| 320 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
I think there are a number of reasons games are going this way.
1. Combat is crap
This is the main reason I think. Basically fighting mobs is boring and formulaic and offers no satisfaction whatsoever. As a result players do not want to actively fight mobs unless they're gonna get something out of it since the fight itself requires no skill or tactics at all.
2. Quests are crap
Little or no planning and thought is required in many games to complete quests. The player just wanders into the zone, auto-targets the mobs and mashes a few macro buttons FTW. As a result, players just want to complete quests as quickly as possible because there's no sense of satisfaction from completing a quest.
3. Loot & levels are all-important
I think many players play MMOs now to earn status-related achievements more than any other factor. By this I mean things like having certain kit and achieving a certain level. Even if no-one else cares, players are self-congratulatory on achieving level X not because it took skill or it was fun but simply because they had the staying power to repeatedly do something really boring to get there. The journey to get there - and this is crucial - is now just an irritating obstacle, a test of determination. Sure it's all set in a pretty little game world but even that's cosmetically shallow in many cases.
And why are games being built as skill-free lumps of junk? Egalitarian game design: the art of creating a game where a hopeless gamer can stand toe-to-toe with a skilled gamer because only time = success in the game.
Aryas |
|
|
I'd like to see a category for 'Biggest Loss of the Year', for games that were shut-down or the dev folded, despite being good. I think these games deserve recognition.
Sometimes these games disappear because of fundamental design flaws or other issues, which is fair enough. I think Chronicles of Spellbourne fell into this category a fews years back. I loved the basic ideas of the games but in many ways it was just too weird in terms of art direction, etc.
Late last year, Earth Eternal went offline as Sparkplay went bust (?). This for me was a tragedy as it was a damn good game that appeared to be thriving. It wasn't my regular haunt but I really enjoyed playing the game in certain situations (at work :), on trips, etc) when I didn't have a higher spec PC to hand. I think this game went in it's prime and if TurnOut Ventures are going to bring it back, they'd better get moving before it's too dated.
Next I think we'll see Vanguard put to sleep. SOE appears to be letting this one die a slow death and gradually letting it slip out of peoples memories. However, I think this is another wasted opportunity in MMO world.
Can't think of anything that died this year that I cared too much for, but I'm sure the MMORPG.com staff could name something.
Aryas |
|
|
So, I fired up Rift last night...
General Discussion « Star Wars: The Old Republic 12/11/11 6:46:47 PM
Originally posted by Starpower This post just left me speechless.
How do you even begin to respond to a comment so nihilistic it tears at the very fabric of the human experience... and has no value you to it whatsoever?
Oh well, I'll just ROFL and carry on.
The cutscenes are nice from what I've seen, but I'm still liking RIFT.
I think I'll always prefer the fantasy setting though, so SWTOR doesn't really stand a chance with me.
Aryas |
|
|
11/28/2011 - New Media Previews - TSW Blowing People Away
General Discussion « The Secret World 11/28/11 2:34:16 PM
Based on what I know so far, I'm definitely trying this game.
So it's Funcom and the screwed up in the past; who hasn't?
TBH I'd rather risk 50 bucks on this than any of the other crap due for release (GW2 aside).
I actually think this would be a great game to play along side GW2, if I can find the time.
Darn site more interesting than the current sacred cow that's doing the rounds.
Aryas |
|
|
Beta review by Lobotomist - *( non fan point of view )
General Discussion « Star Wars: The Old Republic 11/27/11 7:27:55 AM
Originally posted by Jenovas I understand what you're staying and playing through the entire game would give a more valuable insight into whether or not it's good or not. However, playing games is a fun pass time and MMO's take days to 'complete', if that word is even applicable. By that measure, we'd all be waiting 6-12 months post launch to hear a review from a normal players (i.e. NOT hardcore MMO nut) who'd tried most of the game. By that point, there would be so many changes, even that review would be defunct!
Using your test-drive analogy, I would personally liken the first few hours/levels of game play to taking the car for a spin round the block. Now I don't really car what a car mag might tell me, if I don't like the car by that point I'm not really going to care if - according to someone who isn't me - it will gradually becomes more rewarding down the line.
This game will sink faster than a lead-plated turd if it doesn't attract and retain big numbers. I believe most people won't stick around long if the game is lame at the start, just for the promise of better gameplay later on. First impressions count, which is why the attractive girl with big tits and no personality gets the rich husband with a Porsche and the fat but friendly one ends up having illegitimate kids with an illegal immigrant and living off state handouts for the rest of her life.
Aryas |
|
|
Beta review by Lobotomist - *( non fan point of view )
General Discussion « Star Wars: The Old Republic 11/27/11 6:06:02 AM
Originally posted by DarkPony In Lobotomist's defense, if the game isn't enjoyable from the outset, why would anyone feel inclined to play all the way through?
