Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Microtransactions in MMO games.

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
i don't know. while most rpgs are shit, some are not.
i cannot say the same for mmorpgs though
i didn't find a single one that wasn't way too keen on paywalls, ridiculously expensive monthly fees or stuff like that
you can still find a decent rpg now and then
i cannot find a single mmorpg that's not shit, however

i'll admit though that it might be because the people playing are mostly retarded kids and brazilians

Well... if MMOs were being as made as easily (and as many) as single player RPGs, you might see something worthy. Reason you can't find anything for MMOs these days is due to the FTP corruption.

All of games have their subjective points, but there have been good MMOs in the past.

For instance, for its time... EQ was excellent (you have to compare it to the time though). Later EQ2 dropped the ball, but picked it up again after a while (before it later drop kicked it into oblivion due to FTP) to which provided many amazing features of play. WoW before PVP and release wasn't bad, it was a new approach and had interesting boss fight mechanics (if you don't mind the theme park play). Vanguard was good after a bit, but later was turned to crap due to FTP. LoTRO was an amazing system of play with a much slower paced combat and interesting class designs and dungeon encounters. Its questing system initially was interesting (you actually had to read and think about what was being said to figure out hints), though this game also was destroyed by WoW players and FTP. The most recent was The Secret World, but... not for its combat and encounters ( they took a great idea and shoved it into the same old form to appeal to the WoW players), but for its story telling and puzzle solving. To be honest, I think TSW is the only one that is FTP where you aren't destroyed by FTP gimmicks. The question with them becomes if each issue is worth the 10 bucks, but the initial game of 4-5 issues is actually enjoyable for the story for the cost of a box (15-20 bucks?)

There are numerous MMOs of the past which were great depending on your taste. Problem is... "Taste" is being made "accessible". That is, no longer do MMO designers make games for certain crowds. They make games for a single crowd which is why you get bland boring crap designed for the lowest common denominator.

RPGs suffer the same fate though. The quality over the years has slowly degraded (much like MMOs trying to appeal to the WoW mainstream) leaving most people with games that are "ok" in some ways, but mostly are garbage due to the desire to appeal to the mainstream.

Don't discount the Asian market and its influence. Go look at the history of their game systems and design and it will make perfect sense why MMOs are garbage these days.

What RPGs (aside from the recent KS and indie list) would you call good?
 
Last edited:

Scruffy

Ex-janitor
Patron
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
18,150
Codex 2012 Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014
What RPGs (aside from the recent KS and indie list) would you call good?

blackguards
witcher 2 if you like actionrpgs
grimrock was okaysh, but i guess it counts as indie
new vegas (how far back can i go?)
risen
i want to say guided fate but i haven't played it, only read very positive reviews
and skyrim of course :troll:
 

Schoening

Literate
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
7
It is such a gimmick and companies have learned to profit off these people who aren't a gamer, they are either console rejects or the general public type that thinks a game is nothing more than entertainment like a movie to mindlessly drone around in.

Lol.. Chill out dude.. You play computer games. It's not a badge of honor :) It IS a form of entertainment.
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
It is such a gimmick and companies have learned to profit off these people who aren't a gamer, they are either console rejects or the general public type that thinks a game is nothing more than entertainment like a movie to mindlessly drone around in.

Lol.. Chill out dude.. You play computer games. It's not a badge of honor :) It IS a form of entertainment.

A game is a competitive activity (with ones self or another) which can involve skill, chance or endurance. It is structured by a set of rules to which obstacles must be overcome within the bounds of those rules to achieve success within the game.

Entertainment is an amusement or pastime. There is no structure and it can encompass activities as mundane as picking ones nose.

All games can be entertainment, but not all entertainment activities are games.

That is where the problem is introduced. The non-gamer isn't concerned about the details, doesn't care about the rules, and disregards the structure of a game. You see, they just want to be entertained and games place obstacles requiring the player to meet certain requirements in order to succeed in the game (ie win). That isn't fun for the non-gamer, remember... they "just want to be entertained" and for those who dislike games, "winning" all the time without effort is "fun" and that any form of "thinking, planning, puzzle solving, long term development, difficulty, failure, etc..." is not fun, not... entertaining.

