Originally posted by ShakyMo
Remind me again

how many years is it now since ea made a good game?

For me it's 2009 with Dragon Age Origins. I haven't played Mass Effect 3 yet to judge it. From my understanding, based on what I have read, it's good except for the ending.

As for the OP, I think it's a bit depressing. I don't agree with some people saying how awful the games will be. I think they can actually pull off some decent ones, if not better. What I don't like is EA's business model. Always-on DRM, a good chunk of the game being DLC on release day, and just the general greed of it all. The Star Wars IP won't change that.

I will never forget playing Dragon Age Origins, during this certain instance. I was in the camp and I walked over to a guy offering me a quest. As I listened to it, and then accepted, he redirected me to my wallet. I had to purchase this particular quest if I wanted to continue. It wasn't just a break in immersion, it was outright jarring. That, to me, is EA in a nutshell. Game monetization crossed a line for me that day. I'll pass on the future SW games. Luckily, I have never been a crazy fan of the IP. 

Originally posted by dasX82
I was hoping that it was more like  GW2 maybe,. In GW2 you dont have to TAB, it is enough to be in front of a mob and you can attack it. But tera's system is complicate and slow from my point of view.

It's similar enough to TERA, and different enough from GW2 that I can confidently say "No, you won't like it." It will be free to play though so unless you have a bandwidth issue there is no reason not to try it for yourself.

Originally posted by Tayah

Originally posted by DonY81

It is becoming an ever more present problem as i play games that im finding that people are getting more immature. Its probably because i am infact getting older and gamers are of course getting younger. When i started gaming most people had manners and if a person or novice was in need of some help they would offer it. I remember WOW 6 - 7 years ago and everyone seemed helpful enough. I played SMITE earlier 2 games and arguments were breaking out. I played TERA for a bit after finally getting my old acc back. All i said ingame was "hi all ive not played since release" and got "nobody  cares", go away blablabla.

Where has all this come from?

 

So my question is to you where the fuck is there a mature community in a game because ill be honest i cannot hack kids or immature behaviour. Im getting a bit long in the tooth to go in a game and get ripped out or cussed at.

Hows GW2 community, can someone name a community where the spirit is supporting and friendly not a bunch of asshole elitists. I would infact e keen on joining a age 25+ community. Is there a EURO community of this sort?

 

Thanks

 

Don

 

 

 

 

LoTR Landroval server use to be top notch when I played years ago.

^ This. Outside of the older games, this set the bar for the newer games crowds.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Correct me if I misread.  These seem to be your fundamentals:

getting monthly payment and everything is based on stretching this out

   -  long leveling, sitting/waiting for regen, needing party to level, huge areas to explore, epic quests, harsh death penalites.

 

IMO none of this really lends itself to p2p.  Yes long leveling and waiting/sitting do take longer which on the surface seems to help with monthly payment but be honest if you are bored with sitting/waiting and the leveling are you going to sub another month?

Huge areas IMO have nothing to do with a monthly payment or short/long term fun, same with harsh death penalties.  Both can be in f2p, p2p, short term game, long term game...

Epic quests? maybe, again nor for monthly but maybe for long term play.  However as I've aluded to now IMO a monthly sub doesn't serve long term play better than f2p or b2p.

Here are my fundamentals for an MMO (these are not my prefences when looking for an MMO but are what IMO an MMO needs to have).

1.  The ability to interact with lots and lots and lots and lots of people in a game setting.  To group when when I want, to solo when I want.  Some things that require other people to help achieve things.  This necessitates (sp) a world in some way, you do need somewhere for them to interact, whether that is an actual world (EQ, UO), space (EVE, STO) or a single city (CoH) is irrelevant. 

2.  To be online.

Thats it.  Nothing else.

Everything else like long or short leveling, epic quests, is a personal preference that I may or may not want in a particular game.  My own preferences are customizable housing, long leveling, epic quests, flight, skills.  But that is not a fundamental to an MMO. 

