My problem with MMOGs.

[Krakrok]

Pocedural worlds, however, would only mask the problem for a little while.  1 planet, 3 planets or 3,000 plantes in Planetside you still have the same problem.  Your faction wins most of them, then loses to whichever side the Aussies play while you're at work.

No. WWIIOL might have been better if every time the game reset the map was a new random map (it just wouldn't have been WWII anymore). Normal FPS' already impliment this mechanic by changing levels every X minutes.

Take Planetside or even Diablo and impliment a planetwide battle until one side wins/loses. Once a side wins or loses a planet you never get to play on that planet again and it gets chalked up in your "wins" column. The battle moves on to a new planet. Throw in dangerous procedural flora and fauna as a side show on the PvP.

Do I care if the other side wins some planets when I'm not around? Not really as all it does it throw more twists into the story line.

Winning a planet simply increases your side's shiny. Be it bigger/shinnier weapons/ships/effects even though they do all the same damage as before. Throw in a galactic war storyline + cutscenes on every planet win and loss. Use the story line and the fun as the way to keep players interested instead of appealing to their sense of crackpipeness with levels.

In fact the Dune licence might be a good fit for this because the actual galactic war isn't covered in the novels.

It doesn't make the game more interesting if you're on LegoWorld vs JungleWorld if your problem with the core mechanics are 'you can never win'.

Definitively winning battles but not the war is good enough for me. I'm not opposed to one side winning the war inline with a storyline down the road either. Endlessly fighting the same unwinable battle over and over with no storyline is what gets old.

It might keep your interest for a little while so you could see all 3,000 environments, but after that you'd still be asking yourself about the futility of it all, which is your core problem.

Actually random PvP in GW keeps me pretty happy because I win or lose every 3-5 minutes. I don't wonder about the futility of it because it's fun. I can quit whenever I want (even in the middle of a battle) because it just doesn't matter. What sucks about it (besides losing) is it's the same 4 maps since the beta and there is no metagame+storyline stacked on top of the wins/loses.

[voodoolily]

Anyway, I’ve rambled a lot here. The post that started this thread is the same post that people have made on this board and its predecessors for years (and I know the author knows that, just like I know this reply is the same one me or someone else has made to those other posts). The genre isn’t for everyone, and I don’t think that means there is something wrong with the genre. What gets on my nerves is the idea that there is some easy formula to radically change things – that developers are just morons too stupid to stop making games along this formula (though I have given in to this mentality many times myself). I don’t think they (by and large) are. They make games according to this formula because this formula has worked for 25 years.

My primary motivation for even going into this was that I'm aware that certain people think my opinion of MMOGs (and their developers) is based in ignorance and therefore doesn't matter. I just wanted to take the chance to demonstrate that yes, I have played them but I don't like them anyway, and dislike them for the very reasons that some you others don't. I'm not trying to shatter any worlds or change any minds.

The thing I can't really understand is why this genre (or medium) of gaming warrants such staunch defending by its devotees. If I said I don't play sim games would anyone get their panties in a wad over it? I don't think so, and I certainly don't think anyone would effectively tell me to shut up and leave because I said I didn't care for them. People who call me a "console gamer" are correct, but stop trying to use it as a fucking insult. (Yes, I'm talking to you.)

[Hoax]

The people who defend MMO's so staunchly and are so insulted when people bash them are gamers who truly believe that massive-multiplayer is the medium of the future.  If you read Haemish's recent article and the books he mentioned you would understand the hope that is attached for so many nerds to currently nonexistent MMO's.  Its a medium with so much more possibility.  I think everyone who defends MMO's deep down has a certain dream of a perfect blend of features, community and gameplay.

Myself, I imagine a (using Margalis' terms from the Rush to World thread) wild west pvp virtual world.  Where player justice was supported and encouraged, where people would end up roleplaying because the gameworld itself felt so natural but was not hampered with stupid Tolkien fantasy cliche bullshit.  City building, arms dealing and a myriad of other economic and political professions (not just the good old killing of others) would give every player type a role they could truly enjoy and feel appreciated by the gameworld for performing.  The gameplay would of course be a sublime mix of first person shooter features and cerebral tactical choices. 

