Originally posted by Shroom_Mage

 

---

Originally posted by Jetrpg
Fully customizable and modable (xml/lua/etc) Ui are requirments for mmorpg that want to be concidered AAA. Anythign less and ill call you AA+ at best because you you cannot offer the play the ability to improve their interaction with the game (its easy you simply allow it) then you cannot hope to offer the players with somethign that takes actual effort.

---

False.

You must be a shroom mage , because how else would you know my own opinions better than even i do myself. YOUR AMAZING

---

Originally posted by Jetrpg
Otherwise stated, if the player must experience your game via your controls/ui then the theory hold true that they muct play and enjoy it as you planned.

---

You say this like it's a problem.

iT IS A PROBLEM, Here is why. If i make a game that has swords and spells [insert w/e] and then some other little fluff/collection items/w/e and people start playing the game for those simple addons. Would i decided one day to remove all of them because, its not a problem if people play the game and enjoy aspects of it they find entertianing?

Thats rhetorical of course, you could do that but you'll lose playerbase and be less popular, because in general people will be less happy with your game.

The same is true of a fixed ui/controls, they must enjoy it as designed and well if that ui detracts from the games enjoyablity then the game is again "less popular, because in general people will be less happy with your game. "

Clear enough?

---

Originally posted by Jetrpg
This is in place of the play enjoying the game in the ways they find enoyable, which is a key factor to having an actually sucessful AAA mmorpg (IE most oif the initial player base play it for more than 3 months).
Its a prespective thing and you better believe dev.s that think they know better on the UI also think they know what you enjoy better than you do.

---

 

Trust me. The devs know better than the player what's good for the player. TRUST ME.

I knew you must be a real life mage or something, because here you go making claims are one wrong and two impossible to prove/absurd.

Sidenote- Magic shroom wizard please send all your money to my paypal account, TRUST ME i know how to enjoy it better than you.

Players generally have absolutely no idea how to have fun. That's the developer's job. If people knew how to have fun on their own they wouldn't need video games. Rules are required for a fun environment.

Got me here, before i started playing mmos i would normally spend ~4 hours poking my brain with stick via my ear canal. I mean before video games fun didn't exist.

If you let players do whatever the hell they want, you'll have a miserably disjointed playerbase. Using these mods becomes optimal and the entire metagame is distorted into something the developers never intended. In other words, giving players free reign over the interface results in the devs losing control of their game. (That's a bad thing.)

I know your so right. This is my major complaint about allowing people to make video games. Some make fps, rpg, mmo, srat, tactical, sim, etc. I HATE IT THEY ARE ALL DISJOINTED. They all go around and do different things and have fun doing it. I hope congress, the UN, or maybe some like flying space meatball monster puts a stop to this debauchery asap. The horror, we need just one game forever.

The only way that devs lose control of their game via interface is by improvements and thus greater enjoyment and apeal to their game , i bet the devs hate that.... you know having a popular game that people are enjoying.

The dashs of sarcasm and reductio ad absurdum are free btw.

Originally posted by bossalinie

That beta is anything but open...

Well you see... their "closed beta" was freinds and family and so their "open beta" will be closed. and their pre-order will be open with a wipe.

Fully customizable and modable (xml/lua/etc) Ui are requirments for mmorpg that want to be concidered AAA. Anythign less and ill call you AA+ at best because you you cannot offer the play the ability to improve their interaction with the game (its easy you simply allow it) then you cannot hope to offer the players with somethign that takes actual effort.

Otherwise stated, if the player must experience your game via your controls/ui then the theory hold true that they muct play and enjoy it as you planned. This is in place of the play enjoying the game in the ways they find enoyable, which is a key factor to having an actually sucessful AAA mmorpg (IE most oif the initial player base play it for more than 3 months).

Its a prespective thing and you better believe dev.s that think they know better on the UI also think they know what you enjoy better than you do.