As he states, it's CRITICAL that the game feels good immediately, not several hours/days of play down the line. I personally don't have the time for games like that when there are immediately fun games out there and if my xp of SWTOR is the same, I won't continue to play it past beta.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and for most players, the 'eating' begins as soon as you hit 'Create New Character'.
Aryas |
|
My comments were with regards to an agile organisation, which I think is what this article is alluding to, rather than the agile software development ethos.
My Jobs point was that he was hands-on and involved at all levels within Apple. I certainly don't feel he was a saint but for every p!ssed off ex-Foxconn employee, there are a lot of people who are very happy with the products Apple produced during his tenure. Regardless, I was using him as an example, not holding him aloft as a hero.
As for agile software development eliminating the need for managers, that depends on your definition of 'manager'. Management is a process, not necessarily a role. Even an individual operating on their own has a manager; themselves.
Aryas |
|
|
The source of agility in small, start-up companies is:
a) Few employees - Effective org-wide communication is much easier and where consensus needs to be sought it can be reached far quicker as there are less people to consult.
b) Few levels of management - There aren't dozens of coordinators, supervisors, managers, leads, heads, directors who all want to ratify decisions for fear of letting a bad one slip through the net and getting the boot for poor diligence.
c) Closer working relationships - Start-ups don't usually have a global network of offices, some barely have a premises at all, so everyone gets to know each other
d) The deal-maker for me... The head of the start-up usually has a large financial and personal interest in the company in terms of sinking their own cash into the business and actually being interested in the product(s) (e.g. computer games). They also tend to be familiar with EVERY employee (and vice versa) and have significant input into the design and marketing of the product line, even at a granular level.
If the person heading-up a start up is knowledgeable about the product, in-touch with the customer base (knowing what they actually need, not necessarily what the customer themselves thinks they want), driven and highly intelligent, there's a strong chance of success. Add a few talented, motivated and accountable staff who are close as friends and the likelihood of success increases further.
I'm sick of hearing/reading his name everywhere, but Steve Jobs is a close match for this description, and he did alright didn't he?
Aryas |
|
|
artickle about top 10 flaws of guildwars 2.
General Discussion « Guild Wars 2 11/23/11 2:14:48 PM
What a shower of sh!t.
Can't even be bothered to fully read an essay that slates a game the author hasn't even played yet.
Says more about the guy writing it than it does about the game tbh.
The word 'ghey' was invented for stuff like this.
Aryas |
|
|
Some thoughts:
People love novelty, which is why ‘app’ games for phones and Facebook are popular atm. You can buy them cheap so you don’t feel cheated if they’re crap and they’re very accessible.
When WOW came out, it introduced new MMO gamers to stuff they’d never seen before – a huge novelty factor. These features (silly hats, crafting, holiday events, titles, etc) were added fun because of the social element attached. These are now commonplace in MMOs.
PvP makes for great longevity – nothing compares the degree of variance introduced and sense of achievement felt when beating a ‘real’ player. Hence the success of FPS games. For me, PvP in MMOs is greatly underdeveloped and all too often an afterthought due to the balancing it requires. There’s often only one or two battle formats and the environments are very limited.
Fun is key, but since all MMOs are similar by definition, if you don’t enjoy the fundamentals, the genre’s realistically dead for you. This is why I’ve been hoping for a 3PS MMO fantasy game that introduces a more interactive, fun element to the game whilst retaining the depth.
Aryas
|
|
|
SWTOR: The end of the hegemony
General Discussion « Star Wars: The Old Republic 11/13/11 7:47:32 AM
WOW is cookie cutter fantasy gaming - the fact it's lore and setting is generic and simple is what makes it accessible to so many.
SWTOR is niche.
Star Wars makes big bucks at the box office because there are very few comparable space sci-fi movies released, period. Most space sci-fi aside from Star Wars is along the psychological horror lines or is aimed at young children so viewers are very polarised. However, 99.9% of the people who go and see Star Wars films aren't 'into' Star Wars per say.
So given the choice of which game they could play, most would pick a very generic fantasy MMO they can relate to and 'get into' fast. Not some complex space game based on, but set 2000 years before, a series of films they probably didn't quite understand anyway, but looked pretty at the cinema.
The first thing a lot of people will want to know is whether Darth Vader is in it. The answer to that question is the same as the answer they'd then give if asked if they'll be playing it.
I'd like it to make a real difference. but I can't see SWTOR making much of a long term impact on WOW. I doubt it will affect WOW more than the impact WOW's age is having on the game pops anyway.
Aryas
|
|
|
ArenaNet: Guild Wars 2 Character Creation Walkthrough
General Discussion « Guild Wars 2 11/10/11 1:12:35 PM
Originally posted by DarkPony
The train I catch to work daily is full of people with seriously 'gritty imperfections' - like hell I want that in my home too!
That being said I agree with what you're saying, a bit of grit is good but tbh I wouldn't miss it if it was absent.
And we are humbled by your reference to a thespian God; may he RIP.
