Trending Games | ArcheAge | Elder Scrolls Online | WildStar | Star Wars: The Old Republic

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,857,256 Users Online:0
Games:742  Posts:6,242,752
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System Req: PC | Out of date info?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 « 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 » Last Search
260 posts found
  Pixel_Jockey

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/21/13
Posts: 173

4/01/13 1:29:02 PM#161
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
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.

Yeah, I agree and I wasn't trying to pidgeon-hole young people only, there are a lot of older folks that are the same, but I feel the number is greater in the latest generation for sure. I feel technology also has allot to do with it, good or bad.

  hammarus

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/11/10
Posts: 180

4/01/13 1:29:14 PM#162
Originally posted by Consequence

PC's in general are dieing. The world is slowly switching to Tablets, phones and smart devices.  It will be gradual, but PC companies are being force to adapt or die.

 

 

There is a reason wall street money is flooding away from PC and PC sales are declining. MMos are going to adapt and end up being played on tablets. This likely means in depth gameplay will be a thing of the past and give way for the ease of touch screen play.

 

I do not think MMOs will ever die, they will just turn into crappy "app" style garbage.

You have been watching too much CNBC.  PC's are not dieing, they are suffering from version fatigue.  The operating system hasn't innovated in over 10 years.  Just as new applications haven't been created.  So the pc you bought 5 years ago is almost as good as todays.  Or at least it is capable of being used.  Thus, you have lower sales.  But, this is only a minor part of why money is "flooding away".  It has more to do with novelty, being first into a new market and speculation.

 

None of which has much to do with MMOs.  No, others have put a partial foot on it by suggesting that the business component of game companies have taken a much larger share of control.  The consolidation of the industry has hurt development and helped.  It has helped with getting product to market, but has hurt the "vision/design/creativity" of games. 

 

  Pixel_Jockey

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/21/13
Posts: 173

4/01/13 1:33:43 PM#163
Originally posted by hammarus
Originally posted by Consequence

PC's in general are dieing. The world is slowly switching to Tablets, phones and smart devices.  It will be gradual, but PC companies are being force to adapt or die.

 

 

There is a reason wall street money is flooding away from PC and PC sales are declining. MMos are going to adapt and end up being played on tablets. This likely means in depth gameplay will be a thing of the past and give way for the ease of touch screen play.

 

I do not think MMOs will ever die, they will just turn into crappy "app" style garbage.

You have been watching too much CNBC.  PC's are not dieing, they are suffering from version fatigue.  The operating system hasn't innovated in over 10 years.  Just as new applications haven't been created.  So the pc you bought 5 years ago is almost as good as todays.  Or at least it is capable of being used.  Thus, you have lower sales.  But, this is only a minor part of why money is "flooding away".  It has more to do with novelty, being first into a new market and speculation.

 

Agreed. I was planning on replacing my gaming rig I built 3 years ago. When I went parts shopping I realized The $1500 I was about to spend gave me roughly a 15-20% more "speed". Not worth it.

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2703

4/01/13 1:34:24 PM#164

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.

 

More examples of proper seperation between the publisher and developer in a proper partnership:

 

NCsoft - Publisher

Arenanet - Developer

Guild Wars 2 - Product

 

NCsoft - Publisher

XLGames - Developer

Archeage - Product

 

NCsoft - Publisher

Carbine Studios - Developer

WildStar - Product

 

 As stated earlier, I fully understand your argument but you're wrong.


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.

  User Deleted
4/01/13 1:39:16 PM#165
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

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.

Oh I understand how they *should* work.  I am only pointing how they *do* work.  And it's not just EA.  Activision is just as bad with their reliance on yearly franchises like Call of Duty, or even the changes that WoW has undergone since Blizzard was purchased.  Look at the Auction House features for Diablo 3 for example.  It's no real secret anymore that the developers didn't want that "feature" in, and that it existed soley as an extra source of income.  Every interview I read about the PS3 port seems to bring up how nice it is for the dev's to not have to implement it.

The fact is, when a developer gets purchased by a studio, negative changes tend to happen.  EA and Bioware, again, provide a good example (EA keeps coming up because they are so large that it's hard to find studios not tied to them) with both Dragon Age and Mass Effect games.  The sequels to both games changed drastically in design to better accomedate console players right after the purchase.  The Bioware employees that left as a result didn't just do so en-mass randomly.

Ubisoft is the third mega-publisher, although they seem to give their developers more control over things.  Where Ubisoft screws up is the way they implement DRM, but that's another topic entirely.

