MMORPG madness!
- Thread starter Dark Jezter
- Start date
John Crichton
First Post
The only things not included in the original release will be the starship combat which had to be pushed back. There are a few more other minor things that are being pushed back but they are still being developed and tested and have been promised to be included in the game after launch. But I can tell you that the game still has the majority of its original promised features. And it is quite fun.
Last edited:
Lazybones
Adventurer
I don't really play MMORPGs, so I can't really comment on how fun or not-fun they are. Personally I'm opposed to pay-as-you pay when there are free alternatives out there. I considered buying Planetside, for example, but finally decided to stick with Battlefield 1942 for my FPS fix, despite the problems that game has.
However, it does seem like a pattern is repeating itself here. Each genre of PC game, it seems, has a break-out title or two that really popularizes the genre, leading to a massive explosion of "me-too" games that ultimately saturate the market. We saw it with the Doom/Quake clones in the FPS genre. We saw it with the umpteen RTS games that followed the success of the initial Command and Conquer series. Sure, there is innovation--look at how games like Deus Ex and Jedi Knight took the FPS experience to new levels, and how Age of Empires and Starcraft re-explored the RTS landscape. But for every innovative title there seems to be dozens more that just repeat the same basic game experience over and over again.
The latest issue of PC Gamer has an article about the bourgeoning MMORPG market. Apparently there's some one hundred and seventeen MMORPGs either in the release pipeline or under development. How these publishers expect all of these titles to find market share is beyond me.
I don't mind having a lot of choices to choose from, and I know there will always be cheap copies of the latest fashions to sort through. I just wish that more developers would encourage innovation (I know, I know, that means more risk, and we're talking about businesses here). Looking back over the last six months or so, of the scores of titles that have been released, I don't see all that many creative and new releases like Freedom Force, or Neverwinter Nights, Battlefield 1942... or even Vice City (which I haven't bought, but which is definitely pushing the envelope!). Instead when I go to the store I see a hundred re-takes on what's already come before.
Ah well, capitalism.
However, it does seem like a pattern is repeating itself here. Each genre of PC game, it seems, has a break-out title or two that really popularizes the genre, leading to a massive explosion of "me-too" games that ultimately saturate the market. We saw it with the Doom/Quake clones in the FPS genre. We saw it with the umpteen RTS games that followed the success of the initial Command and Conquer series. Sure, there is innovation--look at how games like Deus Ex and Jedi Knight took the FPS experience to new levels, and how Age of Empires and Starcraft re-explored the RTS landscape. But for every innovative title there seems to be dozens more that just repeat the same basic game experience over and over again.
The latest issue of PC Gamer has an article about the bourgeoning MMORPG market. Apparently there's some one hundred and seventeen MMORPGs either in the release pipeline or under development. How these publishers expect all of these titles to find market share is beyond me.
I don't mind having a lot of choices to choose from, and I know there will always be cheap copies of the latest fashions to sort through. I just wish that more developers would encourage innovation (I know, I know, that means more risk, and we're talking about businesses here). Looking back over the last six months or so, of the scores of titles that have been released, I don't see all that many creative and new releases like Freedom Force, or Neverwinter Nights, Battlefield 1942... or even Vice City (which I haven't bought, but which is definitely pushing the envelope!). Instead when I go to the store I see a hundred re-takes on what's already come before.
Ah well, capitalism.
Destil
Explorer
Re: My thoughts
Personally, I'm waiting for Simutronics to do a 3d mud and show everyone else how it's done... too bad Hero's Journey has been nothing beyond vaporwear for nearly 4 years now.
The project was killed because the dev team had a lot of radical ideas in order to hold true to the spirit of Middle Earth (perminet death, limiting the number of PC elves et cetera). I'm a long time fan of both the MUD genra and Tolkien, but I have low expetations for this one simply because I liked what I had seen in the previous attempt, and I'm guessing the dev team will need to intentally stay away from many of many of the ideas that got the first one cancled.Dreeble said:
Personally, I'm waiting for Simutronics to do a 3d mud and show everyone else how it's done... too bad Hero's Journey has been nothing beyond vaporwear for nearly 4 years now.
rushlight
Roll for Initiative!
As a former fan of MMORPGs, I've been waiting for something new to recapture my attention. I've done beta for several games, most of which never really went anywhere (like MS's Allegiance, and InterAdventure's Hostile Space) and one that did well, Origin's Ultima Online. I've also played several of the second generation games, like EQ and AC. I've also seen some of the free ones, like 4th Age.
Anyway, I've yet to experience a game as cool, interesting, exciting, and fun as UO in the first year and a half. All MMORPGs now (including UO which I still dabble with) fail miserably in my opinion. The first reason I can see is that the "new" has worn off, and there's not much left to try. That reason pales in comparison to the main reason why I don't like any of the new MMORPGs: they are designed for the largest market segment: the Lowest Common Denominator.
Of course, this is in the Company's best interest, since that's who has most of the money. Unfortunatly, these are also the people who have wildly divergent ideas on what is "fun", and cry wildly if their concept isn't implemented. Like any large, decision-making body, the loudest almost always get their way, as opposed to those with perhaps better ideas.
Once Origins sold out to EA, things went drastically downhill. By that time, EQ was doing well, sucking up most of the LCD availiable with superb graphics, mediocre gameplay, and deplorable everything else. So EA figured that abandoning everything that got them where they are and copying what EQ was doing seemed like a better idea. Now there's little difference between the two.
Just for those who weren't around then, here's some of the things that made UO (in the beginning) great:
1) Dynamic Environment. The monsters (and even wildlife) didn't just spawn at a spot and stand there waiting for you to come by and kill it. Each creature had a preferred environment, and foodsource. They would actively seek both. If "humans" was on the food list, watch out! Wolves would seek and kill sheep and deer. Monsters would do the same.
2) Dynamic Resources. Only specific amounts of resources would be available in a region. (There were many regions.) When the amount of resources exceeded the limit, no more would spawn. You would need to seek out those hidden resources in order to find them, and those areas could be very profitable if you could protect their location.
The above two were designed in order to simulate an very basic economy. It worked reasonably well.
3) Secure areas, and dangerous areas. You could play the game all day and never leave town. Or, if you were "adventerous" you could venture out of the safety of town and risk danger for profits! Or, you could forsake the pleasures and conveniences of town for the life-or-death path of the Outlaw. Basically surviving by banditry and murder. Of course, you'd likely draw the ire of those good folk, and get hunted down. Risk was always present when large rewards were possible.
4) You didn't have to be a fighter. You could play the game (and do well) as a craftsman. Smithy, mining, carpentry, fishing, and many other tradeskills were available, and usually desired. These skills could be done in the town, or in your private residence. All could be profitable over time, as well as relatively safe. Of course, you'd need to have some guys around sometimes for protection, but that's what all your money is for...
The first three were changed to make the game less difficult, and to reduce the "risk" involved in the game. The LCD folks don't like to lose, and since they can't go download a trainer or enter in a few "godmode" passwords, they start to complain. Loudly. They don't want any danger in their game. They want everything available NOW, without any effort or learning on their part. They don't understand that the effort put into the game grants magnified rewards once you succeed. They whine that they worked all day for whatever, and some PK came by and killed them and took their stuff. They fail to understand that it was the DANGER of the PK that made their gold valuable in the first place. once gold is available just by clicking around a few times, it loses it's intrinsic value. Its just more meaningless data on a server. You didn't "Barely escape the clutches of evil bandits just after taking down a dragon deep in the Dungeon!" You just "camped another spawn." Yawn. No danger = no excitement.
EQ presents no real danger to a player, and UO doesn't either anymore. Nor does AC or DaOC. Unfortunatly, the success of those projects creates an easy path for new projects to follow, since these are guided by managers, not gamers by the most part. They see what is profitable, what minor details can be changed to differentiate themselves, and how soon the marketing can begin. Everything else is just minor details. I've followed the MMORPG community for quite a while, and this is a sad commentary.
What I'm waiting for is a game that puts the danger, and thus the excitement, back into a game. Many have tried just creating a combat environment, but that doesn't cut it. (But thankfully, Shadowbane took most of the thugs and punks out of the market. It comes as no suprise to me that they got hacked. That's the segment they went looking for.) A pointless combat zone in DaOC doesn't really equate to danger. I've got no personal investment, so if I die I really don't care. It's like playing an FPS game, only really slow, and really laggy. Horizons had some good ideas, and I really will take a good look at that if it ever comes to be, but other than that, I see no hope in the current or future crop of MMORPGs. They are all designed to be EQ knock-offs, in hopes of being a hit. What these game producers fail to understand is that there are ALREADY games out there designed for the LCD. There are many more people who want an intellegent, risky, rewarding, fun game, and are willing to pay for it. We've got enough pellet despensing, spawn camping, robotic games already. Where are the games for smart people??
