Octopus Overlords

I know that we like to look at the quality of the titles that we pour cash and time into. But I think especially in the MMORPG department that we are starting to see differences emerge in the titles that are available. And in these differences the various different needs of different gamers may be addressed.

How can you compare how a pair of dress shoes will compare to a pair of tennis shoes when the end users of both products are completely different?

Comparing FFXI, EQ2, WoW, Anarchy Online, CoH, and so on, this is an exploding genre. And I think that the debate is great, but somewhere the idea appears to have been lost that we are indeed comparing apples to oranges, and wondering why an orange doesn't quite have the same crunch as an apple, and apples just are't quite citrusy (real word???) enough!

This being said, when I was in the WoW beta and finishing up school, it looked to be the game that I would be playing. I was an avid EQ1 player but something about WoW hooked me. Then I realized that was actually going to have free time when the semester ended, and grad school is a subject not even being discussed yet. Suddenly EQ2 pops back into the picure, massive time sink, hardware requirements that make my pc weep, and a learning curve logarithmic in form.

*sweet*

Haven't looked back. I enjoy getting 5% of level 9 xp by finding the destroyed knowledge portal in a part of town that I have never been to. I love spending hours crafting and working on that part of my character. But looking to the horizon, Guild Wars is going to be out in a few months, and well, it looks like it will be a great action title, and the lack of online charges appeal to me. Does it have much chance of supplanting EQ2?

Probably not, but keep the options open. Check out what it happening out there. Don't forget the offline games (or family members).

The whole long winded point of this post is that I think we are trying to disect and seperate the gaming community, when we should be standing back and apreciating the fact that we are starting to have options. I may question the music tastes of my wife, but they are not better nor worse than my own (most of the time *ducks*) but just different. This is the amazing place where I think online games are starting to go.

And speaking of online games that suck, and just to EA bash for a sec... What about "The Sims Online" that was a steamy turd of a title now wasn't it!

portnoy wrote: Comparing FFXI, EQ2, WoW, Anarchy Online, CoH, and so on, this is an exploding genre.

I don't have any numbers to back this up and might be completely wrong, but I'm under the impression that the MMPORG market is stagnant. The number of people who'll subscribe to any game is not growing much; those titles are all fighting for share in an unspectacular market. The swords-and-sorcery games are completely indistinguishable to us outsiders. CoH remotely tempted me...but I can't see myself ever buying into the pay-to-play model. Admittedly I am not the demographic for this genre -- I don't like multiplayer anything.

One of my nongaming friends is enthused about a "game" that sounds to me like a glorified 3D visual chat program -- The Sims Online without any shred of game structure; it's almost entirely about hot-tubbing and similar R-rated naughtiness. Sounds dreadful to me (I don't even know the title), but she seems to think it's The Next Big Thing. It will take some mass-market hit like that to expand the MMPORG genre...yet another elfworld ain't gonna do it.

I understand your thoughts, but I am not sure I agree. To date, I really haven't noticed significant differentation between MMORPG. they tend to be pretty much the same thing to me (but then again I am a casual gamer and not hardcore, I have never played an MMOORPG for more than 2 hours a day/3 times a week).

Yes there are nuances, but that is all they really are. It is the same underlying gameplay. Do the nuances usually make it different enough to enjoy the separate games, somethimes. But it is not enough to say that these games are not comparable and should not be rated against each other. Granted it may be that your personal preferences mean you will like one nuance over another.

I suppose that I see those nuances as larger than others may see them

What are the massive differences between Far Cry, Doom 3, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Half Life 2, Battlefield Vietnam, and Unreal Tournament 2004? Many years ago my best friend was joking about hint books for first person shooters (Doom, and Ultimate Doom or something) and we came up with the perfect strategy guide, and it only takes two lines.

Shoot shit ( )
Get Out ( )

Perhaps it's that I have played Anarchy Online, EQ1, EQ2, World of Warcraft, and found each of them to be different experiences, and would have to disagree with the concept that there are only minor differences between each game. But I like the genre and am willing to put lot of my time into it. While on the other hand, I own many FPS's and I do enjoy them, I rarely find them worth their release day price tags. I loved Call of Duty due to it's WW2 and far superior execution of the genre in that timeframe than the medal of honor series. But I waited to pick up my copy until a couple price drops occurred. To counter that, I do not know how much time I played in the WoW beta, and I shudder to type /play on my two mains on EQ2. Different strokes for different folks.

My point is exactly that people should not be looking to play multiple games like this at a time, I love the games and in the past I have had the time I have hundreds of hours in these games, but would I pay for two at once? No, not worth it to me.

Does it have much chance of supplanting EQ2?

Guild Wars? supplant EQ2? LOL

ahem.

Guild wars = simplistic hack n slash with an attempt at pretending its an MMO.

EQ2 = an actual MMO

played guild wars for 1 night. during their "3 free day trial" thing.
pretty much bored me to tears. nothing at all gave me any sign of the game being interesting.

With that said...if you enjoyed Diablo 2, you will enjoy Guild Wars. Just dont call it an MMO.

Kraegor wrote:With that said...if you enjoyed Diablo 2, you will enjoy Guild Wars. Just dont call it an MMO.

Support large numbers of players? Check.
Multiplayer? Check.
Online? Check.

Putting your obvious EQ2 bias aside, how is it NOT a MMO? Just because its gameplay is of a completely different style?

I think people always confuse technology or game mechanics with gameplay styles or genres initially. It happened with first person games recently, and there are plenty of other examples. Eventually, people will realize that there are a lot of different ways to make massive multiplayer games be fun, and there will be a broad variety of them. And there will be people claiming that they aren't "real" massively multiplayer games, just like every other imagined genre.

it is not an EQ2 bias. it is an MMo bias.

Support large numbers of players? Check.
Multiplayer? Check.
Online? Check.

yeah. NCAA football does that too.


NCAA - you got the chat room where you line up games.
GW - you got the main town where you form party

NCAA -- you start game.
GW - you start quest.

----------------------

now perhaps i missed somethin but i didnt see a whole hell of a lot of open zones with numerous players.

I consider a game an MMO when it actually has an open feel to it.

When it is encapsulated in little bite size packages like GW is, I dont consider it an MMO. It's a diablo 2 clone with a town for a chat room interface.

I'm partial to a nice pair of soft leather slip-ons, preferably with some nonstandard stitching.

Oh.. wait...