Originally posted by bcbully

Originally posted by DMKano

Originally posted by Loktofeit

But... but... it's a sandbox! Obviously you just weren't playing it right.

I kid! I kid!   Sorry the game didn't pan out for you. For me, it was a very shallow and repetitive game, but others here seem to be finding a lot more diversity and engaging gameplay than you and I did.

Same here, wasn't for me, frankly its because after playing ArheAge I understood first hand what it is to have compelling and deep game mechanics that are well thought out and implemented properly. 

Wushu has some good ideas, but ultimately it fails in implementation - just my opinion.

This might be the dumbest thing you've said so far. You never played the game past the tutorial yet you seem to find your way into every thread saying the same nonsense.

If the game wasnt for you, it wasnt for you. It can not be argued though, that only EVE rivals Wushu in the shear amount of systems and tools put into the players hands.

btw -I don't play games that I quest to level cap anymore. To be honest I dont think I'll play another game where I have to quest for XP. Thanks Wushu! So enjoy w/e it was you were talking about.

I'm not sure what filter you're experiencing this game through, but it's pretty clear your perspective of what is (and isn't) Wushu is pretty skewed.

The game is packed full of quests. It's also packed full of dailies. The game practically runs on them. Crafting quests, standard NPC quests, escort quests, siege quests. There everywhere, and yes there are dailies for all of them (both personal and guild dailies). As for player systems... Eve far surpasses Wushu in giving players complete freedom. Wushu gives a nice illusion, but it's just that.. an illusion. A good example of this is base raiding. You can literally burn an enemy's base to the ground, but unless you do it at a specific time per day (or during a guild war instance), it doesn't do a damned thing. No buildings get harmed, and at most you get some tokens for your effort.

The game is fun, but as far as sandbox games go it's much more of a hybrid than a sandbox. Much of the content is fairly canned, and nearly all of it is engineered to try and force people to use the cashshop. It's not a bad game, but it is sub par in a lot of ways to some of the other MMOs on the market atm.

Originally posted by Magiknight

Originally posted by Vigiliance

I feel like this point is rarely acknowledged on these forums and in conversations of MMO's everywhere. 

Just because WoW is a popular and relevant/modern example doesn't mean that when other developers use fundamental aspects of WoW, doesn't automatically make them a WoW clone. 

Most of the aspects people say that signify that another game is a "WoW Clone" are often some of the basic fundamental aspects of the earliest MMO's.

Concepts like raiding, Gear grinding, instances, hotbars, tab targeting, The trinity, etc.

Honestly as a day 1 release WoW player, do you know how they made it so big, so popular? WoW's Developers made the world of MMO's more convenient and accessible... and more importantly not in one fell swoop, but slowly over time. Each patch and each expansion usually had small incremental changes that made the game more accessible via convenience and thus more desirable to a wider range of demographics and it expanded their audience. Their subscriptions grew and over time since the changes were small and subtle to start most of their core still stayed. Sure plenty of people quit but not nearly as many that joined to replace them and then more.

WoW is not a clone of EQ.... EQ had slow combat, WoW is fast. EQ had more grouping. EQ classes were more separate, WoW classes are more hybrids. EQ had few and far between instances, WoW had many. EQ quests were sometimes hard to figure out, WoW quests guide you from point to point ad infinitum. EQ had a HARSH death penalty, WoW had none. Of course, EQ has changes for the worse over time.

When I say a game is a WoW clone I mean it has all of the things I just listed for WoW above. Mass instances, solo friendly, no death penalty, hybrid classes, fast combat, etc.

As for other genres of games, I would never play a game that is this similar to a game I already played. Deus Ex is a totally different type of shooter than Cube 2. Ico is a totally different type of puzzle game than The Longest Journey. Xenosaga is a totally different type of RPG Lunar Silver Star Story.

I can't believe people think WoW is an EQ clone.

P.S. tired and going to bed. please excuse the "English."

Congratulations. You managed to pinpoint the elements of EQ WoW built on, and at the same time demonstrate a complete lack of understanding.

WoW IS an EQ clone. Clone doesn't mean a game doesn't improve on any of the elements, though. WoW literally took everything about EQ, and made it more accessible. That's it. WoW is basically to MMOs, what Halo was to FPS games.

How many more temper tantrum threads do we need, before people will actually start to think about the reality of the situation. Crying about games all feeling the same doesn't help the genre, and it doesn't help you.

