Guild Wars 2

A clear shift of paradigm in the gaming industry over the last decade is that games have gotten more “action-oriented.” Gone are the days of slow dungeon crawls and long repetitive encounters. They’ve been replaced by quick time events, reflex-based action sequences, and shorter boss fights. These games are “exciting” and capture the attention of large parts of the gaming population, which as a result gives them triple A budgets and high production values.

Let’s be real here:: one of the biggest selling points of an MMORPG is for progression within a communal environment. You grind (often through repetitive gameplay) to obtain great items and show them off to online crowds, which makes you value and appreciate your achievements even more.

However, as the new breeds of action games have risen to prominence, they’ve also started to integrate RPG elements (such as legendary weapons, cosmetic purchases, etc.) to keep their userbases captivated and give them a sense of progression. These userbases are often huge and, as more games become integrated into an online-dependent environment (ie. Destiny, The Division), they have in essence become similar to MMO’s. The key difference is that these games are now striving to integrate gameplay designed to appeal to masses as the driving force to obtaining MMORPG-style achievements….thus taking away from young gamers who would have otherwise joined the traditional MMORPG crowd.

Even sports games (which admittedly are LOTS of fun) are introducing MMORPG elements. The Ultimate Team Mode in FIFA and Madden (you build your own team based on cards from packs, which you purchase through in-game currency or real money) makes almost a billion dollars every year for EA. This game mode appeals with the same addictive “progression” and “grind” you get from MMORPGS, but with more unpredictable (almost entirely PvP) and fun gameplay. With the type of production values and budgets that a massive corporation such as EA has to milk their cash cows, there is no way that small, traditional MMORPG companies can compete and captivate young audience to play their games and satisfy their addiction for online RPG progression.

TLDR: MMO concepts integrated into games aimed at capturing up-and-coming gamers (shooters, action games, sports games) are taking potential new users away from traditional MMORPG’s. As a result, MMORPG’s such as WoW and GW2 are dwindling and dying out.

ermm…

gw2 and wow aren’t exactly traditional mmorpg

So if it has exciting gameplay, it can’t be an MMO? Because those dang kids!?

SkyShroud.2865:

ermm…

gw2 and wow aren’t exactly traditional mmorpg

I would argue that compared to many “MMORPG-like” games released today, they definitely are traditional.

You described all games that are primarily or solely console games. MMOs are almost entirely on PC.

Fortunately I have about 60 times as much disposable income as any whipper-snapper and courting me and my ilk can get you a lot more money over time than some of the action titles pull in.

X-Com 2 says ‘hi’ to that action-is-everything mindset.

There’s a convergence. FPS is cherry picking gear grind from MMOs and MMOs are cherry picking more action style combat.

And WoW basically defined MMOs for a decade. It was a more polished version of Everquest.

BnS for example was developed around a PvP fighting engine first demoed way back in 2008 I think. Still didn’t come out in Korea until 2012 and is just making it here in NA/EU. Now BnS is really a WoW style MMO in terms of it’s quest/story structure. Except it has an advantage over a lot of newer MMOs in NA/EU because it has 4 years of content that had been added in Asia being dribbled out here every month, giving the illusion of rapid content development to those who don’t know how old the game really is and the game is just playing catch-up. I don’t know if it’s “it’s not a subscription” VIP system is truly worth the $12 now that the launch queues are gone.

Traditional MMOs are one of the most difficult and expensive kind of game to develop. The most vocal members of an MMO community are the same ones who will rip through the content that took years to develop in a matter of weeks and then complain that there’s nothing to do. Devs can’t satiate them and never can. We are now a culture of binging and speed running. Story is fairly unimportant to this crowd as any text or audio will simply be clicked past. Audio that cost money to create, that bloats game’s footprint yet not having it would be panned.

So yes, MMOs are on a downward path. But games like GW2 that broke away from the mold are in a better position to survive than some that have been released since GW2.

Good Tofu.9376:

SkyShroud.2865:

ermm…

gw2 and wow aren’t exactly traditional mmorpg

I would argue that compared to many “MMORPG-like” games released today, they definitely are traditional.

still, it isn’t traditional

furthermore, you are grouping wow a 2004 mmorpg and gw2 2012 mmorpg together. in those years gap, do you know which gen does wow belong to and gw2 belong to?

Maybe I’m old fashioned but when I think of traditional MMOs I think of things like Ultima Online where it was much more of a sandbox design – you’re given a world and various things to do, like skill lines to train up and places to explore, and then largely left to your own devices to decide what to do with it.

Those games had the advantage that the focus was on the social aspects and emergent gameplay (which is a fancy name for setting your own goals and then trying to complete them) which meant the developers didn’t have to scramble to find ways to keep people occupied because players had all the tools to occupy themselves for weeks or months at a time.

That’s one of the main things I think modern MMOs are lacking. Of course it’s still entirely possible to make up your own activities within a game – role players are a prime example and there’s other things like trying to reach parts of the map that aren’t obviously accessible. But I feel like it’s not as encouraged as it used to be, and not as commonly embraced by players.

The traditional MMO RPG never existed — it’s always been an evolving market, with some competitors trying to be like the industry leader and some trying to break out in new directions. Heck, the traditional RPG never really existed — all sorts of RPG games include all sorts of aspects of other game types, as developers try to find things that attract big-enough audiences to fund costs to release the next title.

I don’t have any criticisms of ANet based on their attempt to produce a game that interests more people because it appeals to lots of different players. (My annoyance is that they haven’t managed their expectations well, let alone our expectations about what would happen and when.)

