Trending Games | Guild Wars 2 | Elder Scrolls Online | TERA: Rising | WildStar

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,645,774 Users Online:0
Games:687  Posts:6,083,674
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

13 Pages First « 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Last Search
260 posts found
  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2247

4/01/13 11:42:05 AM#141
Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey
I agree with most of what the OP has stated, but I think (at least for me) I figured out why I am not feeling MMOs anymore. What it boils down to is that I do not think it is possible to re-live the feeling you got from playing your 1st (and maybe 2nd too) MMO years ago. My 1st MMOs were SWG with some vanilla WoW on the side. When I 1st started playing these games, MMOs were a fairly new concept (yes the was UO and others before it, not what I am arguing) for the masses. Playing these games were fresh and exciting to me as I had never played anything like it before. Today we have all these MMOs that are a clone of this or that game of old (mostly WoW, yes) so nothing is NEW to us. What I am getting at is I do not believe you can recreate that nostolgic feeling of playing your 1st mmo. People drop cash on a clone or other uninspired game then get disapointed when they don't get that nostolgic feeling when playing it. I really think we are "chasing the dragon" so to speak, and until something comes along that is fundamentally different, that nostolgic feeling will never be had again. Looking back at SWG, I do not think it was the game itself that I loved so much as the fact that it was my 1st MMO in a time when MMOs were generally new. Does this make sense at all?

 It does make quite a bit of sense. In terms of Nistalgia. However, I don't believe the themepark MMO's are anywhere close to what we had a long time ago. Most MMO's are just gutted down versions of the old games and I believe that's what people are missing. They're missing the connection between their character and their adventure in the world. Rather than it being just another character in another game.

 I personally went back to Runescape the main reason being. It's not a linear game. I can do anything I want. While there aren't 1000's of quests for me to do. The quests are enjoyable and each one is a story all their own. In addition I don't have to always fight, there's cooking, farming, herblore, fishing, mining, smithing, runecrafting, dungeoneering, construction, the list goes on as far as skills.

 Runescape also has many mini-games to go along with it. The game has advanced quite a bit over the years, graphically and content wise and I believe many people have forgotten the game as a simple childhood game that's "no longer good". 


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

  Pixel_Jockey

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/21/13
Posts: 173

4/01/13 11:50:00 AM#142
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey
I agree with most of what the OP has stated, but I think (at least for me) I figured out why I am not feeling MMOs anymore. What it boils down to is that I do not think it is possible to re-live the feeling you got from playing your 1st (and maybe 2nd too) MMO years ago. My 1st MMOs were SWG with some vanilla WoW on the side. When I 1st started playing these games, MMOs were a fairly new concept (yes the was UO and others before it, not what I am arguing) for the masses. Playing these games were fresh and exciting to me as I had never played anything like it before. Today we have all these MMOs that are a clone of this or that game of old (mostly WoW, yes) so nothing is NEW to us. What I am getting at is I do not believe you can recreate that nostolgic feeling of playing your 1st mmo. People drop cash on a clone or other uninspired game then get disapointed when they don't get that nostolgic feeling when playing it. I really think we are "chasing the dragon" so to speak, and until something comes along that is fundamentally different, that nostolgic feeling will never be had again. Looking back at SWG, I do not think it was the game itself that I loved so much as the fact that it was my 1st MMO in a time when MMOs were generally new. Does this make sense at all?

 It does make quite a bit of sense. In terms of Nistalgia. However, I don't believe the themepark MMO's are anywhere close to what we had a long time ago. Most MMO's are just gutted down versions of the old games and I believe that's what people are missing. They're missing the connection between their character and their adventure in the world. Rather than it being just another character in another game.

 I personally went back to Runescape the main reason being. It's not a linear game. I can do anything I want. While there aren't 1000's of quests for me to do. The quests are enjoyable and each one is a story all their own. In addition I don't have to always fight, there's cooking, farming, herblore, fishing, mining, smithing, runecrafting, dungeoneering, construction, the list goes on as far as skills.

 Runescape also has many mini-games to go along with it. The game has advanced quite a bit over the years, graphically and content wise and I believe many people have forgotten the game as a simple childhood game that's "no longer good". 

Agreed. Most games today are stripped down to appease the ADHD kids (which I would assume is a HUGE part of the playerbase). Add the fact that companies are trying to make a quick buck on initial sales and you have the formula for most of the fail MMOs out today. 

  AaronR1074

Novice Member

Joined: 4/08/06
Posts: 2

4/01/13 11:55:02 AM#143

Hey all.. this is my first time posting here, but I've been reading this site since as long as I've been playing MMORPGS so bear with me a little bit.

I first started playing online Role Playing games with Diablo 2.. me and my bud would co-op and play like all night.  This is my first REAL experience of playing an RPG online.  My 2nd was Neverwinter Nights.  Neverwinter Nights is by far my favorite experience to date because the community truly believed in Role Playing, and the toolset was so easy to use that you could just go in and modify your equipment with incredible stats with maybe 1 or 2 weekneses.  Want to make a new dungeon for the game?  No problem.  Want to download all kinds of new free stuff that the community built in the toolset?  No problem.  In a way, this a great early example of community created DLC that I haven't seen since.. well maybe Little Big Planet, but beyond that nothing has touched this game as far as user content goes.  Then one of my good friends in NWN told me she discovered DAOC.. and my life changed forever.