Figure out what EXACTLY is wrong w/ the games according to you, and more importantly analyze yourself as a gamer. The problem isn't always the games. If you legitimately believe that every MMO is a WoW clone, then the problem is most likely YOU.

I can list off pleanty of non-WoW clone MMOs. While there are a lot of more interesting mechanics from other genres I'd like to see utilized in the MMO genre, I also realize that not all are possible (due to inherent tradeoffs when making an MMO), and I'm not going to blindly start crying about every game I don't like either. It accomplishes nothing.

Originally posted by Bladestrom
So, what is the difference between repeatable content and grind (my take is grind = forced through pressure to 'progress')

Well... the term grind used to be 'being forced to do some trivial, repetative task in order to progress'.

The term now means 'anything repetative' (aka all games ever)

Originally posted by Telondariel

Originally posted by Bad.dog

Originally posted by ShakyMo
**snip**

You should perhaps enlighten me to some of these games .... I enjoyed Shadowbane but have played nothing else like it , WoW ,Warhammer,Rift  and similar games were basic pve for pvp gear without three sided action ...AOC just sucked . So there was DAOC and GW2 for WvW  and to be honest GW2 has been every bit as good as DAOC was if not better

I dipped my toes into WvW a couple of weeks ago to complete my monthly.  I ran around in a zerg for a couple of hours, smashed heads with the two opposing zergs, and accrued a hefty repair cost.  I think it could be fun, and I would like to spend more time doing it, but I'm just not into having to farm for gold to keep up with repairs.  That aspect of WvW could definitely be improved.

Repair costs are the price to pay if you're doing poorly. If your doing bad enough to where you are acruing large gold depths for repairs (large enough to think about it as a cash sink), then you are generally playing very poorly, or are following others that are not good leaders.

If you play WvW with others who think strategically, make intelligent & quick decisions, and are decent players, you will be spending MUCH LESS gold. In fact, many of the more serious WvW players on my server make money doing WvW only. The only thing they ever really have to do from time to time is gather up superior siege blueprints. That's about it.

I'd highly suggest trying to stay away from the general zerg, and join a more organized / skillful force. They tend to be much more fun, far more interesting, and far less costly.

Originally posted by LordShockTitan

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by LordShockTitan

Originally posted by Magnetia
I personally like GW2 but I would recommend rift for you. GW2 is for people who DON'T want WoW.

Tried Rift, but for some reason could not get into it. I do not want WoW, but I want a game with fluid combat and lots of end game content like WoW.

I also forgot to mention that I like MMO's with a end game to it, like Rift or WoW and so on...

The irony of what you're asking is that you are actually looking for WoW. You just want a game that makes you think that you aren't. Essentially you're looking for a game that feels & functions like WoW, but isn't WoW.

Well kind of. I just want a game that has great combat. I used to love WoW, but I now hate the **** out of it, and wish it never existed. So yes, I agree with what you are saying, but I am never touching WoW every again in my life, so want a game similar, or one with just good combat.

Well.. assuming that's all you're looking for (and that's a big assumption), GW2's combat is one of the best out there atm for a fantasy MMORPG. It's fairly complex, involves a lot of reactions, timing, and tactics. However, again I must re-emphasize that a lot of players tried this game out claiming 'they don't actually want another WoW, they are looking for something different'. They then picked up GW2, which offers exactly what they asked for, and they went back to mists of pandaria.

Here's a video that explains it fairly well: Wait... Guild Wars 2 Doesn't Suck?

Again, it is a really good game, that has a lot to offer. However, it's not a game that presents itself well, especially to players who are coming from a game like WoW, which has been training their brain to view these games in a very specific way (i.e. Grind to Endgame, find the most efficient quest order, and then grind raids for gear).

The game gives you the most enjoyment when you force yourself to slow down, smell the roses, and just get lost. Most players don't do this, they want to rush through the game, get to endgame, and grind for the best gear. This just isn't that type of game.

- On a side note, the PvP in this game (structured PvP that is) is still somewhat limited compared to how it was in GW1. They have been working on it, though. WvW can be a lot of fun, but it helps to know what kind of PvP you are actually looking for. Tier 1-2 servers have the larger battles. To some this just feels 'zergy', but to others (i.e. I play on Sanctum of Ral) there's a TON of tactics involved and it can be very fun. For example, my server has a teamspeak for the entire server, in which people are allowed to hop in and follow the commanders, & help out. It's very organized, and even chaotic fights have a lot of tactics & coordination involved. Still, some players prefer smaller battles, and that's where tier 3 or lower is probably more your speed.

