Same Old, Same Old: TERA Shallow Revolution Proves That MMO's Need to Change, And Now

[Vencha88]

@Vencha: I kinda agree with you on the art style. I dislike in GW2 how every character looks like they're 15. But, I still think it's a real step forward, and I'm also looking forward to The Secret World for my art/lore fix.

Also from what I see in GW2 is the whole chainmail bikini which is a massive game stopper for me.

So I stop editing my main post, what I am really saying is that all the features that MMO gamers seem to want (Customisation, player choice, really just complete agency) are demonstrated in multiple games, albeit it singularly not all together, and that if they continue to not support these games no publisher will ever really think these features are wanted.

[Tas]

The thing is, I don't log in to an MMO to play in a second universe. I don't want to have to play 50 hours a day just to compete.

That's the hallmark of EVE and other player-impact-player games. Where you have consequences determined by players, it's not the average, every day players who play to let off a bit of steam after working who will enforce them, it's the players who treat the MMO as their second/only job.

One of GW's main innovations is it completely removes this. You can compete just as well on a gear level in PvP and PvE from level 1 as any other player. Never mind the quest system - I don't really care. I want to play a game without feeling a slave to the grind.

@Vencha: I kinda agree with you on the art style. I dislike in GW2 how every character looks like they're 15. But, I still think it's a real step forward, and I'm also looking forward to The Secret World for my art/lore fix.

I agree with you in part, But EVE never made any excuses for that. You were told up front exactly what you were in for. So it was/is up to you to play or not.

[Marius]

I know, I just don't see how it can be overcome and provide a true player-impact-player system at the same time.

You can have player consequences, or you can have a game that people enjoy playing a few hours a week. You can't have both.

Games that cater to existing casual needs will always need to exist because of this.

[Vencha88]

Perhaps the answer to the whole agency vs time thing would be letting players have impact on the smaller community around them, only only impact the larger "server wide" community when more time and effort is put it. So if you want to change governments it's there, but if you just want to be churn out the raddest pottery in all of the village, you can do that too.

[Marcus Dunn]

Other than simply trying to cater to both casuals and full-time players at the same time, MMO’s also need to somehow support the PvE and PvP divisions. Most PvPers believe they are the target market, but I believe the reality is that PvErs outnumber them by a large margin. What is the magic way to cater to all of them? Anyone who has tried to date has seemingly failed.

I think GW2 should do well in this regard. I also liked the way Age of Conan implemented a ‘hardcore’ server ruleset which also catered to those people wanting free for all combat with vastly reduced quest hub guards etc.

I like the idea of players being able to impact things, though every time I have seen this type of thing it’s always been ruined by griefing.

On another note, I will be personally surprised if GW2 actually pulls off the dynamic quest system they have been pimping. To me it smells like WAR’s public quests part 2 – though of course coming from a developer with more clues than those behind WAR (my 2c).

[Marius]

I think the GW2 system is a little different because there are more than just the major public quests. If you go off the road there are individual things that only open up from exploring, rather than things restricted to set hubs.

[PinothyJ]

The thing is, I don't log in to an MMO to play in a second universe. I don't want to have to play 50 hours a day just to compete.

That's the hallmark of EVE and other player-impact-player games. Where you have consequences determined by players, it's not the average, every day players who play to let off a bit of steam after working who will enforce them, it's the players who treat the MMO as their second/only job.

One of GW's main innovations is it completely removes this. You can compete just as well on a gear level in PvP and PvE from level 1 as any other player. Never mind the quest system - I don't really care. I want to play a game without feeling a slave to the grind.

That is why I cannot wait until the Shadowbane Emulator come out of closed beta so I can get some **** killing under way.

Shadowbane was fairly unique in that there was not a single quest in the game: all of the gameplay and variety came directly from the player base. Hot zones, mine fights, massive banes, city control, guilds, nations, alliances, merchants, et cetera, were all controlled and determined by the humans behind their keyboards.


I am bursting at the thought of shooting my bolts through the hearts of my enemies…

[Kinky Kel]

See for me, I enjoy the crafting in agmes. When I go into a game and see that crafted items usually at BEST average grade level items and all items never break. etc. it annoys me that the entire economy is taken away from the players. Take SWG for example.. or better yet EVE. You lose a fight, you lose your ship and it's gear... so you have to replace the lot. WoW, you die, you respawn with a gold bill.

If you want players to be incorporated.. this is a good starting point.

As for PvPers.. I find most MMO developers become slaves to this crowd. Everything constantly gets rebalanced just to help out these whiney retards.

[IvanTSR]

The MMO community doesn't want change (even GW2 isn't that different, it's just good marketing). They want the exact same game. If they really wanted change the countless different and unique MMOs out there right now would have active and profitable player bases. All they want to do is complain on forums about nothing innovating.

But there aren't that many MMO's out there that are truly innovating. I've played a *ridiculous* amount of them, almost every single major one and a ton of F2P ones for my column. All of them share the same string of features:

- Static quest lines
- Battleground PVP, some open world PVP/GvG/WvW
- Hotkey or Mouse Click Combat
- Lack of player control over influence over the environment
- Lack of player control over the economy
- Lack of player control over governance (taxation, law and punishment, housing)

Like silkillion mentioned above, MUDs are worlds away in terms of providing the appropriate tools for gamers to shape the world they inhabit. Any MMO that was designed well and allowed for this freedom would be incredibly successful.

Star Wars Galaxies. Before it got broken.

[James Pinnell]

I know, I just don't see how it can be overcome and provide a true player-impact-player system at the same time.

You can have player consequences, or you can have a game that people enjoy playing a few hours a week. You can't have both.

Games that cater to existing casual needs will always need to exist because of this.

This is what I'm getting at in the article, it's about how much flexibility the developer is willing to give to the player.

There's EVE on the hard left of the spectrum, with massive time investment required. Then on the right could be a game that has a completely player run economy, or political system, or dynamic event system. How about allowing players to create and run their own towns, including stores or even villanous cave systems and allowing them to develop their own raid experiences?

Casual players would like to invest in a real, functioning world like any hardcore player would, it's just down to the imagination of the studio on how to make this happen.

RE: Other games: I've played Glitch, and A Tale in The Desert, and while they have fantastic ideas they also have extraordinary flaws. Glitch is awful to roam. Tale in the Desert is so ridiculously hardcore even getting started makes EVE's tutorial look like WoW's starting area.

These ideas simply existing in the marketplace do not make good games, it requires a team of people dedicated to the cause in order to bring everything together in a system that invites new players. CCP were once a bunch of guys operating in a garage who put together this world with bugger all funding and support. The guys behind Perpetuum are exactly the same.

TLDR: Crafting a system that allows more player control/cause&effect while still allowing casual players to participate is the challenge. A dev that meets this will be graciously rewarded.

[Clovis]

Tera was never going to re-invite the genre or change the formula. It's a niche game and its appeal is the combat system and the pvp focus. However, it only really ever took a google search to figure out that it had a pretty standard and boring quest system that you have to slog through to get to the cap.

Now, I love the combat and the style of pvp so i'm sticking with it. If the patch schedule in Korea is stuck to, and we get the content in a timely manner, there is plenty of imaginative and hopefully fun content on the way. Maybe i'm just a wizard, but I never got the impression the game was going for the innovative/genre changing approach that heaps of people want.

I don't think GW2 is either, for the record, but I will play that as well.

[James Pinnell]

Tera was never going to re-invite the genre or change the formula. It's a niche game and its appeal is the combat system and the pvp focus. However, it only really ever took a google search to figure out that it had a pretty standard and boring quest system that you have to slog through to get to the cap.

Now, I love the combat and the style of pvp so i'm sticking with it. If the patch schedule in Korea is stuck to, and we get the content in a timely manner, there is plenty of imaginative and hopefully fun content on the way. Maybe i'm just a wizard, but I never got the impression the game was going for the innovative/genre changing approach that heaps of people want.

I don't think GW2 is either, for the record, but I will play that as well.

Tera was really just the straw that broke the camel's back really, after so many years of playing and reviewing MMOs, I was just really appauled by how blantantly generic it was and how terrible the PVE experience is.

[Clovis]

Tera was really just the straw that broke the camel's back really, after so many years of playing and reviewing MMOs, I was just really appauled by how blantantly generic it was and how terrible the PVE experience is.

Yeah, the PvE is a joke. I honestly think some of these pvp games would do much better if they just ignored traditional pve levelling and just had the game based on an AA style system / pvp rank from the get go. I am getting sick of games putting in standard questing just because everyone else is doing it.

[spawneh]

The best times I had with mmo was on private UO servers. The people who ran the servers had the freedom to create and do whatever they wanted. It also basically involved the use of dungeon masters to create the gaming experience for other players.

Why are there absolutely 0 games that do this? Even a non mmo where one player can play the story teller. Or even more of the mix rts / fps genre games like Natural Selection please.

The problem with allowing people too much freedom is in most cases they are terrible at using it. The majority of people usually go for the most optimal route, especially when they are all placed in a competitive environment.

[Marcus Dunn]

Heh I think the best way to launch yourself as the next big thing these days is fly beneath the radar during development until you have something amazing created, then start the marketing campaign but do NOT go under an MMO or MMORPG banner. It seems those terms are a death sentence these days. Time to innovate a new name and detach from them to actually have players judge your game on what you have created as opposed to their opinions on how/how it isn’t like the other MMO’s available.