Anyways, thats why so many people don't want to hear MMO's disparaged, their fantasy worlds will never exist if the medium is not perfected.

[voodoolily]

Anyways, thats why so many people don't want to hear MMO's disparaged, their fantasy worlds will never exist if the medium is not perfected.

That kind of makes me sad.

[littledude]

I think I might have to try Guild Wars based on what Krakrok stated, I am a time starved gamer and I don't care for building up my butt-sitting strenght to get decent at a game.  Hence why I quit EQ, DAoC, and have petered out on WoW and CoH.  Plus my life is stressful enough that I don't want any bullshit from a game, and frankly there isn't enough skill in mmog games.

I guess it goes back to, "On any given Sunday"  from the NFL, where even though one team looks like it is going to dominate the underdawg...sometimes the dawgs will stomp your nuts into the ground, grill-em with the brats, and feed em back to ya with a side of ass-kicking chili  :-D  I don't want level and time to be the only thing that matters in a game.  I prefer, suprise, shot placement, combined arms tactics, and ambushes to actually mean something.  I guess I should buy CoV and level up my hero so I can try it out, it sounds like a decent team PvP from what I have read, and maybe Guild Wars.

[El Gallo]

Anyway, I’ve rambled a lot here. The post that started this thread is the same post that people have made on this board and its predecessors for years (and I know the author knows that, just like I know this reply is the same one me or someone else has made to those other posts). The genre isn’t for everyone, and I don’t think that means there is something wrong with the genre. What gets on my nerves is the idea that there is some easy formula to radically change things – that developers are just morons too stupid to stop making games along this formula (though I have given in to this mentality many times myself). I don’t think they (by and large) are. They make games according to this formula because this formula has worked for 25 years.

My primary motivation for even going into this was that I'm aware that certain people think my opinion of MMOGs (and their developers) is based in ignorance and therefore doesn't matter. I just wanted to take the chance to demonstrate that yes, I have played them but I don't like them anyway, and dislike them for the very reasons that some you others don't. I'm not trying to shatter any worlds or change any minds.

The thing I can't really understand is why this genre (or medium) of gaming warrants such staunch defending by its devotees. If I said I don't play sim games would anyone get their panties in a wad over it? I don't think so, and I certainly don't think anyone would effectively tell me to shut up and leave because I said I didn't care for them. People who call me a "console gamer" are correct, but stop trying to use it as a fucking insult. (Yes, I'm talking to you.)

Yeah, I probably should not have mentioned the initial post at all since I was only really concerned with talking to Hoax (it was also inartfully drafted, as the 3rd sentence does not really pertain to the OP).  Some latent desire to remain on-topic, perhaps?  Now that you have explained your initial post, I misunderstood it anyway.  I didn't take it to be a personal confessional, or your defense of yourself against people who have insulted you in the past.  I didn't know that anyone had insulted you.  I took it to be discussion of how to build a better mousetrap v156,987,652 or why mmogs suck v897,563,061,978,438.  I love those threads, they are the main reason I've hung around this community for, what, 4 years or so now?  And, to be fair, this is the "MMOG Discussion" forum.  Regardless of your original intent, I think it's fair to say that the thread had meandered in that direction by the time I made the post you find so offensive.

 Anyway, I don't recall ever insulting you.  I don't recall ever calling you a console gamer, I don't really know what kind of games you like.  I had no idea about your opinion on MMOGs until I read this thread, and I still don't have a particularly clear view of it.  I certainly have no idea how much experience you have in them and whether your opinion is rooted in ignorance or intimate familiarity.  I wasn't trying to pick an argument with you, especially since we seem to be agreeing on the central point of the thread ("Some people like MMOGs, some people don't.  They aren't going to change that much so if you like em now you'll probably like em in the future and if you don't like em now you probably won't.  Go now in peace to love and serve the Lord").  My suggestion of Diablo 2 wasn't an insult, I've played the hell out of that game and it really does sound like a game that has what you are looking for according to your list.  I have no idea why you are so pissed, especially if you really think console gamers are looked down upon here and just wanted to speak up for them, because I was speaking up for Diku-based MMOGS in front of the community that coined the term "catass."

In short, you seem to be taking this awfully personally, and I meant nothing personal.  Either I've been unclear about that in the past, or you are transferring your anger at someone else to me.

[stray]

I don't really agree with the assertion that "if you don't like them now, then you never will".

I may not like them now, but I do see possibilities. They can be more.

The two main things that I see stopping that are 1) Many mmo and mud developers simply do not have the sensibilities of, for example, people who've been working in the console realm and 2) Many players are primarily playing for reasons other than gaming...In turn, the industry lacks the balls to make anything that doesn't cater to them.

[Sky]

The problem here is that PvP is only meaningful if a match hurts the loser and/or helps the winner.

Fuck meaningful. Fuck it right in it's big gappy anal canal.

Fun. Not meaningful. PvP is only good if it's fun for the winner and loser.

This 'achievement' and 'meaning' is what's shitting up mmo.

[littledude]

The problem here is that PvP is only meaningful if a match hurts the loser and/or helps the winner.

Fuck meaningful. Fuck it right in it's big gappy anal canal.

Fun. Not meaningful. PvP is only good if it's fun for the winner and loser.

This 'achievement' and 'meaning' is what's shitting up mmo.

Preach on Brother Sky!

 :-D

Whatever happened to sportsmanship and winning and loosing gracefully?  I sure didn't win every baseball game and knew that it was the fun of the game, not freaking that I rocked the other team with my homerun, or didn't get to upset when things just didn't go well (dropped the ball on and easy double play, or swung and missed on a big fat meatball...), so why the fuck does pvp have to be so fucked up in games?

[El Gallo]

I hear you Sky, but that isn't the mantra PvP advocates have been chanting around these parts for years.  I may be mishearing them, but they seem to want a Shadowbane that doesn't suck, not a laggier massively multiplayer Counterstrike.  Besides, I don't really see any point of having a persistent world PvP game where the players can never do anything with consequences.  Just play Counterstrike, it'd be more fun.  And cheaper.

[HaemishM]

Whatever happened to sportsmanship and winning and loosing gracefully? 

The Internet killed it, ate it and shat it out on a plate.

Meaningful PVP is such a loaded term, considering we are talking about games, which by definition have meaning mostly as entertainment. Some people can't have fun PVP without inflicting consequences on others, other people can't have meaningful PVP unless there are ladders and rankings and e-peen measurements.

If meaningful conflicts with fun for the majority of the audience you are trying to capture, it shouldn't be done. It's all about finding the desires of your target audience and hitting them, throwing away the stuff that draws people with conflicting desires into your game.

[Sky]

Some people can't have fun PVP without inflicting consequences on others, other people can't have meaningful PVP unless there are ladders and rankings and e-peen measurements.

Right. That's why I love pvp but don't play any pvp games. Planetside is the closest to my ideal by a longshot, in the mmo space, as we all know. It doesn't punish you for losing, beyond the tactical consequences (my old 'hook up your nuts to an electrode' mantra). Partly because exp/levels is really secondary and not much consequence to your power and there is no 'lootz'. Just grab a loadout and go have fun. Put in levels that affect the power differential and phat lootz and the game starts getting shitty.

But hey, I've long since resigned myself to never having a pvp game that I'll like, given the unpopularity of PS. I was shocked to hear SOE was working on another one. My likes rarely align with profitability. I'm not exactly the LCD and whatnot.

Besides, I don't really see any point of having a persistent world PvP game where the players can never do anything with consequences.

There are degrees. Planetside confers bonuses in a lot of ways, depending on what your empire has conquered. That's a great idea, and fleshes out some tactical objectives, which is crucial. BF1942 was great with that, making some CPs more important because they spawn a tank or what have you.

Let's not bring in the 'why not play CS' argument, it has no place in discussing mmo. Whether it be the persistant world, the scale of combat (in world size and amount of combatants), the lack of having to spend time searching for decent servers, the centralized administration...there's lots of reasons I prefer mmofps. If you don't get that, there's no use discussing it anyway, it's a waste of time, I've tried many times ;) You either 'get' Planetside or you play BF2 (or whatever). I'm cool with that.

[Hellinar]

I asked this in some other thread (don't remember which), but didn't get an answer.

Why are "non gamers" even playing games to begin with? What happened here? Were MMO's somehow seen as the successors to those shitty VRML chatrooms people used to use in the 90's?

My answer would be that your definition of “game” only covers what I think of as one particular class of game. That is, games in which the objective is to maximize your score. To win. That isn't the only possible game.  MMOGs like EQ were originally called MMORPGs. The “Role Play” part points to a quite different type of game, that of creating a story for your character. In a storytelling game, an optimized character winning every encounter is a failure. Usually a dramatic loss of an encounter  is at least as interesting as a dramatic win. If you are gaming purely to “win”, a character created to spin an interesting tale will look pretty bizarre.

I’d say I play MMORPGs for “Adventure”. And a good adventure has dramatic failures as well as successes. My characters in WoW are usually deliberately “gimped”, for good storytelling reasons. And otherwise, the game is too easy to be much of an adventure. I rarely group, at least at low levels (under 60). Most pickup groups I have been in have been ridiculous. Four or five characters that could almost solo the encounter. Great if you want to “win” for sure, but not much of a story.

One big divide in MMOGs is the balance between production and consumption as entertainment. I’ve been lurking on this board for a good while, and I think it is more slanted to consumption than production. You want to visit interesting places, not build interesting places. You want new encounters to beat, rather than weave the same encounter into six different character stories. I want MMORPGs to feed me interesting stuff too. But I also want them to be places I can do creative stuff as well.  The latter can get much more like a job though, so I can see the appeal of a pure "consumption" MMOG.

[voodoolily]

[
In short, you seem to be taking this awfully personally, and I meant nothing personal.  Either I've been unclear about that in the past, or you are transferring your anger at someone else to me.

Not you, silly!  Someone else had (has) been rude to me. I've never had any issues with you.

[HaemishM]

We are slanted towards consumption as opposed to creation because it's usually more fun. Building in MMOG's has so far sucked monkey balls.

[Hoax]

I dont see how the go play CS argument isn't at least partially valid.

*Italics are from Sky's post*

"Whether it be the persistant world" -- What is the point of persistence if the world just stays the same?  Why bother with persistence if all combat takes part in instances that do not interact with the world?

"The scale of combat (in world size and amount of combatants)" --  Again utterly meaningless, I've yet to see MMO combat other then SB that had even the meaning of the Boneyards Galatic War in Total Annihilation, hell even MPBattletech3050 was striving for meaning then every mainstream MMO other then SB has ever even come close to.  All they wanted to do was introduce supply lines, mech factories in certain systems that determined what mechs a faction could purchase and some bonus when a faction was defending their key systems.

Sure the scale you are mentioning can be quite immpressive, I will conceed that point to Planetside.  But I dont remember it ever being reflected in game tactics outside of hacker drops, AMS runs and hiding mobile spawn bases near the point of attack.  All of which were very cool things.  But just the tip of the iceberg wouldn't you hope?

"the lack of having to spend time searching for decent servers" -- This is a silly statement, somehow in a MMO where you can't join a server that boots all the asstards rigorously the asstards will disappear?

Again I'm not advocating for play to Crush, but wouldn't it be nice if in WoW they patched the look of Hillsbrad/SS to reflect the fact that it is a constant slaughter fest?  I'm talking more guards, ruined buildings, siege engines, new quests to supply npc troops etc.  EVEN THAT would be better then almost everything we've got currently.   A world that is merely a backdrop is not a world.  A MMO that is a single player adventure game with stupid npc's that fuck with you (known as players) and huge timesink grinds is not taking advantage of the unique aspects of the medium and that is annoying to me.

*edited* to add that Sky has a good point about scale of combat, although I feel that fps games are starting to ramp up the size/scale of battles more and more.

[Nebu]

I have to admit that I'm really torn here.  Planetside was a great game, but it got old really fast.  I also loved BF1942 and again, it got old really fast.  So here I am playing DAoC after 4 years.  Why?  Well, I've never had a toon get to obscene realm rank so my motivation isn't to pwn_with_impunity.  I just like the idea that with time I am able to purchase abilities as I progress.  I also like the fact that RvR is a sandbox.  I can defend a keep, I can help take a tower, or I can just roam around and gank people at random. I design my gameplay session.  Sometimes it's nice that I create my own objective (help the realm, scout the battle front, or just solo for rp's).

Maybe I'm one of those sick mmog bastards that likes pain.  I like the realm rank disparity.  I like the idea that if I go out into the realm as a low realm rank person that killing someone of higher realm rank is a challenge.  I like the fact that there are sometimes long odds in a fight.  For me, the game is in the challenge and not in the victory.  So much so that every toon I've gotten to RR8 or so has gotten shelved so that I can try another class and a new challenge.  I enjoy the diversity, I enjoy the disparity, and I even find enjoyment in the lack of balance.  When I beat someone that I'm not supposed to, it's like a mini victory.  DAoC has so many problems with the PvP system that, once you understand the mechanics, it actually becomes like a game difficulty setting.  I know which classes are hard mode and which are easy.  The only downfall is the horrific grind to the endgame.  Thankfully that got much better with the catacombs expansion (still more room to improve!).

Games are getting so linear and directed that the "sandbox" aspect is quickly vanishing.  Just give me a set of tools and let me make my own fun.  That's what I'm willing to pay for.  As mmog's go, ATitD showed glimpses of an incredible PvP sandbox game.  The funny thing is that most people had associated PvP with combat for so long that they failed to see PvP in a non-combat situation.  Players made the laws.  Players could obtain the ability to ban other players.  Passage of tests within the game was often coupled to competition between players... which sometimes crossed ethical boundaries.  Now, if Teppy could remove the horrific grind from ATitD, I think that would have been an incredible PvP experience, albeit a non-conventional one.

[Sky]

What is the point of persistence if the world just stays the same?  Why bother with persistence if all combat takes part in instances that do not interact with the world?

Conquering territory in PS confers some benefits. The world stays the same, sure. But if I'm Vanu on a continent dominated by NC, it's not the same world as when it's dominated by Vanu, eh? The point of persistance is that you have a persistant battle. The lines rage back and forth, the battlefield changes as continents get locked out. I find that preferable to GAME OVER MAP CHANGE. It's more gradual and visceral. Of course, one of my major gripes about PS is that it needs a better game world to play in.

I never mentioned instances. Instances are great for pve mmogs or arena-style combat, not large-scale war pvp with combined arms.

But I dont remember it ever being reflected in game tactics outside of hacker drops, AMS runs and hiding mobile spawn bases near the point of attack.  All of which were very cool things.  But just the tip of the iceberg wouldn't you hope?

Yes. I'll take that as agreement?

The PS reference wanes here, because I'm not a big fan of the way they implemented the world, but the ability to range between several conflicts and flank in meaningful ways shouldn't be brushed aside. Imagine having all the Middle East BF2 maps on one huge physical map, for instance (not instancing, :P).

This is a silly statement, somehow in a MMO where you can't join a server that boots all the asstards rigorously the asstards will disappear?

No, but in practice, yes. Whatever that meant, heh. Speaking from experience, I boot up BF2, peruse the server list for a low ping/high player server, log into a server. Some guy shoots me and jumps into a jet. I log out, peruse the server list for a low ping/high player server and log into a new server. Someone starts knifing me with his medic buddy reviving me, ad nauseum. I log out, peruse the server list for a low ping/high player server and log in. Server filled up. Peruse the server list for a low ping/high player server, well all qualifying servers (minus the last couple) are on maps I don't like. Jump on a higher ping server, rubberbandy, log out. Peruse the server list for a low ping/high player server...finally say fuck it and play Civ IV.

In Planetside, I log into my server, pick my character and start playing.

Another point that combines both of those points: there's always a battle that's easy to get into. As you say, why bother with instances (individual small servers) that don't interact with each other (central server like PS). Sure, there are multiple 'instances' in PS (the continents), but they are all connected within the game.

[Hoax]

Yes conquering territory in PS confers some minimal amount of world change.  But I'm saying a step can be taken that goes beyond a battle for static, almost completely uninfluenced by player fortress/bases.  Like those in DAOC and Planetside without the game automatically jumping to the other end of the spectrum where the winners become gods and the losers quit in dispair.  I mean have we all become so jaded in the less then 10 years MMO's have been on the radar to believe that it is just immpossible to do anything beyond:

PvE games with pvp on/off switches.
PvP games where the conflict can only have a minimal and reversible effect on the gameworld
PvE games

I hope not, I'm not ready to be that pessimistic about these games.  I mentioned instances because I really dont like them and they seem to be the bandaid de jour for game devs to avoid having to make meaningful gameworld altering play a possibility.

I'm sorry you have such a hard time with BF2 servers, I really question if you are aware of how to navigate fps communities?  As a rule there are only a handful of servers that are worth playing on for every FPS depending on your geographic location.  These servers will have the latest anti cheat programs running, a huge list of people with admin powers and will not hesistate to kick anyone for doing anything that they find stupid.  Now I will admit it can be frustrating on some levels to play on those types of servers.  Some of the people with admin powers will be dicks at times, and there is typically some favoritism and politics involved on the most popular servers (you'll often see random people kicked for no reason to open up a spot for someone who is a regular).  But those are the sacrifices one typically has to make to play against top tier players who are playing the game seriously and dont put up with any morons fucking up the game for everyone else.

[Krakrok]

Dashing around capturing flags in BF2 for 10 minutes and then resetting and doing it again is not the same as a full scale battle in Planetside.


My "meaningful PvP" agrument boils down to give us a weekly or daily storyline that is directed by which side wins/loses. Preferably daily. If the people over at 365tomorrows can publish a 1 page short story every day for an entire year you'd think game devs could get their shit togather and be able to do the same thing. And don't make us read it (though make it available). Provide it as some kind of voice over spoken radio communication while I'm playing.

And I don't entirely buy the "procedural maps suck" argument. FreeCiv, HoMM I/II/III, or even Warlords I/II/III have random map generators that work just fine. The devs could procedurally generate the next day's battleground and then manually tweak it.

All of this is in the context of a "game" MMO. A "world" MMO would be a different kettle of fish.

[stray]

I asked this in some other thread (don't remember which), but didn't get an answer.

Why are "non gamers" even playing games to begin with? What happened here? Were MMO's somehow seen as the successors to those shitty VRML chatrooms people used to use in the 90's?

My answer would be that your definition of “game” only covers what I think of as one particular class of game. That is, games in which the objective is to maximize your score. To win.

If you read my other posts in this thread, you'd see that I've said that only desiring to "win" is missing the forest for the trees. That's not a game. That's the slot machine mechanic. I give two shits about results -- It's process that I'm more concerned about.

[Hellinar]

If you read my other posts in this thread, you'd see that I've said that only desiring to "win" is missing the forest for the trees. That's not a game. That's the slot machine mechanic. I give two shits about results -- It's process that I'm more concerned about.

From a storytelling game point of view, I do care a lot about the results. A big win or a big loss is important to my characters story. But the moment to moment process of the encounter is not that significant to me. So I don’t find the “hit A to attack” mechanic too bothersome. I do like to have to respond a bit during an encounter though. My favorite classes are pet classes. With two characters to control there is potentially more tactical depth. There is also the possibility of almost “zero risk” play if you choose, and a dismaying number of Hunters in WoW do seem to chose that playstyle. Then the “game” becomes just accumulating stuff and levels efficiently. Real life is full enough of that already for me, so I don’t want to build my online time around it.

[Calantus]

Nah you guys missed the point of my post entirely. I wasn't talking about the general idea of MMOGs being wasteful, I was talking specifically about wasting time within an MMOG. I don't approach my rec time aggressively or professionally. My rec time is just free time and I'm perfectly willing to let it go its own way, I don't need to cram the most amount of fun in as little time as possible. So if I were to farm Tyr's hand for 3-4 hours a day for 5 days in a row to get my reroll his epic mount (for example...) then that's not time I really wasted. My time's not wasted if I "sit in an overcamped Guk waiting for the Sage to spawn every half-hour".

When I was gearing my shaman up with fire resistance for Rag I reset UBRS dozens and dozens of times carefully running up to the door, seeing if I could target a rare spawn, then assembling some guildies if I could. From over a dozen kills of him I saw it drop twice. Neither of them went to my shaman (both in normal runs so it wouldn't go auto to me... and the dice were not on my side), so she picked up an infernal headcage from Kazzak instead. My time was not wasted there either.

I know you guys are gonna rag on me for "defending MMOGs" but honestly I like that part of MMOGs. Like I said I have a lot of free time, and MMOGs fill that nicely. There's not enough good books in the world that are to my taste to fill my time with, nor enough good movies/shows, and there's a limit to how much pub crawling or dancing or w/e I can take before I don't wanna do any more (like eating chocolate... first few mouthfuls are nice, after that it's not so good :P). So basically for a lot of my rec time I'm looking for something to give me filler and hand me a reason to keep playing. If you're looking to cram as much fun into your day then yeah I can see how you might not like the current model.

[HaemishM]

That's the problem with MMOG's. The main audience is made up of people who have so little free time that they HAVE to pack as much fun as they can into what time they can find. Time becomes a rare commodity to someone with a 9-5, significant other and/or pets/kids.

[penfold]

What I like about MMOGs these days is a nearly fully equipped max level character with extensive travel abilities, dungeon crawling, raids and pvp. The time i was given a 60 with tons of AA and ran around doing planes of power raids for a while was fun for while.

What I dont like about MMOGs is that bit in between installing it and the above. I've done it enough times i simply refuse to do it any more. So I dont play any, and aren't interested in any next gen ones at all. Something akin to a team fortress server would be interesting perhaps, i like a big world to run around in like mmogs offer.

[Sunbury]

What I like about MMOGs is starting from scratch, without twinking, without reading everything about the game ahead of time.  I like scraping up every copper to learn the next skill or buy the next weapon.   I like learning the area, swatting the rats, working the quests.  Then leveling and trying out a new skill / spell to see how it works, and moving on to the next quest and region.

I don't mind grouping if parts the the game are designed for it, as long as its not too many of the parts.

Instance dungeons and PvP battlegrounds are OK, but I'm only going to do each once or twice for any given character.   I don't fight in some lowbie cave for 10 sessions, why would I go into a raid instance for 10 sessions, or a PvP battleground?

As soon as a character hits the level cap, I retire them and start over with a new one.  I see no point to just keep playing it, unless there is new content to see, mobs to kill or places to explore that requires that level.   But if those mobs or places requires me to replay some content 10 times, then I won't bother.

That's why I'm still playing WoW after 11 months.  The classes / quests / areas are varied enough to keep me interested, and the progression is fast enough to avoid the 10x rule.

That's why I finished playing, say Planetside, in beta.  I had preorded, but cancelled, because I 'finsihed' it.  I  had played every faction, fought on every continent with every vehicle, was in many small skirmishes, and major assaults / defenses.   I couldn't think of anything new to see or try.

[Glazius]

What?

Uh, after I failed the capper (or possibly middle mission, I don't know) for an arc from Dmitri Russianov or whoever in Cap Au Diable, he went right back to giving me his next story arc involving his old creations and the Spetsnaz.

I was specifically referring to the Ghost Widow/Wretch story arc.

Having just played that yesterday - the Wretch mission is the capper to the arc, and the only failable mission, and the last mission that contact has to offer. I suspect like Veluta Lunata she's a one-note contact, with just that storyarc on offer.

CoH did this originally with the very last Malta arc, where you have to stop a giant robot from destroying the War Walls, only to get to it you have to run through a burning forest of Malta operatives under a time limit. If you couldn't stop the robot you don't get the arc-complete bonus and your souvenir for the arc is slightly different.

CoV is just throwing this in a lot earlier.

--GF

Also, writing++ on that one. In addition to one of the few cutscenes I've seen, the clues and all the contact banter were worth reading. CoV's contacts took a lesson from the focused ones in CoH and amped up the personality. (Calling back to a contact when you're working on a mission of theirs can result in some very amusing, or very touching, update text.)