f13.net

Hmm... (http://brokentoys.org/)

Lum again sums up way to well the state of the game.  Community has always been the center.  EQ had the group centric power cycle with nifty items.  UO was basically a great big sandbox and everyone was given a pail and shovel and said do what you will.  Shadowbane turned the end game into isolated islands with a Lord of the Flies air.  DAOC has the three sided pie and both WOW and EQII are pushing for a two sided tourney.

Perhaps the reason Asia is having such a booming market for MMORPG's is because the gaming houses are offering a live arena for social gathering outside the game when your in the game.  While here in the states we hop into our virtual little skin in the darkness of our isolated little rooms.

Damn you Lum for making me think on a Thursday, and at work no less.

Mmmmph. Agreed. I don't remember my head feeling this way eva. Must invest in some sort of cranial cooling device to ensure low headache occurances.

On topic, I think Lum touches on something that just keeps bugging me and was really thrown in my face yesterday. The discussion on Slashdot about the closing of Earth and Beyond wasn't super interesting ("What's a mmog?"), but one guy did say something that made me pause.



People are paying top dollar for their unfun grind fests. Someone on Terra Nova mentioned that somebody bought an avatar on ebay for E&B just last week for something like 3K. Wow. Great investment.

The issue is (I think) that players and designers are treating mmogs like they are worlds. Persistent worlds validate the buying and selling of virtual property for real world money. But, if something like E&B can happen at the drop of a hat...?

One of the reasons I'm looking forward to WoW is because Blizzard isn't building a world, they're building a game. There is a difference, and it matters.

That's why I think FF11 was such a success, it was more so a game than a standard MMOG world. There was more to fighting than just auto-attack, there were actual quests that made you feel like you were the hero (cutscenes and other stuff). These are small things but in the end go towards making the user feel good about plucking $$$ per month for the game.

All these group-centric games are starting to tick me off though.  Being alble to log on only for a few hours and actually accomplish something w/o help would be nice once in a while.

Agreed. To beat a long dead horse, it would be nice if those of us without 20 hours a week to dedicate to one game could still play, have fun, and not be left in the wake of our friends with more free time. Casual gamers are great for the bottom line- we take up less bandwidth and less CS costs. Cater to us!

Guild Wars, perhaps.

I haven’t played AC in a long time but I remember it being very non group-centric. Once they get the graphical update in I may return and see what’s going on. For me AC was probably my favorite game because sometimes it did make me feel like a hero. I can remember taking on 20 bugs twice my size and kicking their ass, I felt like a god. Of course then someone else came by and did exactly the same thing I did but twice as fast and the feeling disappeared. That’s the problem with online games; you can't have a world full of heroes.

That's 1 thing I miss about current MMO's.  A group fights 1 fricking mob.  Where the hell are the eipic battles where a small group cuts through a horde of monsters!  Grouping should be made into something that gives you a bonus for doing it, not requiring it.

AC is aggressively solo. If you join a "group" you're told to all go off in opposite directions to maximize XP.

AO has about the best incentive to group while retaining soloability that I've seen. The soloable classes (martial artist, metaphysicist) are all very group friendly and there's almost no character that can't solo even if it's a back of the bus sort of thing. The exceptions are most of the added content, both shadowlands and free dungeons, have been pretty group centric.

For that matter, the the soloable classes (necro, mage, and druid) in EQ were actually among those preferred for LDON and were even popping up in raids. LDON is all about damage and pet classes, particularly the mage, put out a lot of it. And as long as the player wasn't an idiot (yeah I know that excludes most pickup groups), druids were sufficient for healing through missions. And beastlords were designed to be soloable from everything I can see.

In both AO and EQ though, the soloing tends to be very very dull and a great deal is simply repeating the same things over and over and over again. People say that about MMPORPG's in general, but it feels much worse pet soloing.

Eve is a pretty good mix of solo and group, as long as you're willing to put up with the "afk gaming" aspect.

Community is the reason I started playing and the reason I am still playing.  I started playing EQ way back when because I kept overhearing the guy in the office next to mine talking about EQ when folks would drop by.  I asked him about it and he arranged for me to take over the account of somebody who was leaving.  Playing with real people on the other side of all those toons was an eye opener for me.  When DAoC came out most of the group made the move and we are still there.

I tried to go to ShadowBane, but no one would move with me and the game just seemed empty without all my friends.  It will be interesting to see what happens when WoW comes out as only about half of my current guild is interested in trying it out.

<raises hand>

Probably because I'm old and see Star Wars as Star Wars and Empire. The rest of it is as relevant as the Christmas special.

To me Star Wars is about blasters, not light sabers...

Heh, Same old shit with a different package.  Its why people were psyched about Mythica too because you got to be a 'god'.  After the novelty of the graphics and the super hero name wears off though, whats going to be left?

I think one of the most under-rated things in any MMORPG is the commuity tools built into the game.  How do you communicate and interact, are there interesting and worthwhile things for groups to do, is there a "stickiness" that keeps a group together and allows them to become closer?  Those things are much more intangible and tough to build into a game design.  Its also one of the most overlooked aspects by reviewers because people don't consider those things "fun".

I actually think SWG is very underrated in that respect - they have great tools for communication, emails with WP attachments, player cities, etc.  If (big if) they actually had interesting content and a working combat system, the game could be a great deal better.

The jedi are just another example of a different package though.  Everyone wants to have one, but in reality they are just another fighter with some cool graphics - they are not much more powerful than a normal well equiped fighter.  They are unique in that they require a longer, more boring grind to level :)  And of course, other players can hunt them down and cause them to loose XP by killing them... but that is a detraction for most people.

I dunno, Cyber Cafes are kinda eh for playing games. There's near my house that I hang out at from time to time but normally I don't end up playing games. I also think voice chat goes a long way towards creating a better social environment. I still have fond memories of chatting it up over teamspeak when I played Shadow Bane.

If I have a pre-existing relationship with a group of people (like a clan or a guild), I don't mind voice chat. However, I am not at all interested in chatting with any and all comers on the Internet...just too many fucktards.

I had the same thought as that poster you quoted.  What happens to those customers that buy a MMOG game one week and they shut down the next?  The ability of playing the game is completely gone.

I could see people getting quite upset over this kind of thing in the future.  They might get mad to point of *gasp* lawsuits.  In the past, your upfront payment of $50 gave you the right to pop that game in your computer at anytime in the future and play whether it was outdated or not.  MMOGs don't work that way.

I'm still trying to imagine the day UO actually shuts down completely with 20,000 people still playing (number swiftly grabbed from hind-end.)  I'm not sure people will take that lying down....in ghost robes.....going oO oOOO OO OOoo!

Paging Haemish to the thread.

Expect the unexpected, then deliever on that.  Watch the flock of guilds come.

The size of the incentive to solo or group is a fulcrum for an mmo.  

I still prefer EQ to UO because, notwithstanding the suckage of EQ, I play online games to do things with other players.  It was too easy to be a one man show in UO (excepting SP).  Even though I played both games with a solid guild that I enjoyed, EQ was a more powerful experience for me simply because of the relationships that developed (both positive and negative) because of the need to work together for almost everything.

It's important to ask why folks want to solo in an mmo.  Because it is their preferred playstyle?  Don't play an mmo then.  As a notcompletelymoronic alternative to grouping when time is limited or you just don't feel like being socially outgoing?  Well, that makes sense.

If you buy the line that community and friends are what keep folks playing these games then engineering a game that focuses on sustainable solo play in a persistent world is of questionable value.  At some level devs have to develop game mechanics that require cooperative play or, if you still put any misguided faith into the social engineering of online worlds, force it.

If on-demand long-term solo play is the goal, why not stick with a single player game that supports online play then?  That truly provides the best return in terms of satisfying the need.

I don't belive that it's most people's prefered playstyle to solo, rather soemtimes it is not possible to put together a group of people.

If you can't find a healer that is close in level to you in DAoC there's very little point to having a group. If you can solo that gives you a backup plan if most of your friends are offline or you can't get a group together. It sure has hell beats spending 1+ hours sitting LFG with nothing else to do, trust me.

I agree, I think the advantage of grouping in most major MMORPGs is relatively close to balanced, though still clearly stilted in favor of groups.  The killer for my intrest in a game is that forming a useful group is so difficult.  

DAOC's LFG system was absolutely brilliant at launch - I was there and used it constantly - and as a melee fighter I got good groups with healers regularly.  Then, by the 2 month mark, the level distribution and geographic distribution became so great, it became nearly useless, and I got trapped in the late 30's and lost interest.  Yet to increase player concentrations is to cut down on content or to overload servers.