Ticky.5831:

You described all games that are primarily or solely console games. MMOs are almost entirely on PC.

Final Fantasy XIV is widely considered an MMO also on PS4….and its userbase pales in comparison to that of Destiny, The Division, and any of the Ultimate Team sports titles.

Behellagh.1468:

Traditional MMOs are one of the most difficult and expensive kind of game to develop. *The most vocal members of an MMO community are the same ones who will rip through the content that took years to develop in a matter of weeks and then complain that there’s nothing to do. Devs can’t satiate them and never can. We are now a culture of binging and speed running. Story is fairly unimportant to this crowd as any text or audio will simply be clicked past. * Audio that cost money to create, that bloats game’s footprint yet not having it would be panned.

This is the type of personality (ones who, if they joined MMO Market, would act like your description) is exactly the type that the new breed of games attracts. For example, an Ultimate Team sports game that has a better version of a player released every 2 weeks will keep its userbase feverishly playing to try and get enough resources to get the next new shiny card. And when next year’s version of the game is released, they’ll gladly start this process again.

It requires very little dev work and keeps people hooked like no other. The devs will then spend most of the resources pouring into the next year’s iteration of gameplay, which just refreshes the treadmill again.

Games with yearly refreshes (drastic gameplay updates, but requiring you to start your collection of items over again) seem to be doing very well in today’s gaming market.

Want more proof? All of the gold selling websites for MMO’s are now thriving on FIFA ultimate team coins, NBA myteam currency, Madden Ultimate team coins, etc. The fact that there is a huge market for in-game items (pertaining to a gear treadmill and increasing prestige) highlights a greater convergence between MMO concepts and modern action games.

I might be wrong here, but a big chunk of the traditional MMO population plays for the addictive feeling of progression and prestige via achievement/grind…..NOT for the gameplay or story. And with more actively engaging games (FIFA, CoD, Destiny, etc.) offering the same progression and grind, people are starting to gravitate away from MMORPGS (WoW, Elder Scrolls Online, GW2, etc.).

I have always had the feeling many older MMORPGs was prolly like that because of technology of their time (like not having speedy internet for examples)

If all the people who are simply looking for a gear treadmill (especially one requiring more real-world money than in-game activity) gravitate to sports games and leave MMOs with only the people interested in story, gameplay and emergent gameplay I certainly won’t complain. Because then the developers will likely shift their focus to more of that type of content.

I’ve never liked sports games anyway. (Unless Mario Kart counts?)

Shooters always had the elements you described (grinding to get points to get better gear/guns to earn rank to get better gear to grind faster to get higher rank to earn better guns to grind faster…) as do sports games were you “unlock” leagues and players and better AI from the computer and so forth and so on.

Nothing has changed there. What will suffer are games like Final Fantasy (hence 13) where the gameplay is not only repetitive but it’s not as “drag and drop” friendly. People log into MMO, play their fill, log out, we all win; people log into MOBA, into Shooter, into Sports, etc. and play their fill and log out and everyone is happy. Slower games like RPGs (not MMORPGs) tend to suffer because their models can’t keep up.

It was, and still is, one of the complaints behind games like Witcher where it did, for a bit, move a bit slow. Leveling is harder, the game requires your attention, and you can’t just slide through it like a newborn out of a sac. You can’t just jump in and be uber either. Bethesda games work the opposite, at least their sandbox series such as Fallout and The Elder Scrolls, and both are 1-player as well meaning you can completely mod the game if you feel things are moving slow but even playing as intended you just set the game difficulty to super easy and swing your knife around like a drunken tentacruel and win.

I’ve even gone so far as to call it “Flower Picking Simulator” since that’s what a friend did the whole time they played! Can’t do that in Witcher.

So in closing Tabletop type games which are slow to progress will be effected most because younger people are “go go go” and just don’t have the time for the storyboard anymore meanwhile modern MMOs of all types have easily shifted to the newer models and MMORPGs are actually the forerunners, not the followers, of the model itself.

Good Tofu.9376:

I might be wrong here, but a big chunk of the traditional MMO population plays for the addictive feeling of progression and prestige via achievement/grind…..NOT for the gameplay or story. And with more actively engaging games (FIFA, CoD, Destiny, etc.) offering the same progression and grind, people are starting to gravitate away from MMORPGS (WoW, Elder Scrolls Online, GW2, etc.).

If this is the case, I wouldn’t want them to play an MMO I developed or care if they complain about lack of stuff to do after they binged it. They aren’t the players I’m targeting. I want people who are interested in this world I created, not distill it into the mechanics needed to level cap fastest.

Deleena.3406:

I have always had the feeling many older MMORPGs was prolly like that because of technology of their time (like not having speedy internet for examples)

I came here to write a longer version, but basically this. Here’s the long version anyway

Do you ever wonder why it is that the original final fantasy games were turn based? Or why it is the first MUDs were turn based? Little hint: it isn’t because turn based combat was such a unique and enthralling thing that the games just had to be made like that. It was due to hardware issues. You couldn’t have an action game on arpanet. The connection speed was too slow and too costly. You couldn’t have an action game on the NES and have all of the space for the story that went into those games. The gameplay for these amounted to “press A, then wait for a bit”, or in MUD’s cases it involved typing out a sentence just to perform a single action.

