test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
When are developers going to stop pushing trash out the door?
malishan
Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 0 Arc User
Theres been discussion about soft launches and how you can't compare old games releasing "feature complete" to current mmos that are a forever a work in progress. I agree with these statements, if you are considering "old games" to be super mario style console games... And yet why is it that games nowadays have not progressed in feature depth further than the earliest mmos, and instead are released as more of the same shallow HAMSTER every time? Everquest one had most of the features of most current mmos, and although it wasn't 3d, ultima online had 10x the depth and interactivity of any current mmo. Adding one more dimension does not mean you can leave out the rest of the game. When will developers stop pushing this trash out the door for a quick score instead of making a truely interactive world with depth, a game that might actually last and finally give wow the old heave ho?
Neverwinter gave us a somewhat nifty foundry system, but left the rest of the game as bare bones as it possibly could be. Narrow tiny zones in which even the outdoor zones are pretty much hallways repainted to look like outdoors. None of the depth that games 15 years ago (UO) had in spades. Shallow classes. Neverwinter really went backwards in class specialization. 7 hotkeys. As a wizard I am most effective using the first 7 spells I got. I recently ran a dungeon with those first seven spells and nearly doubled the dps of another wizard in group that was a lvl higher than me but was trying to use some of the higher lvl useless spells. What the HAMSTER how do these publishers think that they will not fail, except for with a few obsessive & semi HAMSTER super fans?
Neverwinter gave us a somewhat nifty foundry system, but left the rest of the game as bare bones as it possibly could be. Narrow tiny zones in which even the outdoor zones are pretty much hallways repainted to look like outdoors. None of the depth that games 15 years ago (UO) had in spades. Shallow classes. Neverwinter really went backwards in class specialization. 7 hotkeys. As a wizard I am most effective using the first 7 spells I got. I recently ran a dungeon with those first seven spells and nearly doubled the dps of another wizard in group that was a lvl higher than me but was trying to use some of the higher lvl useless spells. What the HAMSTER how do these publishers think that they will not fail, except for with a few obsessive & semi HAMSTER super fans?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
< /argument >
Try some Foundry quests instead. The good authors know how to get around that. The pre-made content is lack-luster compared to some of the things the community built.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
It still doesnt make for an interactive world like what UO had 15 years ago. Think of what the servers then could handle vs what they can do today. My smartphone is more powerful than the PC's of that day by a factor of 10. Seriously what the HAMSTER.
I can only blame greedy publishers. Problem is that if they ever spent a bit of time and invested with the right group of developers that truely had a bit of vision and talent, they might actually make a game that has some staying power, and it would pay off far more than they are going to get for a rushed POS.
This is really a foolish question. Do YOU have any fresh ideas? It's like asking "When is someone going to come up with a better television?" They may very well do so, but you're still gonna be sitting there watching the same old **** on it.
The MMO format IS the limitation.
I think you're looking back with rose-tinted glasses. I loved Ultima Online as well, but it was a very primitive client with a ton of lag, exploits, and clunky combat.
The thing you're probably missing is the semi-persistent world where you could drop a house, vendors, etc. The trend of the MMO market these days is built upon WoW's success from quests, progression, and the grinding treadmill. It's difficult to think outside the box of something that is raking in money.
However there is hope. The Foundry (started with STO) is a great push in the right direction, but Cryptic limits what we can do in it. If it opens up more over time, as in letting us be less linear and giving us more control, then things could really get interesting. For other games that are breaking past the MMO paradigm, here's several.
Now...
Just like Neverwinter, the people at Runic made GUTS editor for Torchlight II that lets you do both player-made content AND mods.
Minecraft. If you like the retro look and want a sandbox, try Minecraft with community-run servers. So moddable that people can turn Minecraft into a completely different game.
Future...
Or if you're tired of Minecraft, wait for the next best thing called TUG: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nerdkingdom/tug-1
Sand-box D&D style (Pathfinder system) MMO in the works: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1675907842/pathfinder-online-a-fantasy-sandbox-mmo
Camelot Unchained: taking sandbox and applying it to characters instead of worlds. Looks interesting.
However...
If you're really looking to something that uses the latest engine, latest graphics and blows your mind away, MMOs are not the ideal place for that. You'd want the coming PS4 with the latest console games designed to be solo-focused or just multiplayer.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
So we've reached the total scope for content, gameplay, and style of Massive Multiplayer Online games? You can't be this narrow minded.
* TWITCH * YOUTUBE * MY GUIDES *
The reason why modern MMOs don't play like UO isn't about compute power or dev laziness, it's that UO was not a good game. It's a classic example of simulating a world, giving all sorts of ways to interact with it in free form and verisimilitudinous ways, and expecting that somehow a fun game will just naturally appear. It doesn't work that way. Not unless you're one of the relatively few gamers who are inherently drawn to world simulations over gameplay.
Due to its sloppy game design, UO was absolutely lousy with griefers; and if you're not one of the few griefers, that sucks. So people left when themepark MMOs showed up. And went to WoW when it out-theme-parked Everquest.
Neverwinter is a very different game from UO, Everquest or WoW. It, and the other recent action MMOs, are improvements in every way that matters, as far as I'm concerned.
The thing is that, NW is only a hack n slash game. People should not expect a sandbox world with such kind of game.
But actually, this is a low-budget game. Or, "low-budge" as they say in the film industry.
First of all, it's not open-world, so it will never have the depth I think some people are looking for. By open-world, I mean you walk out of the city without using a map transition, you simply walk outside and keep walking around until you get where you're going. Neverwinter isn't really a world per se -- it's just a (fairly small) collection of (fairly small) maps. So not a lot of depth there.
Second of all, there are no skills, or any other kind of non-combat abilities. So, no depth there.
Third of all, it's an action MMO, that only lets you bind a few powers to keys at a time. So there's not going to be much depth during the combat either.
This game is hardly the penultimate MMO, it's a very very specific kind of MMO that I happen to find pretty fun (until around level 30-40) despite it having basically 0 depth. I doubt I'll stick with it long-term but I think the developers realize that. I think they know what their game is and isn't.
UO is still running. Go play it if it's that superior.
I could say you're wearing rose-colored glasses with a lot more factual back-up than your statement that I am narrow-minded. Everquest came out in 1999, EQ2 and WoW in 2004. It is now 2013. There's still no game with more content and player-loyalty than Everquest, more quality than EQ2, or anything approaching the player-base of WoW.
It's a multi-billion dollar industry, so the presumption that the absolute smartest, best, most creative people in the industry aren't putting forth their absolute best efforts to improve this format and expand its scope...is blindness. Of course they have tried, and are trying. And failing, time after time.
No, we haven't reached the absolute content limit. There's still the 7-player group instead of the 5 or 6-player group; a few dragon names are out there for the taking; and we can certainly rearrange the maps, tweak the thematics once more, and have another 14-year argument about class balance.
But yes, the MMO genre is played. Can there be higher quality? Yes. Will it be "different?" Sorry, but the firm answer is no, based on factual data compiled over 3 separate decades.
even a failed ftp game probably makes more money than a subscription game that spent an extra year getting it perfect in this economy.
you could pay 60$(200$collectors edition) for the box (why do these prices seem familiar ) then 15$ till you get bored, companies at this point keep you there but releasing new 60-200$ boxes every 3-6 months until they close or just run for a select few of faithful players. or make MMO2 the next vertion of the same exact game with updated graphics.
or standard free to play with gold option a few standard things that come with gold extra slots more bank space a few classes/races that are gold olnly often heavy limits on max gold and if you ever stop payig all your gold chars get locked out! but general FTP options are a bit more affordable since the gold members are paying for a lot of the R&D aspects of the game. and there is often a lifetime for 200$ or so that gives similar gold perks plus some added perks like vip entry or a title.
or you could play this game. buy a founderspack as if it was a box then get a 10$ zen card every month and pretend your subscribing if you stop buying the cards so you can play another game you wont have your account locked, use the free ad and the zen card you get with founders pack to buy extra bank space and anything else youd expect from a subscription.
my biggest complaint is this game doesn't have a lot of account based service buys so you cant buy extra bank slots for all your chars you have to figure which of your characters needs extra space. you cant say buy a costume pack you like for every char so if I say wish to reroll my TR as an archer id lose her outfits/pets. tthis and the fact that fashion outfit takes up valuable space, makes me really limit the outfits I choose to get. also this makes it much easier for freebers(legitimate players that don't pay), as well as scammers, to have multiple accounts/bank alts.
So having the MOST player-loyalty and content or having a massive player base in an MMO means that any future MMO's have to/can only follow the same rules as the previous? If your answer is yes then you're extremely naive.
Reality is not static, you can be the smartest, best, most creative person one day and the next, someone else is ahead of you. Also, having a massive player base or making more money than any other game does not automatically make your game better than all the others. And it also (like I said before) does not make the format of your mmo the end all be all format for any future mmos.
"The horror genre is played, can there be higher quality? Yes. Will it be different? No."
See what I did there? You can make this statement about anything, but obviously the answer to the last question isn't always No. There are many SUCCESSFUL horror movies today that are totally different from past ones. This is the same for any video game genre, yes some stuff MIGHT always stay the same, but so much of it can change to the point of being far more significant than any similarities it holds with past ones.
* TWITCH * YOUTUBE * MY GUIDES *
As long as people are willing to throw away hundreds of dollars on unfinished dreck, someone will sell it to them
Americans are the best at being whaled that's why the game was targeted directly at them.
Not only did this game step back and fail in almost all the aspects it copied, the new stuff it brought is not complete or strong enough to make it worth an investment.
Until you have a system where players can build content into the game that is equal to or better than the basic developer built content there will be no innovation. Adding an editor for all items and models with a weekly update is the next step.
^This.
Also, those with the big money needed to back a AAA MMO would have to be willing to take risks on unproven designs. You can have the most brilliant designers in the world, but if their creativity is stifled by the money men, we will just keep getting more of the same.
The MMO world is limited.
AI is limited since we don't have "true AI" it is just reactive codes and RNG to situations.
Persistent world require some major revamp in MMO. A complex NPC version (people change over time or players can change the world) would require some serious balance and prevent exploits. that is hard to do. Heck, we still have TRADE exploits and AH exploits, can you imagine going to a larger scale?
Please review my campaign and I'll return the favor.
I'm talking about the uniqueness and creativity of the genre, that is something that is not limited. The format can change and evolve easily, the question is, why hasnt it? My opinion: Money. Every dev and gaming company knows what works, so everything after UO, EQ, or WoW have never really been distinct, fully formed visions. This is starting to change though as people realize that you can have different stuff as long as it has high replayability. Look at GGG and what theyve done with PoE.
* TWITCH * YOUTUBE * MY GUIDES *
Ah. That is easy to answer.
Money.
The problem with going with "new" style of game (genre/format) is the chance of not hitting it off or may take a bit before it becomes popular.
Gaming company wants to make money by spending the LEAST amount of money. (true for any business) so companies tend to stick to Genre that are likely to be successful. Will a no-name company with a brand new game idea kick off? maybe, people in general tend to follow brand name in almost everything, that include games. Sure there are people who are willing to try something new, but if it is too new/different/hard people tend to quit early before giving it a chance.
Look at Gameformer when it comes to rating of "non-genre" games usually in lower marks.
Please review my campaign and I'll return the favor.
Yes. You missed my point.
Comparing a video game format to something as infinitely versatile as a horror movie is a good example of the aforementioned rose-colored glasses.
Let me be more specific. I have played nearly every MMO. I have played the better ones quite extensively. And I have seen the limitations inherent to the genre.
At a certain point, a game can exceed the number of spells/combat arts it is realistic, or fun, for a person to remember, or use. At a certain point, a game can exceed the number of people it is feasible to hold together in a group. At a certain point, combat mechanics ceases to be a game and becomes like a math class.
You can turn a kobold into a flying book or a walking mushroom or a bug-eyed alien. You can turn a direct damage spell into an AOE, you can turn a ranger into a monk into a rogue into a wizard into a priest into a jedi knight. You can turn a castle into a planet, a dragon into a lich. You can call a fireball spell a fire comet, or an ice blast, or a flamefireblasticecometball. But you are still playing the same game.
You can go through every name humans have ever given to sharp, pointy implements used in combat. BUT THEY ARE STILL JUST SWORDS.
The format itself is the limitation. Computers themselves are the limitation.
Now, am I saying it will always be this way? What I'm saying is, it has always been this way, and the technology hasn't changed. You are still sitting there with a keyboard and a mouse in front of you, and so am I.
When the technology advances, maybe MMO's can advance. With quantum computing, virtual reality, brainwave functionality, yeah, you could make a better MMO. But you don't have that yet, and probably not for quite some time.
I like MMO's. I just don't like to hear people complain that nobody is improving them without really understanding that it is increasingly obvious that it's not possible to do so. It's been tried - literally hundreds of times, over multiple decades, with utter failure as the usual result. Want something a little different, with a different back-story? Fine, here's another one.
If you're talking to me, I might say the same to you. Do YOU have a any fresh ideas? Or are you, as I suspect, just another consumer pleading "Feed me, feed me" to the corporate world?
Fact is, the original usually is the best. The Beatles are still the best rock band. The Lord of the Rings is still the best epic fantasy novel. Star Wars is still the best Star Wars movie. And IMO, Everquest is still the best MMO. You might say Ultima Online. Both of us may be right.