This is the only reason I plan on giving WoW a chance - can they make grouping reasonably easy and/or make quest-based soloing fun?

I've noticed something about the betas/trials for MMOG's I've been in lately, such as the Horizons 7-day trial.

I made no effort whatsoever to meet other people, to join in the community in any way. At all. I'd talk to people if asked, but I didn't try to go out and group. I very much stayed a solo player.

It isn't because of my overwhelming hatred of people, though that helps.

I did it because I really wanted to see how much GAME there actually was in the game. And found out that for the most part, MMOG's are woefully deficient in this aspect. I knew that already, but I had to see if the particular MMOG followed suit.

It isn't about making the game "solo-friendly" or "group-friendly." If I only have 30 minutes to login, I want those 30 minutes to be fun. Grouping with anyone usually takes 30 minutes or more to accomplish especially in a game with travel constraints. And if you have maybe 2 hours a night like I do, 30 minutes is 25% of that time that isn't fun. So if I can solo and have fun, it means the gameplay is involving enough to be worthwhile, whether I "gain" anything from it or not.

I'm of the opinion that community doesn't really have to be encouraged to become strong. It happens whether the developers plan on it or not. Don't believe me? Look at FPS clans. Name one FPS game without voice support that really builds community support into the game. People who like to play together will form their own communities whether the game helps them to do it or not. They'll find 3rd party applications like TeamSpeak or message boards that can bring them together. Sure, I want the game to aid those communities; but it really doesn't have to force them together every single minute of every single day.

Make the gameplay involving and the communities will form of their own. I'm not saying make every piece of content solo-accessible. But make sure that consuming that content is fun.

And no, hitting auto-attack and watching my guy swing a sword is no longer fun in and of itself.

While I agree to a point that an outsitde community will form you have to keep in mind that your average player won't always feel compelled to go visit the vault boards or such.

With that said I still think heavy community involvement is a double edged sword. You can have the problems with grouping that DAoC has. Or something similar to Shadowbane, where your guild could be what limits/strengthens you and if you don't have one your SOL. Generally however, the more restrictive you make your 'social requirements' the tighter knit your communities tend to be(such was the case with me moving to SB from DAoC).

Where do I think the sweet spot lies? Well I'm partial to something diablo2-esque, where you aren't penalized for bringing in more players into your 'group' and hence more people tend to work together rather than go their separate ways. It may not develop a very tight knit community but it also means that you don't spend hours LFG.

Of course all of this is null and void if you don't have a fun game to play in the first place.

I don't consider the Vault boards a place that community forms. Communal retardation, maybe.

Community should be encouraged, but not at the sacrifice of gameplay.

I like group friendly games. I think fundamentally MMOGs are about grouping. Does grouping take alot of time? Yeah usually, of course it varies, but more often than not you want at least an hour to play. That means games should feature side tasks for players who don't always have 2 or more hours to play. Things like shopping at the bazaar, minor quests, restocking supplies, exploring, and so on.

Ideally games should support three different levels of groups. The pickup group which entails killing things for XP and loot,  The Guild Group which involves a larger time and effort investment for quests or powerful items. The Raid Group which is obviously the large gathering of players to take down a really powerful mob or encounter for the best loot/quests in the game.

Now I'm not saying take away the ability to solo completely afterall not everyone wants to group every day, but soloing shouldn't be a viable means of advancement. It should mainly be for raising faction, doing minor quests or completing stages of quests that don't really require a group, collecting some spending cash or reagents, and farming some items for twinks.

Why not? After all, roleplaying is not just about the group, but about the lone individual as well. Sure, it shouldn't be a better means of advancement than grouping, but cockblocking solo players from advancing will just hamper the casual player.

It should be viable to advance solo, just harder.

So in your game, I am free to log in as a solo character, but can't do anything? Remind me when you get hired as a dev so I can avoid your game like the fucking plague.

I should be able to solo from level 1 to level 1000 if I so choose. It will be a HELL of a lot slower and probably less interesting than doing it with a group, but the option should be there nonetheless. If I am forced to find a group everytime I want to advance my character, rest assured that my subscription fees will be going away VERY quickly. If I can't hop on for an hour or so and get something done with my character without begging for a group for 3/4 of my alloted play time, then it isn't the game for me.

I wonder if we will ever reach a stage where grouping is not required for group participation and merited attainment.  I am thinking of relative participation and the impact of ones participation could be induced without the mechanic of required grouping.  Thus allowing advancement by participation in actions without the worry of getting in with a clique.  One feature I am eager to experience with WOW is the voice commands and how they influence the ebb and flow of combat.  I keep running into people looking for limitations and one of my peevs are limitations.  Dont close the box.

casual player doesn't pay to play these games. Casual player excuse is just from people who don't like the genre to begin with.

Thats just poor reading comprehension. The fact that I made a point to list things that you could do when you only have limited time to play or don't want to group, and you just ignored it seems to me that you don't really have anything to add to a discussion you just want to rant.

/raises hand

Do you think I bitch about this for my health? I am a casual gamer. I have paid to subscribe to 6 or 7 MMOGs at the minimum. I pay the same fucking price for the box and per month, so I would like to get some sort of attention just like the bandwidth and CS-eating catasses.  Some us have more disposable income than time...why ignore us?



I read just fine.  I was responding to your post, particularly the part I FUCKING QUOTED. God you are a pedantic fuck. Just because you get your fucking jollies playing 8 hours a day with your invisible cyber friends doesn't necessarily mean that THERE AREN'T ALTERNATIVE PLAYSTYLES, YOU DUMBFUCK. Just jamming your head in your ass and pretending that casual players don't exist is extremely short sighted.

casual player doesn't pay to play these games. Casual player excuse is just from people who don't like the genre to begin with.[/quote]

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
The main reason I started reading and participating on boards like these, was that I really liked the idea of mmorpgs, but not the actual games anymore.
I'm a casual player and I paid not to play UO. I paid not to play AO and I just paid fifty bucks, so I could play Puzzle Pirates for life... but I don't have the time to play.
Apart from the last example there's a limit to how long I will pay for a game, clearly not catering for my style.
Which is a shame, because the reason I don't play is a rather good and wellpaying job, so for the first company to design a game, that gives me a reason to keep playing, I will be a potentially very large walking wallet.
And I'm not the only one.
I'm quite sure, that those of us with jobs, could be an even better source of income, than all the students and unemployed, if anybody would build a game compelling to us, instead of catering for the same 5-700.000 catasses.

So can anyone explain why the hell it should be slower to solo up a character? When I grouped in UO it was to fight the biggest baddest mofo spawns that our group could handle, the bigger the group the bigger the mofo spawn.

When I solo'd I fought Earth elementals, I earned about the same amount of gold, I gained the same amount of skill, but that didn't stop me from looking forward to the next time we were going to kick the bigger spawns ass.

I've yet to hear one compelling reason for the forced grouping model. Well other then "Uhm, EQ has a ton of users, yo".

Soloing is and always has been my primary style of play in MMOs.  

I don't mind getting advancement bonuses while grouping, but I won't play a game that will not let me advance my character on my own.  

I've been a guild leader and done the big group quest thing plenty, but my joy in MMOs is the option to escape other people and do my own thing (not all of the time, just a good chunk of it).

I think it is the very artificial grouping mechanism that all MMOGs employ that chaffes so many people. While in life it is accepted that in order to achieve anything worthwhile you will likely have to interact cooperatively with others, it is rarely neccessary to segregate ourselves into formal groups. We like to think the individual is the basic social unit, while these games assume the group is the atomic unit. It's like the difference between going to a dance club and being in a chorus line. Both can be fun I guess, but the latter is much more gay.

The only example of the former that I've experienced in a MMOG is RvR in DAoC. For certain classes at least, it is possible to participate in the Emain zerg without a group as long as you are in chat. That only seems to work because of the team spirit inherent to RvR, something that is generally absent from other modes of play.

What I can't understand is, soloing vs grouping in FPS games are fairly balanced depending on the map / whats in play.  The particular game I'm talking about, was Tribes1.

Whether you were disc launcing badass, sniper, green potatoe shooter, or whatever.. You could be effective in a group or by yourself.  I don't think I honestly ever played a game of Tribes, where I felt I couldn't solo(I'm not talking about when the other team camps your inv, with four heavies in your base).  Although a few times I must admit it was better soloing, than being in a group.


Your examples?

I think you have a very limited definition of "multiplayer". It should be sufficient that there is a persistent world where you can interact with other players - or not. Just like real life, you don't necessarily need other people to perform a task.

Also, since "group activities" in MMORPGs almost invariably is defined as fighting mobs or other player groups, one could just as easily say that people who like "grouping" in MMORPGs should stop and play some squad based shooter instead.