So yes, there is a difference and it has nothing to do with a "badge of honor". It has to do with the fact that some of us grew up with games and an understanding of the difference between the meaning of a "Game" and that of "Entertainment".
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
What RPGs (aside from the recent KS and indie list) would you call good?

blackguards
witcher 2 if you like actionrpgs
grimrock was okaysh, but i guess it counts as indie
new vegas (how far back can i go?)
risen
i want to say guided fate but i haven't played it, only read very positive reviews
and skyrim of course :troll:

A lot of those are pretty new and were games designed in response to the "decline". I think the single player game market is a bit ahead of the MMO market in terms of a death rattle. They didn't have the FTP fad as a means to refresh interest into the genre. I think that without FTP, you would be seeing some niche MMOs already out trying to pick up a healthy steady market of subscribers. Witcher 2 I would cite as one of the problems. The story may be good, but the combat/character development is weak crap. If story was the focus, would have been better to drop the RPG crap and make it a solid adventure game.

Other than a few that came out over the last couple of years, most of the market has been filled with garbage. Now don't get me wrong, some games have some interesting things in them... but... they have a lot of problems as well. DA was "entertaining", but you could see that "entertainment" was their primary focus over system design. As I said in a previous post, the desire to "entertain the masses", has led to systems that are bland, easily rewarding, unintelligent, etc... all, so they can make sure "everyone" is "Entertained".
 

Schoening

Literate
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
7
Xenich Thank you for clarifying.
It makes sense. Even tho I am no longer sure what you classify as a gamer / non-gamer.
Because games like Candy Crush are challenging puzzles. And the ones I know who play it don't call them selves gamers.
While you got loads of World of Warcraft private servers where people want double exp and instant max level. And I would say those people are gamers.
 

Scruffy

Ex-janitor
Patron
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
18,150
Codex 2012 Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014
A lot of those are pretty new

actually, i was trying to name the newest ones i could think of
if i am allowed to go back in time, then i'd say
deus ex
morrowind
grandia2
suikoden3
arx fatalis
sakura taisen (the 2004 releases)
Kotor
gothic2
some of the decent final fantasies
hordes of the underdark
bloodlines
mass effect (the first)
gothic3 without the bugs
mask of the betrayer
the first witcher
that drakengsang from 2007 or 2008
the king's bounty sequel/successor
the first dragon age as you point out

and this is all post-2002 stuff, and i'm leaving out the indies/kickstarter stuff

your objection that the industry has adopted gimmicks and stuff misses the point of my criticism: while rpgs might have dropped in quality (but not all of them), they are still being made with a specific goal in mind, that is, being a RPG. MMOGS on the other had started as something of an experiment (UO, AC, DAOC, etc) and quickly devolved into money-grabbing schemes with no real scope other than keeping the player grinding and grinding and trying to reach the "next" goal by either grinding (spending money on subscription) or paying for it.

The only comparable level of shit was reached by Bethshitsda with its day 1 DLC and horse armor and such retardation.
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
A lot of those are pretty new

actually, i was trying to name the newest ones i could think of
if i am allowed to go back in time, then i'd say
deus ex
morrowind
grandia2
suikoden3
arx fatalis
sakura taisen (the 2004 releases)
Kotor
gothic2
some of the decent final fantasies
hordes of the underdark
bloodlines
mass effect (the first)
gothic3 without the bugs
mask of the betrayer
the first witcher
that drakengsang from 2007 or 2008
the king's bounty sequel/successor
the first dragon age as you point out

and this is all post-2002 stuff, and i'm leaving out the indies/kickstarter stuff

your objection that the industry has adopted gimmicks and stuff misses the point of my criticism: while rpgs might have dropped in quality (but not all of them), they are still being made with a specific goal in mind, that is, being a RPG. MMOGS on the other had started as something of an experiment (UO, AC, DAOC, etc) and quickly devolved into money-grabbing schemes with no real scope other than keeping the player grinding and grinding and trying to reach the "next" goal by either grinding (spending money on subscription) or paying for it.

