|
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Star Control MMO: Good idea or bad? (Read 13903 times)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1044
|
Runscape and Maple Story are the two biggest offenders I've bothered with, though it's not limited to those. Does it matter? Your opinion is as concrete as mine, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
storyyeller
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 101
|
Runscape and Maple Story are the two biggest offenders I've bothered with, though it's not limited to those. Does it matter? Your opinion is as concrete as mine, I'm sure.
I don't know maple story, but when you look at this picture I think that it's bad by design, not because of the people  . Apparently (akkording to wikipedia) Runescape also was bad by design, resulting in Gold Farmers easily abusing the MMO. Ofcourse, a Star Control MMO has to learn from these mistakes and make sure that these issues don't happen.
I played Runescape for years back in the day when you could still trade. I don't get what you mean by "bad by design". I'm not sure why you think Runescape was particularly susceptible to gold farmers.
Incidentally, Runescape ended up preventing trading completely in order to get rid of gold farmers. I assume it worked, although I didn't stick around to see.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mad Cat
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 12
|
All right, we've veered pretty far off topic for a bit, so back to business.
I wouldn't want a Star Control MMO for 3 reasons:
1. I do not want to pay a monthly fee.
2. I do not want to deal with griefers and SHFGs.
3. I do not think that we're ever going to see a sequel to whatever SC game comes out next, assuming that game comes out at all. Thus, I don't want the final SC game to be one that I wouldn't play.
Simple and to the point. Attempt "MMOs are the future and awesome" arguments all you want, but you cannot topple these 3 pillars of my position.
No one here has made any "MMOs are the future and awesome" arguments here. In fact, I believe I said the oppposite: that MMOs aren't necessarily for everyone and won't work for most IPs. As I already stated, I wouldn't be advocating a Star Control MMO if I didn't think it had merit. You'll never see me advocate a Mass Effect MMO because, as good as Mass Effect is, an MMO of it would never work.
That being said:
1. There won't necessarily be a monthly fee. A StarCon MMO could potentially operate on microtransactions much like Dungons & Dragons Online and Lord of the Rings Online. Of course, at the end of the day, you get what you pay for.
That being said, I do appreciate that having a monthly fee can be a stickler for some people, if not because of the amount of money, but because, well, you paid for your time, you might as well use it, else you've just wasted your monthly fee. But if you know you're just going to play the game anyway, it's not an issue.
2. Is this honestly your reason, or is it just that you do not want to play in a shared universe? I've played other MMOs besides WoW and I cannot remember any of them having many, if any, griefers or whatever "SHFGs" is supposed to be. Assuming you are speaking from experience, is it possible that you're experience with those types of players is a function of the games you played and not the genre itself?
Furthermore, there's no shame in saying you'd prefer a single-player game over an MMO. There are pros and cons of both and we could discuss them, but then just say so. Saying "I don't want to play with griefers and SHFGs" just makes you sound bitter and / or anti-social, and I know you're not the latter, else you wouldn't be here talking to us. 
3. This is dependent on 1. and 2. above. If 1. and 2. are invalidate, so is this, so, I wouldn't call this a "pillar" of your position; it's more of a consequent.
Nonsense. I have got more value out of 90% of the games I've bought because I don't have to pay by the month. For example:
Final Fantasy Tactics: 3 full playthroughs at 100+ hous per playthrough (probably a lot more, but the game timer breaks itself at 99:99:99). I'll assume 100 hours per play. I paid $20 for the Greatest Hits release. 20 / 300 = ~7 cents per hour.
Super Metroid: I must have played through the game at least 50 times. Full playthroughs run anywhere from 2 - 10 hours each (I'll call the average time 4 hours, since I got faster as I got better). I paid full retail price for the SNES version, and bought the game again for the Virtual Console, so $58 total. 58 / 200 = 29 cents per hour; pretty close to your WoW cost, can only go down from there, and is my favorite game of all time anyway.
Dragon Quest 9: My one and only playthrough just tipped the scale at ~150 hours, and I'm still playing. I paid $20 for the game net cost ($35 at release day, offset by the game coming with a $15 giftcard). 20 / 150 = 13 cents per hour. Also includes free multiplayer co-op (local only, which suits me just fine), and new quests and events are added every Friday.
I could cite more examples, and do bear in mind that I've used some quite conservative figures; actual cost per hour is likely significantly less for all cited games.
So, at worst, an MMO with a monthly subscription would cost you roughly the same amount as playing Super Metroid. Except it would have better graphics. And more content. And content updates.
Either way, I brought up the money issue to point out to people that it really is not as expensive as people think it is.
Let's not forget that for $600, I could easily purchase a new console and a selection of games, or 30 games at my $20 price point, or 60 (or more!) Virtual Console games for my Wii, or the upgrades I would need to get back into the PC gaming scene, or a myriad of other things not gaming related. I can think of way better ways to spend that rather significant amount of money, and it breaks my brain that someone would spend that kind of money on a single game. No game is that good.
Well, you're obviously wrong on the last point, as many players have sunk way more money into WoW than I have. And yes, you could purchase 30 or so games at the $20 price point, but, are there honestly 30 games out there that you really want to buy and spend time playing? If a game you don't care about goes on sale for $5, would you buy it?
Not particularly. As I mentioned before, I feel like if I'm paying a monthly fee for something, I ought to be using it. And so I feel a personal obligation to play the MMO, since I'm paying for it by the month and am wasting money if I'm not playing. Already I've been "enslaved" by the fee system.
Yes, as I've said before, I appreciate that this can be a problem. But, again, if you're really excited about the game and want to spend lots of time playing it, it's not an issue.
And again, this is only an issue if the MMO is subscription based.
And as much as I might like to play the game solo, it's simply not possible; the other players are there, and most MMO are in fact not designed to have solo content (or much solo content, anyway), because then it's pretty tough to sell the game as multiplayer (or at least, disappointingly easy for those who play it in large groups).
Actually, the GOOD MMOs have TONS of solo content. I know several people who absolutely LOVE WoW but who almost never group with others. Remember, the company wants you to keep playing the game. If you like to do so solo, then it's in their best interest to provide solo friendly content.
Since I don't have any friends who play these games, I am then forced to try to group with random Internet People to make the most of the content provided.
So? I don't have any friends who play MMOs either. Just make new friends in the MMO. In fact, playing with friends is probably worse; if you and your friends cannot find times to play together, you end up not playing as much and may lose interest in the game. On the other hand, if you like the game with or without your friends, then when they are online they will encroach on your free time by wanting to play with you when perhaps you'd rather just play solo.
And so, my chat channels are assaulted by goldfarmers
Barely. If the MMO is a triple-A title that the devs make money off of, then they do not want other third-party businesses coming in and making money off their IP. That's copyright infringement, and they will work hard to shut them down. It's in the company's best interest to keep you happy so you keep playing, as well as in their best interest that others aren't mooching off their product illegally.
my loot is ninja'd, my noob ass is ganked, I am kicked from parties by the SHFGs, and I quit with extreme predjudice and weep for my wasted money. With the exception of the wasted money part, this has all happened to me before, so why would any other MMO b the exception? And even if it is, that still makes it the EXCEPTION.
Well, all I can say is that I've played WoW extensively as well as several other MMOs and your described situations are the exception rather than the rule. If your experience is the complete opposite, it's either because of the game in particular you are playing or you are doing something to elicit those reactions. I'm betting it's the former.
You are correct. However, it is much easier to make a clone and some quick cash than spend the time and effort required for a truly unique and high-quality product. Don't forget that we're talking about a game that would be produced by Activision.
Which means what exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mad Cat
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 12
|
1. Guild Wars is a relatively big player in the industry. It is already well-known and thus profits from a larger player base. A sequel to Star Control will not have this advantage. Even if this idea makes its way off the ground (so to speak), funding still has to come from somewhere.
I really don't understand your argument here. Star Control has a small cult following of interested players. That's more than what could have been said for when Guild Wars when it was first starting out. It seems to me that StarCon would have the edge here, but you seem to think otherwise for some strange reason...
Runscape and Maple Story are the two biggest offenders I've bothered with, though it's not limited to those.
Runescape and Maple Story are probably two of the worst examples you could come up with to argue that MMOs suck. For one, neither is a triple-A title; I wouldn't even call them B-grade titles. I'm not trying to advocate a free-to-play StarCon MMO designed for 10-year olds here. I'm advocating for a mature, triple-A StarCon MMO with full features and support.
Does it matter? Your opinion is as concrete as mine, I'm sure.
It does matter. What you're essentially doing is arguing that going for walks is bad because on two different occassions, while walking in two different 'hoods, you were robbed each time.
However, you did mention your issues with Runescape and Maple Story are not limited to those. Which others are you referring to then?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 02:44:27 am by Mad Cat »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve-O
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 127
|
I think StarCon certainly could be done as an MMO, if someone with the money and time available to develop and support it were inclined to do so. If such a beast existed I would at least be interested enough to try it out for a few days and see if it was any good.
This is, of course, entirely hypothetical. The thing about MMOs is that they're living, breathing environments. New content needs to be added on a regular basis or interest and player base will drop off. I look around here and see half a dozen half-finished single-player SC fan games. I have yet to see a single one completed to the point that I can download and play it (aside from Super Melee clones, that is.) The idea that anyone might actually go ahead and make an MMO of SC is laughable, since the required investment of time and money is exponentially higher than that required of a single player game, and even those don't seem to get all the way off the ground anymore. As such, I don't really see what everyone is getting worked up about.
The people who support the idea seem to be imagining some super-cool WoW-killer with tons of innovative ideas no other MMO has, which is great and all, but the odds of it actually happening are roughly 1 in a million, even if there were a game studio ready and willing to develop it. Those who think the idea would suck continually compare the idea to any of a hundred other crappy MMOs they weren't impressed with anyway. There is one common thread I see here: it's all theoretical. Whether an SC MMO would rock or suck is really a pointless question because at the end of the day, it will never happen. Those who like the idea can fantasize about it to kill time if they like, those who don't can promptly forget it.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love SC2. It was a mind-blowing game back in the day and it's one which I still pull out and play every 5 years or so. It has a fantastic fan community (that would be you guys) and the fact that anybody still remembers this game, let alone promotes a freeware version that can run on modern day computers, is incredibly awesome in my opinion. That said, the game is finished. It is done. And there's nothing wrong with that. All good stories have an ending, and Star Control has it's. It's a cult classic, a favourite, a legend, and it's finished. It is complete, and I cherish it as such.
No new game will likely ever be made, MMO or otherwise, and if such a game did materialize, it would certainly be a remake as opposed to a sequel. It would have to be in order to stand a chance in hell of selling well enough to make the project worthwhile. Even if every single person on this forum ran out and bought a copy on day one, I doubt it would recoup the costs of developing the game we all want to see. In order to make the project viable it would have to be a do-over because it would need the general population of gamers to support it, financially. I'm not so sure that's necessary. It would be cool, but it probably wouldn't live up to every expectation I'd have after nearly 20 years. I'd rather play the old game that already exists and remember the awesome story it told than worry about whether or not the game could be made anew. Not everything needs to rise from the ashes in some shiny new commercialist incarnation to justify it's continued popularity decades after it's over and done.
I'm just saying is all.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 03:27:27 pm by Steve-O »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
1. There won't necessarily be a monthly fee. A StarCon MMO could potentially operate on microtransactions much like Dungons & Dragons Online and Lord of the Rings Online. Of course, at the end of the day, you get what you pay for.
Yes there would. The subscription model is the one that can consistently earn the most money, and this would be an Activision game. It's foregone conclusion; they won't mess around with a less profitable formula.
2. Is this honestly your reason, or is it just that you do not want to play in a shared universe? I've played other MMOs besides WoW and I cannot remember any of them having many, if any, griefers or whatever "SHFGs" is supposed to be. Assuming you are speaking from experience, is it possible that you're experience with those types of players is a function of the games you played and not the genre itself?
SHFG = Stop Having Fun Guy. You know the type; they're the ones that look at your gearscore and tell you you're playing the game wrong before you're unceremoniously kicked from their party. I don't appreciate being told how to spend my time, especially not when that translates directly to how I spend my money.
I guess I haven't really made this clear. I don't really have a problem with games that include multiplayer co-op or competetive, and I'll play those modes with others on many of the games I own. Dragon Quest 9, for example, is great fun to play in multiplayer (surprisingly enough). However, there's a big difference there; DQ9 and other games with modes similar to it separate those modes from the single player mode and give you a choice, whereas MMOs dump you into a world with 1000 other people by design. Games with separate multiplayer functions, unless they have a random matchmaker function, have you connecting with people you already know (or at least some sort of lobby where you can pick and choose who you want to play with/against), and I much prefer to know who I'm gaming with.
I think (and this is going to make me seem really old, which is not entirely untrue) this may be something of a generation gap thing. I grew up gaming, but until the mid 90's or so, multiplayer consisted of me and a bunch of friends crowded around the TV or PC monitor, passing around controllers or trying to cram our hands onto a single keyboard. And it was great fun. Even once LAN gaming started to get popular with Doom and the like, the internet connections weren't fast enough to support online gaming terribly well, and lugging desktop setups around to each others' houses was a rare occurrance because it was a major pain, and required lots of setup to get working correctly. By the time internet gaming really took off, I had already graduated from college. So when I think of awesome multiplayer experiences, I'm thinking of round-robin SC2 super melee on my old 486, or vs. mode on Street Fighter 2 on my friend's Genesis, or a bunch of us gathered around the N64 for some Goldeneye or Perfect Dark. Basically, it's a face-to-face experience for me, and so dealing with the faceless masses of GIFs is something that compares unfavorably.
And yet, when playing games in multiplayer, I have usually got a fairly high tolerance for BS. I played Diablo 2 for ages on Battlenet years back, and that was full of morons of all stripes. But my friends also played, and we could password lock our games to keep others out, so it was fine; if I wanted to jump into a game with random people, that was my choice and I knew what I was getting into. However, there's a big difference between that experience, and that same experience where I don't know anyone; suddenly, a lot of the appeal has drained away, because then I know that I'm going to be either in a game with random people, or going solo. Even still, I can accept that.
The main problem is how this ties into issue #1. My tolerance for that same BS drops right through the floor and starts heading for the Earth's core if I know I'm paying real life money for the privledge of playing the game. If I've paid, let's say, $15 for that month, and I spend that month getting griefed or berated about my character build or harassed by goldfarmers, I don't consider that money well spent somehow.
Furthermore, there's no shame in saying you'd prefer a single-player game over an MMO. There are pros and cons of both and we could discuss them, but then just say so. Saying "I don't want to play with griefers and SHFGs" just makes you sound bitter and / or anti-social, and I know you're not the latter, else you wouldn't be here talking to us.
That's what I've been saying this whole thread, and yet people are still arguing with me for some reason. 
Let me be honest, I don't want to play with griefers and SHFGs. It's not so much being antisocial (though I've been accused of that in my youth, before video games were a social activity), but I am a bit bitter. Griefers in particular have kept me away from what would otherwise be excellent games, the most recent example being Minecraft. From what I've heard, it's an experience like no other. But 90% of the gameplay videos I've seen of it involve someone smashing up, flooding with lava, or otherwise destroying, a creation that someone clearly put a tremendous amount of time into making. Why would I want to expose myself to that? My time is more valuable, and so are my (manly) tears of rage.
Before you remark, yes, Minecraft has a single player mode. But what's the point of playing the game if you can't show off your creations to others?
3. This is dependent on 1. and 2. above. If 1. and 2. are invalidate, so is this, so, I wouldn't call this a "pillar" of your position; it's more of a consequent.
The 3 are actually inextricably tied together, which means they each lend each other support. It's not a structure that can be collapsed with words, no matter how passionate nor seemingly rational they are.
So, at worst, an MMO with a monthly subscription would cost you roughly the same amount as playing Super Metroid. Except it would have better graphics. And more content. And content updates.
And yet, still wouldn't be half as awesome. We're talking about my #1 game of all time here; all the logic in the world isn't going to change that.
Either way, I brought up the money issue to point out to people that it really is not as expensive as people think it is.
Yes, it is. You've played WoW for 2400 hours. Think about that a second; that is a tremedous amount of time. If I had played any of the games I mentioned for that long, my cost per hour would be miniscule. It's 2 cents for Super Metroid, and less than 1 cent for the others. Besides, unless you sink even more time into it in a given month (is there any time left?) your figures only get worse, and mine only get better. Subscription fees are a money pit no matter how you try to spin them.
Well, you're obviously wrong on the last point, as many players have sunk way more money into WoW than I have. And yes, you could purchase 30 or so games at the $20 price point, but, are there honestly 30 games out there that you really want to buy and spend time playing? If a game you don't care about goes on sale for $5, would you buy it?
What can I say, I'm notorious for craving variety. I'm currently juggling seriously playing 7 different games. No matter how good a game is, I tend to drift away from it, at least for a little while, if I play it non stop for too long. In the case of WoW, that would be wasted money.
Are there 30 games I currently want? No. Over the span of time that you've been playing WoW, have I bought 30 games? Maybe, and I enjoyed (almost) every one of them. Would I buy cheap games that I have no interest in? Nope. Would I buy cheap games that I have mild interest in, or that I've heard good things about? Maybe...
If I had $600 to burn, would I find something worthwhile to do with it? Most definitely, and it sure wouldn't be sunk into a single game.