Every game can be broken down into fundamental concepts that you can't change. A FPS is always going to be a twitch game. A RTS game is always going to have micromanagement. An adventure game is always going to have puzzles. And an MMOG is always going to require lots of time investment. You are bitching about aspects of the game that are like Spic and Span, you can't have one without the other.

Look at the most casual player friendly fee based game out there, Sims Online. It does moderately well at best. Given the amount of Sims players in the world, who have to be considered the epitome of casual player, why isn't Sims Online the best selling game of all time?

You keep ranting against MMOGs, but they aren't rants that will change anything. Let me put it to you this way, the core component of every MMOG is leveling or grinding. That is essentially the main activity in these games. Now if you want to make leveling fast and make it easy, why have it in the game? If there is something better and more fun to play after you level then start your game there. The reality is though leveling is going to be 95% of your game so you may as well make it a hard and challenging climb.

If you are a casual gamer then you should be advocating fee based games with no leveling or skill advancement. Thats the kind of game you want. Not what is considered to be the standard MMOG model.

The problem with most MMORPGs is there's basicly only 3 things to do, the XP treadmill, tradeskills and PVP. PVP mostly only being viable after excesive catassing on the XP treadmill.

What should be introduced is more things to do, here's some examples of what could be nice imo.

Raising a dog type of pet. You feed the pet with diffrent shit and it grows faster and better. Then you pay some of the game currency and have it race on a track, if your pet wins you get price money.

Poker mini game. Your ordinary poker, with game currency instead of real cash.

There's loads of shit around this things which could be intresting. For example, if we have a shadowbane type of game where players can build cities etc, players could be able to build race tracks and earn cash from the players racing. And i'd love to have Poker master as title, or something like that.

And DEER HUNTER and STYLE MY BARBIE.

Throwing mini-games at a broken shell isn't going to fix a broken shell. Did Gems make EQ a better game? No, but it did make a lot of people realize something: Why is there such a painfully boring part of this one game (staring at a spellbook) that it requires a whole other auxiliary game to fill the egregious void?

You can tack on mini-games for atmosphere at appropriate parts of the world, but there still has to be an actual game there. I can play Blackjack on Yahoo without paying for some egotistical dev's Porche upgrades.

point is, there needs to be more to do in a game, I don't see why every damn MMORPG have to tie themselves to PVE, tradeskills and PVP. Even if PVE and PVP most likely always will be a part of MMORPG, there should be more things to engage in. Perhaps raising dogs and playing poker isn't the sollution, but something needs to be added to the formula atleast.

I have a good idea- why don't you let ME decide what kind of game I want, you arrogant cockmunch?

I think one of the problems is that leveling isn't hard or challenging. It's just long.

And usually boring.  Early reports from WoW indicate that it removes some of that boredom by having players level from questing.  I'm interested, but skeptical.  

Haven't we seen that model before?   *coughAC2cough*

EQ worked very well as a solo and group friendly game. You just needed to know which class and which parts of the world you wouldn't see. But that's the same with all of these games.

Lums article was good, but it didn't answer any questions... which of course he probably wasn't intending anyway :)

Probably because it's boring as hell.

There's nothing wrong with MMOGs requiring lots of time in order to accomplish worthy goals/levels/equipment/etc. It is generally expected that grouping is the fastest route to accomplishing said goals, but that shouldn't automatically make soloing useless or impossible.

Even though FFXI has the beastmaster class that is meant for solo play (and wound up being the ultimate class with Bards for BCNM fights), most other classes past 30 trying to take on a "too weak to be worthwhile" monster stand a good chance of getting schooled. This is the problem for me: I can live with earning 15-50 exp at a time as opposed to 150-200 per kill, but my interest wanes quickly when that option no longer exists. Even as a Red Mage, which usually find groups quick once they have dispel and refresh, it’s rare for me to be able to game for a 4 hour sitting that good parties ask for.

I also liked the Diablo method of monster difficulty/experience gained depending on the number of people -- with instanced gaming in popular MMORPGs now, I wonder if it'll appear more.

   I agree totally.

   My main problem with the MMO game/business structure is that it is self defeating.  First of all from a business point of view: a service provider wants to have a customer that never ties up their services and yet pays month after month.  (True if they got there way the game would be empty, but hey, they get paid so who cares)  Then from the game structure: Most MMO games give the most reward to those who dedicate their entire lives to the pursuit of in-game goals.

   From a business point of view aren't the games inviting the wrong element, like the kids who hang out at the mall all day but only make one purchase and that's in the food court. (I can't stand fucking mallrats!)  Instead shouldn't there be more games targeted to the casual gamer? Of course.  I hate games that operate so that if I don't play for three days I'll lose all my worldly possessions.

   An interesting study in both what to do and what not to do is Starport:GE (http://www.starportgame.com).  They have a system whereby those who play the most pay the most.  Whether it's paying for a refuel or upgrading your ship, you can either pay for it directly with cash, or just play with the in-game recourses already at your disposal. It's nice; you can choose your level of involvement.

   However there is the major problem that haunts all the MMO's that I've played which is magnified in this game, you can't sleep.  In this game it's because when you're sleeping every property you own is being plundered and destroyed.  It leaves you feeling a bit like the fat kid from lord of the flies but after playing the game for a while you find the serenity of the gallows.  You wake each day a fruit fly larvae blessed with a twenty four hour lifespan in which you will accomplish little more than assure that your lineage will survive through the long night.

   That's not how it should be.  Inevitably after all my flings with online games I come back to the same issue, I want to play later.  But the game holds a grudge like some scorned spoiled brat.  So I can't go back because my ship has been reduced to an escape pod or my house has fallen apart or been triple-mortgaged or where my mountain view used to be there now is a city of Italians! ... Ok so I can't blame the game for that last one.

   All I want is a casual online game that I can play without ending up feeling like Nietzsche on a bad day.  Is that so much to ask?

   Ok, so I got a bit off topic... I'll bring it back around:  If there are more community groups voluntary or otherwise, there is still the problem of how you deal with an offline player or casual player.  There should still be a way for that player to help the community, and for them to feel that if they leave for a week when they get back the world and the community they have forged won't have disappeared.

Yea, but what game are you playing where you'd lose your stuff like that?

Losing all of one's stuff in SB requires a large enough group to create assets worth attacking but for that very same group to not care enough to defend them. SWG and UO assets are a joke to maintain (go mudflation go). It's up to the player first put a high value on their items and then to take the risks in losing them in games like EQ.

The rewards aren't only for those who put their whole lives on hold. Yea, that comparison is there, but many folks don't give a shit. It matters to me very little to not at all how often even my friends lap me in levels. What some anonymous punk does with the 15 hours a day he dedicates to the game while I'm working and spending time with the family doesn't matter a whit to me.

People want it all. Companies collect. The players have themselves to blame if they try to keep up with the time-rich crowd. It's just another way of "keeping up with the Joneses", just as annoying and just as impossible.

Soloing is never going to be impossible, because inevitably some class will have an ability that makes it so. However the difference between EQ and DAOC is , EQ didn't design the game to allow soloing. Yes it happens, but its only because its the side effect of a few classes. I don't mind EQs system, because if you want to solo you can choose one of the classes that is able to do it, and the system isn't compromised because of it either.

Its like running a marathon, its about endurance and determination. There will be people who get to the end and people who quit half way through. If it wasn't hard and challenging to some degree everyone would make it.

The second level of challenge is the grouping itself. The actual act of playing an MMOG is not that difficult, you punch some buttons, which is why soloing has a 99% success ratio. You choose the monster you know you can kill everytime, then do it. With a group you have to rely on the skills and know how of other people. Now normally most people can play at the minimum required ability. However, at the high level camps thats not that great for getting XP, you need people who are sharp and efficent as possible. I played EQ long enough to realize there is a large gap between minium required skill and great group.

Grouping is the best way to add difficulty and challenge because the players create it themselves. When you have to lead or support 5 other egos and all work cooperatively, it is alot more challenging than you can possibly make soloing.

.

Let me echo myself and Way.

Fuck you.

You are parrotting the same shit the developers of MMOG's are telling us, namely that you HAVE to play 20, 30, 40 hours a week to be competitive and have fun in these games. If you aren't willing to make these things a fucking lifestyle, don't apply.

Which is precisely why none of these pigfuckers get my money. You are not the mass market, you are not the majority of gamers. Most people don't have even 4 hours a night to devote to a goddamn game, and thus would like the option of having something provided to them in smaller chunks than forced grouping requires. We aren't AVERSE to grouping necessarily, so long as the group isn't filled with complete cockmunchers. But to force me to group with the first group I find, even if it's filled with cockmunchers, means you will not get my fucking money.

