The MMO genre needs to stop looking backwards.

[Bazalin]

MMO players like the OP who yearn for a game where your actions can impact the world might want to check out Dominus, an upcoming PvP based game that is the spiritual successor to DAoC. From what I've read there are no levels, you just get skill points that you can use to increase any skill you want. Open-world PvP will feature three factions that can build and defend bases on a planet which holds a valuable resource that is used to craft weapons and armor. I believe I also read that the most valuable weapons and armor will be player crafted, so the world economy should be vibrant. It's supposed to enter Beta soon, with a scheduled release sometime in 2012. If you're interested check it out: http://www.dominusthegame.com/

 

In the meantime, I'll still be trying to take in all the sights and smells of SWTOR.

[Aryzyra]

Trinity is just easier to balance and tune encounters toward. No redeeming qualities other than that.

 

Nice OP.

[Bazalin]

Deleted. Edited February 8, 2012 by Bazalin
Multiple Posts

[Bazalin]

Don't know why this posted multiple times. Edited February 8, 2012 by Bazalin
Multiple Posts

[gurugeorge]

I never understood the fuss about eve. always eve eve eve. Has anyone looked at that game? to me a battle looks like a contest who will drop down first from an epileptic seizure.

being a spaceship, that must be great...

 

You can be an avatar now (and an extraordinarily realistic one too), since Incarna, although you only have a captain's quarters to be an avatar in, so far, and I doubt they'll iterate on it for another year or so, as they're re-concentrating on the spaceships at the moment.

 

Don't knock EVE till you've tried it. If you like intricate build systems and theorycrafting in games, you'll love the depth of EVE. If you like PvP, you'll love EVE. If you like being a griefer you'll DEFINITELY love EVE If you like crafting and economy, you'll love EVE. The only place it really falls down in is PvE - but even then, over the years it's gotten better at that too, and the "Epic arcs" are actually pretty decent storylines.

 

Just be warned, the game doesn't hold your hand, you have to be self-motivated to enjoy it - i.e. you have to set in-game goals (either solo or with other people) and work towards them to enjoy the game, otherwise it can be boring, as very few goals are given to you by the developers.

 

Also, don't be put off by it being mainly oriented towards corporations. You can carve out a decent solo career too, even as a casual player, if you are careful and wary - it's just much easier to be in a corp.

[RudeDog]

To all you reading-impaired people in here yelling "BUT I DON'T LIKE SANDBOX GAMES" and "THERE ARE SANDBOX GAMES OUT THERE" -- yes, the OP undertstands that. He wasn't saying future MMOs need to revert to being sandbox.

 

Rather, he was saying something that is quite correct -- MMOs need to start incorporating sandbox elements.

 

One of the major flaws in current MMOs is that people run out of stuff to do. And so the devs have to keep churning out patches. Well, if you incorporate sandbox elements, then that gives the game more replayability. In theory, a well made sandbox area in a game can occupy players in perpetuity -- because the players are able to advance the game themselves. The onus on the devs to churn out new content ASAP is no longer so burdensome.

 

Obviously, the main linear thrust of the game will still be theme park. But then you could have other areas in the game, particularly at "end game", that incorporate sandbox elements. So in essence, you wouldn't be replacing anything with sandbox elements -- the sandbox elements would be added in addition to all the other things that make current MMOs enjoyable. People who love the themepark aspects could continue playing MMOs just as they currently do, and completely avoid the sandbox elements if they so desire.

 

Thank you for point this out! I kept reading post after post of people bashing the OP for requesting a sandbox when the OP clearly stated a hybrid theme park / sandbox. Some people need to work on their reading comprehension skills...

[PulseXXX]

To OP:

 

If the niche in the market is there, why don't you develop your own MMO?

[badsharkbad]

The OP post nailed it. Everything I was thinking was put into that post. THANK YOU!!!

[Uben]

To OP:

 

If the niche in the market is there, why don't you develop your own MMO?

 

Throw in the first 50 mil and he can be on a roll.

[Cavadus]

It's a small indie MMO, so I wouldn't recommend getting your hopes up, but I urge everyone take a look at an upcoming MMO called The Repopulation.

 

I think many of the posters in this thread who agree with the OP will like what they see.