DAOC was a great early example of the MMORPG.  Beautiful graphics, tons of class choices, and lots of running around and killing stuff and leveling. What I found difficult was finding a group and actualy.. multiplaying.  This game was out before random group finders and guild searches.  You were basically thrown into the world on your own, with very little NPC interaction besides.. ok here is a quest now go do it.  It was not a very noob friendly game, the graphics were very dark and tough to navigate around, and after a while I just got frustrated with it.  My friend was feeling the same vibe.. and.. enter

Lineage 2.  This is where I got really, truly, 100% addicted to MMORPGS.  Not only was it a great kill and farm game.. it was rather mindless.  Also, in the very early stages at least, there was a great feeling of comradery in your group.  You're basically kiting and grinding for hours in the same room and fending off other players trying to compete for your leveling area because it's open PVP.  You can't do any of this without a group and a good guild and alliance.  You can't touch castle sieges without a good guild and alliance.  You NEED to trust your online friends, and for a while, we actually became like family. 

From Lineage 2 came City of Heroes, and even that was a great time.  Me and my same friend from Diablo 2 found a great guild and we'd always be grouped up in instances, and this was a hella fun game to mess with buffs and healers and damage dealers and tanks.  You could visually see the difference with the superpowers and the power animations were just phenominal to the point where you felt like a group of superheros.  RIP City of Heroes servers...you shall be missed.

I discovered WoW same as everybody else did, through their love for all things Blizzard.  I loved the open world of questing and being able to fly over everything.  Unfortunately I got bored with that pretty quick.

I experimented with other MMORPGS.. like Guild Wars, EQ2, Warhammer, Lord of the Rings, and Star Trek.  Lately me and my friend have been having a blast grinding and farming in Diablo 3.  So in a way we've both come full circle with gaming.  Started with a Diablo, and ended with a Diablo.

So here is where I come to my point in this long winded reply.  I just renewed my WoW account because I love kung fu movies and wanted to see the Chinese/Kung Fu Panda-type stuff.  The game is really cool now.  I do like the random cross-realm dungeons, but the actual world of the game seems just like a huge lobby where you can do a few quests on your own while you wait for your random dungeon group to start.  This is all well and good but that feeling of comradere I got with say.. a game like Lineage 2 just isn't there.  I was in a group the other day and I forgot it was cross realm.  I picked up a new mace for my dual-wielding Fury-specced warrior and asked somebody if they can do a few quick strength enchants for me.  The reply was "Sorry, we can't do that cross realm" 

Crap.. yeah.  That kinda made me feel a bit empty.  Just going ina nd killing stuff and looting.  Made me kinda wanna just play Diablo 3.  So yeah you guys are right. MMORPGS just aren't the same anymore.

  Arkain

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/30/04
Posts: 499

Hows your google-Fu?

4/01/13 11:55:52 AM#144
Originally posted by CalmOceans

Well that's my conclusion after thinking about it.

While MMO do well and sell well, they are not really MMO anymore, they're all small scale dungeon instancers (LoL, Vindictus), solo quest grinders (WoW SWOTOR), , or glorified action Hack & Slash multiplayer games (Tera, GW2).

I haven't seen a game with a true community where the primary focus was the world and human interaction and the gameplay came second in MMO in a number of years. Now the gameplay is frist and if it isn't too much trouble maybe you'll be interacting with someone too, and if no ones interacts, join an artificial bubble called a guild and interact in the bubble.

 

Most people don't need MMO to interact online, there are plenty of chat opportunities, facebook, twitter, disqus, liveFire, forums, email, messengers, smartphones, youtube. You have all these ways to interact with people you want, there is way too much noise to make a world where people will be truly immersed and willing to spend time with each other in a game outside of gameplay.

There's no need for it anymore, there are thousands of other and arguably better ways to interact online.

I think the term MMO lives on even though the games are now becomes multiplayer action games, but the idea behind MMO is long gone I think, it's replaced by other communities online that are far easier and more effective way to interact.

MMO (massive multiplayer online games) are fine, the games you listed are ALL MMO's in the FULL since of the word.

You may mean MMORPG's (massive multiplayer online role playing game), they have taken a hit or too, but are coming back (see ArcheAge and to a lesser degree The Secret Word).

  Pixel_Jockey

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/21/13
Posts: 173

4/01/13 11:58:59 AM#145
Let's be honest, young people today are used to having their hand held. I know people in their 20's who cannot cook for themselves or even know how do a load of laundry (no offense to any young people who aren't this way). In this day and age of instant gratification, I can see why we have the MMOs we have today. Doesn't mean I like it, but I can see how we got there. 
  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2247

4/01/13 12:06:45 PM#146
Originally posted by Arkain
Originally posted by CalmOceans

Well that's my conclusion after thinking about it.

While MMO do well and sell well, they are not really MMO anymore, they're all small scale dungeon instancers (LoL, Vindictus), solo quest grinders (WoW SWOTOR), , or glorified action Hack & Slash multiplayer games (Tera, GW2).

I haven't seen a game with a true community where the primary focus was the world and human interaction and the gameplay came second in MMO in a number of years. Now the gameplay is frist and if it isn't too much trouble maybe you'll be interacting with someone too, and if no ones interacts, join an artificial bubble called a guild and interact in the bubble.

 

Most people don't need MMO to interact online, there are plenty of chat opportunities, facebook, twitter, disqus, liveFire, forums, email, messengers, smartphones, youtube. You have all these ways to interact with people you want, there is way too much noise to make a world where people will be truly immersed and willing to spend time with each other in a game outside of gameplay.

There's no need for it anymore, there are thousands of other and arguably better ways to interact online.

I think the term MMO lives on even though the games are now becomes multiplayer action games, but the idea behind MMO is long gone I think, it's replaced by other communities online that are far easier and more effective way to interact.

MMO (massive multiplayer online games) are fine, the games you listed are ALL MMO's in the FULL since of the word.

You may mean MMORPG's (massive multiplayer online role playing game), they have taken a hit or too, but are coming back (see ArcheAge and to a lesser degree The Secret Word).

 I love ArcheAge for trying to achieve an actual game world. It's looking promising. However, I personally don't like the publisher that's coming with it for the american audiance. TRION, sends shivers down my spine. 

Why did I say  TRION sends shivers down my spine?

 Well to begin with it's a "AAA" publisher that's trying to rake in loads of money. So this is where the issue lies. ArcheAge is a F2P game at its core. However, TRION has the rights to sell it in anyway they see fit to their audiance. Which means that the game will become a P2P title.

http://www.mmoculture.com/2013/01/archeage-p2p-subscription-model-confirmed/

 In addition to my fear of a true F2P title being published in NA it will also come with a cash shop. That's right, the game is banking off of both subscription and microtransactions. This has to be one of the biggest dick moves in the industry. While the game is great, I fear that TRION will milk the fuck out of an all around decent game.

This will essentially piss off both audiances in the NA market. We have subscription customers who HATE microtransactions and we have microtransaction customers who HATE subscriptions.

 With all of this being said, I hope the developer is willing to back up the game with massive amounts of content in return with the double transaction system they've put into place. I'm not talking about the little content booster every month I'd personally like to see full blow expansions at the same rate as Blizzard's WoW or faster.


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

  Shaigh

Hard Core Member

Joined: 3/07/13
Posts: 149

4/01/13 12:12:11 PM#147
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by Arkain
Originally posted by CalmOceans

Well that's my conclusion after thinking about it.

While MMO do well and sell well, they are not really MMO anymore, they're all small scale dungeon instancers (LoL, Vindictus), solo quest grinders (WoW SWOTOR), , or glorified action Hack & Slash multiplayer games (Tera, GW2).

I haven't seen a game with a true community where the primary focus was the world and human interaction and the gameplay came second in MMO in a number of years. Now the gameplay is frist and if it isn't too much trouble maybe you'll be interacting with someone too, and if no ones interacts, join an artificial bubble called a guild and interact in the bubble.

 

Most people don't need MMO to interact online, there are plenty of chat opportunities, facebook, twitter, disqus, liveFire, forums, email, messengers, smartphones, youtube. You have all these ways to interact with people you want, there is way too much noise to make a world where people will be truly immersed and willing to spend time with each other in a game outside of gameplay.

There's no need for it anymore, there are thousands of other and arguably better ways to interact online.

I think the term MMO lives on even though the games are now becomes multiplayer action games, but the idea behind MMO is long gone I think, it's replaced by other communities online that are far easier and more effective way to interact.

MMO (massive multiplayer online games) are fine, the games you listed are ALL MMO's in the FULL since of the word.

You may mean MMORPG's (massive multiplayer online role playing game), they have taken a hit or too, but are coming back (see ArcheAge and to a lesser degree The Secret Word).

 I love ArcheAge for trying to achieve an actual game world. It's looking promising. However, I personally don't like the publisher that's coming with it for the american audiance. NCSoft, sends shivers down my spine. 

Why did I say  NCSoft sends shivers down my spine?

 Well to begin with it's a "AAA" publisher that's trying to rake in loads of money. So this is where the issue lies. ArcheAge is a F2P game at its core. However, NCSoft has the rights to sell it in anyway they see fit to their audiance. Which means that the game will become a P2P title.

http://www.mmoculture.com/2013/01/archeage-p2p-subscription-model-confirmed/

 In addition to my fear of a true F2P title being published in NA it will also come with a cash shop. That's right, the game is banking off of both subscription and microtransactions. This has to be one of the biggest dick moves in the industry. While the game is great, I fear that NCSoft will milk the fuck out of an all around decent game.

This will essentially piss off both audiances in the NA market. We have subscription customers who HATE microtransactions and we have microtransaction customers who HATE subscriptions.

Trion publishes ArcheAge in the west, ncsoft publishes Blade&Soul.

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2247

4/01/13 12:13:44 PM#148
Originally posted by Shaigh
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by Arkain
Originally posted by CalmOceans

Well that's my conclusion after thinking about it.

While MMO do well and sell well, they are not really MMO anymore, they're all small scale dungeon instancers (LoL, Vindictus), solo quest grinders (WoW SWOTOR), , or glorified action Hack & Slash multiplayer games (Tera, GW2).

I haven't seen a game with a true community where the primary focus was the world and human interaction and the gameplay came second in MMO in a number of years. Now the gameplay is frist and if it isn't too much trouble maybe you'll be interacting with someone too, and if no ones interacts, join an artificial bubble called a guild and interact in the bubble.

