Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Lol Apologies in Advance For Increased Cynicism
Azherae
Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
Title of thread is cryptic because my other title would have been too clickbaity and this one sounds usefully pretentious and can therefore be ignored.
I was reminded today that GAME DESIGNERS SUCK.
That bold caps part was my original title. Context below. You really don't need to understand much about the game, it's all covered in the video.
I don't know if Frontier is actively malicious or just terrible at their design goals, and I don't care, and this isn't really about them in the first place. But this is gonna hang on me. It's going to be part of the 'game related discussions' my group has. It's going to be one more 'time that a game made a design decision so vapid and stupid as to be incomprehensible'.
And it's going to almost certainly bias the way I interact with Intrepid no matter how hard I try. So I'm apologizing in advance for all my upcoming suspicious looks, my sarcastic bitter comments, and my 'lemme see how I can figure out how to spell this out as a terrible idea without getting banned'.
Because I'm 'reminded' that you just can't trust Game Devs to have any clue whatsoever about even the simplest aspects of player behaviour sometimes, and Intrepid hasn't gotten far enough to show that they have a clue YET.
End of rant.
I was reminded today that GAME DESIGNERS SUCK.
That bold caps part was my original title. Context below. You really don't need to understand much about the game, it's all covered in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6MBOUBSp58I don't know if Frontier is actively malicious or just terrible at their design goals, and I don't care, and this isn't really about them in the first place. But this is gonna hang on me. It's going to be part of the 'game related discussions' my group has. It's going to be one more 'time that a game made a design decision so vapid and stupid as to be incomprehensible'.
And it's going to almost certainly bias the way I interact with Intrepid no matter how hard I try. So I'm apologizing in advance for all my upcoming suspicious looks, my sarcastic bitter comments, and my 'lemme see how I can figure out how to spell this out as a terrible idea without getting banned'.
Because I'm 'reminded' that you just can't trust Game Devs to have any clue whatsoever about even the simplest aspects of player behaviour sometimes, and Intrepid hasn't gotten far enough to show that they have a clue YET.
End of rant.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
1
Comments
Maybe there's a lumberjack in Canada chopping wood right now and his aptitude for sci-fi games is he greatest in the World and we were never know, we will never see him
Maybe someone selling popsicles in the beach in Thailand has the aptitute to the greatest game director in history and we will never know this person
It's just like that, there's no way to harvest people to the market cause they are stuck somewhere else
May all beings unstuck from where they are and go to where they are most beneficial to others!
True
Makes me very glad that I work for a studio that has a fervent appreciation for player feedback
With this in mind, I like to believe Steven will not lose sight of the players perspective throughout the development process of Ashes - that he will always be looking at every decision with the thought of how it would feel to be the player experiencing the game.
I just want to make sure you know, Steven Sharif (the Creative Director) has been gaming for over 25 years. He does not have any significant programming experience. He just has a lot of money to mostly fund an expected $45 million cost of Ashes. The world of Ashes is built from a long running Pathfinder campaign of Steven's and Steven's contribution is to direct what is made. Not to actually make any of it as he is not a developer. I think it will be well made. I hope
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Steven_Sharif
The developers at Intrepid have proven to me that they have a clue, it's the lead I am concerned with.
For context, there have been hundreds of studies done using adolescent male rats. At this point in development, male rats are basically hard wired to fight each other. It is a form of play as well as an essential part of their development in to adults.
The method for these studies is generally to put two male rats together in an enclosure and observed.
If a rat is paired with a new rat, it will always fight, if it is pared with a rat it has been paired with multiple times before, it may not. If the outcome of fights between the two rats is about equal, both rats eagerly engage. However, if the results are about 30/70, the rat that has lost more will simply not engage at all.
If there are other rats present (as in, a social situation), the rat that is losing will stop playing along even sooner.
While these studies are conducted on rats, the same behavior can be observed in people, in gamers. If people are always losing in a competitive game, they simply stop playing. While individual people express an individual willingness to lose more than any rats do, others are also less willing to accept a single loss - however the aggregate is roughly still that 30/70.
Bringing this back to Ashes, all early talk from Intrepid about Ashes, about their version of PvX, seemed to be a way to break the fact that players that are losing would leave.
While it is almost impossible to have anything other than a winner and a loser in PvP, when it comes to PvE you absolutely can. The early vision for this game seemed to be to make it so players wouldnt dip below that 70% loss threshold due to being able to win in PvE (as in, PvE that matters).
However, over the last few months there have been a number of changes and announcements that are designed to increase conflict - as if that was something any PvP enabled MMO would ever need. In other words, they are speeding up the time it takes for people to leave the game, due to these people coming to the realization even sooner that they are losing 70% of the time. It seems to me the game is either losing sight of the above observed, objective fact, or that they simply dont care about it and are quite happy for Ashes to be a game with a million initial players, followed by almost immediate exponential loss. I'm not willing to make a guess as to which of these it is - but Steven's previous comments that essentially amount to "my game, my way", would suggest it is the second of the above.
So, to me, while some of the developers at Intrepid have absolutely proven to me that they do indeed have a clue (due to previous work), Intrepid as a whole are doing a fairly good job of proving to me that they do not.
Yes, thank you, I am aware.
But with all respect to Steven, this is exactly the sort of person I'm talking about, technically.
I don't find that it is the developers that ruin games, nor did I mean to imply that with my post. I should have made a certain distinction more accurately.
Game DEVELOPERS usually go along with whatever their lead Designer tells them. This happens in all forms of software Development, actually. It's not their job to think too hard about WHY this thing is a good or bad idea because design goals can sometimes be VERY WEIRD when all the bits are combined together.
But this means you can do well in the industry without understanding much about player motivations. The boss says 'reset the player's progress every week, it'll boost engagement' and the poor (sometimes clueless) Developer goes 'ok boss' and doesn't necessarily think 'wait that doesn't sound right...'
If the DESIGNER sucks at designing and the DEVELOPER is clueless and doesn't push back (or wouldn't manage to push back anyway even if they tried) I perceive that's how you get things like that.
I perceive that's how we got New World when it launched. That's what bothers me. It's relatively easy to have 'a game studio'. Programming games is getting easier and easier every day.
Designing them isn't.
But if you give one mediocre designer a hundred Developers, you'll get a mediocre game. Sure it will RUN well, sometimes perfectly. Aaaand it won't be any fun to play. Sometimes it dies, and the Designer's response is "I don't know why the modern era of gamers doesn't appreciate this style of game".
Anyways before anyone assumes I'm ragging on Intrepid... not even a LITTLE bit. I'm ragging on FRONTIER for sure, but so far, Intrepid hasn't shown enough to say one way or the other. I'm just sorry that yet another game I liked has somehow managed to take one of the worst routes possible for its content, in SIX STAGES.
So I'm likely to be a bit more 'hostile' to 'early signs' of Intrepid doing the same, even though that's not AT ALL FAIR to them. I hope they understand it for what it is. Being jaded with this genre.
To be fair, this happens in any situation in which a group of people are responsible for any form of output.
My previous career as a chef had this. I'd have a group of 20+ people working for me, most of whom thought they should be running things. Literally every new person that came in to any kitchen I worked in would want to do things their own way.
Obviously, things need to be done the right way, for a number of different reasons (regulation, food safety, profitability, product consistency being the main considerations). Someone coming in and doing things their own way would go against at least one of these things, so everyone needed to do things the way they were supposed to be done.
The way I would achieve this is by pointing out to these people that if they do it their way and it goes against any of the above and is called out, it is on them, and their job is on the line. On the other hand, if they do things the way I have explained and demonstrated, if it is wrong for any reason, it is my fault, and I wear the consequences for that.
Same at Intrepid. If Steven asks his developers to build a nonsensical system, I have no doubt at all that they will do a fantastic job of creating that nonsensical system. Its nonsensicalness isnt the fault of the developer that created it.
Their job was to simply create what they were told to create.
Steven is absolutely responsible for the direction of the game, not the staff at Intrepid.
As an aside, I wouldn't eat at a restaurant that had a kitchen run by someone that has spent 25 years eating out at restaurants but had never worked in a professional kitchen - literally no matter the quality of the rest of the staff in that kitchen. Truthfully, where I am from, that restaurant probably wouldnt be allowed to even open - and an MMORPG is a lot more involved to produce than a steak.
I can tell you this:
Steven is making this game, basically for himself and gamers with his point of view.
He isnt aiming to be the "WoW Killer" or a MMORPG that gets the most active users.
He is willing to accept, if his game becomes Niche, so be it.
He isnt looking to make a game to make profit. He has prepared himself to pay for it himself when that time comes.
He ultimately stated - in the end - whatever his vision / goal / decision / that he has made for this game, that this game "May not be for you".
