The biggest reason the internet is a massive cess pool is very, very simple.

Age.

Most of the internet are teenager and young adults. Teenagers are by very nature insensitive, extremely self-centered creatures. Now what's the problem with Young Adults in our culture? They're still teenagers.

It's a mix of the "Shock & Awe" factor that youth think is exciting, psychology (angry teenagers, angsty teenagers who have every right to feel as they do), and their total lack of perspective, understanding, or care for other viewpoints outside of their perspective.

It is not that adulthood somehow makes EVERYONE a better, more mature, intelligent person. The difference is that it makes SOME people better, more mature, intelligent people. There are still repulsive human beings, but even those become far less vocal, more articulate in their statements, wiser to reality due to life experience, etc.

Don't believe me? Get online, somewhere like WoW. Group a lot, and play with tons of PuG's in the dungeon finder.

1) If someone is extremely talkative and friendly... they are most likely a teenager. Although not universally true, the more friendly and talkative people are typically younger. As gamers get older, they seem to be more reserved. Just something I've noticed.

2) A repulsive teenager is quite different than a repulsive adult. Teenagers can flip very easily when repulsive or hateful. One moment they are trolling you- the next they're your friend. Adults that are nasty people do not flip at all. They typically treat you like crap, and even if befriended still hold on to that nasty aspect of their personality.

My theory is that adults who are nasty, are so because that is part of who they currently are. Children who are nasty, are more often than not trolling around for kicks and giggles and don't actually have a serious dark side to their inner self.

I am not saying this is universally true. I have however been around long enough to identify the general age of someone based on the way they communicate online. Children, young adults, and older adults all respond differently even when projecting the same nasty personality traits.

Probably nowhere but casual friendly games that are indeed fun, unique, and multiplayer.

As of 2013, I have yet to spend any money, and Q4 spent was mostly in vain, although I am glad of SOME of the money I spent in Planetside 2 (although I quit playing, and obviously spent too much), donation to HumbleBundle Dungeon Defender gave a good week of great fun before getting boring, and The Walking Dead (haven't played it yet, but the demo and reviews clearly show it to be a game I will undoubtedly love). My birthday and christmas gifts of XCOM remains unopened (although it is tempting) and Assassins Creed 3 is a total poorly made bugfest of crap which doesn't even work most of the time. That, and I still occassionally play The Last Stand (Warhammer 40k Dawn of War 2) which I bought a looong time ago.

Edit: If Company of Heroes 2 is anything like the original, I will be buying that- probably for me and all of my friends and family. The original is probably one of THE best games I've ever played. Simply amazing, even despite its massive flaws (RELIC programmers and the network tards who provided us with the one of the biggest fails ever made in terms of networking and DRM)

Where is my money going this year? Probably in my bank account. I am growing tired of the uninspired new releases, failed updates of old releases, and the simple fact I am more excited to play old SNES/SEGA ROMS than I am new releases. Of which, I don't play those ROMS either...given Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and other amazing television series are far more entertaining than video games.

Things have changed greatly. I am 27, and still have an enormous amount of freetime like I did the rest of my life. Yet unlike then, I don't game 18 hours a day anymore. I don't even game 8...or 4...or even 1. I have spent most of my time reading into politics, watching The Daily Show, viewing The Young Turks, and insulting redneck conservatives on Facebook.

It entertains me a lot more to create my video game and learn new relative skills, than to actually play games. From the look of it, I am still far ahead of my original goal. I gave myself 8 years to create my MMORPG. I've been learning a lot, and at this rate I will probably be done by the 8th, given the fact I am getting a lot closer and still have 5 years left.

Originally posted by Quirhid
Don't really see a use for it. You can use regular NPCs to fill the world and likely you could make them more lively.

This.

To be honest, I am actually quite surprised that so many here like the idea.

If you'd like to stir the pot or add fuel to the fire...

ATRIARCH had this idea, along with...

FFA PvP

Permadeath

www.atriarch.com

Well thought out design? Hardly. Laughable? You betcha!

Originally posted by ikarrian

Originally posted by Fendel84M
Most of the kids who started with WoW are adults now. People need to stop talking about all the kids that started with WoW. lol

Yet they still believe they are "Gods of pvp" because they had high arena score.... funny

 

UO, that was proper PVP with real death penaltys. Looted, lost ur horse, and you have to run naked and humiliated back to town to get a resurrection from the healer.

Atleast it was based on player skill, not ur stupid gear.