 

Most people don't need MMO to interact online, there are plenty of chat opportunities, facebook, twitter, disqus, liveFire, forums, email, messengers, smartphones, youtube. You have all these ways to interact with people you want, there is way too much noise to make a world where people will be truly immersed and willing to spend time with each other in a game outside of gameplay.

There's no need for it anymore, there are thousands of other and arguably better ways to interact online.

I think the term MMO lives on even though the games are now becomes multiplayer action games, but the idea behind MMO is long gone I think, it's replaced by other communities online that are far easier and more effective way to interact.

MMO (massive multiplayer online games) are fine, the games you listed are ALL MMO's in the FULL since of the word.

You may mean MMORPG's (massive multiplayer online role playing game), they have taken a hit or too, but are coming back (see ArcheAge and to a lesser degree The Secret Word).

 I love ArcheAge for trying to achieve an actual game world. It's looking promising. However, I personally don't like the publisher that's coming with it for the american audiance. NCSoft, sends shivers down my spine. 

Why did I say  NCSoft sends shivers down my spine?

 Well to begin with it's a "AAA" publisher that's trying to rake in loads of money. So this is where the issue lies. ArcheAge is a F2P game at its core. However, NCSoft has the rights to sell it in anyway they see fit to their audiance. Which means that the game will become a P2P title.

http://www.mmoculture.com/2013/01/archeage-p2p-subscription-model-confirmed/

 In addition to my fear of a true F2P title being published in NA it will also come with a cash shop. That's right, the game is banking off of both subscription and microtransactions. This has to be one of the biggest dick moves in the industry. While the game is great, I fear that NCSoft will milk the fuck out of an all around decent game.

This will essentially piss off both audiances in the NA market. We have subscription customers who HATE microtransactions and we have microtransaction customers who HATE subscriptions.

Trion publishes ArcheAge in the west, ncsoft publishes Blade&Soul.

Yeah, I corrected myself sorry about that :)


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

  Pixel_Jockey

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/21/13
Posts: 173

4/01/13 12:14:02 PM#149
Originally posted by Shaigh
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by Arkain
Originally posted by CalmOceans

Well that's my conclusion after thinking about it.

While MMO do well and sell well, they are not really MMO anymore, they're all small scale dungeon instancers (LoL, Vindictus), solo quest grinders (WoW SWOTOR), , or glorified action Hack & Slash multiplayer games (Tera, GW2).

I haven't seen a game with a true community where the primary focus was the world and human interaction and the gameplay came second in MMO in a number of years. Now the gameplay is frist and if it isn't too much trouble maybe you'll be interacting with someone too, and if no ones interacts, join an artificial bubble called a guild and interact in the bubble.

 

Most people don't need MMO to interact online, there are plenty of chat opportunities, facebook, twitter, disqus, liveFire, forums, email, messengers, smartphones, youtube. You have all these ways to interact with people you want, there is way too much noise to make a world where people will be truly immersed and willing to spend time with each other in a game outside of gameplay.

There's no need for it anymore, there are thousands of other and arguably better ways to interact online.

I think the term MMO lives on even though the games are now becomes multiplayer action games, but the idea behind MMO is long gone I think, it's replaced by other communities online that are far easier and more effective way to interact.

MMO (massive multiplayer online games) are fine, the games you listed are ALL MMO's in the FULL since of the word.

You may mean MMORPG's (massive multiplayer online role playing game), they have taken a hit or too, but are coming back (see ArcheAge and to a lesser degree The Secret Word).

 I love ArcheAge for trying to achieve an actual game world. It's looking promising. However, I personally don't like the publisher that's coming with it for the american audiance. NCSoft, sends shivers down my spine. 

Why did I say  NCSoft sends shivers down my spine?

 Well to begin with it's a "AAA" publisher that's trying to rake in loads of money. So this is where the issue lies. ArcheAge is a F2P game at its core. However, NCSoft has the rights to sell it in anyway they see fit to their audiance. Which means that the game will become a P2P title.

http://www.mmoculture.com/2013/01/archeage-p2p-subscription-model-confirmed/

 In addition to my fear of a true F2P title being published in NA it will also come with a cash shop. That's right, the game is banking off of both subscription and microtransactions. This has to be one of the biggest dick moves in the industry. While the game is great, I fear that NCSoft will milk the fuck out of an all around decent game.

This will essentially piss off both audiances in the NA market. We have subscription customers who HATE microtransactions and we have microtransaction customers who HATE subscriptions.

Trion publishes ArcheAge in the west, ncsoft publishes Blade&Soul.

WoW has both...I guess it depends on what is in the cash shop. I think WoW just has mounts and cosmetics. 

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2247

4/01/13 12:17:02 PM#150
Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey
Originally posted by Shaigh
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by Arkain
Originally posted by CalmOceans

Well that's my conclusion after thinking about it.

While MMO do well and sell well, they are not really MMO anymore, they're all small scale dungeon instancers (LoL, Vindictus), solo quest grinders (WoW SWOTOR), , or glorified action Hack & Slash multiplayer games (Tera, GW2).