If you've ever had a save file get corrupted, or have to revert to a save that's lost an inordinate amount of progress in a game, you know exactly what this is like. Losing all that work is disheartening, and aggressively frustrating, and causes players to abandon the game far more often than it serves to enhance an experience. Progress is a core part of what people play games for these days, from something as small and prosaic as Animal Crossing to something as grand and extreme as Asura's Wrath or Elden Ring; our play experience is defined by working towards accomplishment and goals, which a reset actively nullifies.
Frontier has blundered. Badly. This is a rug pull, and it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if it was signposted from the start; instead, they surprised the players in one of the worst ways imaginable. It's corrosive to the core concept of trusting that you can make progress in play.
This interacts in an odd way with AoC, to be honest. Ashes is structured in such a way that progress necessarily has to be potentially wiped clean; even a metropolis may fall if there's enough arrayed against it. Because of that, I hope Intrepid takes this lesson to heart. What they do with that lesson is an open question, but futility is never something people should be feeling in a heroic fantasy of a game due to devs rug-pulling the players.
There must be a significant difference in design decisions depending of what stage the game is in. From early development of concepts, implementation and execution, early public exposition, final days of production, early launch, live, decline or advance age, and, finally, approaching relevance death at large.
Some decisions don't make sense from the player's perspective, but we usually have a limited view. We usually don't even have enough info to get a better global view, the details for representative analytics. We're not privy to the financial details and how they impact some decisions. Most of us don't have the technical knowledge to grasp how difficult or easy some wanted changes are to implement.
Then there is the human side of development. I'm sure there is at least some enthusiasm for most people building a new game, but once the work is done, the project "finished", maintenance sounds much less attractive. Yes, there are expansions, DLCs, etc, but when the game is six years old? Sure, games like WoW have had ridiculously long period of massive success, but most MMOs didn't have the popularity and player base to justify keeping a large team of developers(?).
I'm sure there are many other angles to approach the subject, but, in short, I'm wondering if often "bad" decisions are taken out of necessity or limitations. Granted, it doesn't explain all of them. And we all know there are great evils out there, such as EA.
We can't expect game devs to be perfect, but we can expect them to have a sense of how their final product will be received and how they maintain the sense of progression that's integral to the heart of playing such a game.
I agree completely, actually.
I don't generally assume that poor decisions are made because people are 'just derping around and laughing and going with whatever they feel like'.
It's part of the reason I'm concerned for Ashes as well. Games VERY often 'paint themselves into a corner' and even the BEST designer or developer is in an uphill battle and the hill is mudsliding half the time.
But there's a limit, for me, one that Halae kinda points out, and is somewhat unique to Frontier and SLIGHTLY, so far, to Intrepid.
When the 'trap' you face is 'the need to appear like you are making progress or doing anything at all', and you don't have the resources to do it properly.
That's when you get the creation of systems that more or less only 'worsen the entire game when they are added'. So I agree with you, I can go into detail about why this SPECIFIC decision, in this SPECIFIC case, is one of those 'you chose literally the worst option, and to do nothing at all would have been better'. situations.
But that's not relevant to your point. One other thing is.
Some decisions don't make sense from the player's perspective, but we usually have a limited view. We usually don't even have enough info to get a better global view, the details for representative analytics. We're not privy to the financial details and how they impact some decisions. Most of us don't have the technical knowledge to grasp how difficult or easy some wanted changes are to implement.
This is the problem, the thing that makes 'Game Designers suck' to me. "Design by analytics" combined with the Designers themselves having poor feasibility checks/project managers. It's also the sort of thing that leads to wavering and bad reactions, because one of the very likely possible reasons for this outcome?
"This game is losing us money, figure out a way to drive away players and kill it or remove all their enthusiasm for updates so we don't have to update it anymore."
Is that the reason? Dunno. But it's the tier of decision that makes people suspect it. And not just the bitter ones with really low understanding.
A studio lives off its reputation long term, they tank it thats gonna cost them a lot more than if they just pulled the plug and let players host servers, so no this would not be their decision thought process.
Well, this isn't my experience in the related industry.
The 'goal' is usually to APPEAR blameless. That's why we get leaks and scandals about what development or higher-ups do/decide behind closed doors and in clandestine meetings.
They only have to LOOK like they're trying to make things better for a 'problem client'. In one case I literally lost a job because I refused to go along with it.
That probably ain't helping my cynicism.
Every game dev is going to provide feedback based on how they like to play games.
Experience as a gamer, alone, doesn't necessarily provide you with the experience required to be a good game dev, especially not a good Lead Designer.
Everything I always wanted and more - plus none of the frustrations.
Made it max level never feeling like I was grinding.
