make my view clear enough here or in the other thread so let me explain again:

The statement "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its true" is by no means sensible or intuitive because it implies that if I should want to prove the argument false, I would have to provide the evidence. Rather than you providing proof of positive you require me to proof the negative. Its just not good practice.

If we all operated the same way. Any argument could be considered true. It is the flying spaghetti monster argument. I can't prove that there is no FSM. But like the FSM argument, yours is so weak, so unlikely, that it crosses my threshold over to fiction.

Hopefully you'll now understand how comical it is to watch you defend such arguments like they were a certainty.

You most certainly did NOT make yourself clear because you never spoke a word about it.

Well I strongly implied it at least.

And now that you have, let me explain why you're wrong. Saying "Just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true" absolutely does NOT imply that you have to prove me wrong. What it DOES imply (or even outright says, actually) is that just because you've shown that I haven't proven it, doesn't mean it isn't true. In other words, some things are never meant to be presented as provable facts... hell, the vast MAJORITY of posts on this website and sentences uttered in the real world fit that exact description, that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it, it doesn't mean it's not true.

 

Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.

Like Loktofeit said, if you state that something is or isn't you should provide evidence toward the positive.

"There is other life in the Universe" can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either. Only True statement we can make is, "we are the only life in the universe - that we know of". We can argue what speaks in favor of extraterrestrial life and against and decide how likely that possibility is. In other words, we can decide whether that argument is strong or weak.

Since we are on the topic, I find extraterrestrial life to be likely because of the seemingly infinite number of galaxies. But like I already said, I find your argument weak. Based off of the assumptions you make that I wouldn't make, the logic which I think is erroneous and your skewed view of the industry and the market.

Also part of why has been such a momentous clash is because you think the things you claim are intuitive, when they really are not. Not to us. Something to think on.

In conclusion: I think you are a crackpot. -But don't worry! I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  Quirhid

Elite Member

Joined: 1/28/05
Posts: 5610

Correcting wrongs on the Internet...

9/24/13 12:54:00 PM#513
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
Originally posted by lizardbones
 

 

Again that's an assumption and not really true.  The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish.  Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.

But you are assuming that developers haven't done their research? Where does that get us?

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  Vermillion_Raventhal

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 6/01/04
Posts: 1036

9/24/13 1:35:49 PM#514
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
Originally posted by lizardbones
 

 

Again that's an assumption and not really true.  The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish.  Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.

But you are assuming that developers haven't done their research? Where does that get us?

 

And these days I don't believe much into accepted theories on untested human behavior or untried activities.  As I said before its all assumptions until tried both ways.  Majority of MMORPG players have only had one type of MMORPGs because they can post WoW.  To say they would never play another type is unproven.  That's my point.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10861

I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos

9/24/13 1:44:02 PM#515


Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by FinalFikus lets forget about old school and talk about the new school.   Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse. Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old school DDO- fail LORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old school WAR-dead AOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old school Tabla rasa-dead Vangaurd-fail Final fantasy- looks like it will join the old school Rift-joins the old school Star trek-join the old school COH-dead Aion- joins the old school at least here Fallen earth-old school Guild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxes Guild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxes Star wars old republic- lol  unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone). Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers.  Plus all the new tech. Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them. Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.  
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.  
 

Again that's an assumption and not really true.  The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish.  Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.




The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen.

So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.

I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  Vermillion_Raventhal

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 6/01/04
Posts: 1036

9/24/13 2:08:58 PM#516
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by FinalFikus lets forget about old school and talk about the new school.   Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse. Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old school DDO- fail LORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old school WAR-dead AOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old school Tabla rasa-dead Vangaurd-fail Final fantasy- looks like it will join the old school Rift-joins the old school Star trek-join the old school COH-dead Aion- joins the old school at least here Fallen earth-old school Guild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxes Guild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxes Star wars old republic- lol  unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone). Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers.  Plus all the new tech. Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them. Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.  
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.  
 