Yet you still believe UO vets are "Gods of pvp" because they had PK's and full loot corpse runs.... funny

It's amazing to me that people are so incapable of viewing biased perspective when complaining ABOUT biased perspective...

Just like with any internet poll, it is hardly scientific.

I'd love to see some serious polling done though. Things like defining words and clarifying meaning, giving people unbiased options which are chosen based on personal preference.

For example, instead of saying an obviously unintelligent biased...

" I love the cheap thrill of ganking give me more" - 4.5%

You state the choice in a way that caters towards people who love the "cheap thrill of ganking". When phrased correctly, the 4.5% will rise dramatically. When phrased in such a bias way to paint it was idiocy or negative, obviously very few will vote this option. Those who do, like myself, most likely did so because it's the 'joke' option.

PvP and PvE or "Both" are entirely relative to the game mechanics. That is why this poll is fail.

Would love to see some professional polls though.

Originally posted by fivoroth

IQ tests tell you only 1 thing and that is how many times a person has practiced a test. It's the same thing as those aptitude tests used by companies to screen out candidates. At this point I have done so many of them that I can solve them in less than 30% of the required time and those tests are supposed to put you under time pressure...

HOLY @#$#@ YOU MUST BE A GENIUS THEN.

TESTS NO LIE

Even if the game was perfect and the best one ever made, I would object for moral reasons. No one of any integrity, humility, or humanity would sit and allow such elitism.

To be blunt...

"If for even a second you believe this type of exclusion would result in the elimination of stupidity: you are that which you wish to exclude."

IMO, the exclusion of anyone that doesn't score high on culturally biased and intellectually biased forms of testing is true idiocy. Anyone with a brain (or an education on the subject) knows there are hundreds of types of intelligence besides memory and pattern recognition.

According to academia, I am a very intelligent person. That is why I consider groups like "MENSA" to be a complete joke. To state you are a group designed to include intellectuals yet have entry requirements that are very easily proven as culturally or intellectually biased, is the epitome of hypocrisy. (Well...that and the fact I don't know a single intelligent person who belongs to such a group.) I've met very few people who could hold their own in a conversation with me. Not because I know a lot. Not even because I am smart. Simply because few people can comprehend logic with even a little bit of depth.  Truly it actually is most likely because they are incredibly lazy thinkers and truly don't care about the conversations they actually attempt to have. Our society is increasingly apathetic even in normal conversation. Of course, if one person is good at communicating than they can understand most of what the other says even if they're too stupid to communicate effectively. Just believe me when I tell you the conversation will be one sided, almost as if you are arguing for both parties.

Communication alone requires a certain amount of intelligence (both fluid and crystallized). Although intelligence requires some humility, it also results in a lot of arrogance as well. (The smarter you are, the dumber everyone else gets.) Unfortunately I have met more arrogant "intelligent" people who I conclude are stupider than average simply for the fact they lack that small bit of humility that allows one to see flaws in one's own logic when presented with legitimate argument supported by reason. Moderately intelligent people do not always have high amounts of arrogance and are thus able to learn from others who argue successfully against their incorrect perspective.

IMO, being an intellectual requires one to have a certain open-mindedness and humility; else you are blinded to reality. This is not something easily measured through a standardized test. Those who cannot see things CLEARLY simply cannot be very intelligent. I am not talking about what you believe, but how you view others. How you perceive reality is important, and an education or experience in your outside social bubble can be very influential to your actual intelligence. For example, Charity and a kind heart shows much more intelligence than your ability to perform as a human calculator. The former will survive in our world, while the latter may be excluded as an outsider. One could readily argue, "Stupid people perish, Smart people survive." making charisma a higher form of measurable intellect than memorization, because a Charismatic person is more likely to successfully cooperate and thus achieve safety, food, water, etc. Take a hint though; I am not stating this to be fact.

One could argue...

One could argue... this is the entire point.

Arrogance, which births Elitism, simply cannot hear an argument. It is deaf to that which isn't flattery.

I don't like this idea, simply because it is a Pay to Win way of thinking, at least in my opinion.

What i mean by that is this: A lot of people would either...

1) Buy boxes until they eventually got the 1 out of 10 unlocks.

2) Sell the "Force" unlocked accounts, increasing traffic through sites like Gold Farmer sites in China.

3) If you didn't get a 'special' account, you'd feel cheated. This isn't a fun way to start playing the game.