Pure player cooperation - and no conflicts among the player races or player factions - even the cultural conflicts among the NPC factions tried to use diplomacy first.
I play RPGs in order to pursue the Hero's Journey I normally read in a (fantasy) novel.
I really have no interest in player conflict or player competition.
Once I burned out on the grind treadmill of EQ2, WoW, and NWO in 2013, I stumbled upon the reveal of EQNext. A game that continues to dynamically change as we build and defend our cities hooked me - as a way to have ever quests. Can't really run out of quests because we should be invested in defending the cities we have built (which could be destroyed if we don't defend them).
EQNext also said they would not have separate servers for PvP, PvE and RP. I was bewildered about how they would get those disparate playstyles to happily play on the same server. We never really got an answer for that before EQNext became vaporware.
The Ashes of Creation design has some systems I was looking forward to testing in EQNext.
And I was still highly skeptical and intrigued about the notion of convincing the disparate playstyles to all play on the same servers - especially, PKers with carebears.
Corruption was supposed to be the solution.
With Jeffery Bard as Lead Designer, I was somewhat hopeful that his experience coming from Daybreak Games, where the servers with the highest populations are PvE-Only servers, would provide sufficient balance - somehow finding a way to help people who normally play on PvE-Only servers feel comfortable playing on the same servers as PvPers.
With Steven acting as Lead Designer, I no longer have that confidence. And, as I watch Maggie play and listen to her share her playstyle philosophy - I realize that I don't want to play an MMORPG on the same servers with them.
And, the longer we wait for release, and other MMORPGs becomes available and provide features I was waiting for Ashes to provide - well - the less I need to rely on Ashes to be the MMORPG I hope to play.
I think Steven is going to create a great hardcore/PvP MMORPG. Because that's what he loves to play.
I also think it's great for Steven to make a game that others with his playstyle will love.
It's not the type of MMORPG I like to play. But, as each year passes, there will be more games that suit my playstyle - surprisingly, one of them is now WoW.
Ooft.
Question: what's the downside to announcing the end of a game with a climactic story arc for the last days of a game you want to shut down?
I really wish I could offer you just about anything to help with YOUR increased cynicism, but I can't be sure it even increased, and I'm also probably not the sort of person you'd want to play an MMORPG on the same servers with.
I'm glad you're having fun with DragonFlight, and hope that you'll continue to be able to present your perspectives throughout Alpha-2. I, for one, have certainly improved my ability to account for your playstyle in designs somewhat, from your posts.
I'd assume it was a good thing.
There's a LOT to unpack about Frontier's situation specifically that would make it a terrible thing after all the OTHER mismanagement they've managed over the last few years, but in general I think it'd be good for MMOs. They tend to have a 'natural ending point', people move on, so do devs.
Not everyone enjoys climactic story arcs though, and the default for them seems to be 'cataclysmic' instead of what I PERSONALLY think a lot of players would prefer. Victorious closure. In 'contested' games, you can't easily achieve that, but for many, it would be almost a no-brainer to do it if you had the resources and the love for your community.
Many studios are lacking at least ONE of those by the time they get to this point, though.
There is no compromise with @Dygz or @Noaani though, regardless of how you spin it, any existance of a comopetitive angle to an mmorpg involving player vs player is seen as a plague if it exists within the main game.
To both of them, the tests have been concluded and the likes of WoW are the ONLY standard, nevermind the fact that every single genre outside of that mmorpg standard thrives off of a competition between players.
I really don't wish to spoil some peoples perspectives on what makes a good mmorpg but the fact that WoW players don't see themselves as selfish is the real plague of the genre.
For so long they have championed this product yet, for a game touting itself as an MMO, it could EASILY be made into a refined solo player experience much like Dark Souls with other players ghosting around + a co-op to bosses.
What of the players who have thoroughly enjoyed guild based mmorpg's that fully incorperate the world, most of its playerbase and the economy, where do they get a say in the evolution of the mmorpg genre.... "no you can't say shit, because of the history of WoW yada yada".
You are entirely wrong about this for both posters and projecting your own perspectives by oversimplifying things that people have said because you disagree with them.
That's all I'll say on that matter.
EDIT: I considered asking the two tagged posters to leave this be, since it would 'derail the thread', but I don't really think a ranty thread where people vent their unfounded cynicisms can be 'derailed', so it won't matter if it becomes the new offtopic 'clashing' thread.
This thread does not consistently ping/notify me when responded to, so have at it if so wished.
