Is the MMO the pinnacle of gaming?
- Thread starter willard3
- Start date
I played World of Warcraft for a while and it seemed good at the time.. but I came to realise that it is only a good game if you like to grind. I didn't see the point of grinding through 79 levels before I could have fun... I could start up Call of Duty 4 and have fun in 79 seconds. There's also the fact that it isn't an RPG, not even on the designated RP servers. 98% of chat is done through ooc channels. Everyone is too busy chasing stats to assume the role of their character. Like many other such MMORPG's, it seems to be simply a medieval- FPS.
So for a game with no immersion, no RPG element, and a centre of grinding.. I don't see how MMOs could be the pinnacle. In my opinion, the pinnacle of gaming is an FPS with a great story (e.g. the half life series) or an RPG with deep immersion (e.g. the elder scrolls series, oblivion and morrowind specifically).
So for a game with no immersion, no RPG element, and a centre of grinding.. I don't see how MMOs could be the pinnacle. In my opinion, the pinnacle of gaming is an FPS with a great story (e.g. the half life series) or an RPG with deep immersion (e.g. the elder scrolls series, oblivion and morrowind specifically).
cant agree there.willard3 said:
one of the main reasons that MMOs have avoided precision twitch based control schemes is latency and the reality of hundreds or thousands of players hammering a server with movements at once; but its no longer a hard and fast rule that MMOs have click-lock-drool control schemes.
games like (the now defunct) tabula rasa and the recent chronicles of spellborn try (with varying degrees of success) to merge FPS gameplay with MMORPG game structure and character development. hit detection still isn't to the point where its perfect when there are a thousand people on a server, but i'm sure we'll see more and more robust control schemes as time progresses, tho.
as for the rest of the thread, i have trouble taking the OP seriously in this discussion when his / her bias is so plainly evident. MMOs are a genre of game just like FPS or RTS.
i'd hope we'd all be wary of anyone who would claim one genre as the pinnacle of the form, or at least assume they were taking the piss.
we each have types of games that appeal to us and our own tastes, but those tastes have nothing to do with definitive superlatives; they're opinions plain and simple.
perhaps i'd take this thread more seriously if the OP had at least played an MMO or two and was attempting to take stock of what the genre does well and what it needs to work on in future development.
as it is, she comes off as something of a troll with no first hand knowledge or experience of what he's talking about.
I was wondering when the first troll accusations came through.cherimoya said:
(Note: I trimmed your post just for length, not so I can make myself look better. I did read it.)I admit that I've never played an MMO before, though I do have a few friends that have and still do. They are not my type of game. I claim no genre as the pinnacle of gaming, because there really ARE lots of genres suited to particular players. I'm trying to see why the MMO genre gets so much praise and is treated like the best genre...as in, once a game series hits MMO territory, it's basically over because nothing else can be done to make it better...or something. (I have little to no faith in ever seeing a Warcraft 4.)
Oh, and "she?"
Just because I'm not interested in playing them doesn't mean that I can't respect the medium that other people enjoy. I'm not saying that people shouldn't play MMOs; just that maybe they're placed on a sacred pedestal and may not deserve it. I can still have a discussion about MMOs; I just don't want to play them.cherimoya said:
short answer, no. They're almost never any good from a design standpoint, the gameplay is gauranteed to be grindy and repetitive, and the concepts are almost all entirely unoriginal trash.
Unfortunatley, they also get high numbers of players who don't care enough about the quality of the game itself to overlook the game entirely, but I'll never understand these people.
Unfortunatley, they also get high numbers of players who don't care enough about the quality of the game itself to overlook the game entirely, but I'll never understand these people.
i meant no disrespect on the gender thing - i called you he and she in different points in my post. i've no clue what you've got between your legs, didn't want to assume either way.
as for this sacred pedestal, i dont know where that impression is coming from. market-wise, MMOs dominate the PC as a gaming platform in large part due to WoW. possibly if you were to remove the 11 million pound gorilla from the equation it wouldn't look like MMOs were as lofty in people's impressions as they seem to be?
i think the only difference i can see between MMOs and other genres is that genres come in and out of vogue, their popularity ebbing and flowing depending on the whims of the gaming public, while the multiplayer aspect of MMOs is pretty much here to stay.
(a good example of how we're probably not going back to strictly single player gaming is the number of FPS / RTS titles that ship without multiplayer connectivity / game modes)
i think MMOs will change a great deal, and grow out of some of their more crude design tropes (quest grinds, CRPG HP and mana metaphors, "leveling", out of place focus on solo heroics in gameworlds full of thousands of "the world's best, last hope!", etc), but i look forward to playing them while they get there / adapt.
as for this sacred pedestal, i dont know where that impression is coming from. market-wise, MMOs dominate the PC as a gaming platform in large part due to WoW. possibly if you were to remove the 11 million pound gorilla from the equation it wouldn't look like MMOs were as lofty in people's impressions as they seem to be?
i think the only difference i can see between MMOs and other genres is that genres come in and out of vogue, their popularity ebbing and flowing depending on the whims of the gaming public, while the multiplayer aspect of MMOs is pretty much here to stay.
(a good example of how we're probably not going back to strictly single player gaming is the number of FPS / RTS titles that ship without multiplayer connectivity / game modes)
i think MMOs will change a great deal, and grow out of some of their more crude design tropes (quest grinds, CRPG HP and mana metaphors, "leveling", out of place focus on solo heroics in gameworlds full of thousands of "the world's best, last hope!", etc), but i look forward to playing them while they get there / adapt.
MMOs are the pinnacle if you ask me. To be successful or considered for an MMO that universe must have enough depth or fanbase to do so. Its really a final evolutionary step a game story or universe can take.
If you seriously consider diablo an MMO than you dont know what your talking about. The appeal with an MMO is that you are inside your favorite gaming world. Do not confuse MMO with RPG, they are not related, but they are most commonly merged together to make MMORPG's. By your definition anything with online support is an MMO.
If you seriously consider diablo an MMO than you dont know what your talking about. The appeal with an MMO is that you are inside your favorite gaming world. Do not confuse MMO with RPG, they are not related, but they are most commonly merged together to make MMORPG's. By your definition anything with online support is an MMO.
More like the sewer, which is why almost every genre has ended up in it. Nothing quite like paying $15 a month to grind for imaginary resources, get spammed by gold sellers, and teabagged by gangs of alliance dipshits while doing your daily quests.
it's no StarCraft but, possibly my favorite mmo of all time is Shattered Galaxy, it's an MMORTS. The only kind of grinding involved is fighting with other players, and there is no big worries about getting raped by players that have been playing since the game launched (2001) since all new player start on the rookie planet, where everyone's player level is capped at 22 and unit levels are capped at 25. (maximum unit levels being 60) Granted, it's no longer at its peak, since Nexon stopped developing the game and handed it off to KRU interactive a few years ago, but it's still the best MMO out there in my opinion, and believe me, I've tried many.
I'd say more but this might be taken like an ad already...
I'd say more but this might be taken like an ad already...
Well, I wouldn't call myself a fanboy, but I did join this community from the "fanboi" vector of Turbine.edinflames said:
MMOs as a genre have a specific fanbase same as single player games and trying to chase down the "exact" reason or value that makes one superior to another is rather pointless. You bring your own subjective needs and bias into the game with you, so if MMOs don't move you, then you shouldn't continue.
I fell into MMOs after single player games because, as an old gamer, I missed the social interactions from the pnp D & D and other rpgs. MMOs allowed my gaming circle to reconnect and game together despite the distances that now lie between us.
As gaming evolved, I've become rather disenchanted by the prevalence of darker themes, anti-hero archetypes and, in some titles, violence for the sake of violence. I'm not saying this to shake a finger and tell you you're wrong in liking the game, just that I've seen the change in the industry. To say that these types of games aren't my cup of tea is pretty obvious.
Re-educate? What? Didn't you go to school the right way the first time? j/k
The issue will likely be determined by the next paradigm in connectivity for the web. MMORPG's have mainly stuck to turn basing because of latency issues from the multitude of different computer configs/ISPs/etc.cherimoya said:
Single player games aren't hampered by this since they're optimized for the platform running them(save the PC games which can have the various config issues).
Questing and Grinding...it breaks down to the basics of human nature. Some of us are incredibly creative(or chaotic, take your pick) and have no problem haring off to explore and refuse to conform. Others like to have a specific task or goal to accomplish. How does a gaming developer truly navigate between the two extremes? It's easy to throw out "MMOs are all WoW clones." comment without addressing the fact that the developer has to try to please the broadest base of players to stay in business. And at the moment, WoW is the most basic platform out in MMO.
Maybe you played the wrong game. Try LotRO on a good server. The world and quests are much more coherent and immersive than in WoW.Scarecrow38 said:
On topic: From the developers point of view it's easy. The online aspect prevents illegal copies and the constant revenue, either by monthly fee or by item shop is quite appealing. Additionally there's a much higher percentage of buyers for the addons they're producing. And games magazines seem to have a deeper look at them due to the success of WoW.
From the players pov most of the arguments AGAINST MMOs seem to come from the standard WoW cliches. You CAN have lots of fun with WoW without playing 20 hours a week. You'll just have to decide if it's worth the 15 bucks a month for you. But when you play like 5-10 hours a week you might have fun with it for half a year to a year before you have explored most of the world and tasks get repeating. All in all you may have spent maybe 250 bucks for that year, not more than you would have spent on 5-6 games that you played for 2 months each.
I play LotRO now for two years. I spent 250 ? on release for a collectors edition with life time account (no monthly fees as long as the game is running) and another 50 ? for the first addon. I've played maybe 700 hours in these two years and had lots of fun. I play it mostly as a single person RPG with global chat channels, the chance to trade with others and occasionally form a group to do hard tasks with others. Works perfect for me.
But I agree that MMOs are currently in the WoW trap. I'd love to see a true "Next Gen" MMO. Currently they are all more or less WoW clones that only differ in combat mechanics (slightly) and background story (the reason I play LotRO). I'd love to see MMOs where you can do more like building trade networks, empires or focus on crafting WITHOUT having to spend half of the day logged on to keep everything running. I'd love to see an MMO where the world is in a constant change (or at least a regular change, where existing places get overhauled and front lines change).
The problem is that this takes a lot of developer capacity and since players always consume content faster than developers develop content they refrain from "reducing" content by changing old functioning content.
I personally hope that SW:TOR fulfills some of the promises they are giving and make something else than another WoW clone. But I fear the worst.
Admit you're wrong. It's just incorrect to call D2 an MMO, because MMO is nothing more than 'massive multiplayer', which Diablo 2 isn't. You can consider something to be the predecessor of a genre, but that doesn't make it that genre too. MMO isn't a genre on it's own either. You have to put something behind it. It's the form a game can have, like a game can be purely singleplayer too. In theory, you could turn every genre into an MMO.willard3 said: