I'd be willing to believe that sufficient time and funding is more of the issue than talent. We've got some extremely talented programmers and designers in the industry. Unfortunately, its difficult to get the guys who are shelling out the cash to think outside of the box.
The fact of the matter is is that the same zerg-laden AI is trotted out time and again because it's believed that we'll be okay with that. I'm not. It's just that it's easy money because people are easily satisfied and they like easy games, instant gratification and all that. GW2, like many MMOs, delivers on that front. You stand in front of a point of interactivity (such as a mob or a node), you push a button, you push a button again, you get a reward. I'm sure there's some kind of fancy term for that.
Maybe I'm an old fart. But standing still and pushing a button in a game doesn't do it for me any more. I'm not a lab rat. I want games that challenge me as a player. So I might be done with MMOs until they get better at that. I know that the technology is there already because there are some proof of concepts out there for that. But no one wants to work that into a massively multiplayer game. For now until MMOs can improve, I might stick with co-op games. GW1 had great AI, so does ME3's MP.
So I think that what's right for me now isn't MMOs. The thing is is that I often like the idea
behind them. Large, open worlds, genuinely unique and interesting player races, potential for emergent experiences within that open world, and so on. But the potential
of that is never realised. Not even slightly. The combat is stand there and push butan, the world is shallow and lacking in variety, the whole thing just feels like a masive social experiment. I don't feel like I'm having fun. I feel like I'm a rat in a cage, and I'm pushing buttons for treats.
I'm just waiting for the first MMO that isn't a social experiment, that isn't about testing the limits of one's patience through incredibly shallow gameplay and vertical progression. I want an MMO to be as fun as a single or multiplayer game. And I don't see why it shouldn't be. That should be the focus. I think if ArenaNet had spent a tenth of the funds on R&D that they spent on straight up marketing, they'd have a better game. And that's what the focus should be for future MMO developers.
I don't want another game that's push button get pellet
. Where the button is your skill, the point of interaction iss the mob, and the pellet is the loot drop. I can almost see the sterile, clinical, and extremely boring systems behind that. Fun may be ephemereal and subjective, but a lot of it actually comes from there being some kind of challenge. But in most MMOs I've played, mobs are just punching bags full of hit points. And the only reason some people find that fun is because hey pellet
I want someone to hop into GW2, right now, and do a heart quest. And tell me it doesn't feel like that. I guess I don't get the dopamine rush that most people do when PELLET!
, so this just doesn't work on me. I think this is the reason that Diablo didn't work on me. But I guess it works on a lot of people. I wish it worked on less of you guys so that they'd need
to innovate instead of simply relying on the apparently ubiquitous HEY PELLET
Here's an experiment: If you don't have ME3, go grab it. Play a few rounds of the multiplayer. Was it fun? Now play the same amount of GW2. Was that as fun? If so, why? If not, why?
Edited by DuskWolf, 09 December 2012 - 07:56 AM.