The genre is subdividing allready.  We talk about MMO's vs MMORPG because there is a difference between lobby based MMO's, world based MMO's, fps MMO's...

 

 

My fundamentals listed are not what's fundamental for something to be classified as a MMO, but what's fundamental in classifying the old games from the new. The ones I listed boil down to time sinks and heavy socialization (Forced depends). New games have been getting rid of these and greatly impacting gameplay, whether that's intentional or not depends, changing what many consider to be a MMO. My perspective is from MMORPGs. We already have a lot of people using the term "old school", that's why I am asking what people think about creating a sub-genre based on that.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, I completely agree with your comments on huge areas, I was thinking of travel times and must of typed what I was visualizing.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I agree with the sub-genre and think it's been happening for awhile.

I disagree with your fundamentals.  Your fundamentals and my fundamentals are fundamentally different.

Nothing you stated IMO has anything to do with the payment model.  Both have ways to increase xp, both have timesinks, both have ways to get you to pay more.

You're right about the payment models. I think they simply "lend" themselves to one another, by no means are they exclusive. P2P is better in terms of years rather than months, there's no doubt about that. F2P/B2P, my thinking was with those that it would be easier to use a cash shop (People seem more at ease and accepting of a cash shop in those two game models rather than P2P) with convenience items based on a game of convenience. The games audience would be more inclined to purchase those things and they wouldn't break the game by threatening time sinks like slow leveling (EXP booster in the cash shop). Like I said, these are just quick thoughts on it.

As for fundamentals, what are your thoughts on them? These are just some of the ones I have noticed having a large impact on current gameplay that are being removed.

I think it's time for a sub-genre, at least with the way MMORPGs (Apply to your MMO genre as necessary) are releasing. MMOs have been changing for a while now but the fundamentals were always the same. Over the last few years this is no longer the case. Hear/read me out, may be a bit long winded so feel free to pass it up, just some thought vomit.

MMORPGs for as long as I can remember have been about getting the monthly payment, that's why we have P2P. Entire games were founded and built around this. We have foundation blocks like long leveling times, sitting/waiting to regain hp/mp, needing a party to level (This can serve multiple purposes), huge areas to explore, epic quests/items, harsh death penalties etc etc These are just a few but they all lend themselves to the P2P model. They are essentially huge time sinks. When used together, whether you care for them or not, they work out quite well. It may take you 6 months to reach a high-level, that means they can keep getting your money that whole time. Whether unforseen or intended some of these had side-effects. For instance requiring a party to do anything not only meant long wait times, but forcing you to be social as well. That in turn helped provide a sense of community and helped you get to know people while playing but was also an inconvenience at best. Waiting to regain hp/mp took this even further. Same with slow leveling or epic items/quests. They took huge amounts of time but it also gave a great sense of accomplishment when you finally got them.

Fast forward some years and more and more games have been releasing without these fundamentals. Not always without all of them, but usually missing at least some. This causes a huge imbalance within the game. Take away slow leveling, what happens? People hit "end-game" within a month at most, sit at level cap bored, quit the game usually with some colorful comments on a forum. Take away parties where you're not only able to but rewarded for solo, what happens? You're able to get through content much faster since you no longer have to wait on others, huge improvment for those that have a schedule to keep, you also are not meeting people anywhere near as much as you used to which can have a huge impact on whether or not you stick around the game, hit "end-game" too fast. Not requiring party strategy by using dynamic events, what happens? You no longer have to talk to anyone and can now treat others like NPCs, some people truly love this since you are no longer forced to be social. Death is a joke, what happens? You recover a lot faster but this leads to zerging objectives, anything can be beat if you throw enough bodies at it. This model gets rid of quite a few inconveniences and is usually supported with a F2P or B2P model.