The traditional MMO (i.e. Everquest) was designed with cooldowns and cast bars because computers at the time couldn’t handle an action game. It would have been a dream come true if you had a game that had the rich and entertaining combat of street fighter, but the massive world and lore of Final Fantasy 3. Now, as technology advances and programmers get better, there is no longer a limitation on how an MMO handles its combat. So they go for the hybrid action of Wildstar, the faux-fighting game Blade and Soul, or the brawler style of Black Desert. It is more fun to watch, and more importantly it is more fun to play.

The only time you’ll be seeing an MMO that has a similar style to the old ones is if it is designed specifically to tap into nostalgia. Fact is, it is a smart decision to tap into the audiences with flashy and involved combat. It is a good decision, because it opens up MMOs to a larger crowd, instead of splitting the same one-million playerbase across a dozen different games. The emphasis on casual play is a good decision because accessibility means more people are capable of playing the game on a reasonable schedule. You’re going to have to get over it, grandpa. We’ve got kindles now. We don’t need books anymore.

I think it is more the case that developers/publishers have finally stopped trying to foolishly chase after WoW with clones …

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Deleena.3406:

I have always had the feeling many older MMORPGs was prolly like that because of technology of their time (like not having speedy internet for examples)

I came here to write a longer version, but basically this. Here’s the long version anyway

Do you ever wonder why it is that the original final fantasy games were turn based? Or why it is the first MUDs were turn based? Little hint: it isn’t because turn based combat was such a unique and enthralling thing that the games just had to be made like that. It was due to hardware issues. You couldn’t have an action game on arpanet. The connection speed was too slow and too costly. You couldn’t have an action game on the NES and have all of the space for the story that went into those games. The gameplay for these amounted to “press A, then wait for a bit”, or in MUD’s cases it involved typing out a sentence just to perform a single action.

The traditional MMO (i.e. Everquest) was designed with cooldowns and cast bars because computers at the time couldn’t handle an action game. It would have been a dream come true if you had a game that had the rich and entertaining combat of street fighter, but the massive world and lore of Final Fantasy 3. Now, as technology advances and programmers get better, there is no longer a limitation on how an MMO handles its combat. So they go for the hybrid action of Wildstar, the faux-fighting game Blade and Soul, or the brawler style of Black Desert. It is more fun to watch, and more importantly it is more fun to play.

The only time you’ll be seeing an MMO that has a similar style to the old ones is if it is designed specifically to tap into nostalgia. Fact is, it is a smart decision to tap into the audiences with flashy and involved combat. It is a good decision, because it opens up MMOs to a larger crowd, instead of splitting the same one-million playerbase across a dozen different games. The emphasis on casual play is a good decision because accessibility means more people are capable of playing the game on a reasonable schedule. You’re going to have to get over it, grandpa. We’ve got kindles now. We don’t need books anymore.

To segway off your point: I think that’s why gaming now a days became so bloated and full of issues that tarnish gaming as a hobby. Forget about the cost of developing, testing and marketing these cutting edge action-style MMOs. It gets down to the meat of the game when you have hurdles and limits you have to work with. Sure, it’d be great to have an infinite resource project that can literally make your imagination come to life in a huge interactive environment but don’t short-change the classics for what they accomplish or pigeonhole player expectation on simply growing technology.

There’s a reason there’s multiple genre of MMOs: because people crave those styles. Be they turned based, card based, action based, text driven, etc. Not nostalgia but because they’re unique or fitting their preferred gameplay experience.

tl;dr: The quoted is just your opinion and I think it’s wrong.

Leo G.4501:

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Deleena.3406:

I have always had the feeling many older MMORPGs was prolly like that because of technology of their time (like not having speedy internet for examples)

I came here to write a longer version, but basically this. Here’s the long version anyway

Do you ever wonder why it is that the original final fantasy games were turn based? Or why it is the first MUDs were turn based? Little hint: it isn’t because turn based combat was such a unique and enthralling thing that the games just had to be made like that. It was due to hardware issues. You couldn’t have an action game on arpanet. The connection speed was too slow and too costly. You couldn’t have an action game on the NES and have all of the space for the story that went into those games. The gameplay for these amounted to “press A, then wait for a bit”, or in MUD’s cases it involved typing out a sentence just to perform a single action.

The traditional MMO (i.e. Everquest) was designed with cooldowns and cast bars because computers at the time couldn’t handle an action game. It would have been a dream come true if you had a game that had the rich and entertaining combat of street fighter, but the massive world and lore of Final Fantasy 3. Now, as technology advances and programmers get better, there is no longer a limitation on how an MMO handles its combat. So they go for the hybrid action of Wildstar, the faux-fighting game Blade and Soul, or the brawler style of Black Desert. It is more fun to watch, and more importantly it is more fun to play.

The only time you’ll be seeing an MMO that has a similar style to the old ones is if it is designed specifically to tap into nostalgia. Fact is, it is a smart decision to tap into the audiences with flashy and involved combat. It is a good decision, because it opens up MMOs to a larger crowd, instead of splitting the same one-million playerbase across a dozen different games. The emphasis on casual play is a good decision because accessibility means more people are capable of playing the game on a reasonable schedule. You’re going to have to get over it, grandpa. We’ve got kindles now. We don’t need books anymore.

To segway off your point: I think that’s why gaming now a days became so bloated and full of issues that tarnish gaming as a hobby. Forget about the cost of developing, testing and marketing these cutting edge action-style MMOs. It gets down to the meat of the game when you have hurdles and limits you have to work with. Sure, it’d be great to have an infinite resource project that can literally make your imagination come to life in a huge interactive environment but don’t short-change the classics for what they accomplish or pigeonhole player expectation on simply growing technology.