We should all post on the forums hey bioware CS, i payed for next month.
Hopefully, if the standard for creditability for bioware is a forum post we will all be credited with a free month of gameplay.
I mean otherwise, there is no realy stadard for banning him. Or do you want it both ways. I mean they have his account and billion info, but forum post supersede these i guess.

Originally posted by Dubhlaith

 

---

Originally posted by gaeanprayer
You're comparing a console game to an MMO. There is not and never has been an MMO that is launching with a B2P model. It has not been done. You have a point, they're simply doing what gaming companies should have done from the beginning, but that doesn't making Meow's original point any less true.

---

Of course not. He's exactly right, except in that it is not really innovation.

....

This isn't a new model, it is an old model. One genre hasn't been doing it, and now everyone is saying it is a new and exciting and innovative and risky thing, and it is not. It is a tried and true business model used since the dawn of civilization.

....

Innovation

1: the introduction of something new

So it is or is not new for triple A mmos?

Its grey but still "innovation" as the word is used in the context of almost every game today.

Originally posted by SteeJanz

Originally posted by Jetrpg

Originally posted by SteeJanz

I fail to see the point of this thread.  It's hard to debate other peoples definition of what they want to see or call something.

The OP thinks that  "PUG"= not competitive.  Some will agree and some will disagree.  I am good with how the developer describes it. 

http://youtu.be/7r_oAx7zg98?t=10m51s

Me too thast why the devs call that hot join not competitive....

The replies in the thread kinda prove my point.

 

I mean call it w/e but at this rate why change its name in the first place (other than marketing)

Did you click on the link.  Eric Flannum describes two kinds of PVP.  WvWvW and Competitive PVP.  Sorry but your not making any sense.  They are marketing their Structured PVP as an e-sport because it is competitive. 

I did but according to ANET pug = not competitve  and Pug = hot join.

What is there to confuse?

Originally posted by Naqaj

Originally posted by Meowhead

Nah, part of the point to this post was to show that there IS innovation, if not in the small ways, in big, overarching, IMPORTANT ways.  Whole philisophical shifts in MMORPG design.

Also 'improvement' suggests bettter (It's only better for some people), and 'iteration' is completely meaningless.  'How is this an iteration' is a ridiculous statement. ;) 

Iteration is anything but meaningless, especially in game design. Some of the best games out there come from developers picking up something another developer tried before, but didn't get quite right, and iterating on it until it becomes truly great. I'm not a fan of posting dictionary entries to make an argument, I trust you know where to find one should you need it.

The only thing is none of this is iteration.

Iteration from MW:

" 1 a : a procedure in which repetition of a sequence of operations yields results successively closer to a desired result "

Thats the closest definition that even hints at improvement.

The topics the OP addresses here range from rather to VASTY different from the current standard in triple A mmos.

Thus iteration is a inccorect term. As the steps are not being repeated. For the most part Rift and Swtor did a good deal of iteration.

Now to say any of this is innovative maybe a mistake. IF it sucks no one / very few will copy it and thus not very innovative (implies improvement)  But all these are very Different with the purpose of real innovation. Of which look great to me.

Originally posted by mmoguy43

Can anyone give a link to proove that review sites are payed to make their reviews without being all tin-foil-hatty?

I ask because I have never heard this happen.

CAn you link me proof that they aren't ohhh

I don't see how any mmos of late get above a 7/10 . Swtor and rift may be the exceptions. But just at an 8/10, honestly there have not been any great mmos in a  long time.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

I completely agree, and have for a long time,  if you look hard enough you can see a clear evolution in each genre,  if you want to look hard enough.  It doesn't mean everything is exactly the same,  but much of what we have now, has been done before in some fashion or another -- and that doesn't make them bad.   

 

There is a differnce between similar and the same or less than another game is offering.

The call of duty games can fall under this to a degree, but graphics and other optiosn do keep expanding. BF3 was not really that much beeter gameplay than bf2 if nota downgrade, But tis graphics are vastly superior, and other things as well.