The only comparable level of shit was reached by Bethshitsda with its day 1 DLC and horse armor and such retardation.

"pretty new and were games designed in response to the "decline"

I explained why in my comment.

Basically, I am talking about roughly the last 5-10 years (there may be a few in there that were pretty good, but most are gimmick crap). If you look closely at the timeline, you will see where games just... sold out. PC games mainly as more and more started making the games for consoles. First porting them to consoles, then... making them for consoles and porting them to PC. Now keep in mind, EQ and UO were basically at the beginning of the 2000's. You had some good RPGs around that time and you also had some good MMO's at the time as well. Now start from 2000 and watch the progression. Over time, the good RPG's become less and less, just as the MMOs become more and more gimmicky, dumbed down, etc... so do the RPGs.

What I was asking you, is other than "recently" which is obvious due to the current fad to "bring back the oldies", when were these great RPGs made in any real consistency? Look at all of your dates and most of them are at least 5 years or more old. Which, as I said, if you look at MMOs, well... you see a similar decline in quality. Why is that?

My position is that the non-gamer became a target market. Think of it like the 50's music hit market for all the young teens, the boy band market of the 80's, etc... That market wants "entertainment" and they just love the latest fad.

MMOs weren't an experiment, we had MUDs/MUSHs for years before that. All those MMOs did was to bring a graphical interface to the market. That is why in the beginning they were loosely termed as "Graphical MUDs". Like I said, in the begining it was just a multiplayer RPG. Both MMOs and single player RPGs have been destroyed by the general public over the years. I would say MMOs have been killed more by the casual/non-gamer while the single player RPGs have been killed by the console market, but for the most part they overlap with each other a lot in blame.
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
Xenich Thank you for clarifying.
It makes sense. Even tho I am no longer sure what you classify as a gamer / non-gamer.
Because games like Candy Crush are challenging puzzles. And the ones I know who play it don't call them selves gamers.
While you got loads of World of Warcraft private servers where people want double exp and instant max level. And I would say those people are gamers.

A gamer plays games because they like games (ie a structure of objectives governed by rules to which you must surpass to succeed). A gamer doesn't usually cheat because the whole point is the "game", not random entertainment of "winning". It is about the journey, not the destination. It is about the risk/reward, the success after failure, etc...

A non-gamer seeks to be entertained. They want the thrill or play. Doesn't matter how they get it, as long as they do. They don';t care if they cheat to get it, or if it is handed to them, etc... the point is not playing the game, but being entertained by the game. The game doesn't matter, only their entertainment.

There is nothing special about being a gamer. It isn't an elitist thing or a special group of people. It is simply people who want to play a game vs people who want to just be entertained.
 

Scruffy

Ex-janitor
Patron
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
18,150
Codex 2012 Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014
i'm apparently not being clear here

rpgs had a golden era, and then their quality declined, because the industry was more interested in revenues and monetizing all they could. this decline in quality didn't mean there were less rpgs, only they were shittier to appease morons (oblivion, FO3, etc)

mmogs entered the spotlight with WOW, and when companies realized they could monetize the MMOs world as well, they started programming the games ONLY to create revenue

the only mmogs that i can think of which aren't explicitly trying to only make money are

EVE
DAOC (both lasted so long because of that IMO, we'll see what happens with this "broadsword" company thing)
early everquest, but it immediately turned to a shitty grind too
UO before that whole equipment mess and EA
asheron's call


the rest are ALL thought to make you grind
the very nature of most mmogs, where if you don't play enough hours you're not on par with the people who do, speaks volumes about them

anyway, i lost interested and am now bored
cya
 

DarKPenguiN

Arcane
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,323
Location
Inside the Hollow Earth
It is such a gimmick and companies have learned to profit off these people who aren't a gamer, they are either console rejects or the general public type that thinks a game is nothing more than entertainment like a movie to mindlessly drone around in.

