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

Originally posted by Starpower

It will quickly become mundane and repetitive. Just like the latest "thing" in Rift with the "dynamic" content.

 

Just like with RIft it's something new and refreshing. That feeling too will fade away after a month or two.

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

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

Originally posted by Jenovas

Originally posted by Aryas

Originally posted by DarkPony

 

---

Originally posted by Jenovas
Hmm. Why all these " i played 4 hours in beta and i have a very super review to show you about how the WHOLE game is" reviews, pop up all the time around the internet? Can you tell us something else? About the flashpoints? The heroic quests? The operations? the open world objectives? how the class and roles fit in individually? The dps/healing animations? the advanced classes? The companion system? The crafting system?

---

 

Good point that. People (mmorpg vets) should know better than to dismiss or glorify a mmorpg after just a couple of hours / a few days of play time (of a beta, even). Sure, anyone can give his or her first impression, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In that sense I only value what long term testers have to say (also the negative ones).

 

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

Then he could name the post "First planet review" or "first few testing hours" and tell us just how he think the game is shortly after the Log-in. But to have a full review and say "the game does not worth the sub" when you only have seen the 1% of what a game has to offer you, is just ridiculous. If he were working on a magazine he would have been fired. The game is not for everyone. Some ppl will like it and some ppl won't. But before you express an opinion for a specific matter, you have to HAVE an opinion. It is just like you are about to test a new car, you sit in the driver's seat and before you start the engine you say " ah this car sux. Does not worth the money".

And thumbs up for the comment about the soloing above. The lvl up system is extremely group friendly. I tried it both solo and group and i had much more fun doing quests with my friends and it took me less time.

I hear all the opinions with respect generally. But i want to hear real opinions. Not guesses. Play the game, see what it has to offer and then we can safely critisize it.

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

Originally posted by DarkPony

 

---

Originally posted by Jenovas
Hmm. Why all these " i played 4 hours in beta and i have a very super review to show you about how the WHOLE game is" reviews, pop up all the time around the internet? Can you tell us something else? About the flashpoints? The heroic quests? The operations? the open world objectives? how the class and roles fit in individually? The dps/healing animations? the advanced classes? The companion system? The crafting system?

---

 

Good point that. People (mmorpg vets) should know better than to dismiss or glorify a mmorpg after just a couple of hours / a few days of play time (of a beta, even). Sure, anyone can give his or her first impression, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In that sense I only value what long term testers have to say (also the negative ones).

 

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

Originally posted by Clywd

Originally posted by AryasI'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?

 

Ask the dead foxconn employees... Steve Jobs was for sure not interested in agile development, as he never was a software engineer. He was a die-hard manager, and did well for the company, but not for the employees. I don't like him.

But I like agile development. Though managers hate it usually, as it shows too clearly how obsolete they are...

 

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

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

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

Originally posted by DarkPony

"we believe that with all of our customization options in GW2, every player will be able to make themselves unique and special ...."

... As long as it's young and beautiful too, rite?

I can understand the sentiment of some posters. It's all so sit-commy picture-perfect. I guess that is the downside of hugely realistic face generation. It becomes very glossy if you don't add the little imperfections.

I saw a slightly older dude in there but I sure hope that isn't the end of the age slider.

What's wrong with some more gritty imperfections?

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

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

Originally posted by BTrayaL

I assume you never heard of games like Guild Wars? Never assume anything.

Edit: I have not voted, the ideea and price is ridiculous when the price for GW2 would be probably about 10% (GW is just as an example) You effectively just voted.

Originally posted by eyelolled

$500 is more then I could justify with the amount of 8/10 games available for $50

Assume:

There's no fee from that point onwards.

Originally posted by Anthur

Ratings are meanlngless (see all those failed MMO launches with great ratings pre-launch).

10 days are not enough to judge if the game is worth $500.

The risk that you just wasted 500$ on a crappy game is too high, and for what benefit ?

Short: No !

 

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.

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