Well currently, the mmo genre is bogged down. Main reason being that WoW is the model that MMOs often try to use. Sure there was EQ before WoW and some other games. But Blizzard brought MMOs into popularity (rather that is my opinion). WoW is not a horrible model to follow. But we the gamers are complacent, ~10 years of WoW and with all the innovations that there has been in technology essentially every MMO after WoW has followed at least 3 main tenants.
1. Grinding- The need to go out and complete quests so you can gain levels which then allows you more skills/talents/items. This grinding at times has nothing to do with any greater storyline, other times it does.
2. Scale- Most MMOs I know of are HUGE, I'm sure WoW is not the LARGEST anymore, but with in game travel using flight points taking sometimes 10-20 minutes or more the idea is that you're in an actual world/universe.
3. Customization- From your nose to your toes, the ability to advance your appearance as you advance your level, with gear, enchants, and even in game shops that let you change your initial appearance. MMOs typically attempt to make you feel bad *** by looking bad ***.
The reason MMOs often take at least these 3 ideas (im sure some MMOs havent, but I havent heard of them) is due to the idea that they (probably) want to keep you paying for as long as possible, but also that once you hit the actual "end" you feel a sense of accomplishment.
If a MMO offered you "end game" out of the box, then what's the point of playing? There's no motivation. No reason to play if all you're doing is creating a character, making em look cool, then running around all bad ***. That's essentially Prototype 2 (which I enjoyed) it's not an MMO but within the first hour of playing I already had a pair of abilities I thoroughly enjoyed and were effective for me killing enemies and completing missions, The reason I was urged on to continue playing was due to the story (not AMAZING by any means but enough to keep me enthralled).
The issue for an MMO providing a storyline is that you possibly have millions of people playing. Essentially an impossible system to tailor-make a story line for EACH person. How did Blizzard resolve this? Simple, offer the same dramatic storyline to each side, the Horde, and Alliance, but rather than make them enemies at all sides, provide KEY events at which they work together to defeat a common enemy. Or something to that affect.
IF MMOs want to stay strong, then the company behind them needs to offer a new type of MMO, rather they need to take the WoW mold and make it stronger/newer/less archaic.
1. Grinding- The need to go out and complete quests so you can gain levels which then allows you more skills/talents/items. This grinding at times has nothing to do with any greater storyline, other times it does.
2. Scale- Most MMOs I know of are HUGE, I'm sure WoW is not the LARGEST anymore, but with in game travel using flight points taking sometimes 10-20 minutes or more the idea is that you're in an actual world/universe.
3. Customization- From your nose to your toes, the ability to advance your appearance as you advance your level, with gear, enchants, and even in game shops that let you change your initial appearance. MMOs typically attempt to make you feel bad *** by looking bad ***.
The reason MMOs often take at least these 3 ideas (im sure some MMOs havent, but I havent heard of them) is due to the idea that they (probably) want to keep you paying for as long as possible, but also that once you hit the actual "end" you feel a sense of accomplishment.
If a MMO offered you "end game" out of the box, then what's the point of playing? There's no motivation. No reason to play if all you're doing is creating a character, making em look cool, then running around all bad ***. That's essentially Prototype 2 (which I enjoyed) it's not an MMO but within the first hour of playing I already had a pair of abilities I thoroughly enjoyed and were effective for me killing enemies and completing missions, The reason I was urged on to continue playing was due to the story (not AMAZING by any means but enough to keep me enthralled).
The issue for an MMO providing a storyline is that you possibly have millions of people playing. Essentially an impossible system to tailor-make a story line for EACH person. How did Blizzard resolve this? Simple, offer the same dramatic storyline to each side, the Horde, and Alliance, but rather than make them enemies at all sides, provide KEY events at which they work together to defeat a common enemy. Or something to that affect.
IF MMOs want to stay strong, then the company behind them needs to offer a new type of MMO, rather they need to take the WoW mold and make it stronger/newer/less archaic.
caucheka wrote:
on a related note, battlefield 3s next dlc features maps inspired by call of duty, and by that i mean extremely small tight indoor quarters to feature 'fast frantic gameplay.'
Do you even play the game on a decent enough level to claim this? And please, don't give me "Caucheca's Collected Works of Hate Towards EA" as an answer. A simple yes or no will suffice :)
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@Luther
You're joking, right? You're blaming SWTOR's downfall on the made up fact that it's impossible for MMORPG's to have memorable characters? That's the most idiotic statement I've ever seen. I'm still surprised even though it's coming from you. MMORPG's do have memorable characters, that was never the problem. Arthas Menethil, Illidan Stormrage, Thrall, Malfurion, etc. are some of the most memorable characters in any game I've played. It's complete asinine to say otherwise. SWTOR and GW2 also follow this example, the characters are memorable. That was never the problem to begin with.
@Fridge
What you said only proves my point. Yes, you've spent hours doing that, but hours mean nothing. The only reason those servers can stay afloat is because there are tons of people playing just hours on them, so they keep refreshing their player base. It sucks. Go to a real server and see how many people have spent thousands of hours playing that character consistently over the last few years. It's simply on a completely different scale.
@JEFFY
Try Guild Wars 2. They pretty much fixed every single issue you just stated.
@Scrax
I don't see any harm in it.. What's the problem of adding some variety to the game? Isn't that an improvement?
Also, BF > CoD
You're joking, right? You're blaming SWTOR's downfall on the made up fact that it's impossible for MMORPG's to have memorable characters? That's the most idiotic statement I've ever seen. I'm still surprised even though it's coming from you. MMORPG's do have memorable characters, that was never the problem. Arthas Menethil, Illidan Stormrage, Thrall, Malfurion, etc. are some of the most memorable characters in any game I've played. It's complete asinine to say otherwise. SWTOR and GW2 also follow this example, the characters are memorable. That was never the problem to begin with.
@Fridge
What you said only proves my point. Yes, you've spent hours doing that, but hours mean nothing. The only reason those servers can stay afloat is because there are tons of people playing just hours on them, so they keep refreshing their player base. It sucks. Go to a real server and see how many people have spent thousands of hours playing that character consistently over the last few years. It's simply on a completely different scale.
@JEFFY
Try Guild Wars 2. They pretty much fixed every single issue you just stated.
@Scrax
I don't see any harm in it.. What's the problem of adding some variety to the game? Isn't that an improvement?
Also, BF > CoD
Canoas wrote:
@Luther
You're joking, right? You're blaming SWTOR's downfall on the made up fact that it's impossible for MMORPG's to have memorable characters? That's the most idiotic statement I've ever seen. I'm still surprised even though it's coming from you. MMORPG's do have memorable characters, that was never the problem. Arthas Menethil, Illidan Stormrage, Thrall, Malfurion, etc. are some of the most memorable characters in any game I've played. It's complete asinine to say otherwise. SWTOR and GW2 also follow this example, the characters are memorable. That was never the problem to begin with.
Considering you say this every time you talk to me or anyone else I'm not terribly surprised. I played WoW and I only know who any of those characters are because I looked them up on the wiki after hearing the names and realizing I had no idea who the **** they were. Not even gonna bother going any further with this one.
battlefield 3 has 3 planned map packs, the first of which features maps similar to call of duty, small enclosed spaces where you run around in circles.
how thats not becoming more like cod is beyond me. out of the other 2 maps packs coming i know one is focusing on tanks.
not only that, but if it was up to dice, the map packs would all be free.
how thats not becoming more like cod is beyond me. out of the other 2 maps packs coming i know one is focusing on tanks.
not only that, but if it was up to dice, the map packs would all be free.
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
I'll believe it when I see it Canoas. Considering GW2 isn't out yet, if I got in on the beta I could comment but I didn't. I did however try Tera, and I enjoyed it. Needs more variety and a bit more depth in terms of race differences....But all in all it felt refreshing. As well I don't think I said the 3 tenants were anything bad, simply need to be improved upon.
And CoD is fine, is it anything new since MW1? Not really, but for a "frantic, close quarters" style shooter that has MEDIUM range engagements throughout in their multiplayer (depending on map) it serves its purpose. BF3 does a great job of providing scale to the fight, and the idea that team-work will prevail, opposed to one person running the show. Honestly comparing CoD to BF is like comparing Apples to Oranges. Sure they are both shooters, but one is ENTIRELY focused around map based objectives as its core mechanic which promotes team work, the other promotes high end twitch skills, and lets the soldier win the war.
You can TRY to compare them and say which is better, but it's like LoL where you can't compare an AP burst caster to a DPS caster. They look the same but play relatively different.
EDIT: But who cares about that stuff? I mean Ghost Recon Future Soldier is around the corner...That alone makes me care about this conversation a full 50% less.
And CoD is fine, is it anything new since MW1? Not really, but for a "frantic, close quarters" style shooter that has MEDIUM range engagements throughout in their multiplayer (depending on map) it serves its purpose. BF3 does a great job of providing scale to the fight, and the idea that team-work will prevail, opposed to one person running the show. Honestly comparing CoD to BF is like comparing Apples to Oranges. Sure they are both shooters, but one is ENTIRELY focused around map based objectives as its core mechanic which promotes team work, the other promotes high end twitch skills, and lets the soldier win the war.
You can TRY to compare them and say which is better, but it's like LoL where you can't compare an AP burst caster to a DPS caster. They look the same but play relatively different.
EDIT: But who cares about that stuff? I mean Ghost Recon Future Soldier is around the corner...That alone makes me care about this conversation a full 50% less.
Canoas wrote:
@Luther
You're joking, right? You're blaming SWTOR's downfall on the made up fact that it's impossible for MMORPG's to have memorable characters? That's the most idiotic statement I've ever seen. I'm still surprised even though it's coming from you. MMORPG's do have memorable characters, that was never the problem. Arthas Menethil, Illidan Stormrage, Thrall, Malfurion, etc. are some of the most memorable characters in any game I've played. It's complete asinine to say otherwise. SWTOR and GW2 also follow this example, the characters are memorable. That was never the problem to begin with.
but all those characters were in wc3, and you already knew and understood character and their motivation before wow.
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
You need to log in before commenting.
@FridgeOy
you can't pirate online games.. Even if you get the client where the hell will you play it? Given enough time someone will open a pirate server, but the gameplay quality of a pirate server usually cannot match the original server.
I don't think f2p is a viable option for an mmo, so I will never ever dedicate time to a f2p MMO. The production quality of f2p mmos is just too low, it doesn't generate enough money to make a good game. They're simply not worth playing.
I disagree with you here. Pirate servers offer a lot of fun gameplay elements that would not be allowed on the original servers. You can get ridiculous stats and armor upgrades and just go around fu**ing with the game world. I've spent hours doing this.
I can see why f2p mmo's wouldn't work, but p2p games like KOTOR is a complete failure. And I can sense that the upcoming Elder Scrolls Online will be terrible as well.