I haven't seen a game with a true community where the primary focus was the world and human interaction and the gameplay came second in MMO in a number of years. Now the gameplay is frist and if it isn't too much trouble maybe you'll be interacting with someone too, and if no ones interacts, join an artificial bubble called a guild and interact in the bubble.

 

Most people don't need MMO to interact online, there are plenty of chat opportunities, facebook, twitter, disqus, liveFire, forums, email, messengers, smartphones, youtube. You have all these ways to interact with people you want, there is way too much noise to make a world where people will be truly immersed and willing to spend time with each other in a game outside of gameplay.

There's no need for it anymore, there are thousands of other and arguably better ways to interact online.

I think the term MMO lives on even though the games are now becomes multiplayer action games, but the idea behind MMO is long gone I think, it's replaced by other communities online that are far easier and more effective way to interact.

MMO (massive multiplayer online games) are fine, the games you listed are ALL MMO's in the FULL since of the word.

You may mean MMORPG's (massive multiplayer online role playing game), they have taken a hit or too, but are coming back (see ArcheAge and to a lesser degree The Secret Word).

 I love ArcheAge for trying to achieve an actual game world. It's looking promising. However, I personally don't like the publisher that's coming with it for the american audiance. NCSoft, sends shivers down my spine. 

Why did I say  NCSoft sends shivers down my spine?

 Well to begin with it's a "AAA" publisher that's trying to rake in loads of money. So this is where the issue lies. ArcheAge is a F2P game at its core. However, NCSoft has the rights to sell it in anyway they see fit to their audiance. Which means that the game will become a P2P title.

http://www.mmoculture.com/2013/01/archeage-p2p-subscription-model-confirmed/

 In addition to my fear of a true F2P title being published in NA it will also come with a cash shop. That's right, the game is banking off of both subscription and microtransactions. This has to be one of the biggest dick moves in the industry. While the game is great, I fear that NCSoft will milk the fuck out of an all around decent game.

This will essentially piss off both audiances in the NA market. We have subscription customers who HATE microtransactions and we have microtransaction customers who HATE subscriptions.

Trion publishes ArcheAge in the west, ncsoft publishes Blade&Soul.

WoW has both...I guess it depends on what is in the cash shop. I think WoW just has mounts and cosmetics. 

 While I understand that Blizzard is doing this. They are one of the only developers that are actually producing expansions for their games. So I don't mind that they're double dipping so long as they keep the content flowing.

 This is where I personally like the F2P model. If you're going to develope a shallow MMO with no further progression than you created at the start. F2P is the type for you.

However, if you're going to charge P2P, you're going to need to produce content to back up the month fee. This is how I see fit.

When you push for both systems I want to see more and more content. Otherwise the title isn't worth the cost to me in the end.


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

  achesoma

Advanced Member

Joined: 5/05/05
Posts: 958

4/01/13 12:27:13 PM#151
Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey
Let's be honest, young people today are used to having their hand held. I know people in their 20's who cannot cook for themselves or even know how do a load of laundry (no offense to any young people who aren't this way). In this day and age of instant gratification, I can see why we have the MMOs we have today. Doesn't mean I like it, but I can see how we got there. 

Meh, people say this a lot but it's really not an age or generational issue.  It's a people issue.  There are people of ALL ages and generations like this.  Every generation accuses the next or younger generations of this as far back as ancient Greece(Socrates wrote of similar problems with youngsters in his time).  People who are like this are just more obvious since we are living in an information age( or misinformation if you will).  There are people in their 50s and even 60s that still live with their parents or are dependent on other people for basic survival. 

  asmkm22

Elite Member

Joined: 11/29/06
Posts: 1629

4/01/13 12:31:55 PM#152
The only thing that has killed MMO's is the shift towards huge publishers buying everything out.  We have a scenario where 2 or 3 publishers control 90% of game releases, which they aparently can't do very well in the first place.  It's the video game version of Hollywood, where we get a bunch of disposable franchises and sequals, none of which are very entertaining.

You make me like charity

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2247

4/01/13 12:33:47 PM#153
Originally posted by achesoma
Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey
Let's be honest, young people today are used to having their hand held. I know people in their 20's who cannot cook for themselves or even know how do a load of laundry (no offense to any young people who aren't this way). In this day and age of instant gratification, I can see why we have the MMOs we have today. Doesn't mean I like it, but I can see how we got there. 

Meh, people say this a lot but it's really not an age or generational issue.  It's a people issue.  There are people of ALL ages and generations like this.  Every generation accuses the next or younger generations of this as far back as ancient Greece(Socrates wrote of similar problems with youngsters in his time).  People who are like this are just more obvious since we are living in an information age( or misinformation if you will).  There are people in their 50s and even 60s that still live with their parents or are dependent on other people for basic survival. 

 While I semi agree with Pixel. I don't believe it's just young people who want handholding. While yes, many of them want the instant gratification. I hate to hear that someone who's 30+ doesn't have time for a true MMO anymore (If you don't have time for it, make time for it or stop playing them).

Which is why they don't want the mindless grind or competition in killing bosses that use to exsist in older games(A discussion I was having last night). The older and younger audiance both are at fault for bring upon the lazy persons MMO in the end.


