Thursday's hurt my brain

[Rasix]

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.

[WayAbvPar]

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.

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.

[El Gallo]

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.

[sergex]

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

[Sloth]

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.

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

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

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.

[Sloth]

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.

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.

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

[Sloth]

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

[Sloth]

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

[Sloth]

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.

[koboshi]

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?

That there are other options so we do not have to settle for EQ.
 

Unless you are going to make it yourself?

I plan to if given the opportunity.

I know you THINK they can be much better, but why do you think that?

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.

What do you base that analysis on ?

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

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.

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!”

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

That’s what I said.

[Foix]

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.

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.

[El Gallo]

For the most part, we know what we want to see in future games .

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

[Foix]

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.

[El Gallo]

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.

[HaemishM]

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 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.

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 ?

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.

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?

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.

This is the genre. Is it perfect? No, there's enormous amounts of room for refinements and polish.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Daeven]

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.

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.

[Daeven]

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.

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

Get the fuck out of my head damn it.

[Sloth]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sloth]

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.

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.

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.

[Rasix]

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.

[Sloth]

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.

[Daeven]

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.

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.

[Sloth]

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.

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

[Daeven]

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.*

[Rodent]

You cannot tell me (though I'm sure you'll try SirBrucey style) that Splinter Cell is just System Shock with a shinier wrapper.

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.

[Sloth]

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.

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?

[Sloth]

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.*

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.

[Riley]

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.

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).

[Jain Zar]

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.

[HaemishM]

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."