PoE-saga MMORPG? Please?

[Lephys]

MMORPGs aren't bad. The stagnation of their design is.

 

I have mild hopes for Everquest Next. Mild, I say.

[Karkarov]

MMORPGs aren't bad. The stagnation of their design is.

 

I have mild hopes for Everquest Next. Mild, I say.

You are backing the wrong horse ;p.

 

It will still be a few years before a real mmo genre breaker hits.  Someone has to get the funding and the balls to nix the trinity and go with a classless system first while developing real enemy AI.  In fact I think the best "multiplayer" game coming out this year is going to be Destiny.  It is not really an "mmo" per se, but it has many of the trappings of one without a lot of the bad parts.

[Kjaamor]

The trouble with MMOs in my experience is that they tend to funnel ideas into the bottleneck of WoW. Many an MMO has had excellent ideas on how to be different and provide something new, but after a while, whether to combat falling revenue or simply to attact more players, someone up high asks "How can we make this game more popular? What are the market leaders doing that we aren't?" and before you know it your distinct and colourful game is another WoW clone.

 

Apart from SW:tOR, a game I was a forum member for years prior to its release, and when I finally got my hands on it the thing proved vastly inferior to the MMO I had played as a training exercise.

 

But I digress, because all MMORPGs are the spawn of the devil.

[Lephys]

You are backing the wrong horse ;p.

 

It will still be a few years before a real mmo genre breaker hits.  Someone has to get the funding and the balls to nix the trinity and go with a classless system first while developing real enemy AI.  In fact I think the best "multiplayer" game coming out this year is going to be Destiny.  It is not really an "mmo" per se, but it has many of the trappings of one without a lot of the bad parts.

I'm not really backing a horse at all (I get what you mean, though, ). I just feel like EQ:Next at least has the potential to be significantly different, even if it doesn't go as far as it should.

 

I'm hopeful about Destiny, too, but it also looks dangerously like the skeleton of Halo (and/or Borderlands) with a bunch of pleasant MMO features sewn in like a quilt. If they don't put enough actual tactical options into it, it'll just end up being fun and all, but very similar to your run-of-the-mill "find the most efficient sequence of abilities for a given class, then just roll with that" MMO.

 

The problem with MMOs is that they've taken role-playing games and turned them into role-filling games. It's just a big, static sandbox world full of optional challenges, with a bunch of rewards and loot-gambling thrown in, complete with a character build test studio. Nothing about them feels like your character has any reason to be doing anything at all, other than for progression's sake, which is only done for different-types-of-progression's sake. It's an infinite loop.

 

But I digress, because all MMORPGs are the spawn of the devil.

All existing ones, yes. And probably many more to come. I'm sure there's a prophecy r something, foretelling the one that will rise up to defeat all the others and actually be good.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Lephys

[robbiebp]

I think there's a lot of closed minds here.

 

I think a PoE style MMORPG would have been great.

 

I've played BG, BG2, IWD, IWD2, NWN, NWN2, expansions, etc. You know why I liked those games more than their rivals? The Multiplayer. Yes, planescape torment was a great title. But a single player experience will never, ever, ever grant the same satisfaction as a multiplayer one. You can't script anything as funny, dramatic, intense, enraging or emotional as a multiplayer experience.

 

Those near death fights, the times you aggro a city with a bad pick pocket, pissing off a key NPC and losing out on a quest chain. These moments are all better with friends to experience them with.

 

Their single player stories were fun, I enjoyed them all. But the multiplayer is what made the game for me. When I saw all of these titles mentioned I'd assumed multiplayer. I was wrong, and while still excited for the game, I can't express my disappointment that my friends and my experience of it will be nothing more than exchanged stories rather than shared ones. 

 

It's not too bad, most of us are having a blast playing Divinity at the minute. It's nailed what we were looking for pretty perfectly. It's a shame it's just 2 players max.

 

As for an Isometric MMO?

 

I've always had this idea for a game a bit like Diablo. You roll a character, can take your Char Sheet to different games, progress through the chapters you unlocked. With new chapters / stories to play through at regular content updates. It's my dream game, but it'll probably never happen. 

[Stun]

I think a PoE style MMORPG would have been great.

 

I've played BG, BG2, IWD, IWD2, NWN, NWN2, expansions, etc. You know why I liked those games more than their rivals? The Multiplayer.

Right, There's a huge difference in the infinity Games' co-op gameplay (and the NWN series multi-player) vs. actual MMOs. With the IE games and the NWN series, the gameplay is just you and a couple of friends. THAT can be fun. Yes. As it is the perfectly captured essence of a Pen and Paper D&D session, just without the paper.

 

MMOs are a totally different beast. Don't forget what MMO stands for: MASSIVE multiplayer. They feel different. They have a different point. That table-top session vibe is gone, replaced with raw competition against the worst of the world's teen age internet dregs. It's no longer you and a couple of buddies playing through the game. It's you and bunches and bunches of strangers. It's chaotic by its nature, so the system has to have overly gamey rules in place to police the whole thing. The result is 1) over-uniformity of the classes, 2) 'zones' 3) the role playing experience itself is replaced with "OMG, I only play to level my character!"

 

Oh and I almost forgot... the most important difference: 5) the inability to just escape from the rat race and enjoy the game by yourself offline.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

@robbiebp:

 

I definitely think an actually distinct, quality MMO that doesn't just follow the current popular formula would be great.

 

I'll believe it when I see it, though. Wishful thinking.

[Natusake]

If anyone is looking for a pen and paper esque experience in an MMO, look no further than the NWN2 server The Sword Coast Chronicles. A few people may have a problem with its policy that you must speak in character in most times and places, it is a very cool and interesting place to play. It has an entire wealth of stories made just by the people in that little community, but it has some of the trappings of an MMO, and so you meet new people and go on act on your or their stories. It's basically a huge RP server, and its a lot of fun, if only there wasn't so much grinding for levels.

 

http://bgtscc1.com/forum/

[Zwiebelchen]

The problem with MMOs is that they've taken role-playing games and turned them into role-filling games. It's just a big, static sandbox world full of optional challenges, with a bunch of rewards and loot-gambling thrown in, complete with a character build test studio.

 

Man, that would be really cool if an MMO out there would actually be *sandbox*. There is not even a single MMO out there that truly deserves the sandbox badge. There's some promising MMOs coming and existing that combine sandbox elements with themepark elements (Neverwinter with it's dungeon builder tool, Archeage with its focus on crafting and maybe Black Desert), but those experiences are still extremely limited. Not even Everquest Next is going to be truly sandbox, as you can only build & create inside your own personal space and there's no permanent damage to the world.

 

The only game that can be considered a real sandbox MMO is Eve Online. Which is also the reason why this game is still healthy as **** and the only subscription based MMO with a steadily rising player number.

 

Archeage could have been the dealbreaker. But they failed, as crafting and housing in Archeage is completely destroyed by the min-maxing crowd, literally herding goats.

[Karkarov]

I'm hopeful about Destiny, too, but it also looks dangerously like the skeleton of Halo (and/or Borderlands) with a bunch of pleasant MMO features sewn in like a quilt. If they don't put enough actual tactical options into it, it'll just end up being fun and all, but very similar to your run-of-the-mill "find the most efficient sequence of abilities for a given class, then just roll with that" MMO.

Well Destiny is easily my most anticipated game this year, yes even more than Eternity.  Okay... put the gun down!!!  I will restrain my inner fanboi and cut it to 4 points to help sell you on it though.

 

1: I hate (or am at least ambivalent) to Halo.  I thought the first was "ok" and the second was passable, but I outright hated the third and never thought any of them were worth actually buying.

2: I know people with connections at Bungie, and from what they told me in general Bungie doesn't really even like Halo much anymore and a big part of getting away from Microsoft was so they could make the game they wanted to make.

3: I got into the alpha about a month ago and was impressed enough by the limited content there I feel safe throwing down 150 bucks for the version of the game that is packaged with a little robot voiced by peter dinklage saying things about moon wizards.

4: If you are concerned about how deep the customization rabbit hole goes you can watch this video.  Bear in mind it doesn't have all ability details since all abilities haven't been released but it gives you a good idea how it works.  One thing I will add the guy doesn't say, you aren't the only thing that levels or can be "locked" for extra bonuses.  Same stuff applies to gear, particularly guns.

 

The only "drawback" I am sure many on this site will hate... it is a console only game at least for now.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Karkarov

[The Mist Devil]

Many should try Game Dev Tycoon. It would give them some insight about how the gaming industry works.

[Lephys]

@Karkarov: That's actually very encouraging. I'll definitely check it out in more detail.

 

Another, somewhat similar game (it's a shooter with character-customization elements and co-op play) I'm very interested in is Evolve. Something just made me think of that.

 

But, yeah, I've been trying to figure out which game'll actually get me to spring for a PS4. If Destiny's good enough, it might be the one.

 

 

Back to the note of MMO's, and piggy-backing on what Zwiebelchen said, I just had a thought...

 

What if, in an MMO, the guild who first bests a dungeon gets to sort of control it? Set it up, "level edit" it, etc.? That would be pretty interesting.