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2247

4/01/13 12:37:21 PM#154
Originally posted by asmkm22
The only thing that has killed MMO's is the shift towards huge publishers buying everything out.  We have a scenario where 2 or 3 publishers control 90% of game releases, which they aparently can't do very well in the first place.  It's the video game version of Hollywood, where we get a bunch of disposable franchises and sequals, none of which are very entertaining.

 It has nothing to do with large publishers. Publishers only sell you the product. It's the developer that's creating the stuff. These are two different roles in a company (Or several companies Ex. Activition and Blizzard).

 Publishers don't tell the developers how to create the game; they simply state they want the product out by X date. It's the developer that's producing the content and producing the shallow worlds that's the issue. They're the ones at fault as far as producing crappy titles in the long run. They're catering to the content locust/mindless consumer so that they can attempt to make a quick buck. However, as many have seen this is not the case and their overall plan backfires. Which results in a failed P2P MMO.


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

  asmkm22

Elite Member

Joined: 11/29/06
Posts: 1629

4/01/13 12:49:24 PM#155
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
The only thing that has killed MMO's is the shift towards huge publishers buying everything out.  We have a scenario where 2 or 3 publishers control 90% of game releases, which they aparently can't do very well in the first place.  It's the video game version of Hollywood, where we get a bunch of disposable franchises and sequals, none of which are very entertaining.

 It has nothing to do with large publishers. Publishers only sell you the product. It's the developer that's creating the stuff. These are two different roles in a company (Or several companies Ex. Activition and Blizzard).

 Publishers don't tell the developers how to create the game; they simply state they want the product out by X date. It's the developer that's producing the content and producing the shallow worlds that's the issue. They're the ones at fault as far as producing crappy titles in the long run. They're catering to the content locust/mindless consumer so that they can attempt to make a quick buck. However, as many have seen this is not the case and their overall plan backfires. Which results in a failed P2P MMO.

Publishers have a ton leverage for game decisions.  Stuff like the ex-EA CEO touting about how he doesn't green-light games without multiplayer or cash shop features.  Look at Sim City:  do you think the developers honestly went into designing that from the ground up because they thought "always-on" restrictions and no single player was beneficial to the game?  Or do you think they designed it that way so that the game would get green-lit in the first place?

Publishers control the game as much as movie studios control the movies.  Sure, the studios don't actually write or direct them, but they do sign off on them (and often cancel or veto changes that they just don't like, such as script adjustments or filming locations due to costs).

You make me like charity

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2247

4/01/13 1:01:34 PM#156
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
The only thing that has killed MMO's is the shift towards huge publishers buying everything out.  We have a scenario where 2 or 3 publishers control 90% of game releases, which they aparently can't do very well in the first place.  It's the video game version of Hollywood, where we get a bunch of disposable franchises and sequals, none of which are very entertaining.

 It has nothing to do with large publishers. Publishers only sell you the product. It's the developer that's creating the stuff. These are two different roles in a company (Or several companies Ex. Activition and Blizzard).

 Publishers don't tell the developers how to create the game; they simply state they want the product out by X date. It's the developer that's producing the content and producing the shallow worlds that's the issue. They're the ones at fault as far as producing crappy titles in the long run. They're catering to the content locust/mindless consumer so that they can attempt to make a quick buck. However, as many have seen this is not the case and their overall plan backfires. Which results in a failed P2P MMO.

Publishers have a ton leverage for game decisions.  Stuff like the ex-EA CEO touting about how he doesn't green-light games without multiplayer or cash shop features.  Look at Sim City:  do you think the developers honestly went into designing that from the ground up because they thought "always-on" restrictions and no single player was beneficial to the game?  Or do you think they designed it that way so that the game would get green-lit in the first place?

Publishers control the game as much as movie studios control the movies.  Sure, the studios don't actually write or direct them, but they do sign off on them (and often cancel or veto changes that they just don't like, such as script adjustments or filming locations due to costs).

 Believe what you want. The publisher truly only controls the release date of a game. The developer is the one that designs it.

 However, when you're a company like EA. You're one in the same. Which is where you're getting confused. EA owns the studio, therefore it's not a partnership (Ex. EA and Bioware). When a Publisher owns a studio(developer). They are essentially extended management. Which means you'll occasionally get the retarded boss who knows nothing about the production process of a game (EA's EX-CEO John Riccitiello). In the end you'll end up with bad products (ex. The New Sim City).

 However, when you have a true partnership (Ex. Activision and Blizzard). The only thing the publisher can truly do to you is require a specific due date (as stated earlier: X date) for release. Sorry you have a misconception of how publishers and developers work. Hopefully you'll understand the difference in the future.


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

  asmkm22

Elite Member

Joined: 11/29/06
Posts: 1629

4/01/13 1:07:47 PM#157
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
The only thing that has killed MMO's is the shift towards huge publishers buying everything out.  We have a scenario where 2 or 3 publishers control 90% of game releases, which they aparently can't do very well in the first place.  It's the video game version of Hollywood, where we get a bunch of disposable franchises and sequals, none of which are very entertaining.

 It has nothing to do with large publishers. Publishers only sell you the product. It's the developer that's creating the stuff. These are two different roles in a company (Or several companies Ex. Activition and Blizzard).