As you can see, these are two very different beasts. While the first lends itself to playing for years and being more social, it also has large time sinks where you're twiddling your fingers and much more dependant on others. The latter lends itself to playing for 1-3 month(s) at most, it also supports short bursts of play for those with a schedule to keep and want to do things themselves without worrying about others. Why are we still treating these two, very different, models the same? They're not, at all. Once a game releases the forums usually blow up with one group hating the game and the other group being thrilled. I have yet to see a game that can even come close to being pleasing with both groups. Since that's the case, why not seperate them permanently? I think this would avoid a lot of hurt feelings for both groups that have come to expect certain things out of their MMO. It wouldn't be determined by the payment model they used but by whether or not it uses certain fundamental "old school" building blocks.

What are you thoughts on this?

City of Heroes. It didn't have a money or population problem and was still profitable when it was closed. I still don't understand the thinking behind it.

That's without my personal feelings involved since I was never a big fan of the game and only played it for a short amount of time years ago.

TERA

• Combat
• Graphics
• PvP
• Dungeons/Trinity (Trinity is preference so I added it to dungeons)

• Story (Lore if you prefer)
• Quests/Leveling
• Community
• WvW

Preordering is about a lack of patience. They give small incentives to push people already wanting to buy it without knowing what it truly is over the edge for this reason. If you would wait a few weeks you could easily find out a ton of information about the game and whether you should take that risk and support the devs for what they DID (Not to be confused with what they say they did).

Kickstarter is different because the game won't exist at all without your support and patience is actually needed. You may not see the game completed for years. It's not simply a matter of waiting a few weeks to see how it is. Its actual existence is on the line and after that you still have years to wait. You're supporting the devs for their IDEAS (Not to be confused with the actual finished product).

• Pre-order and you're paying for impatience and telling devs "I like what you created!". This could be a horrible game and the message you send to the industry is "I want more of this!".
• Kickstarter and you're paying for ideas and telling devs "I like what you're thinking!". Even if it ends up being a horrible game, you supported the idea of it and their mission statement, not the end product.

I prefer sandbox simply because the content seems to last longer. If I could get a solid 5yrs out of a themepark without repeating the same content over and over I would play that as well. I like themeparks as much as I like the new Marvel movies. Good for a couple of hours to kill time but nothing too deep. On to the next themepark shortly after.

I would like something that lasts longer, call it what you want. What keeps people coming back to anything? The people. Find a way to get people to really connect in your game and make lasting relationships and you won't have to worry about population or longevity. People will put up with a ton of abuse if it means they can still keep in touch with friends.

Yes, if I enjoyed it.

Never understand the complaints against subscriptions on this site. If I enjoy it, I will happily pay $15 a month for it or $20 or $30. The truth is, if I am having enough fun with a game I would shell out a whole lot more. First a game has to be worth playing at all though.

More surprised that people are feeling vindicated over this. I didn't need him to announce it, there was never a doubt in my mind. The sole reason I didn't buy this game is because of the RMAH. I don't agree with a lot of the decisions I have read about them making in Diablo 3 but the RMAH was my line.

Meanwhile, snow is cold...

Player created content gets me excited. People never cease to amaze me with what they can accomplish in a closed environment with a lot of rules, let alone having free reign. Just look at what some people have done with LEGOS, it's pretty impressive.

I don't understand the comments like "free labor!". Sour grapes? Some people like creating, others like consuming. I don't see how it's a bad thing to put the tools capable of both into the player's hands. Will there be junk? A ton I'm sure. Will there be some mind-blowing peices? More than a couple I'm sure. You take the bad with the good. Find like-minded individuals and discuss which ones are best to weed through what you view as garbage. Maybe you'll make a friend or two in the process.

All I know is that most tools do their best work when put in the hands of the masses, not the few. There will always be someone more intelligent or more creative than the companies that make them. I see no reason a great tool like "The Foundry" (Just a recent example. The Aurora Toolset is another) should only be given to a team being paid to work on the game.