Aryas |
|
|
I prefer fantasy.
Sci-fi games always seem to lack depth across all fronts.
It’s far easier to take actual history, throw a load of existing myth and magic concepts at it and come up with a few novel ideas (fantasy) than it is to take the real world, make it somehow novel and at the same time predict the future (sci-fi).
In games I prefer brutal, wild, animalistic grit and gore to flawless, polished metal, a thousand shades of grey and black, incongruous technology and the inevitable dystopian world of misery.
The mood of fantasy settings always seems to be one of wonder, positivity and the joy of discovery.
The mood of sci-fi settings always seems to be one fear, regret, gloom and impending doom.
Aryas
|
|
|
Prime Battle for Dominus: Teaser Trailer World Premier
News Discussion « General Discussion 10/28/11 1:08:25 PM
Looks wicked to me tbh and I'm looking forward to playing it.
Don't like the way it looks? I couldn't care less. Not sure why people feel they need to share the fact they dislike and won't be playing a game without any constructive argument to back it up.
The battle shown towards the end looked quite tame but as the games not out yet I'm not gonna say sh.t other than that it's got me very excited.
Aryas |
|
|
Would you play an MMO with a very large, one-off fee?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 10/26/11 2:05:45 PM
Originally posted by BTrayaL
|
|
|
Would you play an MMO with a very large, one-off fee?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 10/26/11 2:03:02 PM
Originally posted by eyelolled
Assume:
There's no fee from that point onwards.
|
|
|
Would you play an MMO with a very large, one-off fee?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 10/26/11 2:01:53 PM
Originally posted by Anthur
Assume the following:
The game is definitely the best MMO you have ever played and ever could play at this point in time.
The trial may as well be 3 months, I only added that in to indicate you have tried it and can confirm you love it. |
|
|
Would you play an MMO with a very large, one-off fee?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 10/26/11 1:54:30 PM
Premise
A new MMO is released and it's superb. 9.5/10 rating, etc.
You've played free trial for say 10 days and you love it.
It has almost everything you could possibly want from a game given today's level of technological advancement (i.e. it's not, DX20, full 3D, virtual reality or anything like that).
The game is due to be developed further over time but already more content and features than any other MMO to date.
Question
Would you pay a one-off, fixed, up front fee of $500 to play the full game?
Note: Full payment of the fee is mandatory and an installments option would be treated as a 0% loan.
Update
Thanks for the responses so far everyone. My main reason for asking was to get an understanding of how gamers felt about paying a large fee up front. The $500 figure was just an arbitrary sum; it could've been more, it could've been less. The same applies to the 10 day trial. Perhaps I should've reworded the question to: "How much would you be willing to pay up front for your perfect game?" to remove an ambiguity about whether it is actually any good or not. I guess what a lot of posts reflect is that gamers have little faith in developers ability to a) deliver a game that lives up to their hype and b) develop it further, as is often promised. Ultimately, I'm trying to get a feel for new ways to get players to commit to games, rather than chop and change. A large intiial investment was one option I'd looked at. I may run a similar poll shortly based on feedback so far. Thank you,
Aryas |
|
|
RIFT isn't lacking at all.
Personally, I think it's WoW 2.0 and a bloody good game for it!
The issue with RIFT (and potentially SWTOR and GW2) is that as soon as it launched people were already either:
1. Looking ahead to an as yet unreleased game when RIFT didn't live up to everyone single one of their expectations.
2. Looking back at a game they ploughed hours, days, weeks into (WoW) and has several years of content development behind it and decided RIFT just wasn't different or advanced enough.
I genuinely feel masses of people will be let down by SWTOR and GW2 because there'll always be something more promising on the horizon and they can't bring themselves to commit hours and hours of gameplay to something that will experience a population exodus when the next game lands.
It's a vicuous circle - games needs players to survive and grow, yet as soon as the playerbase gets wind that people 'might' be leaving they jump ship for fear of wasting time of a lost cause... which causes pops to drop, which causes more players to leave, which causes pops to drop, and on and on and on.
And the WoW crowd, they need a game that is massively far advanced over WoW. Not just DX11 graphics, or Facebook connected. They need a real setp-up in terms of gaming advancement to make it worth while. If you love WoW, why else would you part with that amount of content just for prettier graphics?
Aryas |
|
|
WoW is a very dated game now in every technical respect. Try as they might, I thing the best Blizzard will achieve is to slow the rate at which the playbase is decreasing.
Moves like this are much like injecting adrenaline into an elderly person who’s running a marathon. Sure, they’re further ahead, wiser and more experienced than the younger guys because they’ve been running longer and the adrenaline will give them a boost, but sooner or later they’re going to drop dead.
I love WoW and I have very fond memories of playing the game with friends; it was my first ‘real’ MMO experience. However, every time I reboot it and give one of the free trials a go, I play for about 15 minutes before I’m bored.
Aryas
|
|