 

Again that's an assumption and not really true.  The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish.  Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.




The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen.

So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.

 

 

Ok, we've gotten into circular argument going on here.   You're comparing older games directly to newer games and not older style games to newer styled games.  There are no modern older styled games at all except WoW clones.  There is no direct comparison until one is made.  But no other western subscription game outside WoW has maintained a substationally higher player base than older games.  Not talking about release peaks.

 

I mean, UO's spiritual successor SWG also sold more.   Each new GTA has sold more than the last.  I am sure a "brand new" 1995 Honda Accord is not going to sell as well as 2013 version even if it was more mechanically sound.  

  Holophonist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2031

9/24/13 2:23:26 PM#517
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by Holophonist
Originally posted by Quirhid
 
Then please do explain your position again, only differently. I've given you that courtesy over a dozen times (although in vain).
What courtesy are you talking about? In this very discussion you've been ignoring 90% of what I've been saying, and the 10% you do respond to either has little bearing on the overall discussion or you just flat out don't understand. 
What I am trying to do is to make you understand my point. And I've tried to explain things differently when you haven't followed my meaning. But fine if you don't want to do that... Fine.
 
And I'm not going to explain anything differently, I'm going to repost what I said the FIRST time. This after you said I had no rational arguments to back up what I say:
Gives me a chance to pick it apart then.
 
"1. I've given a TON of rational arguments for why I'm in favor of old school games. Oh there is some rationale behind it, just not very sound.
 
I've explained how watering down works. Yes you have, you made fairly risky assumptions there though, which make me think your argument about watering down is rather weak.
Except you never found any fault with how I determine what it means, just how it applies to WoW. And then when we started talking about how it applies to WoW you just.... shocker... stopped replying.
 
I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. This phenomenon is commonplace. Nothing to get giddy over. No, you all but outright blamed the companies for making profit. I have a strong suspicion that this part of the argument only stems from the fact that you are displeased by the fact how companies are not catering to you. You're just venting. I forgive you.
So let me get this straight... you argue against it happening and then say it's commonplace? If it's commonplace then how am I wrong? My point is that WoW introduced an unnatural distortion in the market which lead companies to focus more on themeparks and specifically them stealing features from WoW.
 
And what do you mean outright blame them for making a profit? I've said over and over that I don't blame companies for wanting to make money, but part of a free market is consumers voicing their opinions. Part of the problem is people enabling companies to get away with rehashing the same formula over and over with a new skin over top.
 
Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." Because you erroneously think that the market 10 years ago would be the same as today. Its not. It is rather naive to think so.
What does this even mean? I never said the market 10 years ago would be the same as today... whatever that means? Would be the same if what? Myself and others IN THIS VERY THREAD have specifically said that we don't want to just remake oldschool games.... they already exist. I can go play a free UO shard if I want. What we do want is for companies to have evolved down a different path than they did. Unless we involve Shane Carouth, that's obviously never gonna happen. So what we're asking/hoping for is companies to make new games, but bring back some of the oldschool principles. Bring back depth, consequences, virtual worlds, etc. I can't believe you're actually using the word naive to describe me, when yours is the side that is unwilling to believe that it's even possible to have evolved a certain way, or that it's even possible for games to come out that follow these very very very simple principles.
 
How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? I mind when you pollute the forums I read with faulty logic and bitter tirade about today's companies, games and their players.
As it turns out, it's not your forums. And just to emulate your debate tactics, I'll point out that pollution to you may not be pollution to everybody else. Maybe I find all of this talk about themeparks to be polluting the forums. And I love how you keep saying my logic is faulty and you've never been able to explain why. Usually what happens is you claim something I said is illogical, I explain to you in detail why it's totally reasonable and logical, and then you change the subject. That's how almost every one of our engagements play out.
 