There’s a reason there’s multiple genre of MMOs: because people crave those styles. Be they turned based, card based, action based, text driven, etc. Not nostalgia but because they’re unique or fitting their preferred gameplay experience.

tl;dr: The quoted is just your opinion and I think it’s wrong.

I don’t have opinions. I only have facts I can’t adequately prove. An “opinion” cannot be wrong, as it is a quality judgement made by a person. However, as you have taken issue not with the history of technology or the history of the market, but the silliest of extrapolations to take personal offense, then I’ll write a bit about the topic you’ve shoved into my mouth.

The turn based combat styles of old MUDs were the cutting edge technology of the time. At no point am I implying that these games weren’t accomplishments. However, I will not delude myself into thinking that all of the design decision for those games were made because it “fitted their preferred gameplay experience”. To believe that is just silly. A limitation is just that: something that binds you down and limits your options. What you want to make gets cut shot down by being impossible or impractical, so you’re stuck with what you can make. If Everquest was designed as it was ideally meant to be, then why did they make a second one with newer, better technology? Why did they try to make a third one after that with even newer, better-er technology?

The idea of regarding videogames as a form of artistry is ill-conceived. If MMOs were designed to have game styles that “fitted their preferred gameplay experience”, then we wouldn’t have a persistent decade+ of WoW clones, we wouldn’t have “Korean Grind” with egregious cash shops, and GW2 still wouldn’t have raids or ascended gear. These events, they aren’t random unpredictable phenomena in the gaming market that happened to coalesce into a endless WoW clones. MMO’s are a business, and their design choices are done first and foremost on whether or not they’ll make money. We’re getting more diversity in MMOs for business reasons:

1. It is a stupid to make a WoW clone when WoW is still WoWing it up all over the place. So, you try and tap into a different market, one that isn’t preoccupied with WoW.
2. Nostalgia is more than just memory. It is familiarity. The advantage to any system that players are familiar with is the barrier to entry is suddenly very low. Hence, why people made WoW clones for awhile. You’ll see this in requests all the time: “I’m looking for a game that is a 2d MMO like Maplestory” or “I’m looking for a game that is a top down dungeon crawler like Diablo”, etc. Take the socratic method, and ask “why is it that people crave these styles”. Don’t just declare it such and let its existence circle to be proof of your claim.
3. Production and maintenance cost is a thing, and I will not “forget it”. MUDs were turn based because it is relatively low maintenance, and it is still low maintenance today.
4. People who make MMOs, like most people in life, have no idea what they’re doing, and are throwing darts at a board of game design and hoping something happens to make millions.

You can consider this my proof by contradiction. My statement is true because assuming the contrary to my statement leads to a bunch of unexplained phenomena and nonsensical results.

I think there’s still a place for turn-based gameplay, although it might be more of a niche market.

But it would appeal to people who play things like Dragon Age on the hardest difficulty where combat is more tactical and you need to make use of the pause function to coordinate your attacks if you want to succeed. Yes it makes it look less flashy and cool than if you play in real time, watching all the spell effects and things, but for some people the sense of achievement in figuring out a difficult fight outweighs that.

There’s also other factors to consider sometimes. For example I much, much prefer playing turn based games on my DS because I’m usually playing on the bus or the train on my way somewhere so I can’t just ignore my surroundings and focus on the game like I (try to) do at home.

Basically what I’m saying is I don’t think there will ever be a time when there is only one type of game that everyone is playing, or even when all games are virtually identical but with different things, and I also don’t think we should expect that or want it.

One of the things I like about Guild Wars is that Arenanet have never been inclined to do things the same way everyone else does just because that’s the way it’s done. Sure their ideas don’t always work out, but I love that they’re trying to find new ways of doing things because that’s what leads to more variety and I’d much prefer that over less variety.

If only because it means everyone is free to choose the games that suit them instead of being stuck with ones that try to please everyone.

time is what you have and how you use that time is up to you . Its free and in your case its free to be well used as a

Good Tofu.9376:

Ticky.5831:

You described all games that are primarily or solely console games. MMOs are almost entirely on PC.

Final Fantasy XIV is widely considered an MMO also on PS4….and its userbase pales in comparison to that of Destiny, The Division, and any of the Ultimate Team sports titles.

Yup, and it’s pretty much the sole exception.

People who aren’t willing to buy a PC aren’t particularly significant to the MMO market as a whole.

DGraves.3720:

What will suffer are games like Final Fantasy (hence 13) where the gameplay is not only repetitive but it’s not as “drag and drop” friendly. People log into MMO, play their fill, log out, we all win; people log into MOBA, into Shooter, into Sports, etc. and play their fill and log out and everyone is happy. Slower games like RPGs (not MMORPGs) tend to suffer because their models can’t keep up.

This right here brushes on one of the hardships for MMOs and RPG games in general. They often don’t deliver meaningful play experience in the short times modern players have available. A “good” dungeon can take over an hour to explore, maybe several, but then the baby cries or the dogs need to go out, and you have to pause or step away from the keyboard with an apologetic AFK that stalls your party/raid group.

In other games, that meaningful play experience is the length of one match (for most MOBAs 15-20 minutes), and you can take a break or stop playing for a while. You can come back to it without much need to build up to feel useful. But RPGs require progression and grind to keep up. Not so much an issue with single player titles, but with MMOs, it greatly affects what kind of content you’re allowed/welcomed to do.

Shooters and MOBAs also have definitive exit points, so you can choose when to stop. RPGs string you along with story or level/gear grinds, and MMOs tend to have a wealth of side tasks to keep most players busy for a long time. Great for on-the-dollar value, but bad for knowing when to stop or feeling like you can stop and not fall behind on rewards.

It’s where GW2 seems to fail most of all. Two-hour meta cycles for HoT, three-hour cycles on bosses. If a meaningful play experience is “finish daily Fire Elemental fight” but you just missed it, that’s a 2+ hour wait to get into the content. Or watching Axemaster fail, again, then realizing you can’t even try again for another two hours.. Well, most people are going to log out and do something more engaging. And if you’re building up to finishing that two-hour meta, you’re stuck. You can’t leave without penalty. You could’ve played for an hour but have another 30 minutes until the bosses show up. The exit point is still way far away, you can’t leave the map without losing progress, and there’s barely a safe spot aside from the starting waypoint. It’s not humane design.

That is likely one of the bigger challenges to RPG and MMO design will face. How can devs balance casual, two-hour play against hardcore 6+ hour sessions and still keep enough content and an economy afloat? Not something I have an answer to.

Danikat.8537:

I think there’s still a place for turn-based gameplay, although it might be more of a niche market.

But it would appeal to people who play things like Dragon Age on the hardest difficulty where combat is more tactical and you need to make use of the pause function to coordinate your attacks if you want to succeed. Yes it makes it look less flashy and cool than if you play in real time, watching all the spell effects and things, but for some people the sense of achievement in figuring out a difficult fight outweighs that.

Have you tried a turned based MMO yet?

It doesn’t really have much impact on flashiness. Actually individual skills can probably be much flashier because you don’t have to worry about 50 copies of it going off at the same time.

One of the things I like about Guild Wars is that Arenanet have never been inclined to do things the same way everyone else does just because that’s the way it’s done. Sure their ideas don’t always work out, but I love that they’re trying to find new ways of doing things because that’s what leads to more variety and I’d much prefer that over less variety.

They also have a very short attention span.

It’s kind of natural progression, though. Most if not all of the innovation of online gaming/MMO gaming is derived from Dungeons and Dragons, which is turn-based out of sheer necessity to keep the game manageable by the DM. With high-speed computation and a way to really simulate the battlefield, there’s little reason not to get as close to immersion as possible.

A big thing about MMO’s is the immersive factor of having everyone being a play in a dynamic world. It’s not so much about the story of the game, but the stories of the players. It’s been this way since the early days of narrative role-playing games. Being able to be even more immersed through a more realistic depiction of combat is only natural and a logical progression of development.

“Traditional” is dying because early conventions were imposed due to mechanical limitations. It’s also why combat-LARP is more popular than turn-based. Since action-oriented gameplay and encapsulating more mechanics enables mass-appeal, it makes the astronomical development costs associated with modern games more manageable and more likely to profit, meaning investors are more likely to get behind funding development.

I understand the lamentations, but largely this is just the natural progression of things, and for many reasons, makes sense. It’s not that MMO’s are dying; it’s that the way MMO’s are being made and designed has changed, and as such so has the way the games are played.

Good Tofu.9376:

I might be wrong here, but a big chunk of the traditional MMO population plays for the addictive feeling of progression and prestige via achievement/grind…..NOT for the gameplay or story. And with more actively engaging games (FIFA, CoD, Destiny, etc.) offering the same progression and grind, people are starting to gravitate away from MMORPGS (WoW, Elder Scrolls Online, GW2, etc.).

I don’t understand what you are saying now. You claim gw2 and wow are traditional but then you say traditional players are moving from said game while saying those other games are more traditional. So, is wow and gw2 traditional? _

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

I don’t have opinions. I only have facts I can’t adequately prove.

No, you have opinions based on the facts of how MMO concepts evolve and mutate.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

An “opinion” cannot be wrong, as it is a quality judgement made by a person.

Opinions can be uninformed or just overzealous generalizations or just flat out wrong.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

However, as you have taken issue not with the history of technology or the history of the market, but the silliest of extrapolations to take personal offense, then I’ll write a bit about the topic you’ve shoved into my mouth.

Well duh I don’t take issue with some facts you pulled up from a wiki or a youtube video (lol I’ve seen them already, most likely). But when someone comes around making wrong generalizations (“hurr durr The only time you’ll be seeing an MMO that has a similar style to the old ones is if it is designed specifically to tap into nostalgia. duuur”) then yeah, I’ll go and take offense.

But apparently you don’t consider the artistic side of game design. Not saying it’s an artform but it takes a creative mind to craft a game and limitations are a chopping block for cleverness, forcing creators to think outside the norm.

So you utilize the strengths of a design and build upon it, not disregard it because something else that’s newer and fresher is possible. It’d be different if the older designs were inherently flawed instead of just different. That’s why they are still made. They are different and gamers enjoy variety. The reason you see so many action-MMOs made now is because they weren’t very viable before.

SkyShroud.2865:

Good Tofu.9376:

I might be wrong here, but a big chunk of the traditional MMO population plays for the addictive feeling of progression and prestige via achievement/grind…..NOT for the gameplay or story. And with more actively engaging games (FIFA, CoD, Destiny, etc.) offering the same progression and grind, people are starting to gravitate away from MMORPGS (WoW, Elder Scrolls Online, GW2, etc.).

I don’t understand what you are saying now. You claim gw2 and wow are traditional but then you say traditional players are moving from said game while saying those other games are more traditional. So, is wow and gw2 traditional? _

I’m saying that:
1. Many people play traditional-mold MMO’s (GW2, WoW, etc.) for the addictive feeling of prestige and progression in an online community (makes them feel more special about their achievements)
2. Other games with more engaging and easy-to-pick-up gameplay (action games, sports games, etc.) are now offering the same prestige and progression with an online community setting.
3. These other new games are now attracting would-be MMO players (teenagers, up-and-coming gamers who are driven by the addictive feeling of prestige and achievement) and detracting from the MMO population.

A game genre needs to maintain its population in order to stay successful. As players get older, they have less time to play and need new younger players to fill their places. There does not seem to be a lot of young eager players looking to join these traditional-mold MMO’s, which is why I say they are dying.

For every 1 player joining a game like GW2, you probably have 20-30 joining CoD, FIFA, Destiny, etc. Heck, even PC games like LoL, Counterstrike, and DotA are offering prestigious cosmetic items in tiers now, some of which you have to grind or have a certain skill ranking to obtain….

The only MMOs that can reasonably exist are the one’s that appeal to the larger player base and grab their attention. There is no room for MMOs that target a niche crowd, because the profits from that niche crowd aren’t enough to cover the volume of content and volume of features we all have come to expect as “standard” in an MMO.

WoW appeared when there wasn’t much competition (not to the volume there is now) and grabbed the market on the back of a fun MMO experience that wasn’t an horrendous and tortuous experience like its predecessors, Everquest and the like. It had the luxury of starting out small and growing into the feature and content filled giant that it is now.

However, it has been THE MMO for nearly decade and it has set the standard for what a MMO is for millions and millions of people. All other MMOs now have to be equal or greater in scope to even compete and attract anyone’s attention. They have to accomplish a feat out of the gate that WoW grew into over years.

You can’t turn a profit on an initial investment of that size without targeting a large player base.

GW2 is an outlier; they managed to be relatively small in scope in comparison to the “standard MMO”, but captured a dedicated player base, because, in my opinion (as is all of this thread), they managed to create something special and rather magical that you could not find anywhere else.

It’s also ironically why I think they were successful where others failed. They didn’t fall into the trap of catering to our standards and made their own creation. Reaching level 80 and realizing their was no end game content was almost panic inducing; on that alone, the game should have failed based on the standards of the player base at the time.

I become bored when I try other MMOs, because they may offer one or two unique twists or features, but its ultimately laid on top of a pile of stuff that’s clearly a clone of stuff from other games.

Good Tofu.9376:

SkyShroud.2865:

Good Tofu.9376:

I might be wrong here, but a big chunk of the traditional MMO population plays for the addictive feeling of progression and prestige via achievement/grind…..NOT for the gameplay or story. And with more actively engaging games (FIFA, CoD, Destiny, etc.) offering the same progression and grind, people are starting to gravitate away from MMORPGS (WoW, Elder Scrolls Online, GW2, etc.).

I don’t understand what you are saying now. You claim gw2 and wow are traditional but then you say traditional players are moving from said game while saying those other games are more traditional. So, is wow and gw2 traditional? _

I’m saying that:
1. Many people play traditional-mold MMO’s (GW2, WoW, etc.) for the addictive feeling of prestige and progression in an online community (makes them feel more special about their achievements)
2. Other games with more engaging and easy-to-pick-up gameplay (action games, sports games, etc.) are now offering the same prestige and progression with an online community setting.
3. These other new games are now attracting would-be MMO players (teenagers, up-and-coming gamers who are driven by the addictive feeling of prestige and achievement) and detracting from the MMO population.

A game genre needs to maintain its population in order to stay successful. As players get older, they have less time to play and need new younger players to fill their places. There does not seem to be a lot of young eager players looking to join these traditional-mold MMO’s, which is why I say they are dying.

For every 1 player joining a game like GW2, you probably have 20-30 joining CoD, FIFA, Destiny, etc. Heck, even PC games like LoL, Counterstrike, and DotA are offering prestigious cosmetic items in tiers now, some of which you have to grind or have a certain skill ranking to obtain….

1)MMO players start off and get pulled into there first world or two for that reason, however at some point it stops being about prestige and more about other things. Social, exploration, experience, challenge.
2)Once you have general skills and experience with the genre ease of entry is not exactly a high priority. Going backwards to older generation games is a barrier, although a properly updated game will have tools to learn.
3) You are probably right, although it is impossible to predict how many of those new players might be swayed to earlier generation games. As the overall market grows so will playerbase across the board. When the weakest MMO’s start going dark there will be less choices, perhaps some games will see major resurgences in their playerbase.

I would agree that the amount of new traditional style MMO’s will see a sharp decline in favor of whatever the next gen brings with new tech and design, however I do not think it is the end for existing MMO franchises. As a 30 year old gamer who spent the last 12 years playing MMO games I can honestly say I will probably never embrace the next gen, and stick with what is already on the table right now till the day I die. If I am still alive in 50 years I will still probably be playing games like EQ, GW2, TSW, WoW, AoC , BDO, WS etc. given they have active servers still up. When you learn a game you never really unlearn it, and at some point learning new games over and over stops being worth it. Perhaps there will be a few irresistible games in the future but for me I am drawing the line with the the handful of new MMO’s on the horizon as well as the chosen ones I am currently playing.

FFXIV is consistently rated one of the top MMORPG’S. Never gets mentioned. It definitely spends a LOT of it’s focus on story, exploration, and detail. I think GW2 fits the niche between Guild Wars 2 and games like WoW.
WoW has only passingly interested me, because of the lore behind it. But when I look online and seek games with a large depth of lore. FFXIV and GW2 fill that gap for players like me.

Leo G.4501:

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

I don’t have opinions. I only have facts I can’t adequately prove.

No, you have opinions based on the facts of how MMO concepts evolve and mutate.

…

Opinions can be uninformed or just overzealous generalizations or just flat out wrong.

You have no idea what an opinion is. You’re just using it as a blanket term to dismiss whatever you don’t agree with.

There’s a dozen other ways to reason about things out there other than opinions. Extrapolations are one. Observations are another. Juxtaposition, yet more still. Speculation exists, too. Expectation is there as well. These culminate into hypothesis and theory. Interestingly enough, these create a standard with which they are falsifiable. Thus, they are not a personal quality judgement of any sort.

Unless I preface something with “Personally”, or “IMO”, then I am not offering an opinion. I am offering an extrapolation, an observation, a comparison, a speculation, a hypothesis, or a theory. To counterpoint, lets take an extreme example. Lets say I were to eat a handful of mud, and proclaim it is delicious. How do you prove it is wrong? You can certainly prove you don’t like it, and you can prove most don’t like it, but what does that matter against a warped taste pallet that frankly does not care what others think? Is the love of the taste of dirt an overzealous generalization, or “uninformed” somehow? No, it is not.

Leo G.4501:

Well duh I don’t take issue with some facts you pulled up from a wiki or a youtube video (lol I’ve seen them already, most likely). But when someone comes around making wrong generalizations (“hurr durr The only time you’ll be seeing an MMO that has a similar style to the old ones is if it is designed specifically to tap into nostalgia. duuur”) then yeah, I’ll go and take offense.

That is not a generalization or an opinion. It is a prediction.

Your method of reasoning, quite frankly dumb. You’ve disregarded why it is people would “crave” these styles, and just taken it as some self evident ubiquitous truth. You came to your conclusion by dismissing information, not embracing it.

If you think I acquired this knowledge by wiki or youtube videos, then you are horribly mistaken. I’ve lived it. I’ve been walking this earth since before Nintendo was a thing. I played the atari 2600 and the intellivision. I saw as turn based became a thing, became widespread, and more importantly I watched as the RPG elements turned away. I watched turn based become games about recharge bars for pseudo real-time combat, rhythm and timing games, card games and pre-fight strategizing, over-head tactics and placement commanding squads, etc. And then, I watched as those games moved away from the turn based component altogether, and become fighting games, rhythm games, real time strategy, and the modern ARPG that we see everywhere.

That move wasn’t arbitrary or random. It was a market movement. Those games sold better. And them selling better wasn’t an arbitrary or random move, either. If you want a source I can give you one. Spoiler: of the 25 best selling games, there’s only two turn based games, and both of them are Pokemon.

Leo G.4501:

But apparently you don’t consider the artistic side of game design. Not saying it’s an artform but it takes a creative mind to craft a game and limitations are a chopping block for cleverness, forcing creators to think outside the norm.

So you utilize the strengths of a design and build upon it, not disregard it because something else that’s newer and fresher is possible. It’d be different if the older designs were inherently flawed instead of just different. That’s why they are still made. They are different and gamers enjoy variety. The reason you see so many action-MMOs made now is because they weren’t very viable before.

That’s the problem, though: the designs did have inherent flaws. I.E. if Everquest wasn’t flawed, they wouldn’t constantly try to make more and better Everquests. Now that we both agree that videogames are not an artform, we can say what they really are: a piece of engineering and technology made specifically to sell entertainment as a service. Artistry is is but one facet that may be entertaining. There are many more. When you recognize that, you can break down the different game styles into advantages and disadvantages, and analyze them as an engineer or an economist would.

Lets take GW2 for an example, and compare it to what the OP lists.

“Gone are the days of slow dungeon crawls and long repetitive encounters.”
-Low availability to the general public
-Attention fatigue and horrible retention rate
-Low public appeal or interest
+Low cost to time investment ration assuming your players are already hooked
-Requires skinnerbox mechanisms to manipulate players to keep playing.
-Skinnerbox leads to irritable community who plays out of obligation and not fun.
+Can milk a lot of money via purchases or subscriptions from a hooked fanbase.

“one of the biggest selling points of an MMORPG is for progression within a communal environment. You grind (often through repetitive gameplay) to obtain great items and show them off to online crowds, which makes you value and appreciate your achievements even more.”
-Severe inequality between players of different ages time investments
-Elitism
-Unfair in competitive aspects (hard and soft PVP)
-Depressing grinds
+Personal accomplishment
+The ability to wield superior strength due to greater time investments
-Repetitive
-Severe inequality between players of different incomes (cash shop games only)

This is Stockhom Syndrome.

I can sympathize with the loss of some older systems in MMOs. IMO there’s a much better thread on this subject, in which before it devolved into raid bickering it actually went over a lot of different things that are missing now but in conventional MMORPGs that were actually good.

If the “Traditional” MMO is about grinding stuff to show off how much you’ve been grinding, I’m not sad to see it go.

For me, an MMO is about meeting and playing with others in a persistent world (Or at least mostly persistent world). Part of the persistence of that world, though comes from other players. And sometimes, playing for the sake of hanging out with other players who are also playing isn’t enough. But it’s still largely about the world.

