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.

MMOs are the evident future of videogaming, everything else is a step back

Gregz

Arcane
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
8,511
Location
The Desert Wasteland
oh yes like with MOBA and mmorpg right?

what's wrong with mmos? Personally i am for progress as fundamental axiom. I despise conservatorism. MMo's are the evident future of videogaming. Everything else is a step back. They're real time, complete fictional life simulations, and that means i must be able to interact in a complete way with the environment, so combining point&click verbs with combat, rpg char progression, everything. It's the future, all genres combined, finally, for the final utopia of interactivity.

Garriott invented crpgs, ultima 7 is a game that wants to be a mmo, simple as that. Ultima Online's only fault was that it was too precocious. Virtual worlds are an horizon, life in a fictional world, transferring of minds... but let's not go too far or i'll say that videogaming is an obsolete term for something biblical!

So regarding this planescape. Who cares, cause it is the same old garbage that's not a simulation.

Two problems:

1) Nerfs and 'dynamic balance' are usually shit because they punish good players who spent many hours building around known systems. If I want to optionally install a mod or update that 'balances' shit, that should be my choice. I want to know the rule-system I'm playing in, and I want to be OK with whatever changes occur beforehand. I also want the choice to opt out if I don't like the changes. You can't do this with MMOs. You are at the mercy of the devs, fuck that. (See how badly Blizzard fucked up WoW)

2) The current industry paradigm is microtransactions (recent Star Wars Battlefront 2 drama), which is the single biggest decline in the history of gaming. MMOs enable microtransactions, fuck that.
 

luj1

You're all shills
Vatnik
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
12,870
Location
Eastern block
Something worth noting about the early MMO games:
  • they weren't P2W and didn't have micro-transactions;
  • they were well-designed games;
  • they had great and healthy communities;
A big part of WoW's and EQ's success was the timing.

Multiplayer is not the problem strictly speaking, but uncontrolled capitalism and cultural/educational/societal decline.
 

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
7,530
Location
Kelethin
Some reasons why I don't play MMOs much. (They are fine with friends every now and then.)

1. Every MMO I have played involves tedious grinding.
2. Every MMO I have tried has endless fetch quests.
3. Every MMO I have have played have non-existent encounter design, outside of boss battles.
4. Most MMOs have boring combat systems.
5. I'm not a fan of cooldown mechanics.
6. I'm not a fan of playing with AlCohol or ITeaBaggedYourMother.
7. A lot of MMOs use micro transactions to unlock stuff.
8. Most MMOs have boring stories.
9. The amount of time needed to invest to get anywhere.
10. Most MMOs are carbon copies in different skin.
Some of that is true but a lot of it is very wrong and very biased.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
285
Now, you equate simulation with complexity. I get that very well and it's dumb.
Complicated =/= complex

And, no, all games should NOT aspire to having anything in common except good gameplay (in their category).

Again, since you can't grasp it:
- complex does not automatically mean good gameplay
- complexity is not automatically superior to simplicity
- simulations are not complex by default

amazing, a whole post and not a gratuitous and personal offence no GM did nothing about except shoving the topic around.

i don't equate anything. Your bias with your earlier friends in the mob equate whatever they want.

i read a lot of words. Complex, simulations, gameplay, simplicity, superiority.

it's confusing! Let's just say a game like Deus Ex, or Thief: a game where the character can interact with a lot of things, pick up object, examine them. Verbs and fighting and action, then.

It would be nice if ppl asked MORE of Deus Ex's degree of complexity, provided, ofc, such complexity is combined with skill. See my "complaint" originates simply from people not even expecting anything other than combat and dialogue in those games like PoE

Sounds good? Now can we stop barking like angry dogs?
 
Last edited:

HeatEXTEND

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,928
Location
Nedderlent
st-19.png
 

Machocruz

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
4,316
Location
Hyperborea
The most complex games we have now are in the strategy genres, management/builder games, and hardcore vehicle simulators I reckon. Complex from the standpoint of what the player has to learn and keep tack of in order to advance and win.

