What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
110 Comments
- navster15, on 09/04/2009, -2/+59The results makes sense to me. I much prefer being the legendary hero who saves the world on my own than being one of the millions of adventurers who takes on quests to merely get loot. You just can't have as cohesive and compelling a narrative in MMORPGs than you can in single player RPGs.
- Xaevier, on 09/04/2009, -9/+49Dugg for WoW getting such a strong "NO"
- theodenking, on 09/04/2009, -0/+34Publishers aren't going to listen. Why make a single-player RPG and sell it once when you can connect it to a server and sell it once a month?
- samcobra13, on 09/04/2009, -1/+23I don't understand why after everyone complains they hate grind, continues to make grinding an integral part of their game?
Probably the best in that respect was Guild Wars, but still, grinding for loot, exp, levels, titles, etc is such a ***** way to make sure people keep paying that subscription fee. - techdever, on 09/04/2009, -0/+20I like the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG)
- Wandel, on 09/04/2009, -0/+14The plot doesn't decide what genre it is...
- wolfing, on 09/04/2009, -0/+12Have to make clear that kotaku is read 99.99999% by console gamers, and this poll was done to console gamers. Had you asked similar questions to PC players before WoW hit mainstream, you probably would have gotten the same responses from PC players. I don't know if there will ever be a mainstream console MMO, but if there ever is, you'll definitely see much different results.
Will there ever be a mainstream MMO in the consoles? I think the possibility is there, although I don't think the monthly payment will work. It would need to be a f2p with microtransactions, or a buy once MMO like Guild Wars. It would also need to have a good voice chatting feature, as I don't see many people connecting a keyboard to the console to play an MMO. - damonic, on 09/04/2009, -3/+14And yet there are more than 11 MILLION paying customers. 11 million x $13/month = who gives a ***** what Kotaku.com says...
- clippclop, on 09/04/2009, -1/+12People that you meet online from japan and korea really dont count as "friends". They are gaming buddies.
And that girl that you are convinced is going to move in with you from thousands of miles away: Yeah, that aint gonna happen either. - Scira, on 09/04/2009, -3/+13Guildwars is probably the best MMO for people who like single player rpgs. Since it actually followed stories that were decent.
- inactive, on 09/04/2009, -1/+9Something tells me Kotaku didn't stop to think that those in favor of MMORPG's didn't partake in their survey - *because they were too busy getting it on w/ their MMORPG's.*
- molobolo, on 09/04/2009, -4/+12What do you consider as grinding? When you play an FPS like Counter-Strike, all you do is shoot people over and over while attempting to be the best, isn't that a grind? But wait, you're having fun! So you don't really notice it or care.
The whole point of an online game is to play with others and have fun ... It's a competition, that's what all online games are about. MMOs are no exception, they're also about competition. Well ... they were until the behemoth known as WoW introduced a whole new audience into the MMO genre and now the average player expects the game to play itself.
The whole point is, I don't consider it as a grind if I'm having fun. That's that. - Iceman21, on 09/04/2009, -1/+7Unfortunately, the players that are getting destroyed by the guy who got that awesome gear join the crybaby army and bitch about it until the company changes the game so its not possible for a player to be great.
- jeremymccurdy, on 09/04/2009, -0/+6I don't see why the MMOs get numbers like the rest of the core games in the series. They should be considered spin-offs like Final Fantasy Tactics.
- acknotSW, on 09/04/2009, -1/+7MMO's are not about role-playing they are about competition.
I loved Everquest when it first came out. There was something truly amazing about watching how the "rules" grew up and evolved in a world where competition was fierce for rare spawns and experience camps but where you couldn’t directly attack another player, but I would never equate everquest with a RPG like Baldur’s gate. - gobbleplex, on 09/04/2009, -0/+5Big :( for the results for Persona 4.
- MWeather, on 09/04/2009, -1/+6Maintenance costs are less than the cost of the subscription.
- smartpatrol, on 09/04/2009, -0/+5Yeah, if you're willing to pour hundreds, if not thousands of hours into it.
- jeremymccurdy, on 09/04/2009, -0/+5I agree. It's the best PS2 RPG I've played.
- Andrwmorph, on 09/04/2009, -2/+7And most of those subscribers hate WoW but play it anyway.
- Elranzer, on 09/04/2009, -0/+5Square Enix, take note.
It's probably too late to make Final Fantasy XIV offline, but Final Fantasy XV had better be offline. - Elranzer, on 09/04/2009, -1/+6And has no monthly fee.