One of the biggest strengths & weaknesses of GW2 is that it has a bit of everything for everyone. Because of this, you can't trust the defaults. You kind of have to take the initiative to find your own enjoyment out of the game. Otherwise it's quite easy to pick the wrong class, choose the wrong starter zone, lvl up the wrong way, etc. and assume the entire game is based around those first choices.

Originally posted by ColumbiaTrue

The quest. The journey. The world. The community. The essential ingredients combined to create an enriching, complex, and satisfying---indeed memorable---MMORPG experience. Today's games fall sort of creating lasting, lifelong memories. Instead, they are designed to provide temporary, fleeting contentment. 

An MMORPG should not just be about the game itself. An MMORPG is more than gaming. It is about building genuine, authentic relationships in an environment conducive to building bonds of friendship. 

An MMORPG world has to feel rich, diverse, and dynamic. Most MMORPG worlds are so static and stale that I cannot bear to play them --- even for free.

The journey. An individual, unique, and customized character. Different from but similar to others. A part of the world and a part of a community. However, the opportunity to define one's own destiny, choose a path (create a path).

Some MMOs are doing some of the things you're asking for.

The main issue is you (and others as well) are expecting the game to do all the work for you. You talk about things like the journey, lasting memories & experiences, community, etc. These are things that a game can't just hand you. The most a game can ever do (and has ever done) is to provide a stage, and environment for which such things are possible. It's up to the players to create such things for themselves.

And that lies the root of the problem. While some games are definitely too shallow to allow for such things. Others aren't. However that doesn't deter players from complaining about these things not existing. Things like having a fun community need to be built by the players. You see this a lot in GW2. Some servers, the players just bitch about there being no community, others.. they make their own and it's amazing.

MMOs of the past seemed to do this for the players, because there weren't any options. You had only a few MMOs that everyone was playing. It was also still new, so people still felt like they were exploring a new game, even when they were all essentially the same. It's was a new phenomina. Now, we're starting to see the cracks, the downsides to an MMO, the limits to such games. The honeymoon phase has long since ended, and we're forced to deal w/ the reality of what an MMO is, and more importantly, what it isn't.

Originally posted by LordShockTitan

Originally posted by Magnetia
I personally like GW2 but I would recommend rift for you. GW2 is for people who DON'T want WoW.

Tried Rift, but for some reason could not get into it. I do not want WoW, but I want a game with fluid combat and lots of end game content like WoW.

I also forgot to mention that I like MMO's with a end game to it, like Rift or WoW and so on...

The irony of what you're asking is that you are actually looking for WoW. You just want a game that makes you think that you aren't. Essentially you're looking for a game that feels & functions like WoW, but isn't WoW.

Originally posted by LordShockTitan

Well, reason why I am asking this is because I do not want to pay the money and end up hating it just half a hour into the game. I really have not played a MMO since quitting WoW back in 2011, and the only "MMO" I play now is Planetside 2. 

I heard that GW2 is really only for people who like PvP and lore. Is this true? Because I really only like games kind of like Neverwinter and PS2 or even WoW like. 

A MMO with awesome combat is really what I have been looking for, and was wondering if GW2 is a kind of game I will like.

Anyways, if there is any other MMO with amazing combat, raids, PvP, quests and dungeons that is either B2P or F2P, then list them as well as if GW2 is a game I will like. I would only play a P2P game if there is no other option.

Thanks for your help. and sorry if it takes me a while to respond to your questions.

Just stick w/ Neverwinter or WoW for now. Even Rift might be a good option for you.

GW2 is not for players looking for more WoW. In fact just the opposite. It's kind of hard to explain GW2, because people seem to approach the game differently. For example a few posts above a guy labeles the combat a 'zerg fest'. It's true if you let it be, but there's also a lot of strategy there.

The game's wierd because it's kind of a mix between sandbox & WoW-themepark. On the one hand there's a lot of scripted content, but on the other it's completely up to the player as to how they experience it. Those who try and treat this like WoW, often walk away dissapointed. Though who treat this as it's own game (and just try and explore it for what it is), tend to have a much better experience.

Objectively, it's the best value for 60$ (and I hear you can get it for as low as 30$ now) you will ever find. However, if the content isn't you're cup of tea, then it's going to seem worthless to you regardless. And it sounds like you're more of a coffee drinker.