Lets look at MMOs We have seen mmos come out with much better graphics then wow, and others with some different ideas... But has any of them came out with better graphic style and quality? Maybe one or two of which failed to even met the gameplay of wow.. So. Many peopel say ehh more of the same ... no benifit in playing a new mmo, when the old one is superior.

Lets look at swtor, it did quest text better, its voiced and there a cut scene. But the graphics may be a bit higher quality with less style. So thast not really attractive. End game? Token/chest raid system. PVP BGs for "points" to buy gear. I mean classes, equipment, etc. pretty much very similar.

Crafting; a bit different, i love it, by lvl 40 on all my toons i have maxed crafting (because its new and different, i haven't done it over and over for years).

Yeah i like compaions / part of crafting... other than that the game it self doesn't play as well as wow, has far less options for specs (but not by much pretty similar). UI is far worse as they have it locked, i mean there really isn't any differnce that would entertian you for more than a few months.

Now this isn't true of all mmos , GW2 is trying new and old stuff most mmos forgot. There is terra, wildstar, even PS2 (while similar to itself rare in the market).

The issue isn't that coping = bad, its no new experinces , no improvement, no REASON to play the next mmo IS BAD.

Originally posted by SteeJanz

I fail to see the point of this thread.  It's hard to debate other peoples definition of what they want to see or call something.

The OP thinks that  "PUG"= not competitive.  Some will agree and some will disagree.  I am good with how the developer describes it. 

http://youtu.be/7r_oAx7zg98?t=10m51s

Me too thast why the devs call that hot join not competitive....

The replies in the thread kinda prove my point.

I mean call it w/e but at this rate why change its name in the first place (other than marketing)

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by Leonona

No..competitive pvp is the name Arenanet have given it, and I think it fits fine. There will be hot-joinable pvp, but Arenanet want to make it an e-sport and there will be no random teams at that level.

Ya, Anet also isn't using the term to be interchangeable with 'instanced pvp'. Their instanced pvp just happens to be designed with competitive players in mind (ie E-sports, guild matches, etc.)

That's where the term comes from.

This is good other than it being just wrong.

Anet is using the term compeitive pvp for their ranked team vs team instanced or stuctured pvp.

Thus my point proven. Everyone even after pointed out is still calling GW2 instanced or stuctured pvp competitive, when Anet has clearly defineded that it is no and that their ranked system is.

But lets be honest, once again i got to see people say stuff like if i joined a game of b-ball could it not be conpetitive? YEs i agree that it can.

Then others says well this games instanced pvp is competitive because everyone is equal...

These ideas are oppossing , as no two people are equal in ability in B-ball; yet they game can still be competitive. Thus all other mmos with insatnced pvp is also competitive, by this standard.

And for the other group who maintian the game is competitive due to the equal footing toons get, then they must maintain that any real sport in real life is not by that standard.

This in fact proves that the games competitive nature is not based on any thing to do with the equal footing, but instead the team/matching system, or to a GREAT and more valid point all instanced pvp in every mmorpg is competitive. Thus well establishing my intial point (which was an accident , i orginally just wanted people to stop callign all pvp in gw2 competitve instead of structued) That this is mainly a marketing ploy, or in the least a non-organic a projection of desired effect.

In anycase i would rather reality determine the outcome, which it will indeed, tho words have power.

Originally posted by aesperus

So, have you seen the state of the beta Jet? I'm just curious. The demos all seemed really polished, but I know they were restricted parts of the game.

I wouldn't be surprised if they're a little bit behind, with all the features / re-designs they've been doing, but I'm curious as to whether this is speculative, or if you have first hand experience with what you are talking about?

Nope, and while that question is a great practice in rhetoric if anyone person thinks the that game is largely finished and unaffliated prospective clinets are beling allowed to test the game, then please state it here. Later when we hear about all the wonderful improvements, areas added, etc. etc during beta will you care that you were willing to play a word game to appear correct.