- korvan504521, on 09/04/2009, -0/+4thank god for pizza delivery.
- clippclop, on 09/04/2009, -1/+5People who play RPG's dont have girlfriends? I think thats why this poll tend toward the offline games. They dont usually require as much time and dedication which leaves time for other things, like women.
- thebrowndigger, on 09/04/2009, -1/+5While I enjoy both genres, MMOs are incapable of having a good/immersive story unless they're based on established lore.
But I still want to check out The Old Republic. - jeremymccurdy, on 09/04/2009, -1/+5To be fair, people who play MMOs would never stop ***** playing long enough to vote on an internet poll... Or to take a shower.
- paintball102089, on 09/04/2009, -1/+5I take it you haven't heard of Star Wars: The Old Republic. Also, you can be a legendary hero in an MMO. Get the best gear and start destroying people in PvP and raids.
- funkeepickle, on 09/04/2009, -0/+4Seriously. It's a damn good RPG and just a damn good game.
- MWeather, on 09/04/2009, -0/+3That didn't stop Harrison Bergeron.
- TheUngod, on 09/04/2009, -2/+5Because an offline game requires no maintenance costs aside from patches and tech support. No game servers, no admins, etc.
- needlesurfer, on 09/04/2009, -2/+5I actually like the MMO part, I like playing with people.
When I play a classic RPG I admit the stories and immersion elements are usually much better but then again I am alone, in front of my computer while I could be talking and interacting with people, which will always add an unexpected dimension to your gaming at some point or other.
It's not like its impossible to mix both, it is hard but I believe system such as the phasing in WoW can bring back the rpg element to a good level, add to this the idea of requiring use of /emote in quest and adding quite a good number of puzzle to the game, in the form of solo instances for example and you can get something quite deep and immersive.
We aren't there but I hope the industry is working on it :) - diggerado, on 09/04/2009, -0/+3I don't think the MMO is the problem. I think it's the grind. I love seeing the creative things other players have done with their characters and I learn a lot from them. I also have ready access to help, teaming, and unique experiences. Besides, who the hell doesn't want to be a super-hero?
- paintball102089, on 09/04/2009, -0/+3"From the gamer's perspective, playing an MMO, in many cases, works out to be cheaper than single player games, if we look at dollars spent per hour of gaming."
I totally agree. When I used to play WoW I rarely bought other games and ended up saving money only paying for WoW. - MWeather, on 09/04/2009, -0/+3If you haven't tried it by now, you were never going to. It's been out for over a decade with 15 expansions, and more on the way.
Besides, there are PvP servers with multiple rulesets. - funkeepickle, on 09/06/2009, -0/+2@Acqua206
I think using the script was your problem. After you beat it just youtube the links you didn't max or max them all on new game + (your stats carry over making it very easy). Using a guide for your first run just takes all the fun out of the game IMO. - MWeather, on 09/04/2009, -2/+4"When you play an FPS like Counter-Strike, all you do is shoot people over and over while attempting to be the best, isn't that a grind?"
No, that's playing. Grinding is doing something over and over again to attain a reward, not doing something over and over again because you enjoy doing it. - gobbleplex, on 09/05/2009, -0/+2Playing through with a script kind of kills the experience. It's a lot more fun to just play as you like regardless of whether you get all the social ranks maxed.
From a gameplay perspective, yeah it's pretty similar but the story and themes were miles apart. - molobolo, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2I've always wondered why they're called MMORPGs when the role you're playing isn't even that important, you're just the same as the guy right next to you. Just call them MMOGs and call it a day.
- UselessTrivia, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2That's not true at all. People who are really into RPGs for the character development aspect will play them over and over to try out different character builds, power selections, etc...
And for games with multiple paths and endings the story/plot loving crowd will replay at least parts of the game to check out the other story elements they missed.
I've played through Mass Effect 3 times now. Once as a male paragon path, once as a female renegade path and a third time just to dick around with biotic and tech powers that I largely ignored in favor of combat weaponry the first two times.
Sadly very few RPGs are 100+ hours anymore. Generally they are only that long if you are a major completionist. With Mass Effect I probably did every quest there was to do and played it three times and I have clocked about 100 hours into it total.