And honestly, though I may not be the current target demographic for MMOG's, I'm sitting here begging a dev to take my money. I'm also going to wager there are more of me than there are of you.

You aren't begging anyone to take your money. If you were you'd play whats out there (beggers can't be choosers). If you haven't found a MMOG you like by now you aren't ever going to.  I'm sure there are more people out there who don't like MMOGs than are, but they are never going to pay up.

You'll find that people who group in EQ and DAOC by and large encounter very few idiots. If you go into a game with a bad attitude that you won't like it, you probably won't have good grouping experiences.

I think I have figured it out- Sloth is a posting bot financed by SOE, Mythic, and any other company with an interest in keeping things status quo. There is no other explanation for it.

You don't even know what you want. All you've been able to come up with is, you want fun, small amounts of time investment, and not have to play with anyone you don't like. Thats great marketing speak, but it doesn't mean anything unless you got something like the Justice League Bat Computer that lets you put any random thoughts into it to get the right output.

In high school we had a project where we had to make toliet paper better. What can you come up with? LSD laced toliet paper? At the end of the day aren't you still building on toliet paper? Its not  like you ever remove the paper for pie. What else are you going to wipe your ass with? Silk? That would be cost prohibitive. You can refine toliet paper but no matter what idea you come up with its always going to be based on the paper. MMOGs aren't really any different. If you reject the core concepts as being fun, what are you left with? Looking for a different genre.

Ok, maybe begging isn't the right word. Pandering, perhaps? Let's describe the pattern of behavior and see if we can come up with the proper term.

Bought EQ, played for 2 1/2 years. Addicted.
Bought DAoC, played for 6 months. Burned out
Played SB beta, got the release, played for 2 months until the bugs were too much to take. Beaten and left for dead

I've have since tried Horizons, betaed AC2, Neocron, alpha'ed and beta'ed Wish, and followed the development of SWG and every other MMOG pretty closely. Beta'ed UBO. Any one of those instances was a chance for the genre developers to fashion a game that fit me. After all, if I'm taking the trouble to test a game, to the point of dealing with bugs and downloading HUGE installs, I'm quite obviously searching for a game to satisfy me. Sure, maybe my criteria for what gets my money is a cut above a bum on the street begging for spare chagne for a bottle of ripple.

I'm the cheaply dressed slut at the end of the bar, buying drinks for gentlemen callers to take me home. I'm the one asking them to dance. Short of prostrating myself on the floor in front of them with the words "FUCK ME LIKE THE PIG THAT I AM YOU STALLION" tattooed on my coochie, I'm not quite sure what more I can do to make this genre satisfy me.

I am pretty sure that I have told you to quit fucking telling me what I want. I don't know where the fuck you have been, but I have been posting about things I would like to see in this genre for years now. Terribly sorry if you missed the hundreds of posts I have made on the subject.

Have you noticed that there is more than one poster in this thread that vehemently disagrees with you? Is it because you know better than all of us, or is it because you have your head stuck so far up your ass that you haven't read ANY of the posts?

Don't bother responding with another "things aren't going to change" post- it makes you look like a fucking idiot. We are here to discuss games, not fellate the devs and accept the status quo. Perhaps you would feel more at home with the rest of the fanbois on the official boards, or the Vault.

I'll give it a shot.  People take the fastest/most hassle free route to the cheese.  In your game that's soloing.  So you end up with a game where most people usually solo, and with minimal class interdependence.  By doing this, you have painted yoruself into a corner, where you can't add much interesting group centered content because (a) your players are not trained for it and (b) your classes are not designed for it. AC, SWG, and other solo-centric games are all nothing but utterly mindless clickfest zergs when it comes to large group content.  Compare to EQ, where multi group content often requires a great deal of focus, finesse, and specialization [in addition to absurdly large amounts of time].

The "be competitive" part is key here.  If you aren't obsessed with measuring your online peen against powerplayers, you can have fun in a lot of the current MMOGs on much less than 20 hours a week.  If you cannot have fun because you are tormented that some guy living in his mom's basement has bigger pixels than you, then no, you cannot be happy.

Be competitive does not mean be better, be bigger, be stronger, be faster, or any other measure you want to put on it.

Be competitive means that I can actually you know, COMPETE with the person. It means that in a PVP game, they don't automatically win because they've put more time into the level treadmill than me. In PVE, it means I can actually hunt with my friends who play the game more than me without feeling like a secondhand gimp they have to protect.

To compete != to succeed.

I'm ok with losing. I'm not ok with losing simply because I couldn't put 6 hours a night into the game 7 days a week.

If you cannot compete, you probably aren't going to have fun. Again, competing does not mean winning all the time every time, it means on "any given Sunday" I could beat the other guy.

Oliver Stone would be proud.

The problem here is that you can't have that unless you punish the higher time player by preventing them from meaningfully advancing.  If I play 5 minutes a week, you play 5 hours a week, and someone else plays 50 hours a week, and you want us to all be "competitive" as far as our contribution in a group of the three of us is concerned, that means that you gained pretty much jack and squat in the other 4 hours and 55 minutes you played, while the other guy gained jack and squat for 49 hours and 55 minutes.

I am just saying that it should be enough to make a game that can be fun for the casual player, whether they play alone or with other players who put in similar amounts of time (or with a series of players that play greater or fewer hours).

I don't know why you are being so defensive. I'm defining the basis of my arguement. Which is that MMOGs are defined by fundamental concepts. Grinding, Grouping, Item Collecting, and Lotsa Time Investment. From there I'm saying what you should expect from the next new thing.

There are several MMOGs out now. If one of them hasn't suited your fancy yet, I don't see how any future MMOG could possibly change your opinion. Every MMOG does things slightly different, some are more polished than others. Perhaps WoW will be a game you like, but even WoW is grounded in the same MMOG model, it has just refined things with linear questing instead of linear camping.

I like pie in the sky features as much as the next person. I have my own ideas of what an ideal game is, but when I actually play something I look for things that I like, not stuff that I don't like. As long as there is enough features that I like i'll play it. I'm not sucking up to any Dev or Game, I take an optimistic approach because I want a game to play.

From what I've seen of WoW, I don't think anyone here will be able to complain about games again. I played a little on my friends account. And beyond some graphical issues, its essentially the most refined MMOG model ever made. Thats just honesty, not fanboy speak. Its too easy for me, but I'll defintely buy it and run through it in a month or so. Undoubtly I'll be bored by christmas though.

To me the 2+ years at EQ is the key. I use to think I hated EQ, but I didn't hate it, I was just bored/burnt out on it. Because MMOGs are so similar its easy for that burnout to quickly set in on a new game. In some ways you almost want to go back to EQ because you are already maxed out and if you are gonna do the treadmill might as well do it in a game you remember liking at one point.

I think WoW will be the game to revitalize people burned out, although its not going to make anyone who TRULY doesn't like EQ and by truly I mean people who don't want to spend 8 hours on a weekend leveling and item collecting. However if you did at some point like EQ enough to play it for 2 years, you'll enjoy WoW.

I did at some point enjoy EQ. I did burn out.

And not one MMOG since then has either made me think I'm playing a NEW game. They ALL have made me feel like I'm playing the SAME GODDAMN GAME AGAIN, just with different skins. Which I'm pretty sure I've articulated multiple fucking times. Needless to say (although obviously not as you still don't seem to get it), if I've already burned out on EQ-style gameplay, why the fuck would more of the same in WoW, ONLY OMFG WITH WARCRAFT SKINS, would matter one fucking whit.

I want a NEW game, not an "EQ ONLY BETTER!!!11!"

As for the whole advancement argument, why is it automatically assumed that an MMOG has to be purely about the advancement? That's the problem I'm bitching about. MMOG's are about nothing but the advancement, and that shit is boring to me. I want to pay a dev a subscription fee for an MMOG that isn't about advancement, that isn't a badly-disguised or reskinned EQ clone, and that isn't buggy as fuck.

You'd think that wouldn't be asking too much, but apparently, my Passion is more rare than Mel's.

City of Heroes has no PVP, but it does have an interesting feature called "sidekicking".  Basically, It lets lower levels team up with higher levels and fight at the higher level player's effectiveness.  

If your buds are level 30 and you're level 12, one of them could make you a sidekick for a play session and you could hang with them in PVE.  You'd get xp appropriate for your level, so this is not supposed to be a way to twink lower levels.