But don't be the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm not just talking about variations of existing things (well I am a bit) I'm talking about creating entirely new things. Instead of making variations of a sword, make a brand new weapon. Look at portal or what Hl2 with the gravity gun.
Sure, certain things MIGHT always stay the same, but those things can totally be overshadowed by innovation and creativity.
And you're dead wrong about companies trying over and over again to reinvent the genre because they havent. They've been copying and making minor alterations to their predecessors, thats all. Why? Money. Its just more economically sound to not steer away too much from something that you know works and sells. These are businesses, remember.
I also don't understand how you think a genre of movie is more flexible than a genre of video game. I would actually think we have even more flexibility when talking about video games because there is an additional element of not just watching but interacting.
* TWITCH * YOUTUBE * MY GUIDES *
Again.. it boils down to money.
Some company actually believe flashy graphics = content. I notice this of late.
I love UO (play for 7 years from day 1) Their graphic is limited using spirite base. There are limit on what you can do. Modern game use 3D modeling type. This actually take up more processor than spirite. I also notice that "shooter" tend to be popular.
Look at Resident Evil game. It was top down and bird eyes view. It was awesome horror base. Then came Resident Evil 4. It was over the shoulder shooter. It is a lot more popular now and many games follow that.
as for technological limitation - we have to look at two things. One is engine. Gaming engine are actually pretty good (the new unreal engine is nice) but some game uses Hero engine and other engine (I don't them all) some are limitation of the engine used in the game.
Please review my campaign and I'll return the favor.
You are missing the point, and I venture to guess that you are some kind of idiot. Are you saying that the gameplay of yesterday just cant work with modern graphics? You could take a beefed up UO server only slightly modified, tack on a modern 3d engine to the client, model a 3d world to go with it and have a game that is vastly superior to most current mmos.
I'm talking about features that seem relatively minor that add immensely to gameplay. The ability to hide a loot bag anywhere in the world. Seems minor, but added nicely to the interactivity of the world. If you never played UO when it first came out I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain more reasons why I feel games have gone backwards as far as gameplay features. Neverwinter's world though which is a whole other issue, is completely laughable. The whole game inside or out is nothing but hallways and rooms, and doesn't feel like a world at all. I'm glad that at least a few upcoming games are at least trying to push the boundaries back a bit and regain lost ground. ArcheAge for one has some decent possibilities.
Heh.. I remember when UO tried to go 3D.... it wasn't ready back then
but I digress.
I think I beginning to understand where you are coming from. I think it is also the player base that cause the shift in MMO.
Open world is nice, but it take some serious coding people to make stuff "happen" in the open world.
I notice a lot of game are more into what we called "Railroad" design. you are limited on where to go and how to get there. A lot of games does this to "guide" the players to certain mission, do certain things, and defeat certain boss. They have "gated content" like level base entry, encounters and such.
I notice that a lot of games (mainly multiplayer base) have smaller "land" the exception would be older one like EVE and WoW. (those are pretty big) I remember Asheron's call was pretty big and DAOC. but modern game the land is smaller because it is easier to guide people to do things you want to do.
This and flashy graphic set the "stone" for devs to create from.
I do miss real open world where you can go someplace just cause not because a quest force you to be there.
NOW......... the awesome side of things is Foundry. Player generate content. This actually make the land "bigger" but again still "small" compare to vast open world. We are limited in what we can do, but we can "virtually" open more worlds/maps/places to go with foundry.
Please review my campaign and I'll return the favor.
Yeah I know it comes down to money, but the publishers of most recent games haven't exactly been able to cash in with their strategy either, not like wow did, and they wont until they realize that pushing more bare bones HAMSTER out the door is never going to create the next cash cow.
Of course 3d engines take up more processing power than sprites, but again, we arent dealing with the processors of 15 years ago either. I've seen different elements of UO gameplay and features in many different mmo's, but nobody seems to want to take the time to put it all together in one game. I think they are wasting their time and investors money because putting out more of the same HAMSTER is just going to continue the current trend of one mmo flop after another.
Yea. I do miss that. I think the developers may take the "easy" way out cause it is easier to produce and people accept it. BUT it is also customer base. I notice that players (in general not anyone in particular) don't really like "hard" game. There is a niche of players who LOVE hard stuff and willing to invest time to play, but the general public (where devs want to get their money) doesn't want to spend 3 months getting that "epic bracer of might and awesome sauce" on RNG. People want stuff "now now now" and thus, simpler mind = simpler game
Please review my campaign and I'll return the favor.