Fallout 3 on the other hand you can milk a single character for 100 hours easily because the game is huge and filled with lots of little time-sink quests, but you can beat the story portion of the game in as little as 15 hours or so. I would guess a typical playthrough is around the 30 hours mark, though, just like Mass Effect. - acknotSW, on 09/04/2009, -2/+4True, but can you suggest another way to make sure that those who put the most time or effort in are rewarded? You can't make cleverness (puzzle solving) or tactics the key because it will end up on every website right after the trick is discovered. You can make it twitch based, but that's not really what people who play those kinds of games want, if they did they would play FPS's.
I hope at some point someone can come up with an alternative, I enjoyed everquest for about 3 years, it was the first online game I ever played and I made some great online friends who I still communicate with today more than 10 years after its launch, but I'll never play another grind/timesink game again. - samcobra13, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2I'd say the polar opposite of grinding is variety in gameplay modes. Make some puzzles, some twitch things, some things where you can approach problems from different perspectives. Vary what the monsters do, instead of just beefing up their damage.
And ultimately, the biggest thing is to make sure that you feel like what you're doing is for a purpose, to further the storyline instead of killing X number of Y monsters to collect Z hides or something.
That kind of stuff is what made games life Half-Life 2 or Bioshock great. You vary the types of play needed and you progress the story.
In an MMO, NPC side quests should matter and have a visible effect. They should also encourage different and creative types of gameplay. - alarchy, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2Well, like the games I mentioned (not JRPGs and other stuff) the ending can be completely different depending on how you play the game (Fallout/KOTOR/Mass Effect - and even Fallout 3).
So just because you don't want to play through them again, doesn't mean they absolutely have no replay value.
I also don't agree that "real" RPGs are linear. Yes, most JRPGs and really really old RPGs are - but all the games I've mentioned allow you to go all sorts of ways to complete the main quest (in Baldur's Gate 2 you could experience a completely different midgame depending on a choice you made early).
Unless your definition of linear is "has an end point that can be reached through completely different means" but then I don't think we're speaking the same language. - UselessTrivia, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2Which are the four "real" towns you refer to?
There's Megaton, Rivet City, Tennypenny Towers, Underworld, Big Town, Littletown, Paradise Falls, Evergreen Mills (not that you can do much here besides kill all the raiders, but it's still a settlement), Oasis, and a whole bunch of other settlements.
I know you're referring to the fact that only a handful of the settlements act as Quest Hubs, like Megaton and Rivet City, but there really are quite a few places to go.
I won't disagree with your point that the cities in F2 were bigger, though. But then again look at the difference in graphical fidelity. It probably took a small team of artists a few months to design the cities and landscapes in Fallout 1 and 2. There were probably dozens of artists working for 3 or 4 years to build the art assets for Fallout 3.
That's just the nature of next-gen titles. The art assets are incredibly expensive and time consuming, so you get less content for more money. - jeremymccurdy, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2Why wouldn't there be enough interest? The other spin-off franchises do just fine without having the number.
- Elranzer, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2Because there wouldn't be enough interest if the game was just called Final Fantasy Online 2. Marketing tactic.
Seems like each time we got a "numbered" MMO, we got an offline spin-off to make up for it (so there's technically still 14 offline Final Fantasies):
- Final Fantasy X-2 with Final Fantasy XI
- Final Fantasy Vs-XIII with Final Fantasy XIV
Off course, now there's also Final Fantasy IV-2 (The After Years), Final Fantasy VII-2 (Dirge of Cerberus) and Final Fantasy XII-2 (Revenant Wings) along with Final Fantasy Ag-XIII on PSP, so the offline "main number" series is kinda off. - alarchy, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2Yeah, no. When you have a real RPG (like Baldur's Gate, Fallout, etc) yes - the basic plot line is the same, but all your character interactions and results of quests can be very different. So those 100+ hour RPGs have tons of replay value (there are STILL people that repeatedly play Morrowind, for example).
Maybe you're thinking of adventure games, where you always do the same thing and have no choice at all? - sab0tage, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2I'm not an MMO fan, but I do think I'd play one based on the Fallout series.
- CyclonusRIP, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2Then you just play on a PvP server and kill any noobs you find while you're leveling and then when the zerg forms against you you have an excuse to take a break.
- JAVandiver, on 09/04/2009, -0/+2I think that the Fallout 3 model is the best. Great main story line and then DLC that you do not feel ripped off about paying for. Fable II did that to a lesser extent(I still think that see the future was weak). Honestly, I think that the DLC & micro transactions are the way to go with regards to continued profitability.
- jeremymccurdy, on 09/04/2009, -1/+3Good for you, keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day you'll live the dream!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is