Game studios that aren't tied to one of those three are pretty rare.  You have Turbine, who made a drastic F2P change to LotRO and DDO after WB purchased them.  It was probably a good move for the game, but that's another example of how a publisher can come in and change how new or existing games work.

SOE has made no effort to hide the fact that all of their games will have cash shops and F2P models, so you can rest assured that any developer involved with them will be complying.

It's not all doom and gloom, though.  CCP seems happy with their niche market.  Trion Worlds seems to be doing OK with their stuff, like Rift and maybe Defiance, although they haven't exactly built a reputation for creativity.  I'm sure there are a few other developers that I'm missing, but the point remains:  Game studios have a huge ammount of control over the development process of games.  It may not be "official" control, but it's effectively the same thing.  Since the vast majority of new games, regardless of genre, are tied to one of the big studios, the quality of the games come second to the short-term earning potential of them, usually through DLC and yearly sequels or cash shops.

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2703

4/01/13 1:40:57 PM#166
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

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.

Oh I understand how they *should* work.  I am only pointing how they *do* work.  And it's not just EA.  Activision is just as bad with their reliance on yearly franchises like Call of Duty, or even the changes that WoW has undergone since Blizzard was purchased.  Look at the Auction House features for Diablo 3 for example.  It's no real secret anymore that the developers didn't want that "feature" in, and that it existed soley as an extra source of income.  Every interview I read about the PS3 port seems to bring up how nice it is for the dev's to not have to implement it.

The fact is, when a developer gets purchased by a studio, negative changes tend to happen.  EA and Bioware, again, provide a good example (EA keeps coming up because they are so large that it's hard to find studios not tied to them) with both Dragon Age and Mass Effect games.  The sequels to both games changed drastically in design to better accomedate console players right after the purchase.  The Bioware employees that left as a result didn't just do so en-mass randomly.

Ubisoft is the third mega-publisher, although they seem to give their developers more control over things.  Where Ubisoft screws up is the way they implement DRM, but that's another topic entirely.

Game studios that aren't tied to one of those three are pretty rare.  You have Turbine, who made a drastic F2P change to LotRO and DDO after WB purchased them.  It was probably a good move for the game, but that's another example of how a publisher can come in and change how new or existing games work.

SOE has made no effort to hide the fact that all of their games will have cash shops and F2P models, so you can rest assured that any developer involved with them will be complying.

It's not all doom and gloom, though.  CCP seems happy with their niche market.  Trion Worlds seems to be doing OK with their stuff, like Rift and maybe Defiance, although they haven't exactly built a reputation for creativity.  I'm sure there are a few other developers that I'm missing, but the point remains:  Game studios have a huge ammount of control over the development process of games.  It may not be "official" control, but it's effectively the same thing.  Since the vast majority of new games, regardless of genre, are tied to one of the big studios, the quality of the games come second to the short-term earning potential of them, usually through DLC and yearly sequels or cash shops.

 You're still WRONG: On July 9, 2008, Activision officially merged with Vivendi Games, culminating in the inclusion of the Blizzard brand name in the title of the resulting holding company, though Blizzard Entertainment remains a separate entity with independent management.

 Ubisoft has nothing to do with this conversation so we can scratch that out. It was a worthless statement.

 Turbine is one in the same it's a studio that's developing and managing itself. Which is where you're got another misconception. They've changed their title from a P2P to a F2P model in hopes to revitalize their product (LOTRO).

SOE allows many of their products to be developed freely. Some examples are Wizardry Online, DCUO, and FFXIV. It's only when a studio completely screws up that they step in to fix the issue (Final Fantasy 14). To make sure they recover from the game studios massive mistakes. While their other games like DCUO have failed to be successful in the P2P market they'ves changed their product from P2P to F2P to keep the game going. However all of these things are POST developement!

 Just because a company owns another does not mean they have full management control over a company. Where are you getting this information?


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.

  azzamasin

Elite Member

Joined: 6/06/12
Posts: 2739

We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality.

4/01/13 1:43:36 PM#167
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.

This is a bad thing?  MMO's are becoming more focused and more accessible.  Instead of those behemoths of mediocrity which tried to do to much with to little and I say this from soemone who started from the begining of the genre's culture.

If your idea of a Sandbox is open FFA Full Loot PvP, full crafted world with minimal support for anything combat then your sandbox ideas are bad! Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

  User Deleted
4/01/13 1:46:46 PM#168
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

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.