And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on."  Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Let me Google that for you.
I don't think you understand that phrase. I'm not saying it HAS to be the case that our "whining" lead to sandboxes being produced. But for you to deny that it has anything to do with it is just downright dishonest. But again, this is you just trying to "poke holes" without really taking a stance. Do YOU think it's a coincidence that there are so many people complaining on forums about a lack of sandbox games and now there are a decent amount of sandbox titles in production? Do you think the two are completely unrelated?
 
I pick on those little phrases because your arguments rests on them. There's no point in entertaining wild theories and claims when I can direct my attention where it all went wrong. I'd rather treat the disease, not the symptom, you see?
 
I would be shocked to find out if you didn't care much about the validity of your rationale. Do you even care if your logic is sound when the conclusion you've arrived to is the one you want. Not the correct one, not the most likely one, but the one you like the most. And you act like its the truth.
WRONG. Pretty much every time you're ignoring the points my argument rests on and leading us off into a bunny trail that doesn't matter.
 
And there are no "wild theories" here. Please do tell me what wild theories I've presented, because my "theories" are all extremely tame. In fact at this point I'm pretty sure you're just attributing everything a sandbox advocate has said to me.
 
You can keep insisting that I skew arguments or evidence to fit my opinion, but you never point out how. Every one of my posts is FAR MORE exhaustive than the best of yours. Did you ever consider that you're the one that has an agenda? That you just flat out don't like how bluntly and directly I argue that you'll do or say anything to make it look like I'm wrong? Because so far you've said some pretty indefensible things in your ongoing crusade against me. You said WoW had no effect on the market. You said Haven and Hearth was touted as "THE ONE" by sandbox advocates.
Everything you have is speculation and conjecture. You make assumptions and assertions which cannot be proven to be valid. You completely missed my point when I tried to explain to you a fault in your logic with the watered down theory. I explained it twice if not thrice, but it didn't sink in. You were so adamant that "WoW is watered down" that you didn't care if your rationale was faulty.
First of all... I'll ask again: What are my wild theories?
 
Second, what actually happened in that conversation is you were asking what "watered down" means. I explained what it means, and then you shifted the conversation to "how do you know WoW is watered down?" To which I immediately replied that it was with judgement. Then I went on to make the case for WoW being watered down and you just stopped replying. 
 
 
"I assume you mean you find an error in my claim that WoW is watered down compared to UO and SWG. Well, as I've already said a number of times, it comes down to judgement. So I'm not sure what the error in my reasoning is. But as I've said before, if you're going to claim that WoW was as targeted as those games, and thus the average player's involvement and enjoyment was as high or higher, I don't think that's an easily defensible position for you. One of the hardest things for you to contend with is WoW's obvious tendency towards catering to casual players. It seems to me that there's a somewhat direct contradiction between a game being "targeted" in the sense that it's the opposite of watering down, in other words, appeals as deeply as possible, and a game being designed largely around inviting casual players."
 
But as usual you just kind of... stopped responding and now are trying to rewrite history to make a point about me that isn't valid.
 
I defend my positions vehemently simply because I choose them carefully and sparingly. I'm not just posting theories willy nilly only to have to eat my words.
I admit your defense of the strawman you made from Loktofeit's argument in that one thread was quite remarkable. We still don't know why you did it though. And it is still a strawman.
I remember you coming into a conversation that you didn't understand and refused to ever look at it in context. I literally asked you point blank over and over why you were ignoring the context of the discussion, and you never replied. It wasn't a strawman, Loktefeit's statement was totally indefensible, and has since kind of turned out be complete hogwash since I'm still waiting on him to provide a source for his claim that the MMO genre is increasing. The only numbers I've seen (narius posted them and loktofeit pointed me towards them) seemd to include MOBAs, which is utterly useless.
 
Do you see how this works? I provide detail and reason in my responses. You provide nothing but malice, insult and your own warped vague interpretation of the facts.
 