Its speculative, but me knowing ff14 was trash (imo) even after playing the beta was far more speculative, because its simple logic.

Most mmorpg BETAs acctually start as F&F alphas. People other then close assosicates and friends don't get in. The game has some time before release (still quite a bit of work to do [= not a "beta"]) Etc.

Again, I am not saying i care one way or another (this is thread largely a pratice in words and rhetoric, defining your terms helps avoid such issues) only that  this seems to be what the Op and other may have been addressing.

Evidence is there also you don't drop a new class in at the same time move into a completed state of game. Lets go with probability (as neither of us know), which is more probable; the game state i professed much of the content in, working, playble but with content not yet added / some in need of redesign, or a finished product with minor tweaks and testing needed?

Originally posted by cali59

Originally posted by Jetrpg

Originally posted by cyress8

Cali59 pretty much answered your question OP. How you make it sound, you also do not think basketball, football, soccer, etc., are also not competitive. Normal, everyday people play those games in their own little areas. Also, they will have major tournies with players fighting for prizes and such. That pretty much defines something being competitive in my book.

So if i am outside playing some B with my bros downing a few brews its competitive?

That answer to this is obviously no.

See it could be competitive, but for vast majority of the "competitive pvp" matches will be pugs just doing w/e.

Thus competitive pvp is not really anything different than a BG system wow currently has.

Lots of things are competitive or can be. Heck you can be a competitive eater. Does that mean every night when you sit down you ask your family are you ready for the competition ? No, once again rhetorical, lets be honest this a re-branding of an long existing game structure.

To use another posters example

"

Well I must first ask have you played Gears of War 2-3? And if so do you think it's competitive?

If not, say so then I'll post you a link of some pvp in Gears of War 2 and then ask you do you think it's competitive."

 

What happens if the dev of Gears said their next gears game is now an Competitive person shooter  (CPS).

They changed nothing really from previous fps structures that allowed them to be competitive, just re-branded existing game-play/system with maybe more ladder display options.

Would you be like yeah we should call it CPS or .. yeah its just an FPS that is attempting to create hype / interest via marketing (it still can be competitve however)?

 My answer was that it's not called Competitive PVP, it's called Structured PVP.  I linked the wiki, but also on their main website PVP page http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/pvp/pvp-overview/ they describe Pickup and Competitive as being the two sides of Structured PVP.

That should be enough to address the point of the thread, but I went on to detail why it might be called Competitive PVP even if it is casual.

One of the reasons was because it puts the players on an equal power threshold.  To use your basketball analogy, no you playing pickup ball with your friends wouldn't necessarily be called competitve (though it could, actually).  But what if instead, when you walked on the court you were each turned into Michael Jordan?  The game would then be decided by something other than physical ability (better tactics, better decisions, playing harder, whatever).

But I think you bring up a valid point.  Calling it competitive PVP, unless talking about tournaments specifically is technically incorrect.  People should use the more accurate "Structured PVP" when discussing it in general.

Yeah thank you this is totaly what i missed at typing that out, DOH.

I have no issue people calling the tournament or "ranked group/team" play competitve. but everyone is callign the instanced pvp on these forums competitive, when most of the hot join instanced pvp will not be of the "competitive" nature. 

In otherwords its ranked.

(Still, i don't find the equip you wear a giant issue, apart from that fact you'll not need to grind for it Cheer [as pretty much everyone ends up with the same stuff if your serious]).

But to be fair:

"The term ArenaNet has given it is Structured PVP.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Structured_PvP

It's competitive because everybody enters it at max level with access to all skills.

It's also competitive because of the tournaments, the first three of which require teams.  From the link above..."

Just as matter of record you did call structured pvp competitive which it will not be for the most part.