Meanwhile Ashe's literally has the lead direction covered by a very experienced in world mmo mechanics seen in Korean mmo's in Steven Shariff, although a lot is to be questioned about how far the knee is going to be bend towards "single player" and story instancing practices that the huge masses are happy to dive into without any questions asked (and they will happily rate the entire game off of it!).
Only cleverly melding these systems and properly encorperating those players into actual world and economy practices will suffice and if Steven fails I will only take Korea seriously and consider all future western mmorpg practices as a mere monoply unwiling to take any risks.
As Azherae said above, you have completely misrepresented both my own and Dygz' opinions on MMO PvP.
Dygz is accepting of a level of PvP, while I personally think PvP in an MMO is a good thing - but it needs to be added in to the game in a way that - so far - no developer has managed to do.
You can argue that point all you like, the fact of the matter is that PvP MMO's have their post launch population measured in fractions of a million players, while PvE focused MMO's have their populations throughout their lifespan measured in the millions.
Sure, "PvP" games in other genres (FPS in particular) may well have their population could in the tens of millions, but all that does is go some way to proving that the way MMO's so far have added PvP to the game is simply not the correct way to add it.
I would absolutely love a PvP enabled MMORPG that manages to sustain a population in the tens of millions. Ashes will not be that game - 12 months in, Ashes will be struggling to compete with EVE in terms of population. Now, I am not saying that I know for sure how to make the above game, all I am saying is that copying games that have failed to achieve that goal is clearly not the way to achieve that goal.
I like the Siege and Caravan concepts.
Haha!
I'm still going to be testing Alpha 2.
I was basically done with WoW after Cataclysm.
I pre-ordered Pandaria but chose not to play it.
Shadowlands was the first WoW expansion I played, so there was a 9 or 10 year break.
Surprisingly, Dragonflight is the best RPG I've ever played, but... I dunno if I would think of that as a standard.
I mean... there are a lot games that are good that I don't like to play because they don't fit my playstyle.
Call of Duty is a good game. I've worked on some of those games. But I don't play CoD because it doesn't suit my playstyle.
Overwatch is a good game... I played it for maybe two weeks. Doesn't really suit my playstyle.
My choice to not play a game does not inherently mean the game is not good.
Ashes can be a great game... and also be a game I choose not to play.
I prefer to have other players in the ame phase with me so I have opportunities to interact with them, rather than have them ghosting. Interacting with other players doesn't necessarily have to be about combat. And, I'm typically not going to want that interaction to be about PvP or competition.
I am a cooperative player; not a competitive player.
I would say that gamers who like hardcore/competitive/PvP in MMORPGs should be on a server that is separate from players who don't love that playstyle.
I remain unconvinced that you can get players who don't love that playstyle to play on the same servers with the gamers who do love that playstyle.
But... we shall see.
I don't unerstand why Wow would not fall in the category of "guild-based MMORPG".
But... I hope the gamers who love hardcore/competitive/PvP will enjoy the game Steven is strive to give them.
I'm just saying - in a thread about intensified cynicism - I have intensified skepticism that Ashes will be able to hold onto players who don't love that playstyle.
Especially, as time progresses there will very likely be other games they prefer that have a lot of what Ashes is intending to offer.
It's just a different scenario when there aren't many attractive MMORPGs out there and Ashes is supposed to release in 2020. I didn't like the WoW 2012, 2014, 2016 or 2018 expansions.
But... Ashes did not release before 2020 and, for me, the WoW 2020 expansion was enjoyable.
The WoW 2022 expansion is phenomenal.
My expectation is that most of the players who used to stop in and ask about PvE servers will choose to play other games rather than deal with the Corruption mechanic. We used to tell them Corruption is supposed to be enough of a deterrent that PKing will be rare enough that they will feel comfortable playing Ashes.
But... as Steven begins to add even more PvP - I just have a feeling the players who don't love PvP as much a Steven and Maggie will choose to play something else.
We shall see...
But, you know, more the merrier!!
(I haven't said anything close to, "you can't say shit".)
The longer it takes for Ashes to release, the easier it is for other game devs to take a peek at the Ashes design and implement their own versions of the concepts.
I think the worst part of this (which might also be why we didn't get Nodes 3, and I kinda agree with that) is simply that the sort of thing Steven wanted to use to be revolutionary isn't.
The level of skill with which things in Ashes are implemented is what really matters here in many cases, and of course I always praise their devotion to 'implementing all of those things together' for a fuller experience.