Yes, as I've said before, I appreciate that this can be a problem. But, again, if you're really excited about the game and want to spend lots of time playing it, it's not an issue.
Yeah, it is. I place a certain value on my time and relationships with others, even though it's not strictly monetary. For example, my marriage is worth more to me than any game, and so I spend a significantly greater amount of time with my wife than I do in front of the PC. An MMO subscription puts a real monetary value on my time, which gets devalued the less I play, hence my feeling of obligation. But am I willing to strain my relationships for the sake of a game? Hell no.
And again, this is only an issue if the MMO is subscription based.
Y'know, it funny how the most popular MMO in the world tends to be the default for these discussions, isn't it? That's also why it tends to be the default for discussing hypothetical new MMO fee schedules, especially when they're coming from the same company.
Actually, the GOOD MMOs have TONS of solo content. I know several people who absolutely LOVE WoW but who almost never group with others. Remember, the company wants you to keep playing the game. If you like to do so solo, then it's in their best interest to provide solo friendly content.
And yet, you're never really alone, are you? If I want to play a game solo, why bother with the other people at all? And yet they're inescapable (until you hit an instanced dungeon, anyway).
Hey, does everyone know what the second most popular MMO in the world is? Final Fantasy 11. How much solo content does that game have? ZERO.
So? I don't have any friends who play MMOs either. Just make new friends in the MMO.
See discussion above about my tolerance for BS.
In fact, playing with friends is probably worse; if you and your friends cannot find times to play together, you end up not playing as much and may lose interest in the game. On the other hand, if you like the game with or without your friends, then when they are online they will encroach on your free time by wanting to play with you when perhaps you'd rather just play solo.
This is the worst argument I've ever seen. Sorry, simple statement of fact; please read it again and revise. I would much rather play a game like this with friends I already have than all alone or with random Internet People, that's a no brainer. At least I know I can trust my friends and they have my back.
Barely. If the MMO is a triple-A title that the devs make money off of, then they do not want other third-party businesses coming in and making money off their IP. That's copyright infringement, and they will work hard to shut them down. It's in the company's best interest to keep you happy so you keep playing, as well as in their best interest that others aren't mooching off their product illegally.
Psh. You're nuts, even the spambots on this board sometimes advertise WoW gold. Don't even try to tell me they don't exist.
Well, all I can say is that I've played WoW extensively as well as several other MMOs and your described situations are the exception rather than the rule. If your experience is the complete opposite, it's either because of the game in particular you are playing or you are doing something to elicit those reactions. I'm betting it's the former.
Maybe so. Then again, I've been MUDding and playing BBS games since the early '90s, and the same issues were concerns back then as well. Why would I have any reason to believe that things have changed?
You are correct. However, it is much easier to make a clone and some quick cash than spend the time and effort required for a truly unique and high-quality product. Don't forget that we're talking about a game that would be produced by Activision. Which means what exactly?
It means "Why think of fresh and innovative ideas for our new MMO, when we could just reskin and make some minor variations on well established concepts from an existing game? We'll still make money either way, but it'll take a lot less time and money if we make a clone." Programmers may not (always) think like this, but executives almost always do.
Runescape and Maple Story are probably two of the worst examples you could come up with to argue that MMOs suck. For one, neither is a triple-A title; I wouldn't even call them B-grade titles. I'm not trying to advocate a free-to-play StarCon MMO designed for 10-year olds here. I'm advocating for a mature, triple-A StarCon MMO with full features and support.
Runescape is the most popular free-to-play MMO in the world, so despite your personal opinion of it, that means something. Maple Story is, well, different from the norm, which is exactly why I wanted to try it; it's time I can never get back, and also taught me a lot about how little admins and moderators on a free-to-play game actually care about your concerns if you haven't shelled out real money for them. They're my two worst experiences, but both are extremely popular despite that. They're both also perfect examples of the kind of playerbase you can expect if you use a payment model other than subscriptions.
It does matter. What you're essentially doing is arguing that going for walks is bad because on two different occassions, while walking in two different 'hoods, you were robbed each time.
Hey, if my options are go for a walk and get mugged, or pay $15 a month to walk in a special park where I may still get mugged but it's less likely, I'll just stay home.
However, you did mention your issues with Runescape and Maple Story are not limited to those. Which others are you referring to then?
Like I said above, I've been MUDding for a long time, and I've sampled a few other MMOs even more obscure than RS and Maple. These issues are as old as online gaming is, and try as you might, you can't excise them from the experience.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
|
|
|
|
|