 Publishers don't tell the developers how to create the game; they simply state they want the product out by X date. It's the developer that's producing the content and producing the shallow worlds that's the issue. They're the ones at fault as far as producing crappy titles in the long run. They're catering to the content locust/mindless consumer so that they can attempt to make a quick buck. However, as many have seen this is not the case and their overall plan backfires. Which results in a failed P2P MMO.

Publishers have a ton leverage for game decisions.  Stuff like the ex-EA CEO touting about how he doesn't green-light games without multiplayer or cash shop features.  Look at Sim City:  do you think the developers honestly went into designing that from the ground up because they thought "always-on" restrictions and no single player was beneficial to the game?  Or do you think they designed it that way so that the game would get green-lit in the first place?

Publishers control the game as much as movie studios control the movies.  Sure, the studios don't actually write or direct them, but they do sign off on them (and often cancel or veto changes that they just don't like, such as script adjustments or filming locations due to costs).

 Believe what you want. The publisher truly only controls the release date of a game. The developer is the one that designs it.

 However, when you're a company like EA. You're one in the same. Which is where you're getting confused. EA owns the studio, therefore it's not a partnership (Ex. EA and Bioware). When a Publisher owns a studio(developer). They are essentially extended management. Which means you'll occasionally get the retarded boss who knows nothing about the production process of a game (EA's EX-CEO John Riccitiello). In the end you'll end up with bad products (ex. The New Sim City).

 However, when you have a true partnership (Ex. Activision and Blizzard). The only thing the publisher can truly do to you is require a specific due date (as stated earlier: X date) for release. Sorry you have a misconception of how publishers and developers work. Hopefully you'll understand the difference in the future.

I'm sorry you have a misconception of the realities of the game industry.  Hopefully you'll understand the difference in the future.

You make me like charity

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2247

4/01/13 1:09:51 PM#158
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
The only thing that has killed MMO's is the shift towards huge publishers buying everything out.  We have a scenario where 2 or 3 publishers control 90% of game releases, which they aparently can't do very well in the first place.  It's the video game version of Hollywood, where we get a bunch of disposable franchises and sequals, none of which are very entertaining.

 It has nothing to do with large publishers. Publishers only sell you the product. It's the developer that's creating the stuff. These are two different roles in a company (Or several companies Ex. Activition and Blizzard).

 Publishers don't tell the developers how to create the game; they simply state they want the product out by X date. It's the developer that's producing the content and producing the shallow worlds that's the issue. They're the ones at fault as far as producing crappy titles in the long run. They're catering to the content locust/mindless consumer so that they can attempt to make a quick buck. However, as many have seen this is not the case and their overall plan backfires. Which results in a failed P2P MMO.

Publishers have a ton leverage for game decisions.  Stuff like the ex-EA CEO touting about how he doesn't green-light games without multiplayer or cash shop features.  Look at Sim City:  do you think the developers honestly went into designing that from the ground up because they thought "always-on" restrictions and no single player was beneficial to the game?  Or do you think they designed it that way so that the game would get green-lit in the first place?

Publishers control the game as much as movie studios control the movies.  Sure, the studios don't actually write or direct them, but they do sign off on them (and often cancel or veto changes that they just don't like, such as script adjustments or filming locations due to costs).

 Believe what you want. The publisher truly only controls the release date of a game. The developer is the one that designs it.

 However, when you're a company like EA. You're one in the same. Which is where you're getting confused. EA owns the studio, therefore it's not a partnership (Ex. EA and Bioware). When a Publisher owns a studio(developer). They are essentially extended management. Which means you'll occasionally get the retarded boss who knows nothing about the production process of a game (EA's EX-CEO John Riccitiello). In the end you'll end up with bad products (ex. The New Sim City).

 However, when you have a true partnership (Ex. Activision and Blizzard). The only thing the publisher can truly do to you is require a specific due date (as stated earlier: X date) for release. Sorry you have a misconception of how publishers and developers work. Hopefully you'll understand the difference in the future.

I'm sorry you have a misconception of the realities of the game industry.  Hopefully you'll understand the difference in the future.

 Can't prove your point like I did? Huh, I suppose I'm right then.

 Anyways, thanks for trying to pull one over on me. But EA was the worst example you could have given in defense of your argument. However, I'll allow you to have some credit. When a company such as EA comes into play. It does throw the balance of publishing and development out of wack. Which in turn has upper management dipping their hands into the projects. Of course when your boss comes down off his high horse and wants something changed. You don't want to say he's wrong. absolutely not, you'll lose your job. Which is why the developement team for EA's Sim City allowed for those changes to happen.


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

  asmkm22

Elite Member

Joined: 11/29/06
Posts: 1629

4/01/13 1:13:44 PM#159
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
The only thing that has killed MMO's is the shift towards huge publishers buying everything out.  We have a scenario where 2 or 3 publishers control 90% of game releases, which they aparently can't do very well in the first place.  It's the video game version of Hollywood, where we get a bunch of disposable franchises and sequals, none of which are very entertaining.

 It has nothing to do with large publishers. Publishers only sell you the product. It's the developer that's creating the stuff. These are two different roles in a company (Or several companies Ex. Activition and Blizzard).

 Publishers don't tell the developers how to create the game; they simply state they want the product out by X date. It's the developer that's producing the content and producing the shallow worlds that's the issue. They're the ones at fault as far as producing crappy titles in the long run. They're catering to the content locust/mindless consumer so that they can attempt to make a quick buck. However, as many have seen this is not the case and their overall plan backfires. Which results in a failed P2P MMO.