Oh I understand how they *should* work.  I am only pointing how they *do* work.  And it's not just EA.  Activision is just as bad with their reliance on yearly franchises like Call of Duty, or even the changes that WoW has undergone since Blizzard was purchased.  Look at the Auction House features for Diablo 3 for example.  It's no real secret anymore that the developers didn't want that "feature" in, and that it existed soley as an extra source of income.  Every interview I read about the PS3 port seems to bring up how nice it is for the dev's to not have to implement it.

The fact is, when a developer gets purchased by a studio, negative changes tend to happen.  EA and Bioware, again, provide a good example (EA keeps coming up because they are so large that it's hard to find studios not tied to them) with both Dragon Age and Mass Effect games.  The sequels to both games changed drastically in design to better accomedate console players right after the purchase.  The Bioware employees that left as a result didn't just do so en-mass randomly.

Ubisoft is the third mega-publisher, although they seem to give their developers more control over things.  Where Ubisoft screws up is the way they implement DRM, but that's another topic entirely.

Game studios that aren't tied to one of those three are pretty rare.  You have Turbine, who made a drastic F2P change to LotRO and DDO after WB purchased them.  It was probably a good move for the game, but that's another example of how a publisher can come in and change how new or existing games work.

SOE has made no effort to hide the fact that all of their games will have cash shops and F2P models, so you can rest assured that any developer involved with them will be complying.

It's not all doom and gloom, though.  CCP seems happy with their niche market.  Trion Worlds seems to be doing OK with their stuff, like Rift and maybe Defiance, although they haven't exactly built a reputation for creativity.  I'm sure there are a few other developers that I'm missing, but the point remains:  Game studios have a huge ammount of control over the development process of games.  It may not be "official" control, but it's effectively the same thing.  Since the vast majority of new games, regardless of genre, are tied to one of the big studios, the quality of the games come second to the short-term earning potential of them, usually through DLC and yearly sequels or cash shops.

 You're still WRONG: On July 9, 2008, Activision officially merged with Vivendi Games, culminating in the inclusion of the Blizzard brand name in the title of the resulting holding company, though Blizzard Entertainment remains a separate entity with independent management.

 Just because a company owns another does not mean they have full management control over a company. Where are you getting this information?

Well then I guess it must have been pure coincidence that a ton of basic game design changes with WoW, which the developers stated would never happen (stuff like dungeon finders) indeed did happen right after the merger.

Pre-merger:  These features will never be available because they don't fit the vision of the game.

Post-merger:  We've now implimented these features.

 

I can't provide proof for this particular topic because it was all on the original WoW forums, which no longer exist.  There were literally posts about people laughing over how quickly things changed after the merger.

  ZombieKen

Novice Member

Joined: 3/30/10
Posts: 4410

Zombie - Dead but still moving.

4/01/13 1:55:04 PM#169

 More examples of proper seperation between the publisher and developer in a proper partnership:

 

NCsoft - Publisher

Arenanet - Developer

Guild Wars 2 - Product

 

 As stated earlier, I fully understand your argument but you're wrong.

 

One of the examples of proper separation is flawed.  ArenaNet is publisher owned.

 

"NCsoft is the company that owns ArenaNet ." source :  http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/NCsoft

 

 

MSOTSG with PPE : Massively Single-player Online Task-driven Storyline Game with Purchasable Performance Enhancements *grin*

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19793

4/01/13 1:55:04 PM#170
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

 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).

 

Why shouldn't i play MMOs which cater to short spurs of play-time? There are plenty. MMOs are entertainment products. They should fit people's need (schedule), not the other way around. That is, of course, they want the busienss.

  Xthos

Elite Member

Joined: 4/18/10
Posts: 2649

4/01/13 1:56:28 PM#171
Originally posted by azzamasin
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.

This is a bad thing?  MMO's are becoming more focused and more accessible.  Instead of those behemoths of mediocrity which tried to do to much with to little and I say this from soemone who started from the begining of the genre's culture.

I think it is, a lot of those old behemoths did good jobs of being massive multiplayer.  It is good to have choice, but it has swung the other way, and not enough massive titles out there, that are worth playing.  They are more MORPGs, instead of MMORPGs.  Lobby gaming is ok in some stuff, but in my mmo, I prefer the open world massive approach.  Open/large worlds, dungeons that are open, quality and indpeth harvesting/crafting, player economy/non-instanced housing...  I like my LoL and other lobby stuff, when I want to do that type of thing, but I look for a world in a MMO, not a lobby dungeon matchmaker.