I think that instead of making players feel special, it would actually do the opposite- it would make most people feel UNspecial. That's the exact opposite of the intention.

I'd like to add this: it might be a better idea if, once a character was created, there was a small chance that they get the 'special'. This way it is based on character creation, as opposed to not. In a system where there is permadeath, it would work. Without permadeath, there would need to be permadeath for 'special' characters, or loss of special powers, and obviously very SIMPLE fixes to possible flaws like creating tons of characters to try to unlock a special one. (Obviously the game would either need one character slot, or tell the player that they only have one chance per [real life time] or that they have to [accomplish goal] before given another chance to unlock the power.

Honestly, as a game designer, I just don't like the idea unless there is permadeath.

I have been a long time fan of PnP games. I own a lot of them, including Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Legend of the Five Rings, and even Steve Jackson's TOON as well as some other minor ones (like Outbreak Undead: a Zombie Survival Simulation). I have also enjoyed some of D&D based games like Neverwinter Nights which I feel captured some of the better elements of PnP (Character Creation). However, I do not often play PnP games due to the fact it is very difficult to get a good group together, takes an enormous amount of time to play each session, some games can get bogged down very easily in overly complex rules or dice rollling, the fun is mostly based on the people you're with, and preparing a session or story as a DM is an incredible task that requires a lot of responsibility which is often completely in vain due to the alternative paths the players take the storyline.

PnP games are nowhere near as easy to play or prepare for than a video game. Granted that there are increased difficulties in MMO or online video gaming. Getting a good group together or avoiding people who ruin the games is infinitely more difficult online among trolls and children (or man-childs). Many believe that it is a feature of DDO to ruin quests for new players (or new rogues specialized in perception) by declaring where any and all traps are- on a perceptionless mage or fighter. It wasn't uncommon for someone like myself to find the best entertainment in Everquest 1 by training a large group of mobs to a heavily populated entrance, to zone out and back in to see all the grief and corpses created.

Still... Everquest 1 is often argued as a game which brought a "PnP feel" to video games. DDO does a nice job with some quests and the DM's narrative. While the fun of it all is arguable, I believe that the "adventure" of Everquest 1 and the "small story" in the DDO quests are good attempts at bringing in a PnP feel to video games. I certainly love the character creation and "adventure" in PnP games. The freedom, the "dynamic content", the fun of it all. Yet I despise a significant more number of responsibilities PnP create which video games instantly solve for everyone.

If you don't care for PnP games, then take my definition of "PnP 'feel'" as something closer to "adventure". The fun of THE HOBBIT- a small adventure of a small group of people, as opposed to LOTR which is an epic adventure of armies fighting massive battles (pointless MMO PvP anyone?). Perhaps the focus less on the battles of Middle Earth and the more on the small adventure of Frodo & Sam or Merry & Pippin. "Adventure" from books, as opposed to repetitive grinding and treadmill advancement in MMORPGs.

The question remains... how would YOU implement PnP adventure, or a PnP "feel" to a video game?

MMO or simply multiplayer- it doesn't matter. Turn based, real time, WoW-like, UO/NWN isometric view- it is up to you. What "features", what type of gameplay, what style of game design, would encourage more "adventure" and less "grind"?

I would prefer to stay away from suggesting player-created content, unless the game was designed to include a very hefty content creation toolset or encouraged content construction (as opposed to content creation) similar to that of making your on dungeons in DUNGEON KEEPER, instead of making your entire own MOD in "Half Life". The reason I want to stay away from user generated content, is because it tends to be crappily made content or unfinished content with very little quality content. The discussion is geared more towards the developer providing the content, even if in a dynamic way (or not).

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by jpnz

Cause there is proof that people will pay for content that appeals to them.

 

There are outliers, they are not usual trends.

Anyone who purchases any video game related items of service is paying for content that appeals to them.

This includes copies of the game, subscriptions to the game, or any form of payment at all to any game company for any reason.

Not only are they not outliers- they are EVERYONE, lol.

Loktofelt listed,

- Perceived favoritism

- Covering prime hours for all regions

- Negatively impacting players that are not involved (collateral damage)

LOL, these aren't real problems. You will not see a loss in sales for a business adding in a great feature like GM events. People do not complain so much that they hate it when a business gives out "Free Icecream from 5pm to 7pm" every Tuesday.

People do not say, "You know that company that gives out 1000 free hamburgers every Tuesday at 3pm? I can't ever make that. I refuse to buy their hamburgers."

People do not say, "I am a Hulu subscriber, and I am unsubscribing because Hulu is allowing us to watch newly released movies every Monday at 5pm, and I can never make it in time to watch the full episode."

Loktofelt must be out of touch with reality to think that these are flaws in the idea of a GM event system. I literally have to refrain from insults, because I cannot believe this was even suggested as a flaw...lmao...

THE REALITY

A lot of the bigger MMO's probably have far over 1000 people working on a game.

That of course includes customer service, tech support, outsourced employees, server maintenance, etc. The actual amount of graphic artists, writers, and game programmers are probably very few comparatively. Once a MMORPG gets released, most of the team leaves or their contract ends, leaving very few of what were once many artists and programmers- even designers.

THE IDEA

The idea of "1000 people working on a game to make it lengthy, deep, and replayable with daily patches" is more about a large number of people working to make this happen, and less about the actual number of 1000. With that said...

It is a fantastic idea, which IMO should be implemented, or at least attempted, as a new business model.


WoW probably has the majority of revenue produced into profits. Their costs are not going to be as large a % as other MMORPG's given their massive subscriber base. The more popular the game is, the more money you make, and you don't always need additional employees simply because you have additional customers- especially dealing with virtual goods and a MMORPG. Server costs are next to nothing- don't be fooled, MMORPG's are INCREDIBLY profitable even when they are a failure with very few subscribers. Dead games like Dark Age of Camelot still probably profit EA in the millions per year, if not at least a single million. That game is next to dead. Notice that I said profit, not revenue. This would be after the non-existent server cost of DAoC and the low cost of the few employees still working on the game. I wouldn't be surprised that given DAoC's low requirements due to a dead playerbase, EA actually runs the servers for next to free, given that they have an incredibly large server database and a good deal with their bandwidth provider.


IMAGE IF... WoW did this. Except, why would they?

Imagine if WoW used a ton of money to push out more content. With the amount of profit they make, they could easily make that content produced daily after working on it for a bit (to catch up and get ahead of the curve).

In a business sense, it wouldn't make any sense. In fact, WoW doesn't release expansions very quickly at all for the very reason of there being only ONE reason to release content (a dying playerbase) and one HUGE reason to never change a thing: WoW is already successful. Releasing ANY content has a big potential to cause players to leave, and very little potential to increase profits. It's so successful, screwing it up (UO Trammel, SWG fiasco, etc.) would be the biggest business failure in the history of gaming.

However, there is a big incentive to produce content daily and make your game better by hiring a lot of quality employees in an organized fashion. The better your game, the more content, and the fact you release patches nearly instantly compared to rarely, would make the game very high quality. A high quality game would see increase sales and a reduction in subscriber loss. The only business aspect about it is, "Is it worth it?" Are the cost of making the game better less than the profit of increased sales? Most likely it isn't, because of factors like a cap on the increase you'll see with fast content updates.  I however believe it would be beneficial in the long run and would definitely be profitable if you found a balance, such as WEEKLY updates or simply hiring more artists, writers, or coders.

 

More Employees = A Better Game
More programmers to fix bugs, add small features, and work with artists to polish the GUI or provide optional GUI choices.
More artists to make graphics better, add optional graphic models (EQ2 optional models, LoL skins), fill the world, work with coders to update the engine.
More writers and level designers to add in more content, ditch crappy content, and listen to the playerbase.
Better community managers, in-game activities, and GM events. Better/faster customer service, more security coders to get cheaters, etc.

If I were to ever make a game, I would hope to stick to my vision that profits aren't everything: making a high quality game is more important than profit.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MMOExposed

idea

World of Legends

 

How would you like a League of Legend MMO to function?

What sort of gameplay elements would you look for in a MMO based on LEoLE?

Would you like World of Legends to be a MMOFPS or MMORPG?

Would it have Factions or FFA form of PvP?

How would you like PvE to work?

Storyline would be the most interesting. I thinking something along the lines of Silver Surfer or something crazy here.

on a Scale of 1-10  (1 being Sandbox, 10 being themepark) where would you like to see World of Legends?

Not everything needs to be an MMO. LoL is a good game not because of the storyline, or world (there is none) design. It is a good game because of good e-sport gameplay.

The e-sport part is irrelevant.

The game just has good gameplay for everyone from casual to hardcore.

Since we're on the topic, it's so ridiculously silly when people complain about video games going free.

It's as if they LIKE giving away their hard earned money to big corporations.

I dislike F2P models solely because many of them seek to exploit people with poor impulse control, bad budgeting, and addictive (gambling-type) personalities.

There should actually be a limit to the amount of money you can spend every month in any F2P cash shop, simply to avoid the two biggest flaws:

1) Rich people with infinite money spending ridiculous amounts to get endless and extremely large advantages (even non-competitive) in the game. Cash shops are great, if <1% don't purchase so much that it destroys all balance within the game.

2) Impulsive people without infinite money spending ridiculous amounts out of poor impulse control and bad decision making skills. Exploiting these gamers is NOT a moral or ethical thing to do. Corporations should be prevented from exploiting people who can't help themselves due to a flaw or disability.

I'd imagine this would be a very popular thread. At least more than 2 people posting their opinions/dreams.

Thank you for sharing!

I consider myself quite hardcore, and my nephew even hardercore. Yet I've never come even close to something like 12 accounts.

WoW, I believe, is my closest achievement. On one Bnet account, Ive had 4 active accounts. I've also multi-boxed a full group (5 accounts) all with RAF.

So basically, I have 1 keyboard, 1 mouse, and AutoHotKey macroer. I hit a button and all 4 accounts (4 hunters) follow my Druid (Tank Healer), and on another button they all attack my target.

With RAF, I get triple XP and can solo dungeons by myself. When I get all to max RAF level, I can free level any 2 characters I have to that level. (2 levels = 1 free level.... 4 characters = 2 characters free leveled). So it takes me very, very little time to get to that max RAF level and then free level 2 alts instantly, with the final result of 3 characters on my main account at max RAF level in lightning speed.

I'm sure I've multi-boxed more than that before, but I really don't remember much else besides multi-boxing on Dark Age of Camelot with a healer bot.

That isn't to say I haven't had plenty of times where I subscribed or paid for multiple (typically 4) copies of a video game. I always buy the 4-packs for video games like Left 4 Dead, L4D2, Payday: the Heist, etc. I give one to myself, one to my nephew, and two to my brothers. Ironically, only me and my nephew ever really play together.

1. Dragon- I think it would be awesome if you could play as a real Dragon. Actually being larger than other races, the abilliy to fly, or even having more power than other players at a different disadvantage.

2. Giants- Once again, this supports my idea of being SIGNIFICANTLY larger than other players. Not just like an Ogre vs. Human in Everquest 1, but actually being up to 10x the height. Feeling like you truly are large.

3. Vampire- I'd love to play a character or "rare race" where you have to PK players or NPC's (quest) just to survive, or else you get weak. Yet the bonus is stronger abilities or powers than average.

All three of my concepts are from the ORIGINAL game design of Horizons. I thought all of those races, skill types, and especially the RARE RACES were freaking phenominal ideas.

What are your top 3 choices for a playable Race, Class, or Character Type in a MMORPG?

For example.

General races: Halfling, Lizardman, Dragon

Specific Classes: Thane from DAoC, Everquest Enchanter or Bard, an Anti-Magic Tank (remember the Inquisitor from Vanguard?) who has [insert specific abilities/spells].

General Character Types: Vampires, Magic-Casting Ancient Dragons, Quarky Goblic Engineer Theme, Blood-based abilities (Bloodmage from Vanguard, Vladimir from LoL, Lifesteal/Lifedrain class, etc.)

Specific Character Types: Dragons from the original concepts for Horizon- Who start off as a baby and grown into an Ancient Dragon, with any skillsets to choose from. An EXACT copy of a Thane Dwarf from DAoC with an eyepatch, A Vampire which has to PK other players to survive or else becomes weaker, a Goblin Archer with the highest range in the game, a pet class that can have 5+ customizable/chooseable undead minions (like a Necromancer + City of Heroes Mastermind).

However vague or specific you want to be-- tell us your top 3 choices for the type of playable Race, Class, or Character type in a MMORPG.

Template:

1. CHARACTER- [Reason why you want this character.]

2. CHARACTER- [Reason why you want this character.]

3. CHARACTER- [Reason why you want this character.]

This thread is very revealing of the community. It allows you to see who the ignorant people are who think it's illegal when it's not, who the sane ones might be, but most of all who the crazy people are.

The saddest part is the OP is asking the question.. If it was already illegal, no one would ask this question. The very thread itself is like mockery in the face of the ignorant kids who actually believe it is already illegal. Grow up people, and actually learn about your country's laws and how the world works. We could use less naivety and stunted moral development in our nation's populous.