You say WoW is dumbed down or watered down. You say they're not as deep as... whatever game you happen to like. And you've tried very hard to make a distinction between popular games and "good games". It is like anything you don't enjoy yourself can't be good.
 
Look at your posts. You are very rude.
I'm rude when other people are rude. If you're going to be arrogant and condescending while at the same time ignore things when you can't think of anything to say to them, then you've given up your right to play the victim.
 
Saying a game is watered down or dumbed down is NOT inherently rude. What is it with you and this over the top PC attitude? It's rude to say something is inferior to something else? My gosh man, if somebody is offended by that, they need thicker skin. And by the way, one of my best friends who I've known for half of my life LOVES WoW. Again, you're projecting some kind of personality onto me that doesn't exist. 
 
Also, I do indeed think some things are good even though I don't enjoy them. EvE mainly. Also some TV shows like Homeland. Mmmm I never could get into Harry Potter, but I acknowledge that they're good books. Again, you're just assuming things about me because it fits your narrative.
You get what you're asking for. If you are polite, I am polite. When you are not, why should I? You won't find me throwing ad hominems around though. And when have I played the victim?
 
It is rude to call something inferior when it isn't. It is rude when you choose to talk with derogative and antagonizing terminology. Are you expecting people just accept their game is a "WoW clone" when they think it isn't? Watered-down when they think it isn't?
And what if their game is a WoW clone? Basically what you're saying is if THEY think it isn't, that means you can't criticize it? Are you serious? What world do you live in?
 
It is arrogant to automatically assume that just because someone share your view must not know as much as you do. And it is arrogant to imply your preference is better than someone else's.
Now THIS is what I call a strawman. I've never said, implied or assumed the first... or the second actually. I'm sure I've said, implied, thought, whatever that my OPINION is better (more valid) than someone else's... not my preference. What exactly is wrong with that? Is your opinion more valid than an infant's? Of course it is. So what you're really saying is it's up to interpretation. If my opinion is more valid than this other person's (whoever it is), then it's not arrogant. If it's not more valid, then it is arrogant. It's not just inherently arrogant to think your opinion on something matters more than somebody else's. 
 
And I think the only time I've said somebody's opinion is more valid than somebody else's is when making the claim that sandbox players know more about themepark games than themepark players know about sandbox games. If that's true, then yes I would say holding all things constant, the sandbox player's opinion is more valid than the themepark player's opinion because he's more knowledgeable about the subject. Is there some kind of problem with this?
 
I look forward to you picking out some inconsequential phrase while ignoring the main point.
 
You don't get to decide what is good and what is not. It is not up to you. You can't say which is fast food and which is fine dining, because everyone's preference is their own. Just like you would say your friends game is trash, he might say your game is trash, and you both would be right. You have no right, no expertise, no authority to claim the high ground or set any standards. You just don't get to do that.
 
Only objective measure of quality available to us, is the sales & sub numbers.
Yeah and the most important thing you said is "...available to us." If you were God you could peer into the minds of every living human see which game type they would prefer if they gave each a fair chance. That is an example of an objective measure of "good" that we will obviously never know. If you think I'm claiming to know the answer to that question, you're wrong. But I absolutely am making the claim that if you forced people to play every type of game for a sufficient amount of time so they could get a deep understanding of the game, sandbox games would come out on top. This is where the DISCUSSION comes into play. I'm not claiming to know this for a fact, but this is how debates, arguments, discussions start. I make a claim, and you can take issue with it. But what you do is you just immediately jump to "you can't prove that."
 
I think if you polled those people you'd get a number of different responses, including ones like this:
 
1. I think sandbox games are better, and I prefer playing them.
 
2. I think sandbox games are better, but I prefer playing themeparks.
 
3. I think themepark games are better, and I prefer playing them.
 
4. I think themepark games are better, but I prefer playing sandboxes.
 
I know a lot of people who admit that something is good or better, even if they don't usually partake in it. For instance, I appreciate and am impressed by classical music, but I don't often listen to it. I prefer tech metal. But if you ask me which is better, I'm going to tell you classical music is better. I know people who admit that Breaking Bad is one of the best shows ever, but it's not really their style. You guys keep trying to make "preference" the only way to measure quality, it isn't.
 
