New MMORPG Age

[Caydin]

To be honest, the point of whatever debate was happening on pages 2 and 3 are completely lost to me. I honestly don't have the patience to sift through meaningless metaphor and allusions.

No two players are alike, and their tastes in gaming can be completely differing, almost opposing. The dream game for a player like Tro44 is a game I'm fairly certain I would probably despise. Features that Goldenwing would enjoy, I feel wouldn't address issues even she and her guild has. Samfortal wants more Sandbox Elements; I grow bored to the point of hatred of most titles that are sandbox in nature. Currently Rift has something for all of us, but it will never be the ideal game for all of us.

[the_real_seebs]

To be honest, the point of whatever debate was happening on pages 2 and 3 are completely lost to me. I honestly don't have the patience to sift through meaningless metaphor and allusions.

It was a huge digression because someone pointed out that players don't know what they want, and other people disputed this for reasons of their own.

No two players are alike, and their tastes in gaming can be completely differing, almost opposing. The dream game for a player like Tro44 is a game I'm fairly certain I would probably despise. Features that Goldenwing would enjoy, I feel wouldn't address issues even she and her guild has. Samfortal wants more Sandbox Elements; I grow bored to the point of hatred of most titles that are sandbox in nature. Currently Rift has something for all of us, but it will never be the ideal game for all of us.

It is surprisingly close to, if not "the ideal game", at least a local maximum for me. There are other kinds of games I quite like, but to beat Rift they would essentially have to be a completely different kind of game -- and honestly that's not likely to help because it's probably my favorite kind.

At the same time, just to illustrate my point, I could easily have told you that I'd hate TSW, but I got convinced to try it, and I'm having a ton of fun with it. Sometimes combining sets of things produces unexpected outcomes. I suspect that if you took a list of major differences between TSW and Rift, and made a game that was just like Rift except for any one difference on that list, I would like that game less. Split the difference and you'd have a game I'd quite likely totally loathe. Go all the way to TSW and suddenly you have a game I like again in a completely different way...

I do think there's room for real growth and change in the industry. Rift is always going to have some of that old-MMO feel (which is fine by me), but of the classic MMO contenders I think they're the one with the most potential for adopting newer structures and merging them into a game smoothly. (Both because of structural choices already made and corporate culture.) If TSW does well enough to keep Funcom afloat, 5-6 years from now we may start seeing some genuinely new designs.

[SanguineDeath]

This is not about Guild Wars(it isnt sandbox and other things), this is about new concepts, new rules in the market and to understand what the players want. There are a lot of topic, since patch 1.0 complaing about some things and it never change. For exemple, since always players says Rift pvp issues. My friends is get boring about that, and think with me, in patch 1.0 pvp equality was a feature not present in Rift. Now its becoming a rule not present in Rift. The clock is ticking and every second players come and go.

I really think this deserves more thought. Sorry, english is not my native language. Ty for feedback.

OP, you should do what I do - when I get bored from one game (I'm a Gemini and I get bored so VERY EASILY), I switch over and play something else (I go through "phases" of gameplay). Now I'm in my EQ2 phase and playing that. I love old school games as they are 1) challenging; 2) need some actual thought to play; 3) a nice change from simple point and click. Granted EQ2 does use a system where you do point and click but you REALLY need to know what to click and in what order as we use spell chaining and the net product is greater than the summed parts. Then there's crafting in the game which is always a blast - quite literally. You can get hurt or die crafting in EQ2 and when you craft, you're not guarenteed to craft something - lots of failure but that's fine (granted it can be annoying) as I get xp for that as well.

I also have a slew of RPG's that I play when I get bored with MMORPG's (and of course since I'm on a PC platform, I can mod the hell out of my games at home ) And plus now with all the new MMORPG's popping up everywhere, you can go shopping around and find something that suites your tastes. If Rfit doesn't have what your'e looking for, you can always try out WoW, The Secret World, EQ2, Terra, LOTRO, DAOC, CoH, AION - the list goes on ad nauseum.

[SanguineDeath]

Everquest faced a different problem. While they never made huge, sweeping changes in an attempt to copy other popular games, they suffered immensely from mudflation. Because game combat (both PvE and PvP) was gear-based, each expansion had to add a new carrot to the stick for these gear-treadmill gamers. Unfortunately, in doing so, they made much of their earlier content obsolete and despite having tons fo expansions and content, the majority of it sat unused, leaving the game overly bloated.

(and it likely will around the time EQNext is released).

I play EQ2, never had the opportunity to play EQ, and it's not an "easy" game like these "modern" games - you ACTUALLY have to pay attention to what you're doing. I have a bunch of toons, think made one of every class, but my favourite one is the Shadowknight - so damm OP it's ridiculous. I can take out mobs of 4-5 who are 2-3 lvls higher than me. But yes, I'm very curious to see what EQNext will be like and hopefully it will remain in the spirit of the previous 2.

[Galibier]

Sam the issue I have with your post is the things it leaves out. It's not just about MMOs. MMORPG is not some monolithic genre. They vary not only in terms of content but financial model and the financial model has a much larger effect on the content that you think.

F2p (what an oxymoron) and b2p can have little grind in terms of gear because the game is essentially designed to be disposable. Note I do not mean this in a bad way. My flat screen TV is largely disposable but a damn good product. What i mean is they don't care if an individual player is there playing everyday, all they care is that they get the game and at some time by stuff from the cash shop.

A subscription based game needs a grind because they need to keep a player playing and paying a subscription month after month.

There is a place for both and tbh the subscription games aren't going anywhere sometime soon. Here is why. There have been studies and even Game producers who have said a f2p game makes money off of 11% of their players. 10% pay a minimum for access to all content up front (think LoTROs model with a subscription that gives them access to all the classes and zones) and 1% pay money hand over fist in the shop buying everything alla cart. 89% however pay nothing.

A subscription based game, while often not being able to brag about as many accounts can often brag about as much or more profit come accounting time because 100% of their players is part of the revenue stream. We have to remember these games are about making a profit and there is no silver bullet as far as that goes.

My concern is actually the expansion into multi-platform games. These games (DCUO being the prime example) end up killing some of the things that make an MMO an MMO. The communication in DCUO was horrible because they had to address the concerns of console and PC gamers at the same time and stuff for the PC players had to give to let the console players have more usefulness. Eventually I think it won't be a "new kind of MMO" because those of us who have gamed on MMOs for over a decade won't recognize it.

[Hugatree]

I agree to an extent, however at some point it becomes almost detrimental.

As MMO's cater to consumer trends they become more and more niche in their presentation, at some point it has to stop. If you were to look at the 'mechanics' of the orignal few mmo's compared to the more common trends today you can tell they're related, but its a thin relationship and growing increasingly thinner.

At the end of the day I think catering to the will of the masses is inherently the formula for failure. The wants/ desires of the consumer can be fickle and subject to change at the drop of a hat. At this point with the saturation of mmo's out there I think it's best to just create an enjoyable gaming experience.

Rather than trying to stay at the cutting edge of the current trends I feel its better to provide an entertaining experience.

[Galibier]

I think this, to an extent, is a line Trion is trying to walk. I am more into following MMOs on business sites than fan sites. If you look at the various interviews with Buttler going back to 2009 or so he talks about Trion developing a portfolio of server based games all with different play styles and financial models is mind. That is why we have a "traditional" MMO in Rift, a RTS style one and then a fast twitch multimedia game in Defiance. They understand I think that trying to follow fickle tastes by constantly changing the same IP is a losing propositions so they are developing multiple IPs to cater to different tastes. They are also smart enough to know that different tastes in games mean different financial models. How many RTS players used to a sub fee? So make it f2p. Other game companies try to retcon and that often results in square pegs being pounded into round holes.

F2p games often have smaller dev budgets which result in smaller and less frequent new content (not referring to the latest appearance gear in a cash shop but rather real content). I don't think many would say LoTROs new offerings are what the were in their hey day and ArenaNet failed to deliver on their expac a year promise with the original GW. Just from reading these foruns you can see that certain expectations in terms of new content are expected. It didn't matter that by the time ID was launched we had the equivilent of an Expac here...people wanted an expac.

This I think will be another point of conflict. It again revolves around financial models. People want their games cheaper and cheaper...even free BUT they also want the same level of polish and content updates that they got when they paid for a box and a monthly subscription. Some players aren't just fickle, they are unrealistic.

[Goodberry]

If you had said the "average" player has no clue what they want, I might have agreed. However, I can't even get behind that statement.

There are players who know exactly what they want. And the problem is finding an MMO that provides it.


Rift has an excellent soul system. They have a decent game, small in size. It had developers that had transparency in dealing with its customers. The devs are obviously commited to quality. There are continued attempts at innovative game play within the business framework the devs have chosen.

The framework is a business decision. Usually those are based on marketing research, red teams, etcetera.

Currently Rift is apparently aimed at 2 market segments, with an attempt at a third (e.g. "casuals" who fish, instanced raiders and instanced PvP sans tournament ladders.)

It is predicated on a model that defines guilds as only those that are sized for 10 and 20 man instanced raiding.

It has abandoned some of the gameplay that provided diversity and is now concentrated on "fish", "raid" and "hang in there with us, we're working on PvP, really!"


There is a huge gap in the middle between "casual" and "raiding" that most MMORPGs flush along the way, not understanding that customers cannot be clumped into "average" player labels placed in simple boxes.
"Smearing the line between hardcore and casual" has yet to actually occur with the exception of one game in a player requested one-off server that the devs originally resisted for years. That smearing did not exclude players based on guild size, like most post-2003 games. I digress.

My guild and I know exactly what we want from MMORPG gameplay. And we know which games have provided which pieces over the last dozen years. Our job has been to find one that fits our needs/desires the best.. Sometimes we come close, and then the devs change business direction, usually without discernable marketing research.

------------

@OP: good job caring enough about the game and Trion to try and get a dialogue going. I could/would add to it, but sadly, my guild and I gave it our best shot months ago and are in the process of moving on.

Trion has, in the past, been open to experimenting with gameplay. They collect numbers and data based and adjust accordingly. All framed, now apparently, within the constraints of "fish, raid, instanced PvP".

Good luck. It's worth a try. Rift is a quality little game. I hope it and Trion continue to grow.

Nice post, Goldenwing. You explained my own reasons for "moving on" much better than I could have done myself.

[Galibier]

I think you ignore the other things there. More IAs, mentoring, incoming 5 mans etc. Also the fact that you can't go through an hour (at least on my server) where there are PUG raids for every zone and RoTP and HK are the only ones where people occassionally say "link achievement". Simply because someone is "casual" does not mean they don't engage in these things. I consider myself casual. I pick up t1 raid pugs when I can and regularly raid a whopping 4 hours a week max. With that little time I am now regularly pulling Aklylios, he will be dead soon, and then it is off to ID.

Another thing, and this is not meant to be snarky so please don't take it that way. Trion isn't dumb and they don't spend money based on feelings. I know some of the cats over there and while they won't give me numbers they all say one thing. When they add new content it is based on numbers. They look and see how many people are on line, how often and for how long. They then look at what is being done. Based on that data they do a cost benefit analysis and determine what needs to be expanded on and what doesn't. I actually said this when they first introduced the Chronicles and said if people want more they better keep doing em because if the numbers don't justify expansion the money will not be forth coming. This is how they have made decisions since launch so whay they focus on is focused on because a majority of the player base is spending time doing it.

[Goldenwing]

Nice post, Goldenwing. You explained my own reasons for "moving on" much better than I could have done myself.

Thank you. Why we are as well.


Our guild stopped playing Rift in April. Sadly, no other game to go to at the moment that has a majority of features we are looking for. We are starting to have a bit of MMO "withdrawal" after a decade, but we've decided it's better to have one that we know we will enjoy rather than one that requires us to change our values/playstyles and "make do" (Rift). We understand that Trion made a decision, based on numbers, to not pursue the gameplay implied at release. They will, of course, end up with exactly the customers they currently have, because they are measuring only what they have. Measurements come with that caveat. Why rigourous marketing/focus groups are so important.

And yes, we DO know what we enjoy, both from a features and "feel" viewpoint. Gaming after all, is an emotional experience, not merely a collection of mechanics.

PS: Good luck finding a new game that works for you!

[Goodberry]

Well, this is an interesting thread, so I'll say my two cents.

What did REALLY not work in Rift for me? My idea is: relevance, or lack thereof. The feeling that everything I did, even when it was somewhat fun, was not relevant in any way: not to the game world, not to my character, not to any of my guildies or friends, not to the real me, the player. Just a time sink.

Rift has many features, but imho lacks the most important one: a connectedness, an overarching story, a believable virtual world you can care about. Instant Adventures are a good fun idea when you start doing them, but they get stale fast, because they don't mean anything, and don't change anything. Ditto for Chronicles and, sadly, everything else in the game.

And it's not a technical problem. Vanilla WoW gave more of a sense of accomplishment while never actually implementing any type of "phasing", or persistent change. Paradoxically, when phasing came it DETRACTED from the game (phasing was one of the major reasons I left, when I realised that my actions were consistently making Azeroth a WORSE place for my character). But in Vanilla WoW, they pulled a good illusionist's trick in giving you the idea that what you did was relevant for both yourself and the world. A few examples: the epic rescue quests, or the ones where the item you needed was in an inner room in an enemy stronghold, so you naturally grouped with other players and formed a raid in order to storm said stronghold, or the ones where you helped a guildie to a difficult task through a long quest chain. There was a real sense of adventure and, again, accomplishment.

I don't know whether Rift's business model is sound and the game will thrive. I hope so, as it's not a bad game. But surely, "fish or raid" is no good for me, and the ultra-casual, no-challenge, run-and-zerg Instant Adventures are really glorified Fishing.

P.S.
I think, that whatever Science may say, many people know what would be better for them. THE PROBLEM IS THEY CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THE "EXPERTS" IN POWER THINK OTHERWISE. And so, pretty things like the "Financial Crisis". Thanks experts, lol. Science works... sometimes, and humans aren't Higgs' bosons. Our mass is considerably greater. :P

[Goodberry]

Thank you. Why we are as well.


Our guild stopped playing Rift in April. Sadly, no other game to go to at the moment that has a majority of features we are looking for. We are starting to have a bit of MMO "withdrawal" after a decade, but we've decided it's better to have one that we know we will enjoy rather than one that requires us to change our values/playstyles and "make do" (Rift). We understand that Trion made a decision, based on numbers, to not pursue the gameplay implied at release. They will, of course, end up with exactly the customers they currently have, because they are measuring only what they have. Measurements come with that caveat. Why rigourous marketing/focus groups are so important.

And yes, we DO know what we enjoy, both from a features and "feel" viewpoint. Gaming after all, is an emotional experience, not merely a collection of mechanics.

PS: Good luck finding a new game that works for you!

Thanks a lot, and good luck to you and your guild, too!

P.S.
What is your guild? I'd be interested in seeking you out if we end playing the same game...

[Galibier]

I don't know I think when you look at it Rift's story is very good. I'll use the Eth to illustrate it. You enter with certain myth based preconceptions. The Eth empire destroyed itself to stop the technology that helped defeat the first blood storm from falling into the hands of cultists. Only to find out this is not the truth at all. The truth is the Eth were actually trying to ascend their entire race centuries before and the cultists made it blow up in their face. You have the corrupt king of Mathosia etc.

I think the difference is, and it is not to everyones taste, when it comes to player characters there are no bad guys or good guys. We all come from peoples with their own agendas, schemes and power plays. The Eth wanted to ascend themselves, possibly at the expense of other peoples and Mathosian Armies "liberated" the weakened and desperate survivors. The "High" Elves call themselves such because "just" Elves are lesser because their dared to move into civilization, the Kelari broke off because they know better than the other mortals, that they are equal to the gods, etc.

Now admittedly, like EQ2 additional lore is in the raid zones. The Chronicles gave you additional lore but if you want to experience Regulos taking Alsbeth soul as a chew toy you need to 20 man it. If you want to see what Jornaru becomes you need to 20 man HK.

All in all though there is Lore there, however it is lore more in the Spirit of say the original Riftwar or even Serpent War by Raymond Feist. A world where with the exception of the REAL evil peeps being black as sack cloth (read cultists and planar creatures) the protagonists have their shades of grey, vs say a Tolkienesque world where the protagonists deep down inside are gloriously and clearly white. I for one find that a wonderful change of pace. The fact that Orphiel is one step away from being a mad scientist and Cyril one step away from an innocent slaughtering religious fanatic is what makes Telara special to me.

I will agree that much of the solo content gets old at a faster rate (IA and chronicles). The problem is Trion listened to the bulk of player base. Now I miss EQ2 and the wonderful questlines, stories etc. Working your way through Nektropos Castle for the first time was CRAZY fun. The problem is WoW to an extent and then EQ2 followed its lead, killed that. MMOs became a race to end game. So we end up with Scott Hartsman in the dead pixel podcast during the Betas saying....

"I don't care if people get to 50 in one day. Games that artificially slow leveling do so because they have no end game. We have end game."

It does look like we are going to get some serious lore at all levels with the expac. Up till now it appears we have been essentially the peoples living with the myths and legends after now two great disasters. The new land masses seem to be like the rising of Atlantis and Lemuria. We shall see lands lost that hold knowledge from before the coming of the first Bloodstorm. I for one can't wait.

As for the business model being sound...unless Trion could show dang good numbers they would not have gotten another 85 million in investment a year after launch. Hedge funds, Pension Plans etc. aren't big on making direct investment unless the numbers back it up.

[the_real_seebs]

I think, that whatever Science may say, many people know what would be better for them.

Nearly everyone has a pretty good idea about it most of the time. But "have a pretty good idea" and "know" are not the same thing.

It's totally reasonable to start with what people say they want. It's suicidally stupid to take it as absolute authority as to what will actually make them happy. I'm not, by the way, claiming that "experts" are necessarily noticably better at it; in many fields, experts consistently underperform pure chance.

Mostly, the point is that you have to be ready for the possibility that what you really want is something you haven't thought of yet, or something you've thought about and dismissed for what seem like perfectly good reasons.

[saboikie]

What did REALLY not work in Rift for me? My idea is: relevance, or lack thereof. The feeling that everything I did, even when it was somewhat fun, was not relevant in any way: not to the game world, not to my character, not to any of my guildies or friends, not to the real me, the player. Just a time sink.

Rift has many features, but imho lacks the most important one: a connectedness, an overarching story, a believable virtual world you can care about.

This. Is so true for me. It is why I feel like moving on too. So much to do for sure. But it's all so /yawn after a while. A term I heard during some raids "rinse and repeat".

I realise MMOs can't have the definitive linear story line that you get in something like Skyrim or Dragon Age, but more Epic story quests, or at least building the raids, etc. into storylines whould have been more of an incentive to keep playing the game.

I think the finacial model for these types of MMOs goes something like this - how can we make things hard enough to get (i.e. gear progression) for people to spend months and months of their income for content. Rinse and repeat. And really, the gear models (visual effects) are so limited. They did not even spend time diversifying a lot of gear.

Moving on