Is the MMO the pinnacle of gaming?

[willard3]

After reading all these threads about Pokemon MMOs, Zelda MMOs, etc., I always ask...why? Does there have to be an MMO for everything in order to get on the map?

Let me first admit that MMOs are not my thing. I have never played one, and never plan on playing one. I'm not irrationally or morally opposed to them, but I just don't want to get addicted, and also my mom relentlessly thinks I'm addicted to games already, and always asks me "Do you play 'the world of warcraft?'"

But are MMOs really the highest form of game out there? Most of them involve grinding until you reach a respectable level, then finding a party and "farming" for good items. Rinse and repeat. Sure, there's the social aspect and the huge open world, but does that really make the genre the most amazing form of gaming ever?

Discuss. My opinion is no, but I'm not looking to troll. Why is the MMO considered gaming Mecca?

EDIT: Diablo is not an MMO, but it laid the foundation for standard MMO gameplay. Stop ragging me about that.

 

[Pandalisk]

"Why is the MMO considered gaming Mecca?"

i liked that

anyway, i suppose because MMO generally gather a large crowd of people, and the fact that WOW is officialy a gaming legend, nowadays a game that doesn't have some form of Online is old, obsolete.

 

[Smokeydubbs]

Its just a market trend. The success of WoW has clouded lots of developers minds and if they can find the perfect counter to WoW, that they can get a nice cash cow. But many of the MMOs that try to compete can't, the more recent one may look better but with 4+ years of polish, WoW is damn near unbeatable.

I play MMOs but I never stick around long enough to get very high level because the grind kills my interests.

 

[edinflames]

Some developers consider it the gaming Mecca because of the constant revenue stream. Blizzard make so much money from WoW they don't know what to do with it (besides bankrolling other sure-fire hits like D3 or SC2).

Some gamers consider it gaming Mecca because it sucks up their lives and makes them forget real problems at the same time as offering an alternative make-believe life in which the player can participate with numerous other make-believers. People can pretend that the acquisition of XP and items as well as in-game prestige is actually important, which allows the gamer to pretend that he/she is important.

MMO's are here to stay, but they are far from my idea of 'gaming Mecca'. Hate to whip out my Valve-fanboyism again but their model of keeping gamers loyal by offering smaller high-quality low cost games with frequent updates and user-made custom content is far more pleasant. Single player gaming will never die, neither will competitive multiplayer or one-off payments for content.

Btw gaming addiction is harder to define then just 'do you play an MMO' but MMOs are generally addictive, an MMO that isnt addictive isn't doing its job.

If you really want to see an exciting new business model in gaming visit http://www.quakelive.com/ or http://www.battlefield-heroes.com/
ID Software and EA are currently both in the open beta stage of free-to-play advertisement/sponsorship driven games (and to be honest the adverts aren't even 'in-your-face' and don't annoy players). Quake Live and BF:heroes both run from browser plug-ins so virtually any PC can play and are totally secure to boot. Free is the future of online multiplayer gaming, since it completely defeats piracy.

 

[Silva]

MMOs are considered gaming Mecca because they're advertised as such by MMO developers, namely Blizzard. People fall for it, and start parroting the Blizzard line. In reality, MMOs are simply grindfests designed to make you pay abhorrent amounts of money to do what is essentially a second job with no rewards apart from fictional "gold" and "items". The only real money people make by playing WoW is by selling fictional gold to people for real money, which is as a story itself worthy of a fable. You don't get nothing for free.

They are not well designed, relying on ancient HP and Mana mechanics that have been outdated by other approaches for ten or more years. They are often artificially lengthened by huge geography and sometimes by not even including a warp between towns ability. They pander to addictive tendencies by putting gamers into a trance with the "tiny change" mentality behind levelling, particularly later in the game - people actually say that WoW doesn't start until level 60, that's just ridiculous, especially if true.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

I play MMOs but I never stick around long enough to get very high level because the grind kills my interests.

Same here. That and I just can't put in the hours they require.

In terms of why they're considered the highest form of gaming? All to do with the community. Having hundreds of players in one world at one time is still a huge thing. I don't think people want a WoW version of Pokemon or Zelda. They just want have Pokemon battles with twenty people or to rescue Zelda with 30 or so Links. And yes, that sounds badass on paper, but then when this added to a monthly fee, grind, bad battle mechanics and so on that come with almost all MMOs and it's not so great.

 

[Deacon Cole]

MMO's are absolutely not the highest form of game out there. I've been trying the free trials of several different games and most of what you get could have been done on your hard drive. The only thing they do give you is a bunch of other people running around in the same game and generally annoying you. Because that's all they do. I've always hated multiple players in games. My brother would always grab all the power ups in Contra and this pretty much sums up the multiplayer experience.