I don't think you'd get a lot of people saying they play sandboxes but they think themeparks are better.
 
Hey that "one coder", the indie dev? He was also the designer. He was a one man project. But I am anxious to find out: How do you know a design is good?
If he's making decisions that involve blatantly copying other games then I'm going to point that out. I'm not saying if he writes code then he's off-limits from people criticizing him. I'm saying I'm not criticizing the person that has nothing to do with my criticisms. If there's some young guy working at X Company doing his job and creating the content he's supposed to create, I'm not criticizing him. This isn't Nazi Germany, I'm not expecting him to make a point and stand up to whoever is responsible for what I think are bad decisions. That really should be obvious.
 
And how do you expect me to answer a vague question like that? The question is about if I've been insulting to developers. And I'm saying I'm only addressing the people in charge of the things I'm criticizing. Again, should be intuitive, but somehow you don't get it. You seem to think some indie developer is going to get distraught when I put down bigger, greedier developers and praise indie developers....
Nevermind then. You made a vague statement. I thought you might have an explanation. Still, you only assume they are greedy. They might be hard working people trying to make a game they themselves want to play. But you call them greedy, lazy and clueless. How do you know if they are any of those things?
 
You are venting. I forgive you.
No, I didn't make a vague statement. It's vague to you because you're constantly trying to find fault with what I say. If I'm talking about developers making bad decisions or being greedy, how can you NOT know that I'm talking about the people who are in a position to make bad decisions or be greedy?
 
Not to mention I'm not usually the kind of guy who is using those terms when describing people. I usually deliberately try to say it's "lazy game design" or the company is being greedy. I'm not going to claim that I've NEVER called somebody lazy or greedy, but I think this is just another case of you assuming things about me that aren't true. If I say something is lazy game design, that's a lot different (and less rude) than saying "you are lazy."

I am not attacking you I am attacking your arguments. You're the one making personal comments. I just can't be arsed to dust off old threads that have reached the point of ad nauseam. Declaring yourself victor or "right" on the basis of that doesn't speak highly of you.

ARE YOU EVER GOING TO STOP IGNORING POINTS? This is a perfect example of a moment in a discussion where YOU will claim that we're just going around circles and I'm being stubborn, but in reality you're not even coming close to responding to the original point. If we're going around in circles, it's because I'm chasing you around as you run away from the main and original point.

 

Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?

 

Arguing with you is always so pointless because you are simply incapable of having a cohesive, sequential discussion. As soon as I respond to something inaccurate you've said, you change the subject to something else.

I guess I didn't make my view clear enough here or in the other thread so let me explain again:

The statement "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its true" is by no means sensible or intuitive because it implies that if I should want to prove the argument false, I would have to provide the evidence. Rather than you providing proof of positive you require me to proof the negative. Its just not good practice.

If we all operated the same way. Any argument could be considered true. It is the flying spaghetti monster argument. I can't prove that there is no FSM. But like the FSM argument, yours is so weak, so unlikely, that it crosses my threshold over to fiction.

Hopefully you'll now understand how comical it is to watch you defend such arguments like they were a certainty.

You most certainly did NOT make yourself clear because you never spoke a word about it.

Well I strongly implied it at least.

And now that you have, let me explain why you're wrong. Saying "Just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true" absolutely does NOT imply that you have to prove me wrong. What it DOES imply (or even outright says, actually) is that just because you've shown that I haven't proven it, doesn't mean it isn't true. In other words, some things are never meant to be presented as provable facts... hell, the vast MAJORITY of posts on this website and sentences uttered in the real world fit that exact description, that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it, it doesn't mean it's not true.

 

Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.