Originally posted by tixylix

Seriously it's ruining the game, people get used to it while learning the game, grow attached to their characters and never leave high sec. They them become bored and blame everything on taking too much time to train or they're too scared to lose their stuff. CCP need to throw players in at the deep end, stop holding their hand and just make people PVP from the get go so they get used to dying. Really that is the problem of EVE, people just aren't used to dying, they get too attached to their gear. Dayz has proved that this approach of throwing you into this hostile world works, all EVE has done is proved high sec doesn't work. It doesn't mean the game will turn into chaos either as you will get alliances who will allow friendly players and they'll act as the police in their own areas. All it means is finally players have control of the whole game and new players will die again and agian and again and become used to it and not fear PVP.

 

 

Some people rather not be used as a sock you can dump all your rage into. The security system is one of the reasons I believe EVE has such a healthy population. It allows people to learn at their own pace and take their time. It may be ruining the game for you but it's apparently working for a lot of others or they wouldn't be there.

It's all about perception. If potential buyers view the product as positive/healthy, they are more likely to purchase it. I don't think MMOs are much different. People see the game has a healthy population and rising - "It must be good." This brings in more customers. People see the game on the decline and even more people currently playing then jump ship.

I think it's why people like to use population in forum posts. It can actually contribute or bring  population damage to the game.

There doesn't have to be a fire to make someone think there is.

Originally posted by HorrorScope

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Originally posted by JasonJ

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Originally posted by JasonJ

They have already spoken about how the skill trees will be expanded in the future as the level cap increases.

At level 39 the Wizard has skills that are very different from each other.

I used CC during large fights with bosses and adds to slow the boss down and froze the most powerful adds in place so the healer could keep the tank up.

In fights with several elites I would straight DPS one while slowing it to keep the damage lower on the tank by kiting an elite.

in garbage fights I would use my AOE skills to help kill faster.

If they would just add hotbar swapping you will be able to have all your different builds available with the push of a button, until then, its just a matter of quickly swapping out the skils on your hotbar for the fights.

So what theybsay is that i can progress my character once every 2 years, thats not what people want

 Sure dont see anything in there about a timeframe...and seeing as how SWTOR and GW2 both expanded character trees in about 6 months time...either way, dont speak for anyone other than yourself. I play D&D for stories, quests and grouping, nothing else. And seeing as how that is what D&D is based on, they seem to be hitting their target audience.

Well, from my experience 95% of all DnD players are min maxers.... guess what that means, they want their characters to progress... 

And what does min/max'er mean? That a player is making a concious effort to make their character as strong as possible. Which is pretty much the point in nearly all cases, or 95% of them. People, not you, say it like it's a bad thing, it's a freakin natural thing to do and expect.

I always see min/max as pretty extreme. I would like my character to be pretty buff in most games but not to the exception of everything else. I see them as sacrificing fun, looks, and a major amount of time for a 1% increase in DPS. Min/max has become a dirty word to me playing with people like that in games over the years.

Also, my last post was sarcasm in case anyone missed it. I have no clue what the actual percentage of people that like to min/max in DnD is, but neither do you so don't act like you do.

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Originally posted by JasonJ

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Originally posted by JasonJ

They have already spoken about how the skill trees will be expanded in the future as the level cap increases.

At level 39 the Wizard has skills that are very different from each other.

I used CC during large fights with bosses and adds to slow the boss down and froze the most powerful adds in place so the healer could keep the tank up.

In fights with several elites I would straight DPS one while slowing it to keep the damage lower on the tank by kiting an elite.

in garbage fights I would use my AOE skills to help kill faster.

If they would just add hotbar swapping you will be able to have all your different builds available with the push of a button, until then, its just a matter of quickly swapping out the skils on your hotbar for the fights.

So what theybsay is that i can progress my character once every 2 years, thats not what people want

 Sure dont see anything in there about a timeframe...and seeing as how SWTOR and GW2 both expanded character trees in about 6 months time...either way, dont speak for anyone other than yourself. I play D&D for stories, quests and grouping, nothing else. And seeing as how that is what D&D is based on, they seem to be hitting their target audience.

Well, from my experience 95% of all DnD players are min maxers.... guess what that means, they want their characters to progress... 

In my experience, 96% of all DnD players are NOT min/maxers.