 

[moose49408]

I have to agree with most of the sentiments so far. MMO's have their charm, but I usually get bored with them rather quickly. Story and characterization are a really big part of gaming for me, and MMO's inherently have significant trouble doing that. It's just not what they're about, so I have trouble getting into them.

 

[edinflames]

I'm waiting for some WoW/Eve/LotR:O fanboys to come on this thread and attempt to re-educate me...there were plenty of them around for the 'March Madness'...I wonder where they are now?

 

[teisjm]

I think MMO's are far superrior when it comes to the social aspects of the game.
But i found EVE and WoW (played both for about 2 years each) to be really repetitive tbh. When it comes to pure gameplay MMO's isn't superrior to other games.

But MMO has great potential, because if done correctly it can be applied to many games to add the social aspect, but it has to be done without nerfing gameplay.

 

[neoman10]

I'm waiting for some WoW/Eve/LotR:O fanboys to come on this thread and attempt to re-educate me...there were plenty of them around for the 'March Madness'...I wonder where they are now?

playing WoW, they use it to sleep

 

[mike1921]

Definitely not, however they have the most potential.

 

[TinariKao]

I think MOGs are great. Drop the massive. We don't NEED thousands of people to have fun. Just multi player online and we're set.

Let's paint a picture of how I find games. Maybe I am a jaded cynic but this is how I feel of some games I've played in recent memory.


Oblivion: Never beat it. The basic game is just way too bland, samey and boring. I think having multiplayer in this game would make it incredible and I think the huge open world with the AI it had before being released could have helped it. A single player only game that was ruined in my opinion because of it.

Fallout 3: See above.

Dwarf Fortress: If you know what it is. I don't know how a multi player ascii based "rogue-like" would work, but in sandbox sim games like this it sometimes feels hollow and empty being unable to share something you work on so long with someone else.

Hmm, I had a bigger list of games in mind but when I stopped to think of them, I honestly don't play many games now days. A good story and all that jazz is great and all, but gives me no replay. Having a buddy go through it with me can add a lot of replay value to something that would otherwise be way to repetitive to trudge single player, such as Left "4" Dead.





Summary: Games should always have multi player as an option. System Shock 2 added multi player as a complete after thought which looked like hell but played passibly and it made the game so much more interesting and fun to play. Sure, having a buddy jackass with you while you play takes a huge amount of the atmosphere and horror out, but I already beat the game, it didn't do it for me anymore on that front. More games should be like that in my opinion.

 

[The_Chief]

i play wow and by no means think its some sort of pinnacle, i'd just rather play a casual game with some people who play PC games and are cool unlike my friends. they only play cod WAW. so i dont so i cant talk about my gaming experiences. dungeons and raids=fun grinding= unfun!! casual gamers=fun hard core but hole gamers=un fun
cod=more hard core gamers. if your in a game with them prepare to get owned or ridiculed unless your one of them.
MMO=less hard core gamers, and if you see them ignore them and you wont have to interact with them.

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

IF its done right an MMO would be the pinnacle of all things awesome. MMOs seem to not take enough advantage of the Massively Multiplayer part. I would gladly fork over 15 a month if a company took they gameplay from something like Fallout 3 or Dead Rising and made it a open persistent world full of people to do shit with. Sadly MMOs don't do this and make everything a waste of time instead of a time waster. Instead of making everything a point and click bore games should come up with FUN and addicting gameplay and make it Massively Multiplayer. I will finally be at peace if someone made a 5000 people+ game server for a class based shooter.

 

[Desaari]

I have never played one (except Diablo 2...

Diablo 2 isn't an MMO, lol, a maximum of 8 players doesn't constitute "massively multiplayer". I don't play MMOs personally, though I suppose I can see the appeal. I guess I would've at least tried WoW if Blizzard hadn't already metaphorically raped the Warcraft series, in my mind, with Warcraft 3. I couldn't stand to see it further abused.

 

[willard3]

I have never played one (except Diablo 2...

Diablo 2 isn't an MMO, lol, a maximum of 8 players doesn't constitute "massively multiplayer"

I still sort of consider it in the neighborhood. It just doesn't have the "massively" part, but it's pretty similar to an MMO, if what I hear is correct.

 

[Desaari]

I have never played one (except Diablo 2...

Diablo 2 isn't an MMO, lol, a maximum of 8 players doesn't constitute "massively multiplayer"

I still sort of consider it in the neighborhood. It just doesn't have the "massively" part, but it's pretty similar to an MMO, if what I hear is correct.

Yeah, so if it doesn't have the "massively" part that makes it a "multiplayer online" game. In other words, a game. Lol.

 

[El Taco the Rogue]

No. No they are not.

 

[Link55557]

Well, it works for some series, but not all.
Example? A Warcraft or Lord of the Rings MMO works because Warcraft/Middle-Earth have a defined history, timeline, and characters. A Pokemon/Zelda MMO? Not so much.