Like Loktofeit said, if you state that something is or isn't you should provide evidence toward the positive.

"There is other life in the Universe" can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either. Only True statement we can make is, "we are the only life in the universe - that we know of". We can argue what speaks in favor of extraterrestrial life and against and decide how likely that possibility is. In other words, we can decide whether that argument is strong or weak.

Since we are on the topic, I find extraterrestrial life to be likely because of the seemingly infinite number of galaxies. But like I already said, I find your argument weak. Based off of the assumptions you make that I wouldn't make, the logic which I think is erroneous and your skewed view of the industry and the market.

Also part of why has been such a momentous clash is because you think the things you claim are intuitive, when they really are not. Not to us. Something to think on.

In conclusion: I think you are a crackpot. -But don't worry! I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense.

So are you just giving up on trying to claim that "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true" is a nonsensical or irrational thing to say? Because I'm not sure if you remember but that's what we're talking about. Now you're talking about how I present my opinions? 

 

And by the way, it's actually just how people talk, including yourself. I could easily go through your posts right now and point out dozens of statements that are not provable (or at least you didn't prove them) and were also not preceded by "in my opinion..." or something similar. And are you really trying to say that I haven't "provided evidence toward the positive"? Really? You think I'm just coming in to these discussions, stating something like it's a fact, and then leaving?

  Cephus404

Novice Member

Joined: 2/27/08
Posts: 3697

9/24/13 2:26:50 PM#518
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal

And these days I don't believe much into accepted theories on untested human behavior or untried activities.  As I said before its all assumptions until tried both ways.  Majority of MMORPG players have only had one type of MMORPGs because they can post WoW.  To say they would never play another type is unproven.  That's my point.

But even if an old-school game came out and nobody played it and it failed, you'd  still find some way to argue that didn't count. There have been old-school-eque games like MO and Darkfall that have come out and failed.  Old-school fans keep making excuses for why they're not "old-school enough".  The fact remains, these game play options have been available and they have been overwhelmingly rejected by the mainstream MMO audience.

Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None

  Holophonist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2031

9/24/13 2:28:38 PM#519
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by FinalFikus lets forget about old school and talk about the new school.   Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse. Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old school DDO- fail LORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old school WAR-dead AOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old school Tabla rasa-dead Vangaurd-fail Final fantasy- looks like it will join the old school Rift-joins the old school Star trek-join the old school COH-dead Aion- joins the old school at least here Fallen earth-old school Guild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxes Guild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxes Star wars old republic- lol  unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone). Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers.  Plus all the new tech. Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them. Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.  
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.  
 

 

Again that's an assumption and not really true.  The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish.  Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.




The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen.

So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.

Again, you're assuming there was only one path for games to go down. UO didn't have to implement Trammel just because it was losing players (whether that's true, or how many players it was we don't know). It could have taken different steps to increase player retention. You're basically saying that because Feluca emptied out, that means oldschool style games can't work. 

  Vermillion_Raventhal

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 6/01/04
Posts: 1036

9/24/13 2:33:06 PM#520
Originally posted by Cephus404
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal

And these days I don't believe much into accepted theories on untested human behavior or untried activities.  As I said before its all assumptions until tried both ways.  Majority of MMORPG players have only had one type of MMORPGs because they can post WoW.  To say they would never play another type is unproven.  That's my point.

But even if an old-school game came out and nobody played it and it failed, you'd  still find some way to argue that didn't count. There have been old-school-eque games like MO and Darkfall that have come out and failed.  Old-school fans keep making excuses for why they're not "old-school enough".  The fact remains, these game play options have been available and they have been overwhelmingly rejected by the mainstream MMO audience.

 

Lol, again those are just bad games no excuse needed.   Its like saying that if a type of game has a bad release I must play it because I like that type of game.   Do you play horrible games because its the genre you like?  Those games are not even main stream.  They're indie games.

29 Pages First « 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 » Search