But yeah, Deus Ex is my favorite game, so more and better of that is always welcome.

But also on my top games list are things like Metal Slug X. While you may not like the style for being cartoony or whatever, there is a strong aesthetic component to its appeal to many of its fans and I don't see that being replicated in a simulation approach. They already tried a 3D MS and it was an aesthetic car fire. Paintings can't be pushed to be sculptures.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
285
The most complex games we have now are in the strategy genres, management/builder games, and hardcore vehicle simulators I reckon. Complex from the standpoint of what the player has to learn and keep tack of in order to advance and win.

But yeah, Deus Ex is my favorite game, so more and better of that is always welcome.

But also on my top games list are things like Metal Slug X. While you may not like the style for being cartoony or whatever, there is a strong aesthetic component to its appeal to many of its fans and I don't see that being replicated in a simulation approach. They already tried a 3D MS and it was an aesthetic car fire. Paintings can't be pushed to be sculptures.

interesting point, because management's work with a combination of factors that affect whatever you're building, economical, social etc and you interact with them.

Sure, it would be amazing if in a hypothetical immersive sim like Deus Ex you'd also interact with the whole city, or village, or whatever countryland. But it's way too soon for that.

i'd be happy if more games would simply let me interact like in Ultima, pick up most objects, use them in a coherent way. And needless to say, it doesn't need to be its genre (open world).

so this "part" of a videogame is a simulative part. It would be like a standard set of "rules", that are physical and logical, applied habitually in every game, when feasible. Naturally MMo's are its natural ambient.

it might work. The thing has precedents. Not everyone is aware that the majority of games in the 90's ASSUMED there would be some part where you point&click at objects and use them. Many games that were basically action games contained puzzles.

The "application of verbs" as a standard is absolutely real. Take Fallout, a good example everytime: the interface included the examination verb and the ability to interact with almost anything, though ofc things were mostly useless, but you could attempt to use skills in everything, and see what you could get out of it. It's amazingly similar to U7, a standard "verbing" for interaction. Obviously we had the same thing in Ultima O.

it's only now that it's disappeared. That's pretty much what i'm missing, what i wanted to point out the lack of in today's games, and how nobody thinks we need it, and what i meant by saying "i know history".

But, point of the thread is the question "don't we need it?" Or are we happy enough with themeparks, where there's not even a "drop the item on the ground without destroying it" verb.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
795
The most complex games we have now are in the strategy genres, management/builder games, and hardcore vehicle simulators I reckon. Complex from the standpoint of what the player has to learn and keep tack of in order to advance and win.

But yeah, Deus Ex is my favorite game, so more and better of that is always welcome.

But also on my top games list are things like Metal Slug X. While you may not like the style for being cartoony or whatever, there is a strong aesthetic component to its appeal to many of its fans and I don't see that being replicated in a simulation approach. They already tried a 3D MS and it was an aesthetic car fire. Paintings can't be pushed to be sculptures.
Or complex in the aspect so many interacting elements it's hard to predict the outcome with high degree of accuracy. That's what makes them fun btw. if you knew with certainty, that's borign.

Weather for example is complex. It's hard to predict. Even with supercomputer and many runs, our local forecasts are largely meaningless beyond a week. This is because there're so many interacting parts. We don't udnerstand all the parts and it requires incredible processing to simulate them. Ultimately, we'll never predict much beyond the present because the complexity of these interactions escalates exponentially with time. Further, the quantum nature of reality prevents us from ever knowing exactly what particles will do. It becomes a guess.

This is why we'll probably always have some sort of religion or spirituality. Science cannot predict or explain everything. And we have a desire to do that. It fills a hole.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
795
oh yes like with MOBA and mmorpg right?

what's wrong with mmos? Personally i am for progress as fundamental axiom. I despise conservatorism. MMo's are the evident future of videogaming. Everything else is a step back. They're real time, complete fictional life simulations, and that means i must be able to interact in a complete way with the environment, so combining point&click verbs with combat, rpg char progression, everything. It's the future, all genres combined, finally, for the final utopia of interactivity.