Lol.. Chill out dude.. You play computer games. It's not a badge of honor :) It IS a form of entertainment.
-Who the fuck are you?

Do you have any idea what neighborhood you just walked into? Please leave...
 

No Great Name

Arcane
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
572
Location
US
Xenich Thank you for clarifying.
It makes sense. Even tho I am no longer sure what you classify as a gamer / non-gamer.
Because games like Candy Crush are challenging puzzles. And the ones I know who play it don't call them selves gamers.
While you got loads of World of Warcraft private servers where people want double exp and instant max level. And I would say those people are gamers.
Think of the game poker. You have people who play poker competitively (gamers) who play primarily to improve and put their skills to the test and you have people who play poker casually (non-gamers), people who are primarily interested in playing poker for the sake of playing poker.
 

Drax

Arcane
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,986
Location
Silver City, Southern Lands
I don't get it, aren't both cases "gamers"?
I mean, I get that there are different levels of "commitment" (or addiction in some cases) but "playing poker for the sake of playing poker" sounds ludic enough for me..
 

No Great Name

Arcane
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
572
Location
US
I don't get it, aren't both cases "gamers"?
I mean, I get that there are different levels of "commitment" (or addiction in some cases) but "playing poker for the sake of playing poker" sounds ludic enough for me..
You are playing poker specifically for the sake of playing poker if you could replace poker with any other card game and still attain the same general goal (which in most cases is to play a game, any game really, with someone else for whatever reason).

So translated into video game related terms, if whatever MMO you are playing can be replaced by another similar MMO while still attaining the same general goal (usually entertainment in this case), then you are playing the game casually, a non-gamer.
 

Ninjerk

Arcane
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
14,323
Haven't we been over how ridiculous it is to identify as a gamer?
 

Drax

Arcane
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,986
Location
Silver City, Southern Lands
I don't get it, aren't both cases "gamers"?
I mean, I get that there are different levels of "commitment" (or addiction in some cases) but "playing poker for the sake of playing poker" sounds ludic enough for me..
You are playing poker specifically for the sake of playing poker if you could replace poker with any other card game and still attain the same general goal (which in most cases is to play a game, any game really, with someone else for whatever reason).

So translated into video game related terms, if whatever MMO you are playing can be replaced by another similar MMO while still attaining the same general goal (usually entertainment in this case), then you are playing the game casually, a non-gamer.
On the contrary, if "whatever X you are playing can be replaced by another similar X", then your objective is not the specific game itself but the act of "gaming", therefore you are, while gaming, a gamer.
Gosh darn, what a load of pedantic lines we're writing.

Haven't we been over how ridiculous it is to identify as a gamer?
Indeed.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,824
I dont like the generalization xenich makes, they are correct for some mmos, but usually come from a place of ignorance rather than indepth knowledge of a great variety of mmos. Feels like hes been playing wow clones forever and thats all he knows.

On microtransactions, they are shit i guess, I do like when you can pay for convenience and sell it to other players. meaning other players get the benefit from microtransactions without having to invest real money on it, thats the healtiest way to implement them.

Problem are not microtransactions really, its just publishers and developers being greedy that fucks it up, that model just makes it easier for them to be sleazy. but charging for expansions (glorified patches for the most part) in subscription based games is also shit, especially if your profit marging is big enough that you can afford to do it. After all the reason you expand your game is to keep it alive, that is a reward on its own.
 

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
24,717
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
While microtransactions are bad, honestly, there are way worse things in MMOs to worry about. Having an "interesting" grind rather than a punch-in-the-clock one, as we discussed. AI - or lack thereof - is also important to me, and so rarely discussed. Theme park MMOs would be so much better with AI that is more than "kill the guy that is building up the most aggro!" Darkfall actually had pretty interesting AI, the little I played. GW1 also had really good enemy encounters, but I'm not sure if that was AI or just good mechanics and well designed encounters.
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
I dont like the generalization xenich makes, they are correct for some mmos, but usually come from a place of ignorance rather than indepth knowledge of a great variety of mmos. Feels like hes been playing wow clones forever and thats all he knows.