 

I think one of the main things MMO's lack is a significant interactivity; the world changes you (levels you up, gives you various loot, etc.), but you don't ever really change the world, at all. There's this huge fear that, if every single person who could ever want to play it can't jump in and experience the EXACT same dungeon, and potentially get the EXACT same items, etc., then some vile crime has been committed.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Lephys

[rjshae]

I think it would be a financially risky move, unless Obsidian partnered with somebody to spread the risk. First, though, they should establish the PoE brand by building a dedicated following with single-player games.

[Zwiebelchen]

Back to the note of MMO's, and piggy-backing on what Zwiebelchen said, I just had a thought...

 

What if, in an MMO, the guild who first bests a dungeon gets to sort of control it? Set it up, "level edit" it, etc.? That would be pretty interesting.

 

I think one of the main things MMO's lack is a significant interactivity; the world changes you (levels you up, gives you various loot, etc.), but you don't ever really change the world, at all. There's this huge fear that, if every single person who could ever want to play it can't jump in and experience the EXACT same dungeon, and potentially get the EXACT same items, etc., then some vile crime has been committed.

 

I think the main reason we are not seeing something like this is that developers regard gamers as a potential threat to their precious creations. Every sandbox aspect of MMOs is limited to absurdity in order to prevent players "abusing" it, whatever that means.

They won't see the greater picture behind this: abuse and especially grief-play of sandbox mechanics is what actually makes a game memorable. What you will remember ten years after playing a game isn't running a cookie-cutter dungeon to get your numbers rising. You will remember the bugs. You will remember the unfair things and how you overcome them; You will remember that moment when a huge amount of players united against the guild that crossed the line...

It's kind of like in the "make love, not warcraft" episode from south park. You need a villian and a personal agenda when playing an MMO. And what actually makes a better villian to hate and fight than a cheater? The feeling when finally finding a way to beat the crap out of that person that tormented you will stay in your mind forever.

 

Game developers nowadays seem to hate metagaming from the heart. They don't see that metagaming is essential for a real MMO experience. EVE online is ALL about metagaming. It's about finding ways to achieve what you want to achieve. If that involves infiltrating a guild with real persons to destroy it OVER THE COURSE OF MONTHS, then players will do it. That's why EVE has written gaming history. Because the developers did not fear the abuse of the sandbox elements. Because the developers did not fear the idea of having certain players building some kind of dictatorship to rule the server.

 

If things get way out of control, you can always have a gamemaster interventing. That's what game masters are for. It's just that MMO producers kinda regard game masters as a service hotline not as actual game masters.

 

I still have my hopes that some day, another game will come that revives the virtues of real sandbox gaming. A Pen & Paper experience in the form of an MMORPG. With *real* game masters actually moderating the game, not just being a human anti-bot-algorithm.

 

 

I've played WoW for years (until the release of Wrath of the Lichking). You know what I still remember of the game, 6 years after quitting? It wasn't the quests or the actual gameplay. It was two-manning Nefarian's Lair, a 40 people raid instance as naked level 60 warlocks by abusing DOTs and the geometry of the dungeon to kite mobs around endlessly. It was finding ways to mountaintops and areas that are meant to be un-reachable. It was using a glitch to get to a part of the landscape that was later named "GM island" (even though you never saw a GM there). The infectious desease from Zul'Gurub that due to a glitch remained on pets and thus infected the main cities, wiping out half of the server population. And I remember the endless pile of corpses and open PVP around Tarren's Mill. I remember the endless battles between alliance and horde players at the blackrock instance hubs back in vanilla times. Those things were that made WoW fun and memorable. Those things were what made players emotionally involved in the game. Blizzard patched them out. All of them.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Zwiebelchen

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I think it would be a financially risky move, unless Obsidian partnered with somebody to spread the risk. First, though, they should establish the PoE brand by building a dedicated following with single-player games.

 

I wonder if, in retrospect, Bioware may have been better served in regards to the Knights of the Old Republic 'brand' if they had avoided making it into an MMO and instead just kept making engrossing story-centered single player games. As I recall, the announcement there would be no KOTOR 3 and instead we would get an MMO was met with much the same contempt that's being heaped on the concept here. I think its become very common for people in general, not just the RPG geeks gathered here, to react to the announcement of a new MMO set in their favorite franchise with a groan rather than any enthusiasm. 

 

Whether it's fair or not, I now associate a company's decision to make an MMO with the kind of myopic stupidity you'd expect from a senior EA executive or some other such figure who doesn't understand games beyond the potential they have for milking customers dry. I expect that Obsidian is smarter than that. 

Edited July 9, 2014 by Death Machine Miyagi

[rjshae]

 

I think it would be a financially risky move, unless Obsidian partnered with somebody to spread the risk. First, though, they should establish the PoE brand by building a dedicated following with single-player games.

 

I wonder if, in retrospect, Bioware may have been better served in regards to the Knights of the Old Republic 'brand' if they had avoided making it into an MMO and instead just kept making engrossing story-centered single player games. As I recall, the announcement there would be no KOTOR 3 and instead we would get an MMO was met with much the same contempt that's being heaped on the concept here. I think its become very common for people in general, not just the RPG geeks gathered here, to react to the announcement of a new MMO set in their favorite franchise with a groan rather than any enthusiasm. 

 

Whether it's fair or not, I now associate a company's decision to make an MMO with the kind of myopic stupidity you'd expect from a senior EA executive or some other such figure who doesn't understand games beyond the potential they have for milking customers dry. I expect that Obsidian is smarter than that. 

 

Remember, there was a time when WoW was going gangbusters and it looked like a good model for game production. You'd have to assess the state of the market at the time the decision was made to determine whether it was a sensible choice.

 

The market for MMORPG will undoubtedly follow the hype cycle and at some point stabilize. In the meantime, hopefully gaming companies will better recognize the unique story-telling strengths of single-player and co-op CRPGS.

[Karkarov]

I think one of the main things MMO's lack is a significant interactivity; the world changes you (levels you up, gives you various loot, etc.), but you don't ever really change the world, at all. There's this huge fear that, if every single person who could ever want to play it can't jump in and experience the EXACT same dungeon, and potentially get the EXACT same items, etc., then some vile crime has been committed.

That's why many mmo's have started doing "phasing".  Lord of the Rings Online does it the most but WoW and others have played with it too.  IE: Do a quest series where a town ends up destroyed?  Then in your game when you go there the town is a burned out ruin.  Someone else doesn't do that quest though, or maybe saves the town?  Then when they go there it is a normal town.

 

It is hard to implement right though.

[Lephys]

That's why many mmo's have started doing "phasing".  Lord of the Rings Online does it the most but WoW and others have played with it too.  IE: Do a quest series where a town ends up destroyed?  Then in your game when you go there the town is a burned out ruin.  Someone else doesn't do that quest though, or maybe saves the town?  Then when they go there it is a normal town.

 

It is hard to implement right though.

Yeah, but even then, it's like putting a band-aid on someone's severed arm stub.

 

One of the fundamental aspects of an MMO that separates it from other games is the persistent world. Plenty of games let you play with a bunch of people (Battlefield, etc.) at the same time. What matters is that you're all getting to interact with the same world. And now, what do they do? Try to put all these walls between all the players. "Oh, we wouldn't want anyone to influence your dungeon, so we'll just instance it!" "Oh, did you burn that city to the ground but some other players didn't? We'll just phase it so that you see the results of what you did, but other people still only see their own version of that place."

 

It's not really a sandbox. It's just a giant single-player casual game with 90% optional content that you can play multiplayer if you so choose. It's strange, really. It doesn't really take much advantage of the inherent structure of an MMO.

 

Like Zwiebelchen said, EVE does a pretty good job because they let players influence a whole lot more of that persistent world. Hell, I think they're one of the few games that's STILL a single server, instead of like 8 million shards. Which, I get the shards thing... but, still.

 

And yes, I definitely think that they don't use GMs like they should. I think Everquest used to basically let them just strike up their own events whenever they felt like it (within reason). They'd just spawn themselves as something and start doing things in the world, and react depending on how the players handled it.

[Archaven]

If Obsidian considering an MMO.. they will dugging their own grave. Seriously no. I've played a fair share of online games but i look forward more towards quailty single player experience games.

[Ashen Rohk]

No. Obsidian excel at single player games, let's leave it there. I can't even stand the IE games as multiplayer.

[Lephys]

No. Obsidian excel at single player games, let's leave it there. I can't even stand the IE games as multiplayer.

If no one ever made any games that someone couldn't stand, no games would ever get made.

 

Just food for thought.

[Stun]

The Icwwind Dales can actually be pretty darn fun when played in co-op. The BG games not so much, since the plot is centered around a single specific protagonist.

[Fatback]

Nix the trinity and encounter design goes into the floor you can have it be classless but you need to have healers/support, damage and tanks. It's the only way you can get good encounters otherwise it's a straight dps game and that's no fun. Just look at gw2 and there encounters. Straight zerker gear or gtfo when it comes to dungeons.

[nikolokolus]

If Obsidian wanted to make a MUD, I'd probably give that a go, but that's about it.

[Lephys]

Nix the trinity and encounter design goes into the floor you can have it be classless but you need to have healers/support, damage and tanks. It's the only way you can get good encounters otherwise it's a straight dps game and that's no fun. Just look at gw2 and there encounters. Straight zerker gear or gtfo when it comes to dungeons.

Or you could have actual tactics in place, instead of just competing DPS/de-DPS(healing) rates.

 

It's currently far more about which weapon you have and what level you are than it is about what choices you're actively making, in the moment.