 

A lot of the added systems in the lobby stuff is slapped on, just to say they have it, it is a big turn off, not worth doing.  So you are left just doing the hack n slash, it can only keep your attention so long...Some say this is good, then you just go play the next hack n slash and so on...But serial game jumping with gamer ADD is not my thing.  It is the opposite of enjoyment for me, because I can see the writing on the wall whenever I play one of these games, knowing that my dissatisfaction and leaving is right around the corner.

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2703

4/01/13 1:58:01 PM#172
Originally posted by XAPKen

 More examples of proper seperation between the publisher and developer in a proper partnership:

 

NCsoft - Publisher

Arenanet - Developer

Guild Wars 2 - Product

 

 As stated earlier, I fully understand your argument but you're wrong.

 

One of the examples of proper separation is flawed.  ArenaNet is publisher owned.

 

"NCsoft is the company that owns ArenaNet ." source :  http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/NCsoft

 

 

 Proper seperation of publisher from developer meaning that the publisher is allowing the developer to work on their own time until said product is finished. It's not flawed and I know Arenanet is owned by NCsoft; but this does not mean that they don't have complete freedom over their product. NCsoft isn't dipping its hands into Arenanets developement and changing the game.


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.

  ZombieKen

Novice Member

Joined: 3/30/10
Posts: 4410

Zombie - Dead but still moving.

4/01/13 1:58:06 PM#173
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

 Just because a company owns another does not mean they have full management control over a company. Where are you getting this information?

 

What?  Remains independent means it has been allowed to remain independent.  CEO of the parent is still the boss.

 

MSOTSG with PPE : Massively Single-player Online Task-driven Storyline Game with Purchasable Performance Enhancements *grin*

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2703

4/01/13 2:00:22 PM#174
Originally posted by XAPKen
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

 Just because a company owns another does not mean they have full management control over a company. Where are you getting this information?

 

What?  Remains independent means it has been allowed to remain independent.  CEO of the parent is still the boss.

 

 You can work independently from your boss so long as you stay within the guidelines(due date). That they set into place. Which allows for complete independent control over the developement process. For example, we've established that Activision owns Blizzard. So technically they COULD dip their paws into the developement process. But it has been stated that Blizzard works independently from activision with its own management team.

 This means that they have complete creative control over their products so long as they're within the guidelines for release given by Activision. If they want the product out by X date. Blizzard has complete control of their product until X date.


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.

  User Deleted
4/01/13 2:03:45 PM#175
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by XAPKen
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

 Just because a company owns another does not mean they have full management control over a company. Where are you getting this information?

 

What?  Remains independent means it has been allowed to remain independent.  CEO of the parent is still the boss.

 

 You can work independently from your boss so long as you stay within the guidelines(due date). That they set into place. Which allows for complete independent control over the developement process. For example, we've established that Activision owns Blizzard. So technically they COULD dip their paws into the developement process. But it has been stated that Blizzard works independently from activision with its own management team.

 This means that they have complete creative control over their products so long as they're within the guidelines for release given by Activision. If they want the product out by X date. Blizzard has complete control of their product until release of X date.

The whole point is that the due date isn't the only guideline.  It's all kinds of little things that force the developers to change their designs to accomedate.

  Mtibbs1989

Elite Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2703

4/01/13 2:09:37 PM#176
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by XAPKen
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

 Just because a company owns another does not mean they have full management control over a company. Where are you getting this information?

 

What?  Remains independent means it has been allowed to remain independent.  CEO of the parent is still the boss.

 

 You can work independently from your boss so long as you stay within the guidelines(due date). That they set into place. Which allows for complete independent control over the developement process. For example, we've established that Activision owns Blizzard. So technically they COULD dip their paws into the developement process. But it has been stated that Blizzard works independently from activision with its own management team.

 This means that they have complete creative control over their products so long as they're within the guidelines for release given by Activision. If they want the product out by X date. Blizzard has complete control of their product until release of X date.

The whole point is that the due date isn't the only guideline.  It's all kinds of little things that force the developers to change their designs to accomedate.

 What are these other imaginary guidelines that you speak of?

 When a publisher oversteps their boundry you get issues such as (COE John Riccitiello) destroying a game (SIM City). If you want a successful product you must allow the studio full creative control of that product until the release date. If the boss comes down and starts screwing with the games design during the developement process. Then that's where you run into major issues.


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.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19793

4/01/13 2:45:24 PM#177
Originally posted by Xthos
 

I think it is, a lot of those old behemoths did good jobs of being massive multiplayer.  It is good to have choice, but it has swung the other way, and not enough massive titles out there, that are worth playing.  They are more MORPGs, instead of MMORPGs.  Lobby gaming is ok in some stuff, but in my mmo, I prefer the open world massive approach.  Open/large worlds, dungeons that are open, quality and indpeth harvesting/crafting, player economy/non-instanced housing...  I like my LoL and other lobby stuff, when I want to do that type of thing, but I look for a world in a MMO, not a lobby dungeon matchmaker.

 

A lot of the added systems in the lobby stuff is slapped on, just to say they have it, it is a big turn off, not worth doing.  So you are left just doing the hack n slash, it can only keep your attention so long...Some say this is good, then you just go play the next hack n slash and so on...But serial game jumping with gamer ADD is not my thing.  It is the opposite of enjoyment for me, because I can see the writing on the wall whenever I play one of these games, knowing that my dissatisfaction and leaving is right around the corner.

And i prefer lobby gaming .. which MMO is increasingly doing a good job. In fact, if not for LFD and LFR, i would have quit WOW a lot sooner.

And this strange notion of "writing on the wall" .. heck ... every game will get boring sooner or later. The trick is to have fun, then move on. I was stuck in EQ for a year frankly because of few choices in the market. Now is much better. I can game hop .. and sometimes i even hop back.

  User Deleted
4/01/13 2:49:59 PM#178
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by asmkm22
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by XAPKen
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

 Just because a company owns another does not mean they have full management control over a company. Where are you getting this information?

 

What?  Remains independent means it has been allowed to remain independent.  CEO of the parent is still the boss.

 

 You can work independently from your boss so long as you stay within the guidelines(due date). That they set into place. Which allows for complete independent control over the developement process. For example, we've established that Activision owns Blizzard. So technically they COULD dip their paws into the developement process. But it has been stated that Blizzard works independently from activision with its own management team.

 This means that they have complete creative control over their products so long as they're within the guidelines for release given by Activision. If they want the product out by X date. Blizzard has complete control of their product until release of X date.

The whole point is that the due date isn't the only guideline.  It's all kinds of little things that force the developers to change their designs to accomedate.

 What are these other imaginary guidelines that you speak of?

 When a publisher oversteps their boundry you get issues such as (COE John Riccitiello) destroying a game (SIM City). If you want a successful product you must allow the studio full creative control of that product until the release date. If the boss comes down and starts screwing with the games design during the developement process. Then that's where you run into major issues.

Which is why the industry is having problems right now.  Hense my original comment.   Publishers *are* interfering with the developers.

  Myrradah

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/08/06
Posts: 27

He who dies with the most toys wins!

4/01/13 3:01:15 PM#179

To the OP:

 

I think your definition of a MMO is different than mine. Though i agree the previous 2 years of MMo new releases has been very bad I also think it is driven by the community of players. You cannot pander to every whim or desire a community has otherwise there is no challenge. I think what you are feeling is missing a challenge in a game.

MMO in terms of definition is not a "You must group for everything" It is merely a means that many players play in one game together. MMo = massively Mulitpler Online (Game) not a Massively Multiplayer group game.

I grew up from MUD's and ROM's to Meridian 59 and on - It isnt that people are forced to work together but given the opportunity to in a large game with many players from all over the world. I think if you change your perspective on what to expect you would see things are starting to change hopefully (again with the hope ) of some of the new games coming out.

I also hope there is a positive change - but different than your view. I am thinking Arch Age and Elder Scrolls may free us.

Currently, the best MMORPG out there in my humble opinion that matches your definition is Eve Online - still going strong.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19793

4/01/13 3:01:19 PM#180
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
 

 What are these other imaginary guidelines that you speak of?

 When a publisher oversteps their boundry you get issues such as (COE John Riccitiello) destroying a game (SIM City). If you want a successful product you must allow the studio full creative control of that product until the release date. If the boss comes down and starts screwing with the games design during the developement process. Then that's where you run into major issues.

SIMCITY is destroyed? It may got problems and bad press. But selling 1.1M in 2 weeks is a pretty big success.

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/18/simcity-sales-surpass-1-1-million-in-two-weeks/

13 Pages First « 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 » Last Search