[Calsidian]

The types of gamers who are looking for the MMO experience the OP describes are unfortunately drowned out by the legions of gamers who demand mediocrity and stagnation, and they'll continue to get it.

[MrTijger]

Throw in the first 50 mil and he can be on a roll.

 

The folks at Trion got handed a $100 million without a game to their name.

[Marlaine]

To OP:

 

If the niche in the market is there, why don't you develop your own MMO?

 

Although this was likely meant as an insult, it's actually a good question. I know myself I think I have some pretty awesome ideas that would make mmos fun to play again. But where to even start?

 

I mean the massive amount of organization that would go into creating a mmo is beyond comprehension for the majority of people. I think it's even beyond my comprehension.

 

First, you'd have to create a prototype with most core game systems to pitch it to investors. In order to do that you either need to be a game designer or know people who are, and are willing to give their development time for free (or for a future stake in the game's profits).

 

Next, you'd have to actually get someone to invest in the game, which in the vast majority of cases would be very tough to do as it is most likely the maker has no experience in software design and team management. Good luck getting those investors on board.

 

So, you have to then look at other options. Perhaps you could try to get a bunch of strangers off the Internet together to work on a pet project, which you could launch on a f2p basis or something of that sort.

 

Regardless, the actual act of starting a mmo is simply beyond the capability of the vast majority of people out there. It's like the old saying, you need money to make money.

[DarthMeerkat]

The types of gamers who are looking for the MMO experience the OP describes are unfortunately drowned out by the legions of gamers who demand mediocrity and stagnation, and they'll continue to get it.

 

Its post like this that make me laugh.

 

You do know that there are multiple MMOs that do not follow the WoW like formula? And even more coming out that don't? So why do people insist on coming to this forum to tell me about it when they could be on one of those games talking about it?

[Mandrax]

1. I disagree, I like the traditional system.

 

2. This is a theme park game, not a sandbox and therefore you cannot expect to find those types of things in this type of game. It has been very clear for some time that this was NOT going to be SWG2.

 

3. I would LOVE to see some meaningful World PvP (though more like DAoC and nothing like SWG), but it seems to me that developers just don't know how to do it properly.

 

I used to be a UO nut. I played the game for almost 5 years, I loved it. But, as my real life started to become more important, I had to play much less and in the end I was finding I just didn't have the time to commit to a sandbox games. I then moved on to other things like DAoC and eventually WoW, games I could spend less time in yet still have enough time to accomplish things.

 

As the MMO base has become more casual, I believe that sandbox games are less appealing because of the sheer amount of time required to commit to them. I do not see sandbox games as the future of MMO gaming, but I do believe that a theme park game with a decent amount of sandbox features would work.

 

With all that said, I do firmly believe however, that we will never see a MMO with the popularity of WoW. The market is too flooded with games and the player base is far too diluted and diverse. WoW is an anomaly and will remain king of MMOs (at least in terms of subscribers) forever.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Mandrax

[Chewpaco]

The problem with the whole "Building and perhaps losing" idea is that if the game exists in realtime, I am not going to be able to help defend my little town for more then a few hours a day if that.

 

I don't want to spend 3 months, years whatever building a sweet castle and then having it torched at 3AM because I was sleeping while the college age crew was just getting in from the bar.

 

You'd have to set up so many restrictions it would be ridiculous.

 

The OP makes some fantastic points -

 

While I understand your concerns, your view of an epic MMO appears to be limited to Q-up style versions that have been popular over the last 5 years.

 

Concepts like faction alliances; cooperative defense of cities/homesteads which have a direct impact on everyone on the server can serve as a dynamic to encourage cooperation. There was a time in the MMO genre that it was more important which guild you belonged to vs how many "Purples" you were wearing.

 

Today's gamer: Me Me Me

Yesteryear's: We We We

 

What I gleened from the OP mostly: Risk vs Reward - and how its' disappearance from MMO's has left him/her feeling underwhelmed, and I would agree. We game in an enviroment now that is Time vs Reward - Your only consequence upon Death is: Repair Cost. You can't lose items, like in a full loot PvP game. You can't lose experience after multiple whipes like you did in a game like Everquest 1 - or even worse, a Hard -Core Perma Death game.

