Well it would appear that most of your rebuttals centre on the argument that waiting is better. Although this might be true, most people don't wish to wait the time it takes to determine which console will best suit their needs. This may take months, or even years. So impatience has to be reconciled with correct purchasing.
As for this article being pure hype and mere noise generation... It appears to be coming from a third party (Gamasutra), with (hopefully) little ties to Nintendo (although I do realize advertising revenues may be tied with this). This third party has went around to the actual game manufacturers (EA, etc.)who will be producing games for all three systems, and thus have no major affiliations. It would seem to me that an article produced with little ties to either side, is most likely not purely a noise generating article. Although I wouldn't argue that some of them most probably are.
I believe that in most news there are at least some relevant facts to be had... You just have to be wary what you buy (pun intending, thank you).
I'm incredibly sorry to say that I have some disagreement with what you said...
This is not merely about your selection of what makes you happy, and here's why: . People have limited funds, and therefore cannot make multiple system purchases. . The choice of a single system has to be an informed choice, and these articles, especially ones presented by supposed informed sources, aid in making this choice. . A system with two great games might be good for some, but others like variety, and a flopped system doesn't support the same level of variety. . Even the probability of getting two great games depends upon the number of games produced. The more games produces, the greater the chance of getting a hit game. . Game manufacturers tend to focus more on the popular system, so game variety (and sheers numbers) depends on popularity. Therefore, in choosing a popular system you are more likely to get what you're hoping for. . These articles aid in increasing hype, and therefore popularity, of the particular systems. . And a final point, before I lazily give up on writing this, is that buying any product supports the further manufacturing of similar products. These articles, and these underlying discussions, aid towards more informed purchases.
I know I'm probably missing some points, but I think I've at least given a partial rebuttal. Purchasing is not merely about filling a whim, we are collectively directing the industries. That should be kept in mind.
I'll agree with you to a certain degree... I was more defending Sony's system as a whole, and not just their increasing the storage capacity of the system. It seems to me that what Sony has done, or is doing, is increasing all of the aspects that are found in a traditional console system (aside from physical interface), whereas Nintendo has instead opted to focus on the physical interface. Both of these choices seem to me to be putting tools into the hands of the actual game makers. As others have said, the storage capacity could be used for more than just cinematics, but when you combine storage with sheer power, that seems to me to be where they are heading... towards immersion.
I'm sorry if you thought I was only talking merely about storage capacity, I was more focusing on the tactics of each company (replying to the parent thread), rather than the overall point of this whole article (storage capacity)...
Gamers want to game. They want to enter a virtual world and interact with it. That's what games are for. You want to sit back and watch movies. That's fine, but don't think of yourself as a gamer. Think of yourself as an interactive movie watcher. Gamers care about the _games_, not their interfaces.
Gamers want to enter a virtual world, yes - that is what I was talking about. Visual immersion, for some people, will do that for them much more than increasing physical immersion. And as for gamers not caring about interfaces... a controller is a piece of the interface, just as graphics, which is exactly what Nintendo is revolutionizing, and which is why you seem to believe Nintendo is focusing on fun (I think).
All I'm stating is that there are several aspects involved in games, of which you seem to be overgeneralizing, and thus ignoring. Nintendo's controller is an example of a physical aspect, a part of the physical interface. Sony's graphics are an example of a visual aspect, a part of the visual interface. Game content, which can probably be broken down into story, genre, etc., is something completely different, and I hope you're not saying that Sony is just outrightly ignoring game content (story, etc), because that's pretty unsubstantiated.
I think your sweeping claim of 'gamers want to game' has very little thought put into it... I think gamers are looking to be immersed in story, visuals, and feel - all the aspects of the game which shouldn't be neglected - and I think that Nintendo and Sony are merely focusing on two different categories.
Oh, and before you say Sony is neglecting game content... both Nintendo and Sony rely on third party game manufacturers, so content (aside from a small number of games) is out of their control.
Nintendo completely redesigned their controller to make games more fun, while Sony added capacity so people can watch high-resolution cutscenes. Just because a large group of people all disagree with you doesn't mean you're the one doing the thinking.