Originally posted by udon

Originally posted by colddog04

It's not that people don't understand what you are saying, it's that what you are saying is irrelevant to the conversation because those games are now F2P. I mean, everyone agrees that many of those games started P2P and then switched to F2P. That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the appeal of F2P games today. And there are a lot of games that are appealing to many people.

 

And in the future we are going to see a lot of great titles released as F2P because the market has changed so much. ArcheAge and Wildstar are two good examples of titles that will release as F2P and hybrid this year. I believe EQNext will as well. I'm not sure what ESO will do, but in the end I think it will be likely it will have some sort of hybrid model as well in order to compete.

You don't see any of these game companies removing sub options from their games completely.  It seems to me the hybrid game developers are hedging their bets hoping to draw subs and F2P revenue.  If they where really so sure about the viability of F2P they would remove the sub options completely.

I also have serious doubts about the long term viability of F2P as a business model for MMO's in the western market.  We are seeing a lot more MMO's closing down since this migration to F2P than we did in the past.

You're drawing the wrong conclusion.

1) Many studios are closing down since F2P became more popular. Including those that have NOTHING to do w/ F2P MMOs. (or any MMOs). It has much more to do w/ the fact that the economy sucks right now, publishers are raping the gaming industry (in addition to other creative industries atm), and MMOs are easily THE MOST expensive game to create. Regardless of the business model that's a trainwreck waiting to happen.

2) F2P games have actually shown more profit revenue than subscription games in recent years. Which is exactly why they are so popular right now. Some studios are going for sub + F2P, because they aren't comfortable with the risk. However, what they don't realize is they are actually taking a larger risk by attempting to play it safe. Most people don't like having a cash shop + subscription in a game. It's considered double-dipping.

The longterm viability of F2P is somewhat in question, but it depends on a lot of different factors. A lot of things (not just games) are shifting towards a more free-to-play model. It guaruntees more people will try you're products, and it's also been shown that enough people will actually end up spending more money on your product than they would with a standard payment model.

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Aelious
The greater the quality of game, the more likely it is to have appeal right? I think that's what people are referring to when making a distinction between previous P2P, F2P MMOs and built F2P MMOs. There is a big difference there.

Here's the trick. If an MMO has a "hybrid" payment model, meaning it has a subscription and a F2P option, it's better for these threads to make that distinction. That's probably what I'll start doing. That is the route that most new titles will take but strictly calling them F2P doesn't quite cover it IMO.

Yeah, I agree. But that's a big shift that is difficult to accept for people that prefer sub-only model though. Those games will still have an extensive cash shop and I think that for most people that prefer subs, it is still going to be a tough pill to swallow for them. In other words, don't expect people to stop insulting F2P games (and the people that play them) for being junky, lowest common denominator games for poor people who like to dig through the trash while ruining the entire genre because they have ADD and can't control how much they spend.

This ^.

It's ignorance. Plain and simple. Most people assume that 'subcriptions guaruntee quality!', even though anyone with half a brain can point to some pretty damning examples of that not being true. Not to mention some of the most popular games atm don't have subscription fees.

There's also the reverse assumption a lot of people seem to have of 'F2P guaruntees a bad game', which is also not true. The simple reality of the situation is that people need to follow / support the developers that are making games they enjoy. The payment model is largely irrelevant with the right developer engineering the game. But that would require people to actually think for themselves.

Probably the only legitimate negative I've seen (on these forums) in regards to F2P games, is that they do tend to have somewhat worse communities. This is largely due to there being zero gate of entry. However that doesn't guaruntee a bad community, just means you'll have somewhat more asshats you have to deal with in addition to the core-base. Nothing a simple /ignore function doesn't fix.

Originally posted by observer

Originally posted by Slappy1

 

@Observer,I for one have never had a problem with cash shop's,unless they really truly offer a distinct advantage over non payer's.I've always felt that leveling faster/increased drop rate/healing pots/talent point's and so on are not ptw because you can get those things just by playing the game.

The fact Trion is selling gear is fine with me,because it can be acquired in game also.There's also better gear to be had.

How can this be confused with what would be ptw?

To me a ptw would be pay x amount and get a lvl 40 character with top gear for that lvl and 20 plat,just for using the cc.Now that is what ptw look's like to me.Certainly not boost's/talent's/drop's and such.

Opinion's vary and that's fine,but at the end of the day,does it affect your gameplay in any way?Or is it just something you're stuck on and can't get past?

Pay 2 Win = Paying real life money for winning.   Winning what exactly?   Winning an advantage over others.  Whether it's due to convenience or stats.  That still defines paying to win by having an advantage.