Garriott invented crpgs, ultima 7 is a game that wants to be a mmo, simple as that. Ultima Online's only fault was that it was too precocious. Virtual worlds are an horizon, life in a fictional world, transferring of minds... but let's not go too far or i'll say that videogaming is an obsolete term for something biblical!

So regarding this planescape. Who cares, cause it is the same old garbage that's not a simulation.
You're referring to a social aspect of games. Yes it's a big component of why people might game, but you're conflating this with a universal "final utopia of interactivity." For example, I might like sports games but does that mean I need sports in every game I play? I might like stories sometimes but I don't always want a story-dominant game, or any story at all. One of the reasons single player games are popular is because you can change them to be what you want. Not just hacking or cheating or gameplay, but the fact non-players will act a certain way consistently. Players won't always do that! Stories are a great example in that they'll produce consistent output, the only difference being how the reader interprets it. It's imagination. In fact, players can be downright toxic. Sinlge player games are more controlled and so the result is a more balanced gameplay. These are just a couple examples why MMO's might not always be what a gamer wants.

Regarding simulating RL and social gaming, I've always preferred Open World FFA PvP/PvE MMO's. Lots of players assert those shouldn't be made or they're too unfriendly. IMHO, the magic in FFA PvP happens because it's uncontrolled! The Open World makes it even more uncontrolled. You have to take the good with the bad to accept it. Otherwise it's just a measure of how much control you want on the environment to safeguard yourself.

I don't always want to play MMO's. And sometimes I want a different kind of MMO.

EDIT: And btw the most recent Open World FFA PvP/PvE I've played is Wurm Online on Chaos server. There're also epic servers, but I liked the Chaos server map since it seemed more realistic. I liked its high mountains and rugged terrain. It wasn't streamlined as much to satisfy the people who want convenience. Ironically, many of the PvPers want convenience so they can skip PvE or survival and just PvP. Many of them also cannot cope with defeat and will leave when they lose. With those kinds you get a burst of intense activity. They're highly competitive, but they're sore losers.

And yes you can be killed and most of your stuff stolen. It's bloodthirsty with lots of griefing. I've dealt with things like that ever since I played on Rallos/Sullon Zek in EQ. I'm ok with that risk. If you knew the things I've been through, you'd also know I'm not joking. I've actually had stuff stolen. I didn't whine and run away to PvE servers. Yes I got frustrated and angry. I'm human. But I valued the struggle and fought through it. It made it meaningful to me. I could have left Sullon Zek many times. I was looking for that experience. I don't want a carebear experience. A lot of people seem to assume all gamers just want fun fun fun. For me, challenge and frustration and sacrifice can be part of the fun.
 
Last edited:

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
Was this topic made in sarcasm? If anything MMOs have been on a steady decline for a while. Once WoW dominated the market it stunted creativity. And WoW has had dwindling numbers for a long time and were basically forced to make it pseudo-free-to-play/sell gold.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
I admit it, I must be a filthy conservatorismist, I mean you said it is THE FUTURE how am I not orgasming and crying out of my nose and agreeing with everything you say already?!?!
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
But, point of the thread is the question "don't we need it?" Or are we happy enough with themeparks, where there's not even a "drop the item on the ground without destroying it" verb.
The reason "drop an item on the ground without destroying it" isn't a thing anymore has little to do with themeparkism, and more to do with the guy who takes over 9000 things, and then drops them on the ground, one at a time. This is why we can't have nice things.
 

Jacob

Pronouns: Nick/Her
Patron
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
3,336
Location
Hatington
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Explain to me why those are bad. The good ones don't rot your brain and waste your life like MMO's do.
Sure I'd play UO for a couple hundred years if I was immortal. But guess what.
MMO's are gaming's opiates. Now consider gaming is an opiate all on it's own. Yes, they are That bad.
In other words:

MMOs are the opiates of the 'Watch.
 

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