Perhaps you're overgeneralizing the concept of 'fun'...? I'm probably more pro-Nintendo than the next guy, but I find myself hard pressed to say that Nintendo is attempting to add entertainment, whereas Sony is not.
It may be that my idea of entertainment consists more of visual immersion, rather than physical immersion. Perhaps I would like fuller cinematic experience, rather than a differing style of interface. Perhaps my notion of 'fun' differs from yours.
Attacking Sony as not attempting to increase the fun factor is a little shortsighted, and seems to me to be more of a stereotyping of wants of 'gamers' than any sort of conclusive fact.
Of course there would be some people who would end up having grossly more experience points than they really should have. You know who I'm talking about.
The use of/ignore doesn't solve all the problems related to griefing. In most cases actions speak louder than words. A lot of the griefing seems more to revolve around (at least in my experiences) things like repeated killing purely for annoyance, training mobs, and mob stealing. These aren't things that a/ignore can solve... but they are thing that a governing body can have a great impact on.
Back in my EQ days I played on a PvP server where such griefing took place regularily. What seemed to have formed out of that system was guilds created purely for protection of it's members... and it worked. Although this is more like gang warfare, it does show the power that player organization can have over griefing. Player organization can have a positive direct impact on player griefing, much more so than simply/ignoring the problem, so acknowledging this fact may go far to solving a blight.
I've always wanted the developers to put more emphasis on these types of systems by placing actual specialists on the development team. There are probably a number of graduate students who would be interested in participating in the development of a virtual simulation of their studies, and it would certain add a whole new dimension to the normal gameplay.
Just think of it: Economists planning actual economic systems that have forethought; politics, anthropology, and history majors all developing a rich systems that make sense for a change.
We have a wide body of research and development out there in all these fields, but they are being wasted on reality. Come on people, get with the programming.
In all honesty, take a look at "child geniuses" that prospered early on. We hear every once in a while about a kid that starts college at the age of 8, or 10; and that's the last time we hear about them. It is the people that consistently produce significant progress that "show".
I have only one word to say to this... Doogie Howser. Which is actually two words, but hey we can't all be geniuses. He was a doctor at age 14!
Can anyone tell me what the costs of operating a station such as WOXY? The subscription fee they are calling for is $9.95/month. Their website states that their goal is 7k people... So, if you calculate that out (rounding up a bit) it comes out to $840k for the year, which is an extraordinarily large amount I would think.
Perhaps someone could explain why an INTERNET station would need so much capital. People are running them for free out there... perhaps the problem with their station is a matter of waste more than anything else. Maybe they should turn to the geeks at slashdot for better methods of internet distribution and cost cutting. Any thoughts?
This idea has already been done. Although a couple posters have already cited some recent games, there is at least one RPG series I know of, from the mid 90s, that have the full force of realism you are speaking of. I can't say it was the best game I've ever played, but at least they made an attempt!
I remember one time I played, as soon as I entered the game a bird came and plucked out one of my eyes... I had half the screen to play with until I quit.
Bad graphics _and_ system requirements, huge load times, bad balance, a broken economy, various inconsistent quirks, a load of bugs, exploits, etc. Add launching it with the typical Sony lack of concern for what the market wants: e.g., that as launched it was non-soloable when your friends/guild/whatever are not online or not the right level. Now also add a completely broken internationalization for the non-english markets. Now add some Sony-class talent for pissing off their customers. Etc, etc, etc.
A couple points here- EQ2's economy was far from broken, and if you want to argue that we can also argue for WoW's economy being a broken system. They both need improvements IMO, and I would suggest that, from what I played, EQ2 was superior due to its improved crafting implementations. Solo'ing I did constantly at it's launch, plus I excelled at it.. So I would argue against you there. And you would have to agree that the game, aside from its engine (which I will concede is buggy), had many improvements over EQ. Since WoW is nothing but a polished EQ, EQ2 has improvements over WoW. Given both time and money both games work out their bugs.