 

While Hard - Core Permadeath would have a hard time succeeding on a huge commercial level, experience loss - and partial loot loss could thrive. Your adventuring decisions now have meaning. Would it be as successful as the current model of Reward, Reward, Reward? No, not money wise - because this generation of gamers has grown up with cheat codes from Nintendo 64 - through the XBox. The answer to the question -"What do you do when you fail?" is no longer - try again. It is: Let's see how we can exploit/cheat the mechanic. But - a game a large commercial budget, and a strict ruleset, could still succeed. Especially Long-Term sustained subscription success, because there simply aren't any great choices at the moment for this kind of game. If there were, people like myself and the OP would play and continue to play. Instead of hopping from WoW, to Rift, to SWTOR, and next to GW2. We are searching for something that "Feels Epic"

[NuanceNW]

Finally, there is a lack of personal investment and personal loss in game worlds that is draining the life out of the genre. An example of personal investment could be anything: from a house that you own in a town, to a small fort that you and a few friends defend, to a starship crewed by an entire guild.

Absolutely. At the end of any gaming session I think back and feel like it's just time wasted. I would prefer that my play somehow effected the game world and knowing that the next time I logged in the world would have changed based on what others did while I was offline.

 

There's a whole horde of people (to the tune of millions) interested in online multiplayer consisting of minimal or no combat.

Hear hear I can't stand that MMOs SOLE focus is on just killing something or some other player.

How about we contribute to building something or creating something or opening up new areas to explore but the single minded focus on killing is getting really really stale.

 

You could replace the game title, the game company name, the types of mobs in game but in the end AAA MMOs seem tied to the focus that killing is the main activity and that to kill you must dungeon crawl to get the gear to do more killing, to get better gear, which lets you do more killing for better gear. Zzzz

 

Got your raid group setup, DPS, healing, Tank - same dang thing perhaps with better labels but the same dang thing over and over and over and over and over and over and Zzzzz. When are game companies going to break the mold and make group cooperation mean something other than DPS, Heals and Tank going into an instance to kill something for gear just to repeat the same thing over and over and over Zzzz.

 

Consider space battles, we have ships yet were the only ones contributing. Why can't I bring a group aboard and have them man the engines and do repairs, why can't they get in the gunners chair, why can't they go outside and fix the hull damage?

 

Consider world scenarios, why can't a group defeating something mean it's defeated - for everyone in the world?

 

We have crafting specialties but they focus on gear. What's could be better than a cybertech bringing that specialty to accomplish something and without them the goal couldn't be achieved? How about making crafting actually mean something other than more gear which is always subpar anyway?

 

Why do Bosses hide in dungeons or World ones stand in one spot waiting to be killed? Why can't they break their mold and attack randomly, in cities or towns or along the roads or when ever and where ever they feel like it?

 

I'd love to see some company break the AAA MMO molds. SWTOR did a bit with the storyline and decision trees... that's a step in a positive direction but in the end it's still just like all the other MMOs out there: Grind = kill a bunch of something, Gear = to grind you need better gear, to get the gear you need to grind. It's an empty prospect, it's a circular firing squad, nothing changes, no dynamic challenges, the world will still be what is was when you logged out and when you log back in it will be the same repetitive process all over again. Zzz

Edited February 8, 2012 by NuanceNW

[hardicon]

great post op. exactly what is wrong with the genre now, too many games that thinks the only thing to do is get to the level cap and raid or run dungeons over and over.

 

i think if a game ever was able to incorporate pve, pvp, crafting, economy, story and exploring so they build off each other that game would be a huge success. in most games, swtor and wow included, the focus is solely on combat, and pve and pvp is not even mixed together for the most part anymore. crafting is focused on improving your combat and that is pretty much it. exploring is done in a way that the only thing it does is improves your combat because the only thing you can really get from exploring is datacrons. we need more games to come out that integrates every aspect of the game world, including non combatants. eve did a great job of it, but eve just didnt do it for me. i want all of that in a fantasy game or at least a ground based game.

 

at one point bioware said they feel more people want to be luke skywalker or han solo rather than uncle owen. which is probably true but alot of people want to be uncle owen also. I personally wouldnt mind being a real smuggler or bounty hunter in this game, where im actually paid to smuggle stuff or collect bounties on people, but that is beyond the scope of the game.

 

great post though, maybe someone will figure it out, there are a few games on the horizon that are talking about making a game like this, but they are not gonna be big budget productions so most people write them off.

[Minderbinder]

I think we're missing a fairly huge point here. I have a life, a job, kids. I have no interest in fabricating a whole bunch of new responsibility in my game. I'm certain a great huge portion of the MMO playerbase agrees with me.

 

The real problem behind SWTOR isnt the themepark this or the sandbox that. It's that SWTOR seems to actively discourage socialization in a social game. The voiced questlines discourage chatting, as people are in the middle of story stuff, and the companions discourage grouping, because you don't need to. The strength of these games has always come from sharing the experience, adding in 3 or more other people makes encounters much more dynamic and fun. FFXI was incredibly flawed, in many ways, most people will argue. But everything it did that made it difficult, solidified the playerbase into a very friendly and helpful group.

 

And for all the sandbox talk, EVE has been mentioned and seemingly discounted immediately. It is exactly what you're talking about. Just in space. So you want EVE in fantasy land, great. Guess what people do in EVE all the time, they search for ways to screw each other. For the record, EVE is the best MMO out there, just one noone can stand to play. Hell, if they just made space combat not suck, they would probably get more players than their servers can handle.

 

Everyone rags on WoW as this terrible game, but when I started playing it, at launch, it was outstanding. It was because it took core MMO ideas and improved them. And that exactly the way all games develop. The path from DOOM to Battlefield 3 was long and filled with small steps, major complaints about WoW were many and varied, but an actual story to play were chief, WoW's story being sort of suggested through lore, rather than told, or dynamically experienced. Even offing Arthas didn't have any real impact as a player.

 

SWTOR is a step, and due to the dynamic nature of an MMO, it can continue to take steps. I see The Secret World and Guild Wars 2 are going to pose a pretty large threat to Bioware here, so they need to get to work. Having a game who's main draw is a well told story begins to falter after that story is told.

[Tic-]

1. I disagree, I like the traditional system.

 

2. This is a theme park game, not a sandbox and therefore you cannot expect to find those types of things in this type of game. It has been very clear for some time that this was NOT going to be SWG2.

 

3. I would LOVE to see some meaningful World PvP (though more like DAoC and nothing like SWG), but it seems to me that developers just don't know how to do it properly.

 

I used to be a UO nut. I played the game for almost 5 years, I loved it. But, as my real life started to become more important, I had to play much less and in the end I was finding I just didn't have the time to commit to a sandbox games. I then moved on to other things like DAoC and eventually WoW, games I could spend less time in yet still have enough time to accomplish things.

 

As the MMO base has become more casual, I believe that sandbox games are less appealing because of the sheer amount of time required to commit to them. I do not see sandbox games as the future of MMO gaming, but I do believe that a theme park game with a decent amount of sandbox features would work.

 

With all that said, I do firmly believe however, that we will never see a MMO with the popularity of WoW. The market is too flooded with games and the player base is far too diluted and diverse. WoW is an anomaly and will remain king of MMOs (at least in terms of subscribers) forever.

 

Really?

 

I find your typical themepark more demanding of my time than UO ever did.

 

Trying to keep up with my friends in terms of level, and/or gear so that we can group up together, as far as PvE goes, can be a hassle with folks from different time zones, or alotted play times

 

I never felt pressed in UO, and is probably the most casual game i have ever played. getting to the skill cap was relatively quick and you could get the basics down in short order to group up with friends.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Tic-

[Chewpaco]

I think we're missing a fairly huge point here. I have a life, a job, kids. I have no interest in fabricating a whole bunch of new responsibility in my game. I'm certain a great huge portion of the MMO playerbase agrees with me.

The real problem behind SWTOR isnt the themepark this or the sandbox that. It's that SWTOR seems to actively discourage socialization in a social game. The voiced questlines discourage chatting, as people are in the middle of story stuff, and the companions discourage grouping, because you don't need to. The strength of these games has always come from sharing the experience, adding in 3 or more other people makes encounters much more dynamic and fun. FFXI was incredibly flawed, in many ways, most people will argue. But everything it did that made it difficult, solidified the playerbase into a very friendly and helpful group.

 

And for all the sandbox talk, EVE has been mentioned and seemingly discounted immediately. It is exactly what you're talking about. Just in space. So you want EVE in fantasy land, great. Guess what people do in EVE all the time, they search for ways to screw each other. For the record, EVE is the best MMO out there, just one noone can stand to play. Hell, if they just made space combat not suck, they would probably get more players than their servers can handle.

 

Everyone rags on WoW as this terrible game, but when I started playing it, at launch, it was outstanding. It was because it took core MMO ideas and improved them. And that exactly the way all games develop. The path from DOOM to Battlefield 3 was long and filled with small steps, major complaints about WoW were many and varied, but an actual story to play were chief, WoW's story being sort of suggested through lore, rather than told, or dynamically experienced. Even offing Arthas didn't have any real impact as a player.

 

 

SWTOR is a step, and due to the dynamic nature of an MMO, it can continue to take steps. I see The Secret World and Guild Wars 2 are going to pose a pretty large threat to Bioware here, so they need to get to work. Having a game who's main draw is a well told story begins to falter after that story is told.

 

I think the highlighted point is a little skewed - and only partially true. Can you have kids, play 3 hours a night, maintain a job - and still play a game with a rule set that had some component of Risk vs Reward? Sure you could.

 

Responsibilities within a game? I don't understand what that means really. How is doing dailes, making raid nights 2x a week - any different than being responsible for a castle/homestead defense shift once or 2x a week for an allocated period of time? You are still performing a task that you have signed up for and committed to - and relied upon by other players to succeed and perform your role. It is just an expanded role and element of social interaction and social involvement - in a social game.

[Minderbinder]

I think the highlighted point is a little skewed - and only partially true. Can you have kids, play 3 hours a night, maintain a job - and still play a game with a rule set that had some component of Risk vs Reward? Sure you could.

 

Responsibilities within a game? I don't understand what that means really. How is doing dailes, making raid nights 2x a week - any different than being responsible for a castle/homestead defense shift once or 2x a week for an allocated period of time? You are still performing a task that you have signed up for and committed to - and relied upon by other players to succeed and perform your role. It is just an expanded role and element of social interaction and social involvement - in a social game.

 

You've just described a situation where I would (by choice, obviously, but that would drive subscribers away) be required to show up on time to play my game. Raiding is one thing, I raided with a successful progression guild in WoW for a couple months, made me want to quit playing the game. After that I went "casual" raids were at 8pm, but started at 830 or 9.

 

Point is, it wasn't a job, didn't feel like a job, whereas the progression thing did. You're suggesting that in order to play this fictitious game, I'd basically have to stand watch....I did my military service already, not interested in gameifying it. That sounds decidedly UN-fun. Perhaps it sounds great to some of you guys, I'm saying it'll never happen in a $100 million dollar game, because most people don't define that as fun.

 

The build your base and defend it thing has already happened. People logged in at 4am and burnt your stuff the ground. Maybe you can work around that, but it's hugely disingenuous, saying, you can't attack me! I'm sleeeping! At any rate, people won't buy that game like they bought SWTOR. And that's the tradeoff. games like SWG and Ryzom have comparatively tiny playerbases. Even EVE is pretty small, something like 300k accounts.

[Kozzmozz]

As i've read the many comments here , and also I am up for such games like that , altough i love this one and like to play a themepark aswell is the following ....

 

where were you all @

 

 

Ultima Online

Tabula Rasa

Darkfall Online

Mortal Online

Xsyon

....

 

why weren you (we) all there to support those companies with 100 000 subs and more?

[Mavajo]

As i've read the many comments here , and also I am up for such games like that , altough i love this one and like to play a themepark aswell is the following ....

 

where were you all @

 

 

Ultima Online

Tabula Rasa

Darkfall Online

Mortal Online

Xsyon

....

 

why weren you (we) all there to support those companies with 100 000 subs and more?

 

I'm only familiar with 3 of those personally, but...

 

Ultimate Online is like 13 years old

Tabula Rasa was awful

Xsyon is pure sandbox, and has mediocre support at best which makes it tough to justify $15/month

Edited February 9, 2012 by Mavajo

[Grundledeep]

I like a lot about swtor. But I don't like a lot as well. I think the biggest problem is the game feels like I am being held by the hand through a dead world. I never see other players even though I play on a super populated server. Sharding to this extreme is wicked fail. I feel like im playing a single player rpg. I feel like this isn't looking backwards, but not looking at all.