Which, to me, would be a big change and a welcome difference.  I still have nightmares about AC2, so forgive me if I watch this concept with a wary eye.

http://planetside.station.sony.com/

For me the MMOG scene was/is about pvp, socialising and to some extent roleplaying... To this day only Ultima Online gave me all that in one package. And EA had to go and ruin it.

See, that's a stupid analogy right there.
I know marathon runners and I've heard them describe the training and the actual marathon as many things, but never as actual fun.
It's a challenge, it's something to accomplish - a mountain to climb - but the process is downright painful.

Is that a process you'd advise devs to adobt for games? I can just see the marketing department, when they get that one.
It's the way mmogs are now sure - but it's not how they're marketed and I'm sure most devs believe their games are fun to play, not just when you finally passes the line.

And the first mmog to find the new recipe, might actual get a new (bigger) playerbase instead of just cannibalizing the stricly finite number of catasses going from one painful challenge to another.

There's more of us than you - and we have more money. Catering to our needs would be good business.

   I agree there are only so many ways to mix these four. How ever if you add something new to the mix, like say, any other successful game element, you get something that no one else has.

For example... make grinding a puzzle game.  Puzzle game are damn addictive just ask pogo and pop cap, there accessible to the masses and a casual gamer can come on whip up some Proton Nunchucks of Levity, get rid of them and sign off.  The casual gamer: in; catasses: unaffected.
...Or you could hook DDR dance pads up and make the dancers in SWG actually work for it.
...Or add the ability for guild leaders to send orders to the guild by means of a spellforce like overview.
...Or artisans could create custom art pieces by painting with the mouse in game, using only collected pigments.
...Or you could throw sports in.  With simple commands you could have soccer; /passto HaemishM, /stealfrom Sloth, /shootgoal.  Some guy steals the ball from you? You just knock him in the back of the head with an arrow. Hilarity ensues!

The point is, there are an almost infinite number of possible derivations from the norm. So why should we settle for the same ol', same ol'?

I know what you are saying, I know whats its like to be burned out, but Reskinned EQ sums up everything you can expect. If you have burned out any desire to play EQish games, then I don't see how MMOGs are ever going to appeal to you again. WoW is easy, but it also MASKS the grind as well as you can expect. What I'm saying about WoW is that it has every core feature of a MMOG , but you don't notice it unless you are trying to find something wrong with it. If you just play and go with the flow its like playing an RPG. If you play it and can't get past the fact at the end of the day you are only going to be 1 or 2 levels higher with 40 more to go, its going to suck.



Its assumed because companies want to make money, and the BEST way to retain players for months at a time is "grinding". You can play Planetside, although it does have advancement, its just not totally necessary advancement. But then what is there to do in PS? Its cheaper and faster to play one of many Team Based Shooters.

I'm sure you think that players will play for a year if they don't have to level up, but I don't think thats the case. I think the key to these games is persistency, which means saved character development. Players want something to show for their year of play. They want to see their guy who started out a weakling with a rusty sword turn into an epic hero with his Vorpal Sword.

I play Baseball, Football, and Basketball, some tennis. Its never "fun" when you are competing, not the fun you have playing Kotor, but it is "fun" to bust your ass and compete. This is just a semantics problem. When I say games should be challenging and hard, that implies its not going to be "easy fun" its going to be "hard fun". Hard fun is when you bust your ass and realize "man, i came out on top, I rock". it is a way better feeling than "easy fun" but your mileage will vary.

You sound like a soulless robot. I play tennis. I play golf. I play other sports. BECAUSE THEY ARE FUN AND I ENJOY THEM. I play tennis too infrequently to be very good (yay school + work) and I stink horrendously at golf. But I still play them because inherently, they are fun. Really, I get the same type enjoyment out of a good game of tennis as I do blasting mechs in MW4: Mercs.  

I'm curious, how old are you?  I used to think that I could only have fun if I was butting heads with others or trying to be super guy #1.  At some point you prioritize and would rather just enjoy the journey than look towards the end.

Because Christ knows that video games never change. That is why I quit playing them once I conquered Pong.

I don't know why I bother to respond any more- you seem to relish the thought of soulless, boring grindplay. However, there are a hell of a lot of people who feel differently, so I guess I am trying to speak up for them.

It is easy to say you want something different, but hard to say what that different thing is.

What is KOTOR?  Any FF game?  NWN?  BG?  An omg soul crushing, mind numbing grindfest.  With a half assed story.  And some entertaining mechanics, mini games, and encounters plastered on top so you have something else to look at other than the yellow bar inching along and your hit point number getting bigger.

People burn on EQ because at some point the grind gets too brutal for the content to distract you from it.  People burn on other MMOS because the content sucks from the get go.

It's amazing how so many "unfun" things become "fun" when you win at them.

you're talking about a completely different topic. I'm talking about challenges and difficult gameplay. If you go back and read Hanzi's question it wasn't about what everyones definition of fun was, it was how can something hard be considered fun.

Which I might consider playing if it:

1) Weren't made by SOE
2) Didn't have gameplay that was already available in free form elsewhere

I do, however, think that Planetside would have been more palatable to shooter audiences had there actually been a way to WIN a map, then reset the server to zero again, much like what WWII Online does.

I expect MMOG's to transcend their shitty D&D trappings and become something more than just whackamole. But I can shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills up first.

There are ways to keep people involved in games for years that do not involve grinding and level treadmills, but they aren't easy to do, and they require imagination, which costs money no one wants to put into the games nowadays.

I don't know why you bother to respond either because you only respond to one sentance that you think you can make a statement on.

What you can't seem to grasp is a concept called fundamentals even though I've tried to explain it countless times. Yet you still keep saying that a square doesn't always have to be a square. A square can be dressed up with colors and maybe a picture inside it, but a square is always going to be a plane figure having four equal sides.

I realize you believe you are thinking out side the box, and you have this magical MMOG where everything is "fun", but so far I haven't seen it. The fact that you keep trying to insult people who do like MMOGs should clue you in to the fact that you don't like MMOGs to begin with. And before you respond with the "Oh I have a magical MMOG idea that is all about fun." good for you, design and build and show me up. Because unless you have some kind of counter evidence to the four MMOG concepts of time investment, loot collecting, grinding, and grouping. I don't know what else to tell you. Look maybe you do have the magical template of fun, but I'm basing my analysis on whats come out since UO. Tell me what you are basing your analysis on other than your hope that MMOGs will transform into something else.

You are under the assumption that MMOG's HAVE to absolutely, without any question, have to be about time investment, loot collecting, grinding, and grouping.

You are, quite frankly, wrong. And are a lip-flapping twat to boot.

WWII Online is not about any of the four other than grouping. Planetside has no loot collecting, very little grinding, some time investment, and grouping.

So you might actually be 1/4 right. MMOG's are partly about grouping.

But you're still a twat.

I don't know what you define as very little grinding, but if you want certs you have to put in time to get the xp to purchase them. Those certs let you have access to vehicles and weapons, which is basically like aquiring items. You can log into PS and start fighting, but you can't log in and have access to everything. You have to work for it, i.e advance.

WW2online is more FPS than MMOG. The biggest difference between BF1942 and WW2online is the number of players per map, plus theres no persistency, the game resets when someone wins.

So does WWII Online. It's just that the amount of time between resets is much longer in WWII Online. Which is what I was saying Planetside needed.

Games are not work. Games should not be work. Games should be fun. If you find fun doing things that are frustrating and more like work than fun, continue playing your current MMOG's. I do not, and do not assume that an MMOG has to be work to be fun.

I'm not sure if you meant to say "So Does PS" in the first part. If you did, PS doesn't reset, at least according to the FAQ. I played it in beta and they had "wipes" but I was under the impression at release all character development was saved and never lost.

As for your last part. Yes games should be fun. This is not a revelation though. But it does get back to the original point, if you don't find EQ, DAOC, and UO or whatever fun, you probably aren't ever going to find MMOGs fun. You are the one who is assuming MMOGs are work. I'm not, I'm saying they are fun.

Reading is really fucking hard, isn't it?

I was saying that WWII Online has resets, PS does not. This I know. I was suggesting that PS would be a better game if it had WWII Online like resets.

You enjoy EQ. So do other people. You like the MMOG formula that has become de rigeur for the genre. I do not. I think MMOG's can be something much better. You don't care.

I begin to wonder why you post here.

The irony of that last sentance shouldn't be lost on you because I could say the samething to you. All you do is complain about MMOGs and claim they aren't fun. It seems to me its more relevant to discuss games you like than to bitch about games you don't like and won't play. I'm sure your knee jerk response is that you can come up with an idea for a MMOG that you want to play, but what does that mean? Unless you are going to make it yourself? I know you THINK they can be much better, but why do you think that? What do you base that analysis on ?