Same as any other "better game" at any point in time, eh? Back when EQ was in the lead, it too wasn't the best MMO that will ever be produced, it was the best MMO at that time. And that was enough.
I'm refering to it being better in terms of its marketing role (latching onto the casual gamers), not better in terms of its gameplay (improved crafting system, level system, etc), which I believe EQ2 exceeds in.
The problem with that is that it's a "begging the question" fallacy. It begs (as in, circularly argues) the question of how it got those numbers in the first place. It started at 0 people for WoW, and half a million for EQ, so the amount of people and word of mouth factor was definitely slanted in Sony's favour. Winning by sheer amout of people and word of mouth would have kept Sony in the lead. Yet WoW quickly grabbed 7 times more people than EQ ever had. Go figure.
I don't believe I'm begging the question here. I said that Blizzard had quite the reputation amongst the casual gamers, or the untapped market. Everquest had a hardcore gaming fanbase. I would argue that the number of casual gamers over the entire Warcraft series was much larger than the number of gamers involved in EQ. Therefore, if my pure speculations are right, Blizzard had the larger numbers. Plus, hardcore gamers are not the gems of the social community. So you can do the math.
My apologies for not making myself clear in certain areas...
-- John
I'm not sure you're right in saying that EQ had a better established name than Warcraft. What Warcraft accomplished was to draw in a crowd of players that were not a part of the MMO scene, thus have no idea of EQ. Warcraft had a ubquitious name amongst the casual gamers, EQ did not.
In fact, if you compare the WoW system to the original EQ system you have very little difference. Blizzard has produced a game with little depth, and, due to this fact, they have reduced the learning curve to nothing. Plus their engine require only base settings, whereas EQ2 has pretty hefty requirements.
To go through your comparisons-
The Sims is a different type of game entirely. Perhaps it WILL have a chance to overtake the other MMO's, but I doubt the time was right for it now. It is a well established life-sim game, which is not an established flavour of MMO (e.g. fantasy). I think your comparing different catagories here, like comparing Planetside to Everquest.
Star Wars Galaxies you are correct... It was just poorly made. Sony tried to change their tried and true system (EQ) and failed. The name drew a crowd, but the crowd left soon after.
EQ2 was, at least when I was playing it, a far superior game to WoW. They had the original EQ type system in place, and they made a progression from it - which also unfortunately increased the learning curve. This sytem I would argue is far better than WoW's bland system. EQ2's engine is far superior in terms of appearance, but unfortunately wasn't right for the time. Causual gamers aren't carrying around the spec necessary to run it efficiently. WoW had the basics, which is an appealing factor for the ppl who want to test out the MMO phenomena without having to upgrade.
Overall, WoW is a poor game if we're discussing progression... It isn't a step forward from what has been produced, but it does seem that a polished version of the old is what the MMO noobs are looking for. They didn't win because it's the better system, but because it's the better system for the time. Plus the amount of people and word of mouth certainly help (fads don't have to make sense).
It's simple. Why do I skip commercials? They're annoying, loud, repetitive, gaudy, mindless.
I don't think I'm with you on this one. I tend not to watch commercials because they are an attempt to coerce me into buying thing I don't need, and probably wouldn't want on a normal basis. I don't disagree that a more effective ad would be one that is actually entertaining, but do you really want to be convinced to buy? Do we really need more product consumption at our expense?
-- John
Well you backed up everything I just stated...
The game lacks any sort of commitment. You don't have to be good at the game; you don't have to play a lot; in fact you don't even really have to try and your pretty well on par with everyone else. Game such as these seem to give support to the notion that lack of commitment, and by that I'm also including and putting emphasis on progression, breeds an apathy towards the games themselves.
The question I must ask you is why would the average gamer switch off a normal FPS for an MMOFPS? And I can only come up with a few reasons for doing so...
1. They wish to play a MASS FPS game... But games such as Tribes comes pretty close to mimicking this, plus tribes has the advantage of actually having a point - the end of the match! Yes, I know Planetside has an end of day score. But I would hardly call that equal, and your part is insignificant compared to your role in a smaller scale version of the same thing (tribes, et al.)
2. They enjoy the large military strategy, especially against multiple factions... My friend unfortunately fits into this category. This can be replaced by any number of good mods in other games, and all for the great low price of the initial purchase.
3. You can enjoy noob status without being criticized. You're able to play with relative anonymity and few will be able to tell your questionable playing style, which, as should be noted, stands out in a normal small FPS game. Random unskilled kills, unearned experience through grouping, and other such things are all advantages of this game for the poor twitch player. Although I know only a few people who are THIS poor and still enjoy an FPS, and thus would fit under this category. Plus I don't think this style of game helps your skill at twitch play at all. I'm an above average twitch player, but after a month or so of this I found skills severely deteriorated.
I think, overall, all the arguments you gave are the reason for Planetsides horrible failure as a game. Those are reason why someone would enjoy the game, obviously, but on the overall this is not the type of game the community is looking for.
-- John
As a lover of the MMO scene, a player of Planetside, and a player of numerous MMORPG's...
The biggest problem of Planetside is the lack of progression. Aside from the standard kill/death tally system, the lackluster award system, and the pathetic level system, the game plays like a standard FPS. They might as well have made a basic FPS game. All three progression systems exist in the the standard FPS scene. Kill/death ratio is kept via server counters, awards are stored by servers and clans, and the level system can be found in numerous mods (BoTS, Weapons Factory, etc).
What the MMOFPS scene needs is a more progressive environment to catch, and keep, the interest of the players that are currently igoring the whole genre. Until they can develop this I'll gladly take the '+3 battleaxes of dorkdom' - the equipment itself being a type of progression.
Infact, after saying all of this, my prediction is that the MMOFPS scene doesn't succeed until it is no longer straight forward MMOFPS. The next step in the evolution of things is the combination of genres.
Oh, And PLEASE don't call Star Wars Galaxies an MMOFPS! It just shows your absolute igorance of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
- John
[Dictated by JohnSearle]
Perhaps they don't need free wheelchairs... but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt. Might even make them happy.
Hell, give me a free wheelchair. I say that walking is for suckers.
- John
That's what happens... ..when developers play with their Wii.
What they wii-direct the DNS?
- John
- John
1. Use cliched South Park joke.
2. ?
3. Mod points!
- John
Well it would appear that most of your rebuttals centre on the argument that waiting is better. Although this might be true, most people don't wish to wait the time it takes to determine which console will best suit their needs. This may take months, or even years. So impatience has to be reconciled with correct purchasing.
As for this article being pure hype and mere noise generation... It appears to be coming from a third party (Gamasutra), with (hopefully) little ties to Nintendo (although I do realize advertising revenues may be tied with this). This third party has went around to the actual game manufacturers (EA, etc.)who will be producing games for all three systems, and thus have no major affiliations. It would seem to me that an article produced with little ties to either side, is most likely not purely a noise generating article. Although I wouldn't argue that some of them most probably are.
I believe that in most news there are at least some relevant facts to be had... You just have to be wary what you buy (pun intending, thank you).
- John
I'm incredibly sorry to say that I have some disagreement with what you said...
. People have limited funds, and therefore cannot make multiple system purchases.
. The choice of a single system has to be an informed choice, and these articles, especially ones presented by supposed informed sources, aid in making this choice.
. A system with two great games might be good for some, but others like variety, and a flopped system doesn't support the same level of variety.
. Even the probability of getting two great games depends upon the number of games produced. The more games produces, the greater the chance of getting a hit game.
. Game manufacturers tend to focus more on the popular system, so game variety (and sheers numbers) depends on popularity. Therefore, in choosing a popular system you are more likely to get what you're hoping for.
. These articles aid in increasing hype, and therefore popularity, of the particular systems.
. And a final point, before I lazily give up on writing this, is that buying any product supports the further manufacturing of similar products. These articles, and these underlying discussions, aid towards more informed purchases.
This is not merely about your selection of what makes you happy, and here's why:
I know I'm probably missing some points, but I think I've at least given a partial rebuttal. Purchasing is not merely about filling a whim, we are collectively directing the industries. That should be kept in mind.
- John
I'll agree with you to a certain degree... I was more defending Sony's system as a whole, and not just their increasing the storage capacity of the system. It seems to me that what Sony has done, or is doing, is increasing all of the aspects that are found in a traditional console system (aside from physical interface), whereas Nintendo has instead opted to focus on the physical interface. Both of these choices seem to me to be putting tools into the hands of the actual game makers. As others have said, the storage capacity could be used for more than just cinematics, but when you combine storage with sheer power, that seems to me to be where they are heading... towards immersion.
I'm sorry if you thought I was only talking merely about storage capacity, I was more focusing on the tactics of each company (replying to the parent thread), rather than the overall point of this whole article (storage capacity)...
- John
All I'm stating is that there are several aspects involved in games, of which you seem to be overgeneralizing, and thus ignoring. Nintendo's controller is an example of a physical aspect, a part of the physical interface. Sony's graphics are an example of a visual aspect, a part of the visual interface. Game content, which can probably be broken down into story, genre, etc., is something completely different, and I hope you're not saying that Sony is just outrightly ignoring game content (story, etc), because that's pretty unsubstantiated.
I think your sweeping claim of 'gamers want to game' has very little thought put into it... I think gamers are looking to be immersed in story, visuals, and feel - all the aspects of the game which shouldn't be neglected - and I think that Nintendo and Sony are merely focusing on two different categories.
Oh, and before you say Sony is neglecting game content... both Nintendo and Sony rely on third party game manufacturers, so content (aside from a small number of games) is out of their control.
- John
It may be that my idea of entertainment consists more of visual immersion, rather than physical immersion. Perhaps I would like fuller cinematic experience, rather than a differing style of interface. Perhaps my notion of 'fun' differs from yours.
Attacking Sony as not attempting to increase the fun factor is a little shortsighted, and seems to me to be more of a stereotyping of wants of 'gamers' than any sort of conclusive fact.
- John
Drops laptop, runs to store.
I hope it was a cheap laptop.
- John
> Funny: Logic? Well, of course it's not logical, it's a j-
What's a J-? Is that like worse than an F-?
A J? It's how a funny man stays funny... now pass it here! *takes a big toke*
*exhales* ahhh.... That's better...
- John
And in other news, Santa's workshop is nowhere to be found.
Yeah. I read somewhere that he was bought out by Wallmart, and then dismantled.
- John
Of course there would be some people who would end up having grossly more experience points than they really should have. You know who I'm talking about.
haxors?
- John
The use of /ignore doesn't solve all the problems related to griefing. In most cases actions speak louder than words. A lot of the griefing seems more to revolve around (at least in my experiences) things like repeated killing purely for annoyance, training mobs, and mob stealing. These aren't things that a /ignore can solve... but they are thing that a governing body can have a great impact on.
/ignoring the problem, so acknowledging this fact may go far to solving a blight.
Back in my EQ days I played on a PvP server where such griefing took place regularily. What seemed to have formed out of that system was guilds created purely for protection of it's members... and it worked. Although this is more like gang warfare, it does show the power that player organization can have over griefing. Player organization can have a positive direct impact on player griefing, much more so than simply
- John
I've always wanted the developers to put more emphasis on these types of systems by placing actual specialists on the development team. There are probably a number of graduate students who would be interested in participating in the development of a virtual simulation of their studies, and it would certain add a whole new dimension to the normal gameplay.
Just think of it: Economists planning actual economic systems that have forethought; politics, anthropology, and history majors all developing a rich systems that make sense for a change.
We have a wide body of research and development out there in all these fields, but they are being wasted on reality. Come on people, get with the programming.
-------
-- John Searle
In all honesty, take a look at "child geniuses" that prospered early on. We hear every once in a while about a kid that starts college at the age of 8, or 10; and that's the last time we hear about them. It is the people that consistently produce significant progress that "show".
I have only one word to say to this... Doogie Howser. Which is actually two words, but hey we can't all be geniuses. He was a doctor at age 14!
Can anyone tell me what the costs of operating a station such as WOXY? The subscription fee they are calling for is $9.95/month. Their website states that their goal is 7k people... So, if you calculate that out (rounding up a bit) it comes out to $840k for the year, which is an extraordinarily large amount I would think.
Perhaps someone could explain why an INTERNET station would need so much capital. People are running them for free out there... perhaps the problem with their station is a matter of waste more than anything else. Maybe they should turn to the geeks at slashdot for better methods of internet distribution and cost cutting. Any thoughts?
-- John Searle
This idea has already been done. Although a couple posters have already cited some recent games, there is at least one RPG series I know of, from the mid 90s, that have the full force of realism you are speaking of. I can't say it was the best game I've ever played, but at least they made an attempt!
e m
http://www.abandonia.com/games/568/RobinsonsRequi
http://www.abandonia.com/games/590/Deus
I remember one time I played, as soon as I entered the game a bird came and plucked out one of my eyes... I had half the screen to play with until I quit.
-- John
Bad graphics _and_ system requirements, huge load times, bad balance, a broken economy, various inconsistent quirks, a load of bugs, exploits, etc. Add launching it with the typical Sony lack of concern for what the market wants: e.g., that as launched it was non-soloable when your friends/guild/whatever are not online or not the right level. Now also add a completely broken internationalization for the non-english markets. Now add some Sony-class talent for pissing off their customers. Etc, etc, etc.
A couple points here- EQ2's economy was far from broken, and if you want to argue that we can also argue for WoW's economy being a broken system. They both need improvements IMO, and I would suggest that, from what I played, EQ2 was superior due to its improved crafting implementations. Solo'ing I did constantly at it's launch, plus I excelled at it.. So I would argue against you there. And you would have to agree that the game, aside from its engine (which I will concede is buggy), had many improvements over EQ. Since WoW is nothing but a polished EQ, EQ2 has improvements over WoW. Given both time and money both games work out their bugs.
Same as any other "better game" at any point in time, eh? Back when EQ was in the lead, it too wasn't the best MMO that will ever be produced, it was the best MMO at that time. And that was enough.
I'm refering to it being better in terms of its marketing role (latching onto the casual gamers), not better in terms of its gameplay (improved crafting system, level system, etc), which I believe EQ2 exceeds in.
The problem with that is that it's a "begging the question" fallacy. It begs (as in, circularly argues) the question of how it got those numbers in the first place. It started at 0 people for WoW, and half a million for EQ, so the amount of people and word of mouth factor was definitely slanted in Sony's favour. Winning by sheer amout of people and word of mouth would have kept Sony in the lead. Yet WoW quickly grabbed 7 times more people than EQ ever had. Go figure.
I don't believe I'm begging the question here. I said that Blizzard had quite the reputation amongst the casual gamers, or the untapped market. Everquest had a hardcore gaming fanbase. I would argue that the number of casual gamers over the entire Warcraft series was much larger than the number of gamers involved in EQ. Therefore, if my pure speculations are right, Blizzard had the larger numbers. Plus, hardcore gamers are not the gems of the social community. So you can do the math.
My apologies for not making myself clear in certain areas...
-- John
I'm not sure you're right in saying that EQ had a better established name than Warcraft. What Warcraft accomplished was to draw in a crowd of players that were not a part of the MMO scene, thus have no idea of EQ. Warcraft had a ubquitious name amongst the casual gamers, EQ did not.
In fact, if you compare the WoW system to the original EQ system you have very little difference. Blizzard has produced a game with little depth, and, due to this fact, they have reduced the learning curve to nothing. Plus their engine require only base settings, whereas EQ2 has pretty hefty requirements.
To go through your comparisons-
The Sims is a different type of game entirely. Perhaps it WILL have a chance to overtake the other MMO's, but I doubt the time was right for it now. It is a well established life-sim game, which is not an established flavour of MMO (e.g. fantasy). I think your comparing different catagories here, like comparing Planetside to Everquest.
Star Wars Galaxies you are correct... It was just poorly made. Sony tried to change their tried and true system (EQ) and failed. The name drew a crowd, but the crowd left soon after.
EQ2 was, at least when I was playing it, a far superior game to WoW. They had the original EQ type system in place, and they made a progression from it - which also unfortunately increased the learning curve. This sytem I would argue is far better than WoW's bland system. EQ2's engine is far superior in terms of appearance, but unfortunately wasn't right for the time. Causual gamers aren't carrying around the spec necessary to run it efficiently. WoW had the basics, which is an appealing factor for the ppl who want to test out the MMO phenomena without having to upgrade.
Overall, WoW is a poor game if we're discussing progression... It isn't a step forward from what has been produced, but it does seem that a polished version of the old is what the MMO noobs are looking for. They didn't win because it's the better system, but because it's the better system for the time. Plus the amount of people and word of mouth certainly help (fads don't have to make sense).
- John
It's simple. Why do I skip commercials? They're annoying, loud, repetitive, gaudy, mindless.
I don't think I'm with you on this one. I tend not to watch commercials because they are an attempt to coerce me into buying thing I don't need, and probably wouldn't want on a normal basis. I don't disagree that a more effective ad would be one that is actually entertaining, but do you really want to be convinced to buy? Do we really need more product consumption at our expense? -- John
Well you backed up everything I just stated... The game lacks any sort of commitment. You don't have to be good at the game; you don't have to play a lot; in fact you don't even really have to try and your pretty well on par with everyone else. Game such as these seem to give support to the notion that lack of commitment, and by that I'm also including and putting emphasis on progression, breeds an apathy towards the games themselves. The question I must ask you is why would the average gamer switch off a normal FPS for an MMOFPS? And I can only come up with a few reasons for doing so... 1. They wish to play a MASS FPS game... But games such as Tribes comes pretty close to mimicking this, plus tribes has the advantage of actually having a point - the end of the match! Yes, I know Planetside has an end of day score. But I would hardly call that equal, and your part is insignificant compared to your role in a smaller scale version of the same thing (tribes, et al.) 2. They enjoy the large military strategy, especially against multiple factions... My friend unfortunately fits into this category. This can be replaced by any number of good mods in other games, and all for the great low price of the initial purchase. 3. You can enjoy noob status without being criticized. You're able to play with relative anonymity and few will be able to tell your questionable playing style, which, as should be noted, stands out in a normal small FPS game. Random unskilled kills, unearned experience through grouping, and other such things are all advantages of this game for the poor twitch player. Although I know only a few people who are THIS poor and still enjoy an FPS, and thus would fit under this category. Plus I don't think this style of game helps your skill at twitch play at all. I'm an above average twitch player, but after a month or so of this I found skills severely deteriorated. I think, overall, all the arguments you gave are the reason for Planetsides horrible failure as a game. Those are reason why someone would enjoy the game, obviously, but on the overall this is not the type of game the community is looking for. -- John
As a lover of the MMO scene, a player of Planetside, and a player of numerous MMORPG's...
The biggest problem of Planetside is the lack of progression. Aside from the standard kill/death tally system, the lackluster award system, and the pathetic level system, the game plays like a standard FPS. They might as well have made a basic FPS game. All three progression systems exist in the the standard FPS scene. Kill/death ratio is kept via server counters, awards are stored by servers and clans, and the level system can be found in numerous mods (BoTS, Weapons Factory, etc).
What the MMOFPS scene needs is a more progressive environment to catch, and keep, the interest of the players that are currently igoring the whole genre. Until they can develop this I'll gladly take the '+3 battleaxes of dorkdom' - the equipment itself being a type of progression.
Infact, after saying all of this, my prediction is that the MMOFPS scene doesn't succeed until it is no longer straight forward MMOFPS. The next step in the evolution of things is the combination of genres.
Oh, And PLEASE don't call Star Wars Galaxies an MMOFPS! It just shows your absolute igorance of the game.
- John