But things SIMILAR to Nodes are not 'hard', they've been around for 10 years. In fact, as of NOW, as you point out being 2 years past original release timing, I think everything Ashes is 'based on' has been around for a decade in some form, which means the only thing they could do to really 'stand out' is to be either 'The One Ring' of MMOs, doing it all, or 'be faster'.
Other than that we're 'imagining' that Ashes Nodes will definitely be better than ArcheAge 2's version.
What I'm getting at here is that the only thing Ashes was probably achieving was 'getting the industry to realize that things they were already considering implementing, might actually be desirable to the playerbases'. I don't think devs need to look at Ashes' design to implement anything they have in mind. Those things are already implemented in lots of games, as far as we know.
Hopefully that's only because we don't know what incredible secrets Intrepid is 'keeping close to the chest' about implementation.
Where are the games at? What is this shit. I just scrolled through 130 pages of games on Steam, hundreds of thousands of man hours, if not millions, of utterly soulless, braindead bullshit.
Hit me Throne and Liberty. Where are you. Come on, hit me now with your Korean bullshit. I'm ready. I can't wait to live in a world of 1990's boy band people spasmodically gangbanging each other with over the top spell effects and animations. I'll even take a little pay to win at this point. RELEASE AND GIVE ME SOMETHING TO PLAY. The only near term hope at this point.
What's the next big thing? Where is it. When is it. What has happened to game development? Fortnite was the last big thing, still around I guess. What's next? Halo Infinite: oooo ahhhhh, open world blah blah blah Halo universe, master chief hu hu. Never seen a game end up in the whatever column so fast. New World: woo Amazon money, Jeff Bezos woo, dog shit woo.
Oh I know, Star Citizen. That's the next big thing. Been next big thinging for 10 years. Ok. Should have put that 500 million dollars towards actual space travel, would have yielded better results. fuck.
Lost Ark, Cyberpunk, ATLAS WHAT IS THIS SHIT. CROWFALL. Crowfall.
I'm going to a cat show tonight. Some kind acrobatic trained cats thing. Going with my dad and my grandmother. My sister was supposed to come but she got sick, how fortunate. The proceeds go to a cat rescue, which I think is awesome. But no I'm not excited about going. Sure would be nice if I had a game to come home and play afterwards.
I'll come home and play with my own cats and stare at my wall. I think it's sentient, like it knows I'm looking at it. I try not to think about it, creepy.
Just take a break right, go outside right? I'VE BEEN OUTSIDE FOR 5 YEARS. WHERE ARE THE FUCKING GAMES? I'm ready to come back inside. HELLOOOOO.
It's all subjective. I mean I can't call 99% of modern day games objectively bad, because what's good and bad is opinion. But we are approaching the singularity. And it's not what you think it is. It is when the fabric of subjectivity gets ripped from itself, nullifying and canceling itself out. The subjective becomes OBJECTIVE. OBJECTIVELY BAD. THESE GAMES ARE FUCKING BAD.
tldr: I can't find any games to play.
P.S. WoW sucks Dygz.
And don't even get me started on the current state of movies. I'm going to watch Spiderman 13. Fuck it.
Radical Heights 4lyfe.
There are other MMORPGs on my radar where I can build villages with friends and defend them from NPCs, without having to deal with PvP.
Some of the Daybreak devs working on EQNext are now working for WoW.
And Intrepid had/has a lot of Daybreak devs working on Ashes.
For all I know... stuff like social orgs could have been discussed 10 years ago when they were all working at SOE/Daybreak.
But... yeah... there's all kinds of ways similar ideas could gain traction among game devs...
My main point is just that...
The hype works differently when the product/concept seems fresh and new and will be available in just a couple years, than it does when the delay(s) allow other companies to implement some of those concepts first.
But also, watching some of the Intrepid devs play during Extra Life reminded me that not only do I not like playing with hardcore PvPrs - I don't even like watching them play.
On the EQNext Forums, the PvPers would fantasize about how - with everyone one the same server - PvEers would want to support the PvPers by Crafting - while the PvPers would support the PvEers by protecting the PvEers from PvP combat.
And I was all, "??!!?? Why would I want to help PvPers?? I find their playstyle to be repugnant. I'm not going to want to support that playstyle."
Later I thought, "Well, outside of the game, I have friends who like PvP - and yeah - I would like to hang out with those friends in an MMORPG... if devs can find a way to make being on the same servers with PvPers feel comfortable."
But, right now... I no longer think that's possible and... I don't believe Corruption can do much to change that.
Especially can't do anything to change that with large regions of game space where everyone auto-flags as Combatant.