The opposite of Pay 2 Win is experiencing the content on the same playing field as others.  The other factor is time, which cannot be controlled, but real money transactions can, depending on the company.

You and others are trying to justify that "inconsequential" stats is not pay to win, but that's just an opinion, and not a fact.  The fact is, it's paying to have an advantage, no matter how miniscule the convenience is.

It has nothing to do with being stuck on anything.  I'm just here to clarify the definitions of pay to win.

There's no point. The vast majority of people on these forums seem to think that 'any game with a cash shop = pay 2 win'. It's absolutely idiotic. Most don't even seem to realize that the very criteria they are using to label something 'pay 2 win' can literally be applied to every MMO ever made.

The whole term has become meaningless to the point where it is just an excuse people use to slander 'input game X that i don't like'.

This thread is so full of /facepalm I don't know where to begin. One thing is clear, most people seem to have forgotten (or never knew) the actual definition of Pay2Win. This is something that has been repeatedly explained, by various people, including those as well known as TotalBiscuit.

Pay2Win (P2W) DOES NOT mean 'Pay 2 advantage, any game that lets you buy an advantage, etc'. It might seem like a good definition, but it is FAR TOO BROAD. By that definition literally every MMO ever made (F2P, B2P, and P2P) can be labelled as 'pay2win'. It's meaningless.

The actual definition of Pay2Win (and no, you won't find it in an online dictionary), is 'buying power with real money'. To help explain this further, here are some recent examples:

Allods: This is a game, that is legitimately Pay 2 Win. Why? Because once you hit lvl ~20-30+ and start doing PvP you realize that there are some players that are nearly impossible to kill, that basically kill you in 2-3 hits. This isn't because they have epic dungeon gear, it's because they bought it via the cash shop. Most games DO NOT do this anymore.

Now lets look at a more recent example:

Neverwinter: This is a game that repeatedly gets labelled 'pay2win'. Why? Because it has a cash shop. That's basically it. The cash shop does give you advantages, but literally none of them are ones you can't get in game without spending a dime. I have multiple 60s, with the best pets, the best gear, and am working on the best tier- weapon & armor enchantments atm. I didn't spend a dime on the game. Yet.. somehow I am now pay2win. I've won plenty of PvP matches (though I will admit the PvP in this game is garbage), even though I have the crappiest mount available in the game. Once I have the AD for it, i'll buy one out of the cash shop.

That's a pretty stark comparison tbh. The first game literally guaruntees you're victory (short of going afk for 30mins in the middle of combat), the 2nd guaruntees nothing but rather allows you to progress in the game faster.

- Point being, a smart player can use almost anything in a game to his/her advantage. Even cosmetic items (when painted by such a broad definition) can be considered pay2win. Cooler looking items make you stand out, which can make it easier to meet people, to find groups, etc. Literally no power advantage, but still an advantage none-the-less. A good example of this is GW2. Many top-tier commanders run with super flashy items so that more people follow them. So are cosmetic items now pay2win? Of course not. But with how distorted this definition has become, they may as well be.

This term used to be used to describe any game that lets paying players easily beat non-paying players. It was an important label, because such games were generally NOT fun. Now? It's being used as a pitchfork against 'insert game I don't like here' to slander it and make people assume it's not a fun game.

Originally posted by Pandaman102

Originally posted by emperorwings
Yeah but www.goldsellersite.com (made it up don't click or goto) can be typed as w \/\/ w (dot) goldsellersite (dot) <0/\/\ and it won't pick it up.

By all accounts you don't even need to have "www." or ".com/.ru/etc." in the text for the filter to pick up on it. A volunteer (not the most reliable of sources, granted) claims inserting underscores, spaces, dashes, slashes, and such won't work as they can be parsed out (which is entirely possible and simple to do, even I can write a script that parses out special characters like that, so I don't doubt the claim).

lol...

I'm actually wondering if they even bothered to check for both caps & non-caps versions. Cryptic has, thus far, to be laughably terrible with their syntax.

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Originally posted by aesperus
**snip for length*

There is truth in your words... tough in open world PvE events its not coordinated play, because there is no real communication.   Even worse, my biggest gripe is that you can not see what is happening on the screen because of all the clutter, and you can only do what you think is best, hoping that there is enough AoE healing floating around for the fact that you can nay dodge anything because most of the time you dont see things comming.

In WvWvW however, those teams that communicate properly will rule.. they have a huge edge.  They set the rules, and noboddy can react to their actions because they are not vissible in the clutter they create around them.

