I'm not talking about the new 3D version, I mean the old 2D sprites in a 3D game world version, back 2+ years ago. What made it so unbelievable? I mean, it was so addictive, so fun, and so time consuming, but I could never figure out how they made it like that. I'm looking for a new MMORPG, but every time I download one for a trial version, I seem utterly bored. With that in mind, how did Runescape manage to get all the fame that it did? I played it for 3 years before quitting after they upgraded, and since then haven't found anything else. I don't even like Wow Just a question for those who have played runescape back when it was in 2D and witnessed the greatness of one of the most excellent games ever produced. MAssive-war

A lot of what made Runescape good was how perfect the timing was; it was an MMORPG right as MMOs were getting popular, it was lightweight, low resource and virtually run-anywhere (java), and it was cheap.

In today's market, I'm not sure Runescape would have taken off quite as quickly, but I'm certain myself the price definitely had something to do with it. A lot of people just don't feel like paying for a game after they've purchased it.

Java probably had something to do with it; younger kids could simply go to any computer in school, the library, or at home and log into the same account. It was very lightweight on the client side, and that made for the game being rather responsive (even if a bit buggy for a while). And while the gameplay is a bit dated, it still had all the nessicary elements and pieces to make the game interesting.

As for why you're bored with the market; all of the games anymore are old hat, they all do the same thing, set with the same colors. It's 800 game companies making variations of Dungeons and Dragons, without taking many liberties. Some will get more indepth with item creation, some with creature creation, others still with character development and questing, but it all comes down to being very formula driven, and after the first few of these games you've played, it really wears on you.

So yeah, it wasn't one thing, it was just a lot of things that coincided perfectly to make it happen. There have been technically better games written since, with better graphics, that are entirely free, and they just aren't doing as well, and that's a very interesting aspect to explore as well, but I'll leave that for someone else to speculate on.

So why do people continute to make MMORPG's, if they're all the same?

Quote:

Original post by massive-war So why do people continute to make MMORPG's, if they're all the same?

If you're talking about large corporations, it's because if they're successful they're gigantic cashcows whether or not they are crappy level treadmills. OTOH if you're referring to all the novice developers who come on here and say "I just got a C++ book, my goal is to make an MMORPG, where do I start?" I have no idea; I've zero interest in the genre myself.

EDIT: When I say "crappy level treadmills" I don't mean the game itself is crappy; there's a huge amount of effort put in in both coding and artwork. But the mechanics themselves are often level up, buy phat l3wt, level up...

Quote:

Original post by massive-war So why do people continute to make MMORPG's, if they're all the same?

I agree with Frequency. When you've got a lot of money at your disposal, a lot of hardware you're already using for another game, and an idea, you can build the game with little or no thought.

As for indie kids, MMOs are generally considered to be the biggest of games, with the most players, and a lot of people feel they want that level of involvement in a game. Of course, they don't realize that they can get this involvement without having to actually make an MMORPG, but the reason's still there. Of course there are the others who think that if they do something "l33t" enough they'll get hired by Blizzard and their awesome game will go into production and.. okay you see why a lot of younger kids like the idea.

Now, that's not to say all MMOs are the same thing over and over, but a big number of them are; Star Wars Galaxy wasn't old hat, but it was also boring, repetitive, and they alienated their players by making game changes that practically nobody agreed with. The Matrix Online was also an innovation, but a lot of people didn't like it out of the fact it drawed off the Matrix. Both games are still alive, but they generally don't have the same draw of say World of Warcraft.

The bottom line of the entire segment, however, is profit. MMOs typically require millions of dollars in computer equipment to run, but once it's running, it's a profit-making-machine. These people are racking up $15/month for each and every player, regardless of how much time they spend logged in. A million players at $15/month is 15 million dollars of income a month, and provided you only spent $50 million on infrastructure and such, you're making a profit in 4 months. (keep in mind, these numbers aren't really accurate to any game/situation, but it does give you some idea of how much money could be made from a successful MMO.

Just realize how many people it takes to make something like that work, and you can see why so many indies are fooling themselves into believing they can do it alone. I'm not saying it's impossible to make an indie MMO, but it is a lot of work!!! Do your research and understand what you're getting yourself into.

That's the main reason I started game development. I wasn't even thinking multi-millions, not thinking that many people would play my game, but 500,000 a month would be very nice.

I'm not saying it's not impossible, but it is very hard to do. The biggest high I get off of newbie programmers is when they say MMORPG. I don't insult them, because I was the same way, but what you do is tell them to make it.

Ok, start. Go make it, begin right now.

They're lost because they think they can just do it, but when they start running into compiler errors their first hour into production, they finally realize

Please note this wasn't a bashing. I was just curious as to what made Runescape so good. I now know that so many games are the same, and Runescape was one of the first, so it was destined to succeed.

Massive-war

Quote:

Original post by ciroknight The bottom line of the entire segment, however, is profit. MMOs typically require millions of dollars in computer equipment to run, but once it's running, it's a profit-making-machine.

There is some truth in that statement but for the most part servers that run MMO's are scalable.

Meaning you don't have to spend millions on equipment if you don't have users. EVE Online is making a nice profit and they don't spend a fraction of the amount Blizzard spends on servers.

If you had a game built, you could run an online rpg that supported a few hundred players on a server/router combo for a few thousand dollars.

When it comes to MMOs, you define what it "should be" based on what your first MMO was. All others after that just aren't right, because they aren't the same.

I believe people have a certain amount of MMO playing in them, and when they're done, they're done -- the grind just is the same, no matter what the game, after a while. Once you get it out of your system, you are probably somewhat immune to newer, better versions.

I disagree with the above. What if that experience bluntly sucked? I played many MUDs. Some sucked, some were good. I played UO for a couple of years. I dabbled in Evercrack. I've played Runescape. I play SWG now (mostly because it's Star Wars and has massive potential and I'm interested in seeing what they do with it). MMO simply implies a very large player base. What 'should be' is surely dictated in part by genre and part by priority- RPGs should be immersive, FPSs or combat sims should be smooth and responsive. These are obvious requirements of the base function of the game.

For the sake of argument, we'll take MMORPGs. In my opinion these generally suffer from form-over-function. Although they are now stunningly pretty, the level of interaction (and therefore immersion) is spoilt by linear quest/script design, repetitive quests (how can so many people do the same damn quest). These arguments are covered in many other threads, in many places. Although it's simple to explain this in terms of investor risk, it's still quite depressing.

Runescape itself is amazing, really, for what it is. There are varied quests (the sheep shearing quest was fun - and simply implemented, but made a break from combat combat combat). Its architecture is simple, but functional. It does exactly what it sets out to do - and its delivery mechanism is great (browser based applet). The skill based system allows variety in character templates - it's got PvP areas for those that wish to do so. It does a lot for a small package, and for free. Looking at the take-up rate for subscriptions tells a lot - that free-play intro (with cut down skills and quests) is enough to get people hooked, at which point they pay subscriptions on a character they've already invested time in.

Quote:

Original post by hplus0603 When it comes to MMOs, you define what it "should be" based on what your first MMO was. All others after that just aren't right, because they aren't the same. I believe people have a certain amount of MMO playing in them, and when they're done, they're done -- the grind just is the same, no matter what the game, after a while. Once you get it out of your system, you are probably somewhat immune to newer, better versions.

I agree with this for the most part. The first one is always the hardest to kick and the one that seems the most magical. It usually ends with swearing off those kinds of games for good.

I do think after a few years you can get back into a new one - but like you said, it's never like the first time.

I think the genre might go through some growing pains when they can't expand the market anymore and have to invent some new ways to keep people interested beyond giving them a new theme.