Lets look at everything coming out in the next couple years.

City of Heroes
Dragon Empires
WoW
Darkfall
Realms of Torment
Everquest 2
Vanguard
Ultima X

at what point does it begin to sink in that all these games are based on some fundamental concepts that aren't going to change? This is the genre. Is it perfect? No, there's enormous amounts of room for refinements and polish.

I know you THINK you know the secret formula, and maybe you have an idea for a game with 1000s per server, no advancement, instant fun,  and nothing negative. If you can get that game made more power to you, but you aren't going to change the above Genre of games with your game, you'll have an entirely new one and EQ 3 will still get made.

So if you wonder why I post here, its because I accept the premise that EQ clones can be fun and its possible to add or subtract or make better features and make EQ games even better. It makes less sense to continue posting about games you'll never find fun.

That there are other options so we do not have to settle for EQ.
 
I plan to if given the opportunity.

Because I don’t compare mmo's to mmo's I compare them to other games. The game fighting for my time now is Spellforce, not a mmo. However I would prefer to have the contact and interesting gameplay you get when you get a "mass" of people "online" to do a "multiplayer" game.

As for how they could innovate I have a hundred ideas the question is why doesn’t the mmo dev community?

It sinks in Real Fast. That’s the problem the genre is stale. There must be infusion of new ideas. That means not just polishing your shit.  And for gods sake don’t refine it any more, I couldn’t think of what you would create if you kept doing that, a 'building the pyramids' game comes to mind.  “You too can be a slave!”


That’s what I said.

Maybe it's just that it plays to my vanity, but I've always liked Raph's explanation of why he comes to forums like this one: because he believes that the views that people like those in the community here hold will be the views that MMOG players in general hold a few years down the line, so developers had better understand where we're coming from if they want to make products that address the interests of their fanbase in the future.

I think I can safely say that most of us here burned out on MMORPGs of the 'traditional' sort years ago. For the most part, we know what we want to see in future games in the genre and what we want to see eliminated. The MMOG market is catching up to us: more recent games have failed than have been successes, and most successes have been marginal at best. By closing games with little fanfare, by canceling projects and rerouting personnel, developers are catching on to this, too. If the next wave of MMOGs are as underwhelming in terms of popularity and profits as the current wave has been, we will see changes sooner rather than later, and hopefully drastic ones.

Personally, I consider it incredibly short-sighted to assume that the MMOG genre will largely remain as it is today. Or, rather, you seem to be suggesting that MMOGs will remain beholden to the RPG genre: that is, developers will continue to produce throwbacks to the typical single-player RPG experience of the 1980s, streamlined for massively-multiplayer play and assembled along the lines of EQ. The future of the genre begins, however, when developers more fully realize that they aren't beholden to their anachronized conception of MMOGs as RPGs writ large, but rather have the opportunity to sample the best of all genres for the sake of creating the best multiplayer experience.

Will there always been MMOGs that resemble the MMORPGs of today? Maybe so; and until the next round of releases fails to find the expected blockbuster audience most games will continue to attempt to emulate and refine the EQ model as the gold standard of MMORPGs, at least in terms of financial success. But save for the lure of licensed content (like SWG) or developers that draw players in because of name recognition in the industry (like FFXI and most likely WoW in the future), successes have been few and far between, and largely limited to those developers who got in on the ground floor and established their position when these games were still new and unique.

I think this is about the least true statement I have ever seen -)

Why? While each of us hardly has a complete and coherent image of our ideal MMOG in our minds--though perhaps some people do--certain themes have been rehashed with such frequent regularity that they form a canon of What Cranky LtM/SND/P2P/WTO Posters Who Are Burned Out On MMORPGs Want (And Don't Want).

A legitimate criticism of the above is that our theories and models are often pie-in-the-sky and we're not familiar with the realities of how difficult these games are to make, and those aspects of the genre that make for the broadest and most consistent revenue stream. But, as consumers, we're not responsible for knowing anything other than what we want. As mentioned in my previous post, I have taken to heart the notion that what we want today is what most people will want several years down the road. And few here--not to mention all of those who gave up on MMOGs entirely and dropped out of the community, or at least the MMOG portion thereof--feel that the genre is anywhere near maturity, that all that remains is to tweak the formula established by EQ and its ilk.

They are usually extremely pie in the sky (I want a combo civ2/kotor/madden2004 online game with no suck) or very, very vague (I want a game with no grind that it always fun) or outright contradictory (I want a game where the pvp really, really matters but also where it at the same time it doesn't really matter).

I like your point about non-rpg games.  I think that we are stuck with the quest for "EQ done right" and "SB done right"  and "Trammel done right" as the basic themes for online "roleplaying games" because that is pretty much the model for rpgs in general.  

But I do think that massively online games of other genres (FPS, RTS, ets) have some interesting possibilities for different core designs.  The trick for those games is to make the MMO part worth the money, because right now you can play better versions of those games for free.

It is easy to see why roleplaying games are made better for some people by becoming MMOs to the extent that they are willing to pay a monthly fee.   It is harder, but not impossible, to see that being true for other genres.

I post here because I usually am bored fuckless at work, and talking to you guys (well, most of you) is more fun than not.

I complain about MMOG's because I am passionate about the potential this genre has. I LOVE the idea of MMOG's; hell, I even like some of the execution. I didn't play EQ for 2 1/2 years because I hated the idea. I am still looking for a good fantasy MMOG that does more than what EQ did and does it without monstrous lists of bugs. I haven't seen it yet. I will continue to bitch about games not improving until they improve or I'm just plain tired of trying to find games that are fun.



See, I have this thing called IMAGINATION. It lets me come up with these IDEAS that may or may not have merit. I THINK they can be better because I've seen what talented people, properly funded and supported, can do to create fun fucking games. In the last two years, here is a list:

Freedom Force
Deus Ex
Splinter Cell
MechAssault
ESPN NFL 2k4
Project Gotham Racing
Unreal Tournament 2k4
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
Thief
Shadwobane (With the caveat that it was buggy as fuck)

And that's just off the top of my head. I also haven't played a lot of games because I've been broke. Some of those games are really just variations on overdone themes, such as the driving game (PGR) and the FPS (UT 2k4, W:ET) and the sports game (NFL 2K4). Yet they are fun, because they DID provide something new on an older formula.

MMOG's are not doing that. Thus, I see that other game genres have innovated in ways other than more shinies, and can imagine that if other genres of games can do it, so can MMOG's.




You are stating that those fundamental concepts are the only things that can ever or will ever be done in MMOG's. You are wrong. Of that list, 2 of them have new ideas that may or may not see fruition (Darkfall and RoT). 4 of them are nothing more than reskins on an old and tired concept, i.e. the EQ formula. Maybe CoH will break out of the EQ mold, and Dragon Empires seems to be following the DAoC premise, and may or may not be more of the same old shit.



And apparently you think that the genre can only refine and polish the same old turd ad infinitum and continue to sell us the same game. You are wrong. At some point in the future, they won't sell anymore. It's already happening. Markets either innovate or die, especially when the market is so limited in the first place.



I have no illusions about my efforts as a game designer. I'm an idea man, and ideas are cheap. I also never said no one would try to make the same games over and over again. But like the video game industry has shown in the past, rehashing the same ideas in game after game gets you bankrupt.



See above. I have found MMOG's fun. I found Shadowbane in beta to be loads of fun. I enjoyed DAoC and EQ at times. BUT I'VE PLAYED THOSE GAMES, and I've grown tired of them. The developers seem to think that putting a new wrapper on the same game with a tweak here and there is all it's going to take to make me and others continually buy the same game. You apparently agree with that as well.

It isn't. I require more, and as more people grow tired of the MMOG genre, they will require more too. I simply point at EQ's numbers (400k), then at SWG's numbers (300k), and DAoC's numbers (250k), then start going down the list of EQ-alikes to show you that after the first big hit, nothing is bringing in significant numbers of new players, despite the fact that a game like SWG SHOULD have. Not only because it's offering nothing new to the existing MMOG players, but because it's offering nothing worthwhile to people resistant to shelling out a monthly subscription fee.

I bitch about MMOG's because I care about what they can do. At the moment, they are the genius level IQ student making D's because he's too lazy to apply himself. He could come up with the cure for cancer, but he doesn't want to bother because he's getting by just fine as it is.

The problem is that the basis of your argument is fundamentally flawed. It fails in toto to  account for the fact that what you have defines as the basis for the genre is a very small slice of MUD possibility - the Diku. To say that only Diku's can make the leap to graphical format is, well, specious at best and dowright idiotic at worst.

But don't let pesky little facts derail your train.

Get the fuck out of my head damn it.