Anyway, I've yet to experience a game as cool, interesting, exciting, and fun as UO in the first year and a half. All MMORPGs now (including UO which I still dabble with) fail miserably in my opinion. The first reason I can see is that the "new" has worn off, and there's not much left to try. That reason pales in comparison to the main reason why I don't like any of the new MMORPGs: they are designed for the largest market segment: the Lowest Common Denominator.
Of course, this is in the Company's best interest, since that's who has most of the money. Unfortunatly, these are also the people who have wildly divergent ideas on what is "fun", and cry wildly if their concept isn't implemented. Like any large, decision-making body, the loudest almost always get their way, as opposed to those with perhaps better ideas.
Once Origins sold out to EA, things went drastically downhill. By that time, EQ was doing well, sucking up most of the LCD availiable with superb graphics, mediocre gameplay, and deplorable everything else. So EA figured that abandoning everything that got them where they are and copying what EQ was doing seemed like a better idea. Now there's little difference between the two.
Just for those who weren't around then, here's some of the things that made UO (in the beginning) great:
1) Dynamic Environment. The monsters (and even wildlife) didn't just spawn at a spot and stand there waiting for you to come by and kill it. Each creature had a preferred environment, and foodsource. They would actively seek both. If "humans" was on the food list, watch out! Wolves would seek and kill sheep and deer. Monsters would do the same.
2) Dynamic Resources. Only specific amounts of resources would be available in a region. (There were many regions.) When the amount of resources exceeded the limit, no more would spawn. You would need to seek out those hidden resources in order to find them, and those areas could be very profitable if you could protect their location.
The above two were designed in order to simulate an very basic economy. It worked reasonably well.
3) Secure areas, and dangerous areas. You could play the game all day and never leave town. Or, if you were "adventerous" you could venture out of the safety of town and risk danger for profits! Or, you could forsake the pleasures and conveniences of town for the life-or-death path of the Outlaw. Basically surviving by banditry and murder. Of course, you'd likely draw the ire of those good folk, and get hunted down. Risk was always present when large rewards were possible.
4) You didn't have to be a fighter. You could play the game (and do well) as a craftsman. Smithy, mining, carpentry, fishing, and many other tradeskills were available, and usually desired. These skills could be done in the town, or in your private residence. All could be profitable over time, as well as relatively safe. Of course, you'd need to have some guys around sometimes for protection, but that's what all your money is for...
The first three were changed to make the game less difficult, and to reduce the "risk" involved in the game. The LCD folks don't like to lose, and since they can't go download a trainer or enter in a few "godmode" passwords, they start to complain. Loudly. They don't want any danger in their game. They want everything available NOW, without any effort or learning on their part. They don't understand that the effort put into the game grants magnified rewards once you succeed. They whine that they worked all day for whatever, and some PK came by and killed them and took their stuff. They fail to understand that it was the DANGER of the PK that made their gold valuable in the first place. once gold is available just by clicking around a few times, it loses it's intrinsic value. Its just more meaningless data on a server. You didn't "Barely escape the clutches of evil bandits just after taking down a dragon deep in the Dungeon!" You just "camped another spawn." Yawn. No danger = no excitement.
EQ presents no real danger to a player, and UO doesn't either anymore. Nor does AC or DaOC. Unfortunatly, the success of those projects creates an easy path for new projects to follow, since these are guided by managers, not gamers by the most part. They see what is profitable, what minor details can be changed to differentiate themselves, and how soon the marketing can begin. Everything else is just minor details. I've followed the MMORPG community for quite a while, and this is a sad commentary.