When it comes to repetitive/“Skinner-box” content, I don’t see it as “Get people to keep playing to keep paying”. Instead, there are two parts of such content – The fun in teaming up with other rookies and veterans alike to overcome the challenge, and then continuing to play after you’re already a veteran at it to give other rookies veterans to play with. For some people, the sake of training new people isn’t enough to get them to keep playing. So, we get the RNG-based “Skinner Box” reward system – If you go strictly for progression, the Grind becomes stupidly obvious and people say “Nope, not even gonna start with this bullkitty”. But if you give the reward reliably the first time the event is done… there’s no point in doing it again to train the next wave of new players wanting in on the challenge.

MadRabbit.3179:

The only MMOs that can reasonably exist are the one’s that appeal to the larger player base and grab their attention. There is no room for MMOs that target a niche crowd, because the profits from that niche crowd aren’t enough to cover the volume of content and volume of features we all have come to expect as “standard” in an MMO.

Is that so? How do you explain EVE Online, then? It’s now almost 13 years old, has a loyal, hardcore and active fanbase, yet is still well known. However, in comparison to other MMOs, it’s pretty small.

Yakkus.8765:

MadRabbit.3179:

The only MMOs that can reasonably exist are the one’s that appeal to the larger player base and grab their attention. There is no room for MMOs that target a niche crowd, because the profits from that niche crowd aren’t enough to cover the volume of content and volume of features we all have come to expect as “standard” in an MMO.

Is that so? How do you explain EVE Online, then? It’s now almost 13 years old, has a loyal, hardcore and active fanbase, yet is still well known. However, in comparison to other MMOs, it’s pretty small.

It’s an outlier just like GW2. At the end of the day, that’s just a very general statement about the market and there is always going to be exceptions to the rule.

But I still believe there is a lot of truth to MMOs self-sabotaging themselves as they go big and grand right out of the game to meet our own expectations (or what they perceive as our expectations out of a desire to compete with WoW)

Sartharina.3542:

If the “Traditional” MMO is about grinding stuff to show off how much you’ve been grinding, I’m not sad to see it go.

The problem is that GW2 has, more or less, become this type of game. See the following examples:

1. Cosmetics: you either have numerous microtransations to keep purchasing cosmetics from the gem store, or you grind gold to convert into gems.

2. End game content: Its a grind to get gear that is deemed “meta” enough for Raids….which in themselves are a grind and long-drawn dungeon crawl. In contrast, many modern games have meaningful gameplay (that gives you more substantial rewards) that take 20-30 minutes to complete.

3 PvP: The forum is littered with complaints as to how hard it is to grind to the next tier of prestige. For many people it is apparent their only goal is to get to “Legendary” because it is prestigious….and they are just resigned to grinding to obtain it with little regard to how fun the gameplay may actually be.

4. 3. Legendary weapons: I don’t think this one even needs explanation.

I respect your opinion but I disagree.

Players are diverse in their likes. The same as most of us don’t want to watch the same program or eat the same thing day in and day out. We like to switch things up, and the many facets of a MMO are the perfect environment to achieve that along with a social outlet.

The challenge however is to do it cost effective from a companies standpoint without extending too little or too far concerning budget and vision.

BTW I recall over 12 years ago when someone was saying MMO’s were dying…yet here we are.

Good Tofu.9376:

TLDR: MMO concepts integrated into games aimed at capturing up-and-coming gamers (shooters, action games, sports games) are taking potential new users away from traditional MMORPG’s. As a result, MMORPG’s such as WoW and GW2 are dwindling and dying out.

I have a perfect example for you.

I moved onto Elite:Dangerous in 2014.
I kind of understand the game but still they confused me and I didn’t see the game they made.

They pretended it was an mmo and listed it as an mmo.

They had a massive exodus last year and the game is now empty but the company did well and released another game.

Even mmo’s for a while now have been trying to add arcade features and easy content to tempt FPS style gamers. GW2 is no exception.

The original draw to MMOs for me at least was the utter fascination of the wonders of the ineternet connecting hundreds of people into the same gaming environment at the same time.

To todays generations who have grown up on the internet, I doubt that would seem like such a big deal as they are already interconnected with people on their phones facebook etc all the time.

Kamara.4187:

BTW I recall over 12 years ago when someone was saying MMO’s were dying…yet here we are.

Ditto.

It also seems that every day someone here is shouting that the sky is falling. Same with every mmo forum I’ve been in. My advice: Carpe Diem. My addendum: stop looking for reasons to be miserable, life hands you enough of those already.

Also after a decade and a half of playing mmos, I personally don’t know how I would even define a “traditional” mmo… except maybe that “traditional” ones all try to do something to make themselves stand out… while exclusively derivative ones get closed down. If innovation is what makes a mmo traditional, then I don’t see traditional mmos dying any time soon.

~EW

I like to believe the mistaken (and widespread) belief that MMOs are a license to print money is dying. That’s a good thing. Especially given how few of MMOs have the same people running them as built them. The builders tend to jump on to the next boat and never see the consequences of their decisions that make it impossible to maintain the game they’re leaving behind.

Not many developers get it that an MMO is more like a portal than a game and when you stop moving content through that portal it withers. Instantly. Keeping the game vibrant and prosperous requires constant reinvestment and that’s just too much work for most investment house/publishers. They paid wages for 5 years without return (usually) so they should be able to coast profitably with a skeleton crew for at least 5 more years, right? Right??!? Not so much.

The successful MMOs run more like Steam itself than like a game on Steam – it’s a framework in which to deliver new activities.