Wait so you list a bunch of single player games as a basis that MMOGs need to innovate? First of all you said the same thing I did, something new on an old formula is what I've been telling you. SWGs skill system is a new idea on the old formula of leveling.

And look at the games Splinter Cell? Thats just a stealth FPS. Is it a good game yes, but if you don't like the concept of sneaking around, you aren't going to like it. I could go down your entire list and show you that everything in it is just a refinement on base concepts of the genre.




Once again Darkfall and RoT fall into the same base concepts I laid out for you. And once again as I said there is room for refinements or as you put it "new ideas on an old formula" which means the same thing. Do you think Darkfall won't have grouping, xp grinding, loot collecting, and long time investments? i know RoT will because its in beta and you can read all about it.

I don't see why you keep thinking the next new thing is going to be something different than the basic EQ style design, even when it says so right in the faq.



The irony is you've said the same thing I've been saying. I agree that a better story can make two otherwise exact games better. However you aren't reinventing the wheel to come up with a better story.



The games should offer more and as I said they have room to grow. But once again the core concepts that you keep saying you don't like aren't going to change for these types of games. If I could make a MMOG with a great story, lots of persistency features where the world changes based on player actions, twitch based combat, and expedient grouping system, I'd do it in a second. But at the end of the day you are still going to be campign for loot, grouping, grinding out xp, and spending lots of time to get to the end.

You say you require more, but what does more mean? As I listed above more can easily be things built on the core concepts. If by more you mean different game entirely, I don't know what to tell you except to try and invent a new genre.

You haven't stated any facts, you are stating your opinion that something will come along. Yet if you look at the market and whats coming out in the market in the next two years all fits into my analysis.

And I never said only Diku Muds can make the transition to graphical format. What I said was that MMOGs that come out are going to fall into fundamental concepts. I could take Pong and transfer it to MMOG and its going to come out with advancement, lots of time spent online developing your paddle, and so on.

Or just lots of people playing PONG.  

Jesus Christ himself would sanction your murder.

Number of people isn't really relevant. 1000 people playing pong is still pong. When I say MMOG i'm talking about persistent online gaming world. I use MMOG just because it takes less time to type.

This is a fundamentally self - contraditory statement. If, out of the wealth possible MUD mechanics to be mined (let alone any other genres) the only possible implementation will resemble the venerated Diku (your fundamental concepts), well then they will have done a piss poor job of implementing anyting other than a Diku.

By your definition then, MMOG's can only be Diku's.

Fine. Let me know when someone creates a non MMOG PSW.

I don't consider Diku to be the alpha. For starters diku does alot of things that I don't like, like food and water requirements. Diku has what I consider fundamental to MMOGs, but its not because it set the standard, it just fits the standard. UO for instance wasn't based on Diku but still fits the standard. I consider the alpha the PSW - persistent state world. From there they evolved into a money making scheme. The money aspect is what drives these concepts. If it wasn't for player retention you probably would see alot of alternative design models.

UO does not fit the standard. It does somethings that the "standard" as you say does, but the difference between UO and well, everything else since EQ that is a fantasy-themed MMOG, is that UO was more than those base concepts. Note, I say WAS.

Only a closed, unimaginative mind thinks that loot gathering, camping for XP, grinding and time-based advancement are the only ways to do MMOG's. PONG was just the first step, and it's a helluva step from Pong to Top Spin. With customers like you, the MMOG genre will forever be wrapping a shiny coat over two pixels bouncing another pixel between them.

I listed single-player games because those seem to be the only place anyone has had the balls to innovate. Splinter Cell is a pretty different experience from Thief, or from System Shock 1 or 2, all of which are antecedents of that formula of game. You cannot tell me (though I'm sure you'll try SirBrucey style) that Splinter Cell is just System Shock with a shinier wrapper. Meanwhile, you are trying to tell me that WoW IS just a shinier EQ and that that's a good thing.

The games I listed are genre games that transcend or so alter their genre as to be innovative. Again, compare the game play of Pole Position to Project Gotham Racing and you aren't just talking about shinier wrappers, but fundamentally different gameplay. Ditto with Atari Football and ESPN NFL 2k4 in FPS mode. Shit, compare Madden 2004 to ESPN NFL 2k4 in FPS mode, and you are talking huge changes in gameplay.

Sloth: "bla bla bla. I'm right and I'll keep saying I'm right so that proves I'm right, so I'm right. Right?"

*Daeven decides to stop banging his head against the brick wall of SirBruce v2.0.*

You could argue that it's a Metal Gear Solid with a shinier wrapper though.

... Couldn't resist.

And I've come to the conclusion that Sloth must have been on drugs as a fetus, while doing QA for Glitchless.

UO was still centered around those ideas though. If you take them out, you wouldn't have the UO you had. It would have been a graphical chat room. The game couldn't have existed without them. You keep saying that you can do MMOGs differently but you don't say how. I can tell you that I can alter my DNA so I can become invisible, but it doesn't make it so.

FPS mode is not innovation of football. Its still a football game. You are still throwing and tackling. FPS mode in ESPN Football vs Regular Mode would be like the difference between a skill system and a level system in an MMOG.

Is driving in Gotham more realistic than driving in pole position? Obviously. But what word is common there? Driving. The difference in driving between those two games is like the difference in advancement speeds between EQ and SB.

Technological advances can refine a game so they are more realistic or play better. But heres the key, if a game isn't technological advanced for you to like, you aren't disliking the components that make up the game, you are disliking how the game is presented.  As you've pointed out time and time again , you dislike the components of MMOGs, not the lack of technical achievements.

You've already made it clear you won't like WoW because its like EQ. So how could things like a FPS mode or better graphics or more realistic combat going to make you like WoW over EQ when the things you don't like are its core concepts?

Come on now. If you don't want to discuss something fine, but don't try to insult me because you don't like what I say. You'll note that I don't insult anyone even if they do disagree with me. You know why? Because it doesn't impress the ladies like the Germans would have you believe.

I get this argument... but at the same time, I don't get why you havn't tried games like UO, SWG, Atitd, or even planetside.  None of these fall into the dreaded "EQ in new skin".  A more sandboxy game concentrates more on player interactions and relationships and not so much on advancement... maybe that is more your style?  Or a game that is more twitch based that doesn't require a huge time investment?

The whole catassing complaint - while its certainly valid, it is kind of a big contradition in the MMOG world.  For the most part, please play MMOGs because it gives them a greater sense of accomplishment than more transient games.  The fact that you can have an in-game persona that is long lasting and offers significant ways to differentiate yourself is kind of at the heart of why we like these games.  If you play a PvE game though, its always going to be about level advancement... how else are you going to distinguish yourself by fighting against artificial intelligence?  If you play a sandbox game, its going to be more about your relationships and social connections... that doesn't seem to be your cup of tea either ("I don't play role-playing games to be a politician." - Me).  If you play a FPS game, then it is usually more about PvP with little to no leveling... lots of people enjoy Planetside.

I seriously think that one of the biggest problems with MMOGs is that people still expect one game to give them everything they could ever want.  Its just never going to happen because those things are conflicting in their very design.  Games that try to deliver everything to everyone fall flat on their faces (see AC2), while games that aim to do one thing well are going to be severely hated on by the people that are looking for different things (see EQ, SWG, Planetside).

Ive mostly been a lurker, but that's many folks style.  Take it or leave it I suppose.  But the point is that the MMORPG genre is the same damned thing done over and over again and it hasn't changed and its kept all the unfun stuff without innovating.

Why haven't these games gone broadband only?  I would much rather control my shots with a bow or get out a quick combo with my Kung Fu Vampire Hunter based on my own commands.  If X Box can do online fighters, and Planetside can do mass shooty fights, why can't the average MMORPG give us more control and more tactics?  There really isnt much tactics in MMORPGs its just waste time gain levels kill beasties so you can kill more beasties.

BO-RING.

Give us challenges based on skill, give us fun and interesting missions to do.  Don't force us to need other people or 20 hours of soloing to kill Bob the Twinkie Demon and his cousin Doug.  If I am a sneaky little git, I should be able to win due to smart play and not some generic 1 way only style of completing the fight.  Let me be me.  Let me be free.

Sloth, I will insult you now. You are a fucking idiot.

Have you PLAYED the FPS mode of ESPN NFL2k4? No? Because sure, the game of football is the same, but an innovation such as FPS mode completely changes the gameplay. I lack the words to describe how different the game plays from "standard" football games such as Madden 2004. It's a simple thing, it may not sound like much, but it's such a singularly fresh take on an old favorite as to be astounding. That's innovation, as opposed to renovation. Sure, PGR is "just" a driving game; but the fundamentals of what you do in that driving game are so far afield of Pole Position, it's a complete innovation.

You seem to think that innovation has to change the core game; it doesn't. Hell, at heart, Ultima Underworld was just another Ultima RPG. Only, it wasn't. The addition of FPS drastically changed the way the game was played. Same with the original Wolfenstein (on the Mac) to the current Return to Castle Wolfenstein or the ET mod. INNOVATION. You could say that at heart they are both games about shooting Nazis dead.

But if you are going to be that simple-minded, then you'll be playing a reskinned EQ for a long time.

WoW could be an "innovation" on the whole EQ paradigm. If combat was much more involving, took actual player skill more seriously instead of time-played or levels, it would be an innovation. Since you seem to be in beta, you tell me. Is it? Does it feel innovative? Or does it feel a good bit like EQ with differences in skins, timing, etc. ? If it's just EQ without the suck, then it hasn't innovated.

The MMOG genre seems capable or willing to only give us "EQ without the suck" or "UO without the PVP."

UO had a metric fuckton of grinding in it.  Recall that people paid monthly fees to let a macro program play for them.

That being said, it was different.  It was largely free form.  But also keep in mind that a lot of the free-formlessness was accidental.  Do you think they intended you to stack things up so they loked like aquariums?  No, but that is what UO's elder game was.

I think that a UO done right could be a lot of fun.  But it would have to either be buggy as hell in a way that just happens to work, or else it will have to consciously design the tools for freeform play.  SWG tried to do that I think, but was saddled by the license and the fact that the game was rushed, unpolished and soulless.  {Note that "UO done right" here means "Trammel done right.  Because, as someone said here, the victems are gone and they are never ever coming back.  SWG proved that no matter how hard Designer Dragon begs, pleads, cajoles, bribes or threatens people to become fodder, they won't do it.}

I think that SB done right could also be a lot of fun, but it will always be somewhat niche because of competition from multiplayer FPS games.  I think that they will need some time played/character building/nation building mechanic to differentiate themselves from FPS games.

Finally, I think that EQ done right could be a lot of fun.  And I think that these will always be the most successful MMORPG's, because these games gain the most from the massively multiplayer part, being essentially cooperative.

But I don't see many options other than EQ done right, Trammel done right, and SB done right, for monthly fee persistent state worlds.

Haemish,

Not in beta, but from what I have been reading, it is beginning to look like WOW might have some innovation.  I am seeing more and more baby steps towards a model different than EQ.  Is EQ without the SUCK innovation?  I will gladly stand beside you and keep waving the banner for a game based in a world that is not driven by time invested pellets, but with the downfall of E&B and the hacked remains of the games tossed to the wayside recently, I am thinking those with money are getting a little ansy about investing into games that break the money mold currently in place.  I can understand the decision to not charge blindly into the night, but to keep a level of fundamental design and innovate around it. We are still in the infancy of this little jungle.  Radical change is rare in a market that is showing driving steam, but radical change in the gaming media does happen.  I have faith as long as money is being made by the genrea that Innovation will come, and as Foix so elogantly put it earlier, hopefully those that are raising voice now against the grain will have some impact on that innovation.

I took the liberty of bolding the key sentance in your first paragraph. Old Favorite. Since you keep trying to divert the arguement into semantics I'm going to steer it back around to the original point. You still liked football even before NFL ESPN. If I didn't like Football, why would I sit around every year buying football games? Is ESPNs FPS mode going to make me like playing football if the things I don't like about football is the actual game?

You bring up Ultima Underworld and there isn't a more clear cut game of my point than that. Ultima Underworld is an RPG, adding the FPS mode doesn't change the inherent concepts of RPGS. If you don't like leveling and questing, you aren't going to like UW just because its in first person.

I'm not in the WoW beta I only played it for about 4 hours. I can't tell you much about WoW other than the initial impressions up to level 7. I can say that yes WoW is basically reskinned EQ, except that it masks the grind better with questing.

But lets get back to the term "innovation". You say an innovation would be playerskill instead of time-played or levels, but how are you going to do that and retain players? Why are people going to stay long if they have access to everything at the start? Or maybe you mean that its sort of like PS where its twitch based and you gain "xp", but at that point it still becomes an advancement grind. When you are coming up with new ideas for an MMOG you have consider is this going to keep people playing? Because that is the primary goal. Now you might hate "The Man" and think the concept of making money is evil, but only discussing games in theory can you discount the money, when talking about reality the money matters.

I agree with you that Gotham is way more technologically advanced than pole position and that someone who didn't like pole position because it wasn't a real driving experience would like Gotham better. But your complaint with MMOGs isn't about a technological limitation, its a philosophical one. You complain that MMOGs are all reskinned EQ. No matter how technologically advanced we make EQ, even a Holodeck, if you still have to gain xp, spend a year playing, and camp for loot your philosophical difference is going to keep you from having fun.

Now maybe you don't have an ideological problem, maybe you've just been conveying that by accident. Maybe as I said here and several posts ago that a game like WoW that does a good job of masking the negatives of MMOG will appeal to you even though its reskinned EQ.

And with that post, you have proven you are a complete and utter DUMBFUCK.

Would I have bothered to play EQ, or DAoC if I didn't like CRPG's? Or Fantasy-themed combat-oriented RPG's? Or that I don't like massively multiplayer online games that involve lots of other people? You are correct, if I didn't like any of those things, I wouldn't have played them in the first place. That is such a no brainer statement that I honestly cannot believe you even said it.

No, what you've said is that MMOG's are and can never be anything but fundamentally-based on time investment, loot collecting, grinding, and grouping. Which is not true, and which I've already discounted (except for the grouping part, because I agree with you that is a fundamental tenet of Massively multiplayer online games).

Now, can a subscription-based game make bank on something other than those concepts for an extended period of time? I begin to doubt it, and it seems no one in the industry is the least bit interested in finding out.

I want CRPG's with multiple people in them (maybe not 2000 per server massive, more like 500 massive) that allow me to create my own story in conjunction with other people, without worries about leveling or item whoring, without basing my power upon how much time I've invested in the game doing the same things. You are telling me that is fundamentally impossible, as that is an entirely different genre of game than MMOG's. Except that that is exactly the concept being used to sell MMOG's to the market.

This topic is ready for the deep freeze.  

Really, all it is now is optimism v. the brick wall of status quo.  Well, at least the SirBrucing has been kept to a minimum.

Why do you keep trying to insult me? I'm only going by what you've already said previously in this thread...



As I said earlier, and if you go back, I pointed out that you spent 2 years in EQ, which meant that you did LIKE EQ and that you would probably like WoW too, but then you replied with the above. Which brings me back to what I said, you have a philosophical difference with MMOGs now. I never said you didn't at any point not like MMOG, in fact I said you did! What I'm saying, based on what you've ALREADY said,  is Post EQ you don't like the grouping, time investment, etc etc.

I can't read your mind, i can only go by what you are posting so don't start insulting me because I'm following the train of logic you provided.

As for the last part, finally some substance. And to which I say yes if you want to make money, no if you plan on hosting the server yourself. I'll admit I should have been more clear at the beginning, i'm basing my four concepts on the fact you want to make money through player retention.

From what I can tell about your theory of innovation, WoW should fit into your model because the game does tend to be more fun even though the basic philosophy is the same. For that matter RoT should as well, although it has permadeath. Both these games are about the loot whoring and the 8 hour game day, but I can see , at least in WoW case how its not as frustrating as EQ.

Yep. Everyone macroed their way to the fun part. It stuck me as inheretly obvious that instead of 'macroing' through character creation I should be able to simply create the character I wanted (ala Traveler) and then play the damned game. And everyone missed this lesson completely resulting in more levels, or Shadowbanes more levels faster!

Hellooooo? McFly? Anyone in there?

The single greatest mental hurdle that needs to be addressed in this genre is this whole implementing inappropiate single player cRPG mechanics in something that is manifestly NOT a single player cRPG.

Unless you like levelling as gameplay. In which case ignore me and keep playing the games you enjoy.

*shrug*

Yeah, you can do the static characters thing, but you need to come up with a reason for people to pay a monthly fee to access their static character.  

For static PvP, Planetside did it (mostly, the characters aren't totally static like you want them to be) and it was greeted with a yawn as people went back to Counterstrike.  You need to make massively multiplayer capture the flag -- with zero in game consequences for capturing such flags -- that is not only fun, but monthly fee fun.

For static PvE, you are going to have even more work cut out for you.  You'd have to start with something like "Trammel done right" or "Sims online done right" and then remove all the item collection aspects of those games and still have a game that is worth ponying up a monthly fee for.