What I'm waiting for is a game that puts the danger, and thus the excitement, back into a game. Many have tried just creating a combat environment, but that doesn't cut it. (But thankfully, Shadowbane took most of the thugs and punks out of the market. It comes as no suprise to me that they got hacked. That's the segment they went looking for.) A pointless combat zone in DaOC doesn't really equate to danger. I've got no personal investment, so if I die I really don't care. It's like playing an FPS game, only really slow, and really laggy. Horizons had some good ideas, and I really will take a good look at that if it ever comes to be, but other than that, I see no hope in the current or future crop of MMORPGs. They are all designed to be EQ knock-offs, in hopes of being a hit. What these game producers fail to understand is that there are ALREADY games out there designed for the LCD. There are many more people who want an intellegent, risky, rewarding, fun game, and are willing to pay for it. We've got enough pellet despensing, spawn camping, robotic games already. Where are the games for smart people??
zug_zug
First Post
Im a little biased 
, but I am definetly looking forward to World of Warcraft. It is a great property and is being dev'd by a company with a solid rep for making good games. Im unsure if Blizz will revolutionize the genre, but I hope theyll revitailize and tweak it to make it fun and not a level treadmill exercise. For me(and Im in the minority it seems amongst the MMORPGs Ive played) the journey is more fun than the destination, and I dont want to powerlevel. I want to go on quests explore and have fun.
My only fear is that Blizzard, who obviously know they make great products will be the first t charge more since theirs wil be a next generation game. Instead of the current 12.95 a month which is normal, I fear they will bump it to say 14-15 range. I mean Warcraft 3 came out with a MSRP of 54.95 if I remember correctly.
To change the subject I dont know how the market can support all these new online games. I have played just about everything out there and they all seem to suffer from a kind of "me-too"-ness. I know game companies look at these things as a way to generate income, but man some of these have to die off or have to be vaporware. I just doesnt seem possible that there would be enough players to support all these games.
I dunno maybe the next generation (WoW, SW galaxies, EQ 2) will change the "paradigm" of what an online rpg is.
, but I am definetly looking forward to World of Warcraft. It is a great property and is being dev'd by a company with a solid rep for making good games. Im unsure if Blizz will revolutionize the genre, but I hope theyll revitailize and tweak it to make it fun and not a level treadmill exercise. For me(and Im in the minority it seems amongst the MMORPGs Ive played) the journey is more fun than the destination, and I dont want to powerlevel. I want to go on quests explore and have fun.My only fear is that Blizzard, who obviously know they make great products will be the first t charge more since theirs wil be a next generation game. Instead of the current 12.95 a month which is normal, I fear they will bump it to say 14-15 range. I mean Warcraft 3 came out with a MSRP of 54.95 if I remember correctly.
To change the subject I dont know how the market can support all these new online games. I have played just about everything out there and they all seem to suffer from a kind of "me-too"-ness. I know game companies look at these things as a way to generate income, but man some of these have to die off or have to be vaporware. I just doesnt seem possible that there would be enough players to support all these games.
I dunno maybe the next generation (WoW, SW galaxies, EQ 2) will change the "paradigm" of what an online rpg is.
Heya:
I don't think the market can support "all" the new games, but I do think it can support more. The bad games will fail (as I think some have already), the poorly thought out games will fail (as Sims Online will), the niche games will get by (Jumpgate, for example), and the "good" games (EQ2, SWG, WoW) will do well (although I doubt any will ever match EQ's success).
If a Middle Earth Online is ever released, sure I'll give it a shot. If it's fun, I'll continue playing it. If I'm already playing WoW and it, too, is fun, hey, I'll play both.
I think there are a significant number of folks with a similar attitude.
I didn't mention Lineage, of course. How many folks here are aware that Lineage has (or had?) the biggest number? Pretty amazing.
Take care,
Dreeble
I don't think the market can support "all" the new games, but I do think it can support more. The bad games will fail (as I think some have already), the poorly thought out games will fail (as Sims Online will), the niche games will get by (Jumpgate, for example), and the "good" games (EQ2, SWG, WoW) will do well (although I doubt any will ever match EQ's success).
If a Middle Earth Online is ever released, sure I'll give it a shot. If it's fun, I'll continue playing it. If I'm already playing WoW and it, too, is fun, hey, I'll play both.
I think there are a significant number of folks with a similar attitude.I didn't mention Lineage, of course. How many folks here are aware that Lineage has (or had?) the biggest number? Pretty amazing.
Take care,
Dreeble
Shard O'Glase
First Post
At E3 the winne for best morpg is City of Hero's. I hadn't even heard of it until then. Aparently a super hero mmorpg is in the making. Very cool idea IMO, we'll see how it pans out a year or two from now.
Similar Threads
D&D General
D&D 2024 does not deserve to succeed