For PvE it really depends on the complexity of the events.

For things like Guild Missions, and some of the temples (specifically Lyssa & Grenth) there tends to be at least some communication involved, if not a good deal of it. Guild Missions especially require a lot of communication to complete. Many of the events are also consistent of many smaller (more tightly knit) groups of players who are talking amongst themselves, and just observing what others are doing.

For some of the other events (like Dragons) it's mostly non-verbal coordination, and some of the dragons require none at all (Tequatl). That's definitely one of GW2's biggest problems atm. It lacks consistancy in the quality of its content. Some is really really good, and some I still can't believe was approved to ship.

It's funny..

They don't even have a report button in this game, and yet they keep systematically banning large chunks of their playerbase. Not a smart move imho. GG Cryptic.

It really depends on what you want from your games.

A lot of players play games because they want to feel like the badass (even if they aren't). Some play for the story. Some enjoy being challenged. Some like puzzles. Some enjoy strategy or tactics. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Mass (anything) takes away from individual prestige. It dilutes that feeling of "wow I'm awesome" in favor of "man WE are awesome". Some people confuse this with a lack of strategy, because they feel like they aren't really contributing much (and in many cases, that might actually be true). However, where the 'fun' comes in, is in the teamwork. Working with a group of any size, is all about teamwork & strategy. Communication, coordination, planning, etc. etc. is all part of the game.

This can also lead to individual prestige if you become a good leader (squad leader, commander, or even the one organizing your entire faction). People do take note of the better players & follow them.

- In short, it's less of a 'problem' and more of a 'tradeoff'. The more similar players you throw at an encounter, the better an individual has to be to stand-out. Those who rely on the games to make themselves feel powerful will only find that in single player games, or severely single-player oriented MMOs.

This problem has been talked to death for years. One of the main issues with overhauling quests, is it requires the players to be okay with letting go of questing. If you've ever heard of the 6 Ds, you probably already know that anything that can possibly be done w/ a quest system, has already been done. The best a developer can hope to do is disguise it in an attempt to make us forget we're doing the same crap over and over.

The only real way to 'overhaul' quests, tbh, is to reduce a games dependence on them. Most games use them as the primary method of leading a character through the game. That works great in more linear, single player games. However MMOs have unique issues that make this less beneficial. It worked for a time, but it's long since become a race to the finish line.

The whole point of an MMO is to have massive amounts of people sharing a collective story / world / experience. Traditional quests are meant to lead only a small number of people through a plotline. Having quests take less of a frontline role, be more optional, and less handheld would do quite a lot to overhaul them. However, this also puts a LOT more responsibility on the players to take the initiative. Most won't do this, or don't want to. And that's a major part of why we aren't seeing as big of a push in that direction. One example of this being GW2, in which traditional quests (hearts) were added to the game upon player complaints.

Flashy effects. Some look better than others.

However... the original FFXIV also had fairly good effects. That wasn't the main problem with the game. For a video that's obviously trying to impress players into buying the game, I'd kind of like a bit more. I keep hearing about all the things this re-release is supposed to change, but none of the videos really highlight any of that.

Graphics were never a weakness of FF games, and showing more graphics isn't really impressing me anymore, tbh. I still like the flashy fx for the most part. I pretty much always have. I want to see better mechanics, UI, and zones. You know... all those important things they DIDN'T get right in the first game.

Originally posted by wordiz

Originally posted by ThaddeusPL
There is only ONE rule for developers - $ over story - nothing more, so we get a lot of lowlevel MMO.

What gets me is how people justify this as, "Welp, that's just the way it is. Sheeux." Then go right back to saying the consumer is somehow responsible for deciding the level of profits these guys deem "good enough." Maybe if I bought 10 copies of season 3 of Arrested Development (no pun intended) it wouldn't have taken 7 years for them to make another season. I would have sent the message with my money right?

Not sure if I buy that tbh.

There are plenty examples of games with phenominal stories. The reality of the situation is that developers HAVE to choose what game they wanna make. Do I want to make an interactive movie? Or do I want to make a game? The 2 don't tend to play well together. Why?

Stories are told, and as such they lead you through a series of events. Even if it's not linear, it's still the developer leading the player. This doesn't tend to work as well in MMOs (and is one of the main issues with current MMOs imho. Too much focus on developer-driven storytelling. Not enough on game mechanics and having an environment that allows players to create their own stories).

There are still some MMOs with storylines that work pretty well, but things get sacrificed to much it work.