Originally posted by RizelStar

Originally posted by Quirhid

Nah, "competitive PvP" tells me more about the PvP than just "instanced PvP". It implies that PvP is played on equal terms: Teams have equal numbers, level and gear. Player skill matters. Instanced PvP tells me only that the PvP is instanced.

Warhammer Online's scenarios are a good example of instanced PvP whereas Guild Wars' PvP is competitive.

GW1 fans are already familiar with the term and know what it means.

 

I figured that's what competive is in anything, mainly in sports, shit  lol I don't think the stuff you wear technically matters :/ It's why I am failing to see what the OP means, right now it just seems he doesn't like the fact they achieved an actual competitive PVP, I don't have to even favor GW 2 in order to think this as I thopught it was that even before I played and liked GW 2 lol.

If the stuff you waer doesn't matter than wearing different stuff doesn't matter.

See you want it one way but not the other.

"I figured that's what competive is in anything, mainly in sports"

Do B ball teams come with the same players, all with the same skills? No

Are they still competitive yes. Thus you prove your own points of the differnce between instanced pvp from say wow and instanced pvp from say GW2 false. As both are still competitive (thats to say as you have said B -ball is competitive or sports in general)

Originally posted by cali59

Originally posted by Jetrpg

To this degree i wouldn't technically call it a beta. The game is obviously missing a lot of content, and quite a bit of development is still going on. To this degree and missing invitations to prospective clients i'd argue a late alpha phase gw2 is in.

 

Its really no biggy, we saw year ago + that the game runs and is rather stable..

 I have to ask, on what do you base your saying "obviously missing a lot of content?"

Just adding a new class, etc. Thast not to say most fo the content is not in the works.

People doesn't seem to understand what a beta is and what an alpha is, which is fine.

I think that may have been the poitn of some of the other posters, and important if your askig are people testign the game the answer is yes. If your asking is the game server up with most content in place and operation and prospective clients (albet a limited number of them) given the oppritunity  to test an almost finished version of the game,  then i think you you could say no it doesn't seem that way. Thus in kind it doesn't really appear to be a "beta".

As stated before this doesn't really mean much, other than somepeople say hey you kinda mislead us we thought you were gonna start beta testing with random/system/not friend based invites to a game largely finished... well thats not the case. And maybe they were asking for too much. But i just wanted to clarify that prespective by mentioning yes the beta doesn't seem like much of a "beta".

Originally posted by Moaky07

Originally posted by Santa25

Developers of current MMOs dont realize that the best content in MMO is player created content and player created stories.  You can have themes up the ying-yang of Warcraft, Starcraft, StarWars, Lord of the Rings etc etc but they are all transparent if the player themself cant have close to absolute freedom.

 

This is why Ultima Online has lasted as long as it has even with the bad directions that it took.  This is why a crappy graphics game like Minecraft was such a hit sensation.  Sandbox type games will be the big winners in the future but they have to be casualized to the extent of WoW.  Hence the new market lingo of SandPark MMOs.

 

The only reason WoW was such a big hit is because it was a creditable if not the most creditable company out in gaming at the time with some of the most popular franchised games in the world with Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo.  I think it was also complimented with perfect timing in technology when broadband was being fine tuned and consoles werent even online quite yet until mid-late 2005.   WoW also had a big budget to market their game world wide when most MMOs before them barely saw the light of day.  And if that didnt kill it, WoW is one of the most optimized MMOs today that it can run on some of the shittiest computers.

 

 

Says who?

 I agree what wow did was make mmorpgs casual

The hundred or so sandbox fans, on this site, that wont STFU about them?

 And what 200 or so themepark fans that won't stfu about the sandbox kids? Pot meet kettle.

Some of us play video games to enjoy ourselves, and not work a second job. Luckily that PVE content is provided in spades when Devs make a good themepark game. EQ drew me into this sub genre of video games back in Feb of 01, and my "first" is the template being used till this very day. PVE content is front & center, and WOW has mainstreamed it to appeal to even more folks.

It works.

Sandbox....not so much. Those that came into the genre with SWG and UO arent getting new games made for them. Instead they get to spew their hate on forums, like these, as they arent being catered to. At least some folks, like Kyl, get their kicks out of forum PVP.  If they were looking for AAA titles featuring sandbox/FFA, they are going to keep looking. No one in their right mind is going to finance one.

 Oddly enough GW2 while technically is themepark, zone wise, intrazone progression is sandbox. which is common for most sandbo games.. IE you could call gw2 sandbox.

IMO it takes a social reject to go into a games forum, when you dont even like/play the game, and proceed to keep whining about the same stuff. If they had  friends in RL, they would understad no one wants to listen to another person bitch constantly cause their GF left them.

 You mean kinda like your post?

Which is what happened in the MMO genre....those that enjoy sandboxes got left behind. The numbers are with those that feel Uncle Owen needs to go fuck himself.

 Wow has more bitchers and moaners than anyone if your thoery were to be correct then no one would be playing it.

As far as the OP.....nope I dont go into other games forums to run them down repeatedly. The only long standing fued I have is with those SWG folks that werent content with smashing their game, as they came after EQ as well. A few of them were restraining orders waiting to happen, and at least one of them did go off the deep end.

You mean the players of a game that release years after that game they "came after" ... come on anyone can spot this blatant lie /mislead. How about this you stop raging about other peoples opinions, free free to say sandbox is junk w/e. But allow people to hold their own values.  And if they critize a game you like for being too themepark maybe they have a point, games need to progress and incorperate new ideas (thats how things improve).

I will agree that there is a lot of range but then agian there is alot of ignoring Faults in good games, that should be crtitized.

Originally posted by slickbizzle

I see this every time a new game is released.  The haters come out of the woodwork.  Players  launch a forum assault on any new game that "threatens" the game they play.

 

Do you?

I don't like people and opinions, i like to act like every crticism of a game is an attack , i forgot the poll option " this poll is dumb,  it shouldn't have been made".

Originally posted by cyress8

Cali59 pretty much answered your question OP. How you make it sound, you also do not think basketball, football, soccer, etc., are also not competitive. Normal, everyday people play those games in their own little areas. Also, they will have major tournies with players fighting for prizes and such. That pretty much defines something being competitive in my book.

So if i am outside playing some B with my bros downing a few brews its competitive?

That answer to this is obviously no.

See it could be competitive, but for vast majority of the "competitive pvp" matches will be pugs just doing w/e.

Thus competitive pvp is not really anything different than a BG system wow currently has.

Lots of things are competitive or can be. Heck you can be a competitive eater. Does that mean every night when you sit down you ask your family are you ready for the competition ? No, once again rhetorical, lets be honest this a re-branding of an long existing game structure.

To use another posters example

"

Well I must first ask have you played Gears of War 2-3? And if so do you think it's competitive?

If not, say so then I'll post you a link of some pvp in Gears of War 2 and then ask you do you think it's competitive."

What happens if the dev of Gears said their next gears game is now an Competitive person shooter  (CPS).

They changed nothing really from previous fps structures that allowed them to be competitive, just re-branded existing game-play/system with maybe more ladder display options.

Would you be like yeah we should call it CPS or .. yeah its just an FPS that is attempting to create hype / interest via marketing (it still can be competitve however)?

I said the same about VOs a year ago. ITs clear that biowares focus was in the wrong area for a mmo. Voice acting is nice but not the cornerstone of long lasting games. Be sure they spent a considerable about of their effort, money, and time on this, instead of game mechanics and play.

I will not say swtor will fail, but it will not be wow 2.0 or even wow 0.5.

Still i find it a great single player game or multiplayer game as its really not an mmo or its is tehcnically an mmo but offers no massive experince or interaction (similar to wow).

PS- the while i agree on lp muds, the best muds were Diku's not becuase of dikus just because Duris and its spinoffs were easily the best muds ever.