WoW clones? /sigh

My first experience with multiplayer games was a MUD (Unless you count Pong). Graphical games as such didn't exist back then. I played Meridian 59 for a bit, then Beta'd UO and played it for a while. Then did EQ early beta and played that game for quite a while. I pretty much alpha/betad most of the early MMOs. Lets see... there was AC, AC2, AO, Lineage 1/2, EQ2, Vanguard, DDO, LoTRO, AoC, etc... I beta's WoW as well, and have played pretty much all of the PTP MMOs since then. As I mentioned, I did a FTP evaluation of games for a while seeing if I could find something worthy (Allods, PE, etc... Basically, I went through the list of MMORPG.com).

So, ignorance... no... more like a clarity of the gimmicks and progressions MMOs have taken.

Not to sound pretentious, but I would wager that I was experiencing multiplayer gaming while you were still in diapers so I would try to reign in that arrogant demeanor.


On microtransactions, they are shit i guess, I do like when you can pay for convenience and sell it to other players. meaning other players get the benefit from microtransactions without having to invest real money on it, thats the healtiest way to implement them.

There is nothing healthy about it, and it is called "cheating", not "convenience".




Problem are not microtransactions really, its just publishers and developers being greedy that fucks it up, that model just makes it easier for them to be sleazy. but charging for expansions (glorified patches for the most part) in subscription based games is also shit, especially if your profit marging is big enough that you can afford to do it. After all the reason you expand your game is to keep it alive, that is a reward on its own.

Are you saying EQ expansions like (Kunark, Velious, SoL, etc...) are glorified patches? If so, you have a major entitlement complex as those expansions were huge and filled with an enormous amount of content to which were fairly priced as an expansion (about 40 bucks). Is it the WoW expansions? I didn't care for BC, but it was by no means "small", nor was the one after that (Lich King). Now Cata may have been a gimmick, but that isn't the older system. Things changed with gaming, more specifically when they started trying to push the stupid "free content" crap and FTP started to show up. I mean, when you have people stupid enough to pay for digital property, getting them to pay box price for worthless nothingness DLC type content, is well... a no brainier.

Thing is, a company that deals in Micro-transactions thinks its players are fucking morons, easy prey, stupid little lemmings they can sell bits and bytes to as if it had any real value. Heck, they don't even have to create anymore for these foolish kids these days as the idiots will line up and pay tens to hundreds of dollars for digital items that are multiplied with a simple copy command. There is no demand for quality products or fair value of money because anyone who thinks buying these digital trinkets has no fucking concept of money value anyway.

So don't expect these companies to provide you anything but gimmick after gimmick. The player base has shown them they can make enormous amounts of money selling cheats and digital trinkets. Oh and this isn't the first time, they did the same with the console crowd many years ago... you are probably too young to remember, but they called it the "game genie".

As I said, you and I have completely different views on games. I from before the industry was turned to shit, you of the current shit industry. Everything you find acceptable concerning this, I despise. No offense, but you are the problem of why games are what they are today. /shrug
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
While microtransactions are bad, honestly, there are way worse things in MMOs to worry about. Having an "interesting" grind rather than a punch-in-the-clock one, as we discussed. AI - or lack thereof - is also important to me, and so rarely discussed. Theme park MMOs would be so much better with AI that is more than "kill the guy that is building up the most aggro!" Darkfall actually had pretty interesting AI, the little I played. GW1 also had really good enemy encounters, but I'm not sure if that was AI or just good mechanics and well designed encounters.

It is all connected. Microtransactions have an effect on the entire game system, diminishing it. The hilarious thing about it is that Sony ages ago did a study on it and used it as a means to argue against MTs in the past. Now they cashed out on them because they don't care if it ruins the game systems because people aren't interested in playing games, they are interested in being entertained.

As for AI, they CAN make very difficult and challenging AI, but... people don't want that. Go look at the numerous games out there that started with difficult content and look at the pools of tears from those whining in the forums. AI isn't the problem, it is making dumbed down games for a player base that wants a movie or glorified chat room, not a game.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom