Year in MMORPGs Reviewed

Morpugs... by Omroth · 2004-12-20 06:44 · Score: 0, Insightful

...are bad for you.

Multi-mode games? by BumbaCLot · 2004-12-20 06:48 · Score: 1, Interesting

I played Earth and Beyond, it was my first MMORPG (Galaxies was my second), and I really liked the inside-space ship vs character walking around in a spaceport modes. Eve I saw you did not have the freedom to get out of your ship, you were just a picture inside of your interface. I know SWG has ships now that I no longer play it but are there any other games where you have a ship for most of the game and can walk around outside of it for the other times?

Re:Multi-mode games? by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2004-12-20 07:09 · Score: 0, Offtopic

How is this a troll and the post before it insightful?

Do people even read the comments they moderate?

--
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Re:Multi-mode games? by realdpk · 2004-12-20 07:59 · Score: 1

Planetside might be considered like that, although it's not a MMORPG. You have the freedom to get around any way you want, including in vehicles.

Earth and Beyond's was nice, but it would have been nicer if you were able to do more stuff when you were out of your ship. IE if there was a whole other "game world" to explore on foot.

As much as the game was a flop, primarily (IMO) due to it having no in-game tutorial, poor controls, and a producer with a self-bought PhD, and the game was not a MMORPG or MMO anything, Universal Combat could be looked to as an inspiration towards a PvE (player vs. environment) MMO with multiple "modes" of operation.
Re:Multi-mode games? by BumbaCLot · 2004-12-20 08:28 · Score: 1

I know SWG has 'mounts' and I have not really looked into how its Space Expansion's ships are docked etc.. but I did like in E&B how you could be identified by others by your ship hanging out in space. I only played EVE in the beta, so I don't have a full grasp of what different ships looked like or how you identify people other than clicking on them, but I will always like space type MMORPGs that allow you to have customizable and recognizable ships that could inspire fear or well-being. Being under attack and seeing a long time friend where you happened to warp to etc.. and knowing they have your back.

Many new games, none of them really new. by Golias · 2004-12-20 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I enjoyed City of Heroes for a while, because I liked the genre, but it still ended up being "Everquest in tights." One oddity of CoH was that, like most MMORPGs, it gave no experience or rewards for defeating low-level opponents with a high-level character, so you ended up having hundreds of "heroes" in mighty-looking capes casually jogging by as old ladies getting mugged were screaming for help.

I now play World of Warcraft for the simple reason that most of my friends who play such games are playing WoW, and I would rather game with them than a bunch of strangers. There seem to be a lot of nice evolutionary touches, but it's still really just a new skin on the same old Nethack.

I'm still waiting to see what the "next big thing" in MMORPGs will be. I don't see much evidence that the answer is coming in 2005.

Then again, I'm one of those jerks who sits down at just about every single mouse-controled FPS deathmatch game, frags a few people, and says "meh... I played this game already, back when it was called Quake."

--

Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

Re:Many new games, none of them really new. by hal2814 · 2004-12-20 08:36 · Score: 1

"I played this game already, back when it was called Quake."

Silly youngster. I played Quake back when it was called Rise of the Triad.

Seriously though, I'm sot so sure there will be a "next big thing" in this genre any time soon. Enough people seem to be content with the current model to keep it going as is.
Re:Many new games, none of them really new. by Golias · 2004-12-20 08:59 · Score: 1

Silly youngster. I played Quake back when it was called Rise of the Triad.

First of all, I'm probably older than you, whippersnapper.

Quake was a revolution over previous shooters in that the mouse-targeting 3D engine provided a fluid full range of movement.

Keyboard-driven "2.5D" deathmatch games like Doom, Marathon, etc., had a whole different feel to them. Playing quake after playing those games was such a dramatic difference it was like getting out of a wheelchair for the first time and then sprinting up and down stairs. I didn't even care for shooters until Quake came out.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Many new games, none of them really new. by hal2814 · 2004-12-20 09:31 · Score: 1

You probably are older. I'm only pushing 30. I was just making a little joke. Honestly though, I know that quake was more than a 2.5D game, but to me the feel of it was a lot closer to ROTT or Doom than it was to later games like Q3A or UT. Then again, I've always used the mouse for left-right movements (dating back to Wolf 3d) and used the keyboard for forward-reverse and strafing. Quake II was the first time I really felt like I had left 2.5D but YMMV (and obviously does).
Re:Many new games, none of them really new. by stanmann · 2004-12-22 04:10 · Score: 1

ROTT was more like 2.9D Almost Full 3D, for example, you could be directly above/below an enemy, but you couldn't have solid floors above one another.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed

Something for the adults? by Shihar · 2004-12-20 07:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

The year might be considered 'diverse' next to previous years, but the truth is, only a few companies offered up anything new on the formula. You basically can cut MMORPGs between the Everquest arch type, the space arch type, and small time odd ball like puzzle pirates. Unfortunately, the only companies that have truly tried to innovate and change the generic MMORPG formula have been smaller companies that lack the resources to really go all out.

The major MMORPGs are defined by the leveling treadmill and dice roll based combat, pure and simple. WoW might have refined the treadmill, and AO might have thrown it in a new setting, but the core game play is the same. I don't know about anyone else, but I am burnt out and annoyed.

Gamers are thought of as kids under the age of 18. How you make a game for someone under the age of 18, and how you make a game for someone with a job and a wife are two very different thing. The thing that is being discovered is that the only reason why we have the misconception that games are for kids is because the first generation of video games was embraced by younger folks. Those people have grown up now, but they have certainly not out grown games. On the contrary, they are the best market out there. Not only do they love games, but they have a big fat wad of cash and consider 50 dollars spent on a video game to be nothing. They don't care if they shell out 20 a month for a subscription based game that they like. For some reason though, MMORPGs seem determined not to appeal to these people.

When I was young, I could afford to spend 8 hours a day on the computer. A game like Everquest was perfect. I had the time and the patience to blow large hunks of my day at some leveling treadmill when I can load of CS or Unreal and start kicking ass instantly. I am older and richer now. I can't afford to waste that much of my time, but I am willing to pay significantly more to be entertained.

I like MMORPGs. I like the social aspect of such games. I like the massive persistent worlds. I like that there are things to do besides killing. I just fucking hate having to 'level up', 'pay my do', 'work', or whatever the fuck you want to call it. My time is more valuable then the time of some 14 year old boy who can spend 18 hours a day on the damn computer every day, yet I have pay the same amount of time to get the same things that he gets. Rationalize the reasons why you should have to waste that much time on an MMORPG all you want, but me and people like me hate it. Period.

What I want is an MMORPG with all the basic ingredients of an MMORG, I just want the damned experience/leveling/skill/treadmill systems and the combat systems stripped. Gut the damn MMORPG and fill its innards with a Half Life 2/FarCry/Thief style engine. Imagine if your thief character really had to sneak around like you were Garret from Thief. Imagine if swordplay was fast paced like Jedi Knight. Imagine if your archer snuck around firing and running like in FarCry. Then imagine after a hard day of fighting you could go kick it back in a bar or craft Puzzle Pirates style. Maybe for the economically inclined there could be an economic game like Rail Road Tycoon (or whatever) underneath. Perhaps there is also a A Tail in the Desert style player senate and politics. Maybe there is even a little Command and Conquer style tactical commanding.

Whatever the case, there is a lot more out there then whack the mole RPGs. It is too bad no MMORPG makers have grown some balls to do something more creative then a leveling treadmill (WoW, Everquest, SWG) or tribes with a larger battlefield (PlanetSide). I suppose in the end it isn't all bad. With some many MMORPGs out there that I don't want, that leaves more money to go to games like Half Life 2.

Re:Something for the adults? by Golias · 2004-12-20 07:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

With the old pencil-and-paper RPGs, the levelling concept makes sense. The combat is all storytelling and imagination, and levelling allows a mechanism for your character to "get good" at fighting dragons or facing other challeges.

But video games have a proud legacy of combat and action simulations. There's no need roll random numbers to determine whether your character managed to time his jump right to get across the chasm. The player tries to do it, and succeeds or fails. Plan your tactics just right, and you (along with your friends) might have a shot at defeating the big dragon.

I completely agree with you that a game engine in which you do things (rather than hit a button and have the computer randomly tell you whether you did things, based on how many things your character has done and/or attempted) would be much more fun.

If the gameplay is sufficiently fun, no "rewards" system is really even needed. Given a choice between doing something fun and getting no artificial rewards, and doing something tedius to get some numbers associated with my character to become higher, I'd rather go with the "have fun" option.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Something for the adults? by Khuffie · 2004-12-20 07:52 · Score: 2

This whole "click on stupid rat thing and wait for it to die" kind of game play is really what puts me off from all the MMORPGs: frankly, it's extremely boring. When I'm forced to do so for hours on end just to level up my charater, it gets ridiculous.
I've played the WoW, EQ2, Guild Wars and City of Heroes betas. The first three never really held my interest: the CoH was a real step in the right direction. Besides the absolutely kickass character creation screen, there was a bit more strategy in fighting, especially when you were in groups. It was fast-paced, and more importantly it was fun. I didn't play it much though, as I had to leave the country with no internet/pc...shame.
What would be cool is something along Jedi Outcasts 'dueling' system in the multiplayer games. Would be great if an MMORPG implemented something like this: youd have the normal world, with buying, selling, living, all that jazz. Whenever you'd go in a fight with either a player or an enemy, you'd go into 'duel' mode, which basically means everything around you is irrelevant. That would open up the opportunity of focusing the bandwith being sent on the fight at hand, which would allow for far more interesting battles than the good old "click on mouse thing and wait for it to die".
Re:Something for the adults? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-20 07:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

Imagine if your thief character really had to sneak around like you were Garret from Thief. Imagine if swordplay was fast paced like Jedi Knight. Imagine if your archer snuck around firing and running like in FarCry. Then imagine after a hard day of fighting you could go kick it back in a bar or craft Puzzle Pirates style. Maybe for the economically inclined there could be an economic game like Rail Road Tycoon (or whatever) underneath. Perhaps there is also a A Tail in the Desert style player senate and politics. Maybe there is even a little Command and Conquer style tactical commanding.

In other words, "I don't want to play an MMORPG, but I want to play an MMORPG."

Half the point of the MMORPG is growing your character. That's half the point of any RP game. Throw out that part and what's the point, anyway? Imagine if in the Legend of Zelda you started out with all the items and heart containers! Wouldn't that be fun! No, wait, it would suck. Half the fun is watching Link grow and being able to take on larger and harder challenges.

If you really want to play games like Thief, Jedi Knight, and FarCry, then play games like Thief, Jedi Knight, and FarCry! MMORPGs evidently aren't for you.

Of course, there's also a technical reason why you haven't seen games like that yet - the technology just isn't there yet. Notice who most FPS multiplayer games limit you to something around 32 characters max? That's because that's the best they can do, currently. Much more than that and the amount of stuff the server would have to do makes it economically infeasable to run the game. Many MMORPGs will have on the order of 100 to 200 people in a given area at once.

How do they do it? Well, part of it has to do with the fact that MMORPG servers are usually actual server machines and not a desktop machine running a game server from some fat kid's father's basement. The other part is that they simplify things. Instead of worrying about what your shot of 20 degrees x spin, 50 degrees y spin, from 124.45,53.5,-23.56 hits, you instead target Mob 359, and use your Attack ability on it. Instead of tracing a path, it just sees if the mob is within your pathing area (in other words, you aren't shooting through a wall) and is a certain distance away.

If all you want to do is wander around a meta-verse, you might want to check out games like Second Life or Project Entropia.
Re:Something for the adults? by realdpk · 2004-12-20 08:02 · Score: 2

Planetside, while being entirely PVP, offers what you want (except the character creation screen, which is stuck in the 90s). Strategy in fighting, it's fast paced, and while fun is "objective" I think it's quite fun. Needs more players though. :)
Re:Something for the adults? by Attaturk · 2004-12-20 08:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

What I want is an MMORPG with all the basic ingredients of an MMORG, I just want the damned experience/leveling/skill/treadmill systems and the combat systems stripped. Gut the damn MMORPG and fill its innards with a Half Life 2/FarCry/Thief style engine. Imagine if your thief character really had to sneak around like you were Garret from Thief. Imagine if swordplay was fast paced like Jedi Knight. Imagine if your archer snuck around firing and running like in FarCry. Then imagine after a hard day of fighting you could go kick it back in a bar or craft Puzzle Pirates style. Maybe for the economically inclined there could be an economic game like Rail Road Tycoon (or whatever) underneath. Perhaps there is also a A Tail in the Desert style player senate and politics. Maybe there is even a little Command and Conquer style tactical commanding

Sounds like you're looking for Roma Victor. It's historical, aimed at a more mature player, has twitch combat, politics, crafting like ATITD, no levels, and lots of resource management.

My bias is of course declared in my sig but it does sound like exactly the kind of thing you're looking for.
Re:Something for the adults? by Shihar · 2004-12-20 09:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Half the point of the MMORPG is growing your character. That's half the point of any RP game. Throw out that part and what's the point, anyway? Imagine if in the Legend of Zelda you started out with all the items and heart containers! Wouldn't that be fun! No, wait, it would suck. Half the fun is watching Link grow and being able to take on larger and harder challenges.

Part of the paradigm shift that people are utterly unable to move away from is that an MMORPG (or RPG for that matter) needs to have levels and all of that other crap. That stuff is a crutch. Fallout would have been absolutely amazing RPG, even if there was not a single skill in the game, combat was FPS, and skills were puzzles. There has been a distinct fear (maybe terror is a better word) of trying to meld action and role playing. That is role playing spelled with an E, not roll playing with dice.

The building up of a character to near god hood is all well and good if you are playing D&D with your friends. It is even stomachable if it is a single player RPG. The problem comes in when you try and keep this concept into the multiplayer realm. Not everyone can be a god, but MMORPGs sure as hell try regardless. What they are missing is that you are not feeling a sense of being an awesome hero rising up in an MMORPG like you do in a game like Zelda. You just feel the compulsive urge to level up, knowing that with the exception of a few children who have 18 hours a day to spend on the computer, you will never be that awesome hero who looks at people and makes them die. So, you have a combat system built for heroes, but a game that crushes them with the reality that you need to be a complete loser in life or child to get there.

What these games need to do is get rid of the hero mentality and build a game around a world where everyone is mortal, and any idiot with a knife can kill you if you are caught off guard. More importantly though is the inverse, an idiot like you can kill the greatest player in the world if you catch him by surprise.

An MMORPG is a massively unbalanced game. A monkey with a level 50 character couldn't die to an expert with a level 1 character if he tried. All that I want is a game that puts balance first. This sort of world doesn't have to rule out progress or character development. The idea is to instead focus on balance and fun. If one guy is completely and utterly incapable of killing another guy even after he goes AFK for 10 minutes, chances are your game is massively unbalanced. Character development can certainly include things outside of a few numbers or a score card. Character development includes joining organizations, politics, exploration, team work, PvP, and a whole slew of other things that don't revolve around experience, levels, and a boring combat engine.

I know people have a hard time believing this, but MMORPGs (and RPGs in general) are NOT defined by having a worthless combat engine. Bad combat doesn't make a game a role playing game. Perhaps technical challenges are a valid excuse for lack of imagination in MMORPGs. That said, those technical challenges are quickly evaporating. Raw number crunching and data sending capabilities continue to increase at a rapid rate. If there is a barrier, it isn't going to be there for much longer. It is just going to take a few people to break out of the clone mentality. Right now the MMORPG world feels like déjà vu of the state of video gaming after Doom. Everyone and their dog wants to repeat what has already been done, and no one has the balls to step up and move forward.
Re:Something for the adults? by Golias · 2004-12-20 09:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Half the point of the MMORPG is growing your character. That's half the point of any RP game.

All of the point in a RP game is RP. If you don't find joy in roleplaying, you're just a lab-rat pulling on the lever which randomly rewards you with pleasure pills.

Levelling is meaningless. You get bigger numbers on your character, and fight pictures of monsters which require bigger numbers to fight, with a net change in the challenge of zero.

Roleplay is a fun pastime in which you and others collectively tell a story for each others' amusement. Levelling for the sake of levelling is an addictive (or rather, obsessive/compulsive) behavior which offers little to nothing in the way of real-life rewards.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Something for the adults? by Reapy · 2004-12-20 09:53 · Score: 1

Amen, well said, perfect, agree with you 100%, said better then I ever could have.

I think the biggest barrier right now is bandwith. You can't really do massive action based combat like you can do with forced ticks like in current games. Planetside uses client side hit detection and it suffers for it. It's a quirk of the game, and works, but it wouldn't work too well if you wanted to do melee combat.

Game companies just need to cut out leveling. It's the most evil concept in multiplayer gaming ever. It cuts you off from your friends. It limits who can experience content that developers add to the game. It makes any compatition unfair unless you've maxed your character.

I'd just like to see something done with twitchy action ala jedi outcast made for a group of 2 to 8 players at a time. Do it diablo style and let you have your own pc chars or have an offical one stored on a server somewhere. Everyone is powered up fine. You can move around and swing a sword or shoot a bow and arrow like normal. You can block with a shield. You could have short little halfling run under a big giant while your buddies try to distract it to steal a treasure.

Bah, why torture myself? Just have to wait for someone to come along and write that game. :)
Re:Something for the adults? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-20 10:33 · Score: 0

In other words...

You still don't want to play an MMORPG.

Whenever I hear anyone bitching about how they wish that "player skill" could outbalance leveling, I'm hearing "I really want to play an FPS, but for some reason, I refuse to do so and instead want to complain about MMORPGs."

If you don't enjoy MMORPGs, don't play them. I really don't see why people continue to insist that the things that define an MMORPG as an MMORPG suck, and then suggest something that's basically a generic FPS as an alternative. If you'd rather play an FPS, that's fine: then play an FPS and stop complaining about a genre you obviously don't enjoy.

I personally find the sneaking aspect of Metal Gear Solid to be really annoying and would rather be able to run through, guns blazing. Does that mean that the sneaking thing is stupid? No, it means that I don't enjoy that sort of gameplay.

Obviously MMORPGs aren't right for you. Stop trying to bend them to something that is and instead play the games that you'd actually enjoy. It's evident that plenty of people do enjoy the way MMORPGs work, or else they wouldn't be playing them.
Re:Something for the adults? by AliasTheRoot · 2004-12-20 12:35 · Score: 1

Nothing original and different apart from say Second Life or that Egyptian crafting MMOG that are both hugely succesful.
Re:Something for the adults? by bar-agent · 2004-12-20 12:56 · Score: 1

Levelling is meaningless. You get bigger numbers on your character, and fight pictures of monsters which require bigger numbers to fight, with a net change in the challenge of zero.

In a MMORPG without leveling, you'd still have tougher areas and easier areas. You'd have to have a way of taking on monsters in the tougher areas and winning.

One way to do this through acquiring equipment or spells from the environment, and maybe specializing your combat strategy to be particularly effective against certain types of monsters. This isn't really any different than leveling, except for a greater reliance on the biggest & best equipment.

Another way to do this would be to rely on the player's skills. That is, make the game into a twitch game. Because what other skills does a player have, as far as gaming is concerned? This means that the most advanced areas will only be reachable by the power gamers. I am not a power gamer. I want to be able to see those areas too. After all, I help pay for them.

So, really, leveling is a fair way to do things.

Now, you could object to the premise. "Why should there be tough areas and easy areas?" That's easy. To provide a sense of exploration. Let me illustrate with an anecdote:

In World of Warcraft recently, I got a mission to deliver some orders to a distant outpost, through a region called Ashenvale. I've been to the border of Ashenvale before. I knew it was there, but I'd never been inside. It was totally out of my league. I'd have been monster chow. Ashenvale was forbidden fruit--plus, it was in the hands of the enemy.

So when I got this mission, I wanted to tell the guy, "Are you crazy? I can't cross half a continent that I've never seen, I'd be dead before I got to the first fork in the road!" But I tried, even though I knew it was my funeral. And I succeeded, too. Felt great.

In a game without levels, how could that emotional dynamic be created?

--
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Re:Something for the adults? by *weasel · 2004-12-22 02:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or maybe he's just looking for something without the repetition?

Killing hundreds of blue foozles just to advance to the point where you can kill hundreds of red foozles is not some golden game design. You know what the core difference is between an RPG and a FPS is? Nothing. They're not mutually exclusive.

An RPG is just a game with a strong story context. Look at Thief, System Shock, Deus Ex, or GTA even. They're RPGs. There's just no level treadmill, and the combat resolution in each game is different from the D&D standard. But there's a strong story, character development, and immersion.

There's nothing wrong with the standard game designs per se. They're just wrong for some people. And when those people wish aloud for something different, it isn't any sort of threat to the established standard. No-one has to take your games away to make something new. So why do you care if they want something different; even if, in your opinion, it isn't an RPG or MMORPG that they want?

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:Something for the adults? by stanmann · 2004-12-22 04:13 · Score: 1

And you can't effectively do a Massively Multiplayer Online Twitch game, the Internet just won't support it.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Something for the adults? by photon317 · 2004-12-23 03:57 · Score: 1

I agree as well. I think Planetside, for all of it's horrible faults, was a really good eye-opener on this level. Planetside was basically an "MMOFPS", but in a new and interesting way it showed, as plain as day, that MMO-[FPS/RPG] was really all one big category, and that there was a lot of room left for designing an MMORPG without the traditional timesinks.

--
11*43+456^2

Eve by ebrandsberg · 2004-12-20 07:11 · Score: 1

While it doesn't have the best graphics in the world, I find eve (www.eve-online.com) to be a very deep, but fun game to play. I tried a few others, but I'm sticking with this one for now.

Re:Eve by ghideon · 2004-12-20 13:31 · Score: 1

I'd say the graphics are pretty good (c'mon space is mostly empty). Plus, they did get a nice revamp with the new expansion.

As far as things to do (replayability as well), skills being based on learning times (instead of an XP grind, and they do train while you're offline) and an economy that blows every other MMORPG out of the water, Eve is where it's at.

Couple that with a mature, diverse community (my corporation alone as players from all over the US, Europe and Asia), and developers who do pretty damned good (and care!), it's makes for an excellent universe. Not to mention there isn't an 'expansion pack' system in Eve. New content is released in the form of patches, so they're not trying to get more and more money from you.

Mining outfits, Pirate (PvP) corps, Pirate Hunter corps, manufacturing corps, traders and haulers, etc etc, you're bound to fit in somewhere. Couple that with something like an average of over 10,000 people on-line during peak times (on one server), and you have (IMHO) the most underrated MMORPG in existence. While it's true I have yet to pick up WoW, as long as I'm playing Eve I'll want for nothing more. It may not be new and pretty like WoW, but what it lacks in graphics and being from CCP instead of Blizzard, it more than makes up for in style, sophistication and substance.

What about the public? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-20 07:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

With the vast selection of MMORPG games out (or on their way out), and the mentioned increase in total subscriptions, what is the public reaction going to be?

With violent video games, it seemed to be that a certain threshold needed to be crossed before the public outroar shifted from minor grumblings to a larger, more cohesive assault. I think this became most prevalent around the time of GTA3, and its general national popularity (and subsequent publicity). Is there a similar threshold for MMORPGs whereby if they become popular or prevalent enough, a contrary public outcry will appear?

I have already heard many of the minor grumblings about their (MMORPG's) supposed ability to reduce people's connections with reality, erode people's social skills, etc. etc. Can we expect to see the same kind of polarization that we're currently seeing with 'violent' video games? Are games like WoW and EQ2 going to start showing up on '10 games to avoid' type lists among parent groups?

On a side note, I have to wonder how much of the increase in overall subscription numbers is associated with actual unique users, as opposed to people deciding to play more than one game.

Re:What about the public? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-20 07:28 · Score: 0

With violent video games, it seemed to be that a certain threshold needed to be crossed before the public outroar shifted from minor grumblings to a larger, more cohesive assault. I think this became most prevalent around the time of GTA3, and its general national popularity (and subsequent publicity)

Yeah... Just look at how that "cohesive assault" caused the next sequel, GTA:Vice City, to be a watered-down, kid-friendly game with almost no violence at all.

Oh wait... that "outroar" was completely ineffective. The GTA series continues to be a bloody rampage, closely aped by the "True Crime" games, with probably many more imitators on the way. Never mind.
Re:What about the public? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-20 08:28 · Score: 0

But that's part of my point, I'm not saying that any kind of negative public opinion of MMORPGs is going to change the way they are made, or reduce people's involvement in them. Quite the contrary in fact. What did all the negative publicity about GTA3 do? Oh that's right, it just meant they sold more games.

Polarity begets publicity, publicity begets popularity, popularity begets polarity. It's a dragon eating his own tail scenario. With violent games, they become more violent and more "socially unacceptable", so people start talking about them more (positive or negative), more people know about them, so more people buy them. This basically provides the equation to the game manufacturers : Increase in violence/drugs/etc. = increase in profits. It certainly hasn't shown any sign of stopping.

If MMORPGs start to follow a similar cycle, will we see publishers trying harder and harder to improve upon the addictive qualities of the games? To me this seems to be the publicly perceived "evil" of the MMORPG genre. Will we soon see games where the publisher's themselves start auctioning off in game items (gold, weapons, armor, etc.) for real cash?

I think that continues to be the joy of negative publicity. .. . it's exactly that. . . publicity.
Re:What about the public? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-20 09:05 · Score: 0

That's funny. Your original post mentioned nothing of the sort.

Casual Gamers Won In 2004 by EngineeringMarvel · 2004-12-20 07:14 · Score: 5, Informative

I played FFXI from Oct of 2003 to Feb of 2004. While I enjoyed the game, it is not casual gamer friendly since getting anything done requires time slots of atleast an hour. I then played Star Wars Galaxies from July 2004 to Sept 2004. That game lacked content and bug fixes more than anything else. As soon as the Star Wars part wore off of me, the dullness of the game sunk in.

In comes World of Warcraft. Wow, what a relief. This game is ideal for people like me. You can actually play for 30 minutes and get a lot done. WoW also has in game documentation that gets rid of all the guessing. Another biggie for casual gamers, we don't have the time to try 100 things just to get item we want. In short, casual gamers now have an excellent choice for MMORPGs that fit to our gaming style. Before, I'm not sure there was, so either way, the casual gamer gains a new game type in 2004 (even though it existed for several years before). Besides, I don't think too many veteran MMORPGers will mind seeing SOE losing profits after the type of customer satisfaction they have gotten in the last year.

--
I couldn't think of anything witty to say, so...you're stuck with this.

Re:Casual Gamers Won In 2004 by ApacheVE · 2004-12-20 10:57 · Score: 1

WoW is a Blizzard game through and through; there's no real surprise that it's very solo friendly, easy to learn and highly addictive. A lot of people who have never played a MMOG will pick it up and its a great way to introduce new players into the genre.

Multi-mode games? by BumbaCLot · 2004-12-20 07:23 · Score: 1

I played Earth and Beyond, it was my first MMORPG (Galaxies was my second), and I really liked the inside-space ship vs character walking around in a spaceport modes. Eve I saw you did not have the freedom to get out of your ship, you were just a picture inside of your interface. I know SWG has ships now that I no longer play it but are there any other games where you have a ship for most of the game and can walk around outside of it for the other times?
(I posted this once already, was modded Troll 2x, but I am really curious.)

I'm waiting for... by Moby+Cock · 2004-12-20 07:33 · Score: 1

I'm not a big MMORPG player, in fact I have stopped playing them for about six months. I have not tried the newest batch of games that have been released and so I will not comment there. I spend my online time playing the RTS style games (not that it really matters)

I am however cautiosly optimistic about The Matrix Online. If it plays as well as some of the recent games that are so highly praised it could be a real winner. The setting would be interesting and unique and the storyline is one that I have very much enjoyed for a long time.

I have read previews that the developers are focusing on ensuring that the 'casual gamer' (read: a guy with a job and wife) can get as much out of it as a kiddie who 'jacks in' for 12 hours a day. The focus will be on teams working together, which is really the best part of online games. That's my 2 cents.

Re:I'm waiting for... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-20 09:09 · Score: 0

The Matrix Online will be populated by several thousand various mispelled "Trinnitee" characters, and almost as many "Mistor Smith~"s. If teaming with them sounds fun to you, more power to ya.

CoH vs WoW by Sodade · 2004-12-20 08:11 · Score: 1, Troll

I have been playing CoH since it came out and was eager to try WoW because I dig the fantasy genre more than generic comics and I want to be a badass sword wielding warrior type. I have to say that the combat feel of WoW is very boring and not very epic when compared to playing my Katana-wielding, Combat Jumping regen scrapper in CoH. CoH has a much better arcade feel. I also like the fact that I can take on packs of even-leveled badguys (actually, up to +4) and a boss - it just feels more epic. Going to warcraft from this just felt boring. Warcraft also has the graphic look and feel of a kiddie game. Beyond combat, CoH is lacking a lot of things, but these things will come eventually, as the devs have proven that they are willing to kick in well tested, free updates. I sure wish I wouldn't have paid for a 6month WoW subscription...

Re:CoH vs WoW by Auraveda · 2004-12-20 08:56 · Score: 1

Ooh damn, yeah, never buy that many months of a game in advance. In fact I try to stick with a monthly subscription. It's just too hard to gauge how much fun you're going to find the game in a month, let alone 6.
Re:CoH vs WoW by Joe+the+Lesser · 2004-12-21 01:56 · Score: 1

If you're looking for a fantasy CoH, I think EQ2 is your better bet.

I know it get's smashed on, mostly because they realeased it a month too early for competition, but as far as I'm concerning, the battle is exactly like CoH. (I played CoH here and there.)

Where in Final Fantasy I would sit for 30 seconds waiting for my chance to do something besides autoattack, in EQ2 I am jamming buttons to use the myriad of abilities availiable to me.

I haven't played WoW, but maybe EQ2 is the fantasy system you are looking for if you like the fast paced action of CoH.

--
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)

Dude - do I have the answer for you by MBraynard · 2004-12-20 11:14 · Score: 1

Just pick your favorite MMORPG and BUY a maxed-out account that has been leveled up by some 14 year old who plays for 18 hours a day.

Why do you play eve ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-20 20:39 · Score: 0

Just canncelled eve.
Nothing to do but get more money and stronger ships. Fightning is boring, Flying does Autopilot. Everthing else is just waiting for my cargo bay to get full of ore.

Why did i play this game ? Cannot think of a reason...

Re:Why do you play eve ? by Ice+Tiger · 2004-12-22 01:25 · Score: 1

Makes me wonder if we've played the same game, I guess the mor you put into it (not necessarily time wise) the more you get out. I've seen lots of people do solo play and it amazes me as I've found that the true fun starts to come when you do things with all the other people around in the eve world.

--
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."

Planetside - The Tradegy of 2004 by DrStrangeLug · 2004-12-20 22:04 · Score: 1

Planetside, a MMOFPS, and to begin with, it kicked rear big time. I've been playing it for all of 2004 but I can see the end in sight, both of my subscription, and the game.

The idea was simple. Take an FPS, make it multiplayer over a persistant world. New vehicles came along after launch (a bomber and an AA vehicle) and the future looked rosy. But the game has suffered - it's had 3 different managers over the past year, an unpopular expansion, and promised features "just head" which never appear . They've added giant robots that looked cool, but alienated a large part of the player base (which prompted cancelled their subs and left). They've ignored problems in order to put "cool" stuff in (the commander system is still the same as it was on launch, and the high level commanders have just given up on trying to control the zerg).

I still like the game, but it's bleeding players at an alarming rate. It's going to take someone else to have a go at an MMOFPS to get it right. SOE just doesn't get it and that's just a tradgic waste of potential.

Transformers Online by CrazyJim1 · 2004-12-21 02:54 · Score: 1

This game will probably never happen, but I wrote up a MMOFPS based on the cartoon Transformers. It has heavier RPG aspects than PlanetSide, so your character can take longer to level, and more personalized team work. I've always found that I can have a maxxed out character within a few short hours on PlanetSide. I kicked some tail on PlanetSide, but it had no long term character development to hold my interest. Design Document

--
God spoke to me.

Call me a fanboi, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-21 03:43 · Score: 0

I'm relatively new on the MMO block - I sat with most of the people who didn't justify the spending. I played City of Heroes, and it was great - it lacked everything I thought really dragged down a game like Everquest (which I never played).

It was very visercal and direct, great fun. I stopped when I realized the lead developer or whoever is making the decisions has crazy priorities - I can only imagine (s/?)he wants everyone to play like (s/?) does, making loads of alternate characters. I made it to the top and there's nothing to do. NOTHING. But if you haven'tr tried it, it's probably something up your alley - you get your defining abilities within (give or take) 12 hours of play. A level 50 martial arts/super reflexes scrapper is still using crane kick (or storm kick) which they got at 2 or 4. You don't have to get together a group of a gabillion to do a raid for the PHAT LEWT that someone might be camping eccet eccet. You're competitive as long as you don't slot rest (heavily).

But on World of Warcraft, my current addiction of choice... I haven't played Thief, but I picked a rogue because I was tired of how irritatingly other games try to "balance" the strength of the caster types, I had learned DPS is king, and thought a warrior was a little too vanilla for me. WOW.

Let me say that again, in non-acronymed form. WOW. I do crazy stuff that other players do not - because I am a rogue. I turn on stealth, I walk past some guards - maybe throw a distraction - find two buddies guarding the treasure (well, "treasure" - the quest objective).. and come out of the shadows! knocking one out for a minute while I get to ... yes, okay, now it's down to the rolling of the die. I have lots of neat die rolling tools as I stabinate the guy, though.

And then a day later I'm asked if I want to join a team for crawling through it, because they need X number of hitters to handle the aggro and adds (unexpected guests to one's combat suaree).. and I did it alone.. because I was able to play a vastly different game than them as a rogue.

It's hardly instant, though. You're given tools as you level, so there's the treadmill. Sorry, boss. Can't help you out of that. But it ain't bad, especially running quests (especially reading the quest boxes).

Re:Call me a fanboi, but... by ImprovOmega · 2004-12-31 11:21 · Score: 1

One thing that I truly love about World of Warcraft is that 'gearing up' is easily and affordably done just in the process of mowing through all of these quests. The gear you need to be effective at your level is inevitably either a quest reward or it drops during a quest that you're completing. I've bought exactly one piece from the auction house so far, the rest I either crafted, dropped, or I quested it.

This in stark contrast to Everquest where I once spent an entire weekend 'camping' for specific drops for one armor piece that brought me marginally closer to being useful. Feh.

don't forget AO, and it's free~ by Imazalil · 2004-12-21 16:33 · Score: 1

Seems that most things that are hot this year (instancing etc) have been in AO from day 1. Mind you that day 1 was pretty ugly for AO, but it's very good these days, and you can play it for free for a full year or possibly more!

give it a shot if you were scared by the really bad launch.

Im.

AO worth the price of admission by jlapier · 2004-12-27 12:28 · Score: 1

in other words, it's worth all the $0 you pay for it. I played AO in beta and liked it, but not enough to buy it. I got myself a free account last week and played some, but honestly, I don't really see much of a difference between AO now and the beat I played years ago. In fact, the game world seems worse - it feels like they abandoned the older content with all their paying customers focusing on expansion content. I like the way the instanced missions work (a concept later adopted by other MMORPGs) but the content of the missions is pretty lame. I haven't been on one yet that didn't either tell me to kill this person or pick up this object. Duuuoooaahh! Mission Completed!

48 comments