Publishers have a ton leverage for game decisions.  Stuff like the ex-EA CEO touting about how he doesn't green-light games without multiplayer or cash shop features.  Look at Sim City:  do you think the developers honestly went into designing that from the ground up because they thought "always-on" restrictions and no single player was beneficial to the game?  Or do you think they designed it that way so that the game would get green-lit in the first place?

Publishers control the game as much as movie studios control the movies.  Sure, the studios don't actually write or direct them, but they do sign off on them (and often cancel or veto changes that they just don't like, such as script adjustments or filming locations due to costs).

 Believe what you want. The publisher truly only controls the release date of a game. The developer is the one that designs it.

 However, when you're a company like EA. You're one in the same. Which is where you're getting confused. EA owns the studio, therefore it's not a partnership (Ex. EA and Bioware). When a Publisher owns a studio(developer). They are essentially extended management. Which means you'll occasionally get the retarded boss who knows nothing about the production process of a game (EA's EX-CEO John Riccitiello). In the end you'll end up with bad products (ex. The New Sim City).

 However, when you have a true partnership (Ex. Activision and Blizzard). The only thing the publisher can truly do to you is require a specific due date (as stated earlier: X date) for release. Sorry you have a misconception of how publishers and developers work. Hopefully you'll understand the difference in the future.

I'm sorry you have a misconception of the realities of the game industry.  Hopefully you'll understand the difference in the future.

 Can't prove your point like I did? Huh, I suppose I'm right then.

 Anyways, thanks for trying to pull one over on me. But EA was the worst example you could have given in defense of your argument.

I did prove my point; you just chose to ignore it. You are welcome to suppose anything you like, however :)

You make me like charity

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2247

4/01/13 1:17:12 PM#160
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
The only thing that has killed MMO's is the shift towards huge publishers buying everything out.  We have a scenario where 2 or 3 publishers control 90% of game releases, which they aparently can't do very well in the first place.  It's the video game version of Hollywood, where we get a bunch of disposable franchises and sequals, none of which are very entertaining.

 It has nothing to do with large publishers. Publishers only sell you the product. It's the developer that's creating the stuff. These are two different roles in a company (Or several companies Ex. Activition and Blizzard).

 Publishers don't tell the developers how to create the game; they simply state they want the product out by X date. It's the developer that's producing the content and producing the shallow worlds that's the issue. They're the ones at fault as far as producing crappy titles in the long run. They're catering to the content locust/mindless consumer so that they can attempt to make a quick buck. However, as many have seen this is not the case and their overall plan backfires. Which results in a failed P2P MMO.

Publishers have a ton leverage for game decisions.  Stuff like the ex-EA CEO touting about how he doesn't green-light games without multiplayer or cash shop features.  Look at Sim City:  do you think the developers honestly went into designing that from the ground up because they thought "always-on" restrictions and no single player was beneficial to the game?  Or do you think they designed it that way so that the game would get green-lit in the first place?

Publishers control the game as much as movie studios control the movies.  Sure, the studios don't actually write or direct them, but they do sign off on them (and often cancel or veto changes that they just don't like, such as script adjustments or filming locations due to costs).

 Believe what you want. The publisher truly only controls the release date of a game. The developer is the one that designs it.

 However, when you're a company like EA. You're one in the same. Which is where you're getting confused. EA owns the studio, therefore it's not a partnership (Ex. EA and Bioware). When a Publisher owns a studio(developer). They are essentially extended management. Which means you'll occasionally get the retarded boss who knows nothing about the production process of a game (EA's EX-CEO John Riccitiello). In the end you'll end up with bad products (ex. The New Sim City).

 However, when you have a true partnership (Ex. Activision and Blizzard). The only thing the publisher can truly do to you is require a specific due date (as stated earlier: X date) for release. Sorry you have a misconception of how publishers and developers work. Hopefully you'll understand the difference in the future.

I'm sorry you have a misconception of the realities of the game industry.  Hopefully you'll understand the difference in the future.

 Can't prove your point like I did? Huh, I suppose I'm right then.

 Anyways, thanks for trying to pull one over on me. But EA was the worst example you could have given in defense of your argument.

I did prove my point; you just chose to ignore it. You are welcome to suppose anything you like, however :)

Please read my statement, I understand fully where you're coming from. However, EA is a terrible example of a publisher and developer partnership. So you'll come to the wrong conclusion on how a publisher and developer should work properly.

Your statement: Publishers have full control over developement

EA - Publisher

Maxis - Developer

Sim City - Product 

 My conclusion for your statement: Under the right circumstances a company like EA improperly uses their power as the owner of the studio to effect the outcome of the product created by their developemnt team. Which in turn results in the failure of a product that was recently produced by Maxis: Sim City.

 

 

My stement: A true partnership seperates the two properly

Activision - Publisher

Blizzard - Developer

Starcraft II: Heart of the swarm - Product

 My conclusion for my statement: Under the right circumstances a company like Activision properly respects the studios design outcomes and creates a deadline for the product to be released. Which allows the developement team to have full control over their product. Which in turn results in the success of a product that was recently produced by Blizzard: Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm.

 


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

13 Pages First « 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Last Search