What would you consider to be a next gen MMORPG?

I played EQ1 when it came out and that was my favorite. I played for about 3 years before quitting. I then played Anarchy Online then EQ2, but neither really did anything different (AO was actually pretty good). Now, every MMORPG is the same, either an EQ clone or WOW clone.

What would break out of the box and become the next gen MMORPG that breaks away from the WOW's and the EQ's of the world?

What one feature would bring about that change?

I would have to say the advent of a twitch type MMORPG that combines a FPS with the traditional MMORPG. Depending a little more on Skill than equipment/level.

What one thing would you add? 

well hopefully huxley and TabulaRasa will introduce a new MMO experience .

Most MMO's in development right now dont really seem to capture the next gen label to me. None in the foreseeable future seem to offer and new groundbreaking things. Vanguard was hyped as a next gen mmo but seems to have failed miserably and is just implementing older ideas again.

I think it'll be quite sometime before we see a truly "Next Gen" mmo. 

Might be the Conan game, but then it is only hype until it comes out.

 The next one will come unexpectedley, we won't see it coming, word will just get around that this new MMORPG is out and is revolutionizing the genre. Can only hope. But then I get a lot more done in my life when I am not playing those things.

What one feature would bring about that change?Edeescam

But in regards to your question... most people are going to say twitchy combat, but I disagree. Part of the current problem with MMO's is that their endgame is so dull and time consuming. The only reprieve from the repetitiveness is that you don't have to pay attention 100% of the time. Now imagine a 5+ hour raid involving 40 players with you clicking away on the mouse or making sure your crosshairs are in the correct location. That would be horrible. The core gameplay in MMO's needs to change, not just the auto-attack combat system.

There isn't one single feature that would bring about the change towards next-gen MMO's, it will be several features and the abandonment of several current pitfalls. First of all the level system needs to go. Levels are the easy way out of having to create an exciting combat system. It's basically saying, "This monster has 45000hp and you have to have 4.5M experience points to be able to damage it". That's a lame way of forcing the player to invest time into the game in order to unlock new content. Skill-based characters offer more individuality for the player resulting in more of a connection with their toon, more flexibility in combat so you aren't forced to take on a cookie-cutter role (ie: warriors tank, clerics heal, rogues backstab), and more diversity among the playerbase because of everyone approaching the game their own way.

The features that will bring things into the next-gen are going to be getting the community together by creating a virtual world that they all exist in. Not a world chopped up into levelling areas. Not a world with no purpose and you wander around aimlessly. A virtual world where players can see the results of their actions both in the short term and long term.

Example: Consider Civilization III. Why it is fun is because you decide exactly what direction you will take and you see what effects your actions cause. Now translate the core elements of Civilization III into a MMO. Suddenly you're not killing monsters for the sake of getting loot and XP so you can kill bigger monsters. Instead you're securing areas so that your civilization will expand into it. You'll see a small village pop up first. If it survives attacks, food shortages, and being cut off from the larger population areas it will expand to become a town. Now it's better defended, there's roads being built into it. Businesses are arriving. Soon after it becomes a city and you extend further.

Now imagine that progress with orc attacks, hostages being taken, monsters attacking convoys, pirates attacking ship convoys, a plague due to a nearby necromancer, anything. Perhaps a drought in that region kills the crops leaving the town with few resources and they get taken over by a monster horde (or alien invasion as fantasy MMO's are getting old). Maybe even players from your own side decide to raid the village for resources to build their own town.The point is all of this would have occurred because you and the community pushed forward into the wilderness to secure it for expansion. None of this "Ok, at level 5 I'll do the plague quest" nonsense. Events happen dynamically as a result of community actions.

That's when I think MMO's will start moving towards next-gen. As I mentioned at the start of my post though, the MMO genre has been derailed by EQ clones. UO and Asheron's Call were both moving the genre towards the above scenario. Imagine what these games could be like today if it had stayed on track.

nice post mate...im stoned two in the morning...i read that whole thing...

i don't play many MMO's....im a FPS PC gamer...I play some RPG RTS etc etc..I played WoW for like 3 months not very long...I didn't dig it so much. Thanks for typing all that up..

i dig the idea of a world effected by the actions of the players..i've always thought that the GTA franchise was sitting on a gold mine. Imagine a GTA world filled with gangs, mobs, quest, turf. It's endless, but..you'd have to make the consequences of dying very harsh...or else you'd have a bunch of people riding around  shooting up the streets all day long..also now thinking about it it'd be hard cause like what..people are going to stop for all the red lights (now thinking about this..how does Matrix online handle driving?)?...its just an idea i guess.Custom cars, custom clothes...the GTA experiance. Huge maps...unimaginable..a whole state...mapped out..like San Andreas but X10. You could rent apartments a buy real estate, and it happens in game. All the buildings you can enter. You can join a gang and instead of raids that are pointless you can take over turf..and "recruit' new members with new turf captured. gang wars...it'd be purdy chillllllll IMO...buuut I don't dig the consoles...not at all...and I doubt Rockstar would do such a thing on PC..

but thsi isn't really a RPG idea..I don't know.

[QUOTE="Edeescam"]What one feature would bring about that change?sircyrus

But in regards to your question... most people are going to say twitchy combat, but I disagree. Part of the current problem with MMO's is that their endgame is so dull and time consuming. The only reprieve from the repetitiveness is that you don't have to pay attention 100% of the time. Now imagine a 5+ hour raid involving 40 players with you clicking away on the mouse or making sure your crosshairs are in the correct location. That would be horrible. The core gameplay in MMO's needs to change, not just the auto-attack combat system.

There isn't one single feature that would bring about the change towards next-gen MMO's, it will be several features and the abandonment of several current pitfalls. First of all the level system needs to go. Levels are the easy way out of having to create an exciting combat system. It's basically saying, "This monster has 45000hp and you have to have 4.5M experience points to be able to damage it". That's a lame way of forcing the player to invest time into the game in order to unlock new content. Skill-based characters offer more individuality for the player resulting in more of a connection with their toon, more flexibility in combat so you aren't forced to take on a cookie-cutter role (ie: warriors tank, clerics heal, rogues backstab), and more diversity among the playerbase because of everyone approaching the game their own way.

The features that will bring things into the next-gen are going to be getting the community together by creating a virtual world that they all exist in. Not a world chopped up into levelling areas. Not a world with no purpose and you wander around aimlessly. A virtual world where players can see the results of their actions both in the short term and long term.

Example: Consider Civilization III. Why it is fun is because you decide exactly what direction you will take and you see what effects your actions cause. Now translate the core elements of Civilization III into a MMO. Suddenly you're not killing monsters for the sake of getting loot and XP so you can kill bigger monsters. Instead you're securing areas so that your civilization will expand into it. You'll see a small village pop up first. If it survives attacks, food shortages, and being cut off from the larger population areas it will expand to become a town. Now it's better defended, there's roads being built into it. Businesses are arriving. Soon after it becomes a city and you extend further.

Now imagine that progress with orc attacks, hostages being taken, monsters attacking convoys, pirates attacking ship convoys, a plague due to a nearby necromancer, anything. Perhaps a drought in that region kills the crops leaving the town with few resources and they get taken over by a monster horde (or alien invasion as fantasy MMO's are getting old). Maybe even players from your own side decide to raid the village for resources to build their own town.The point is all of this would have occurred because you and the community pushed forward into the wilderness to secure it for expansion. None of this "Ok, at level 5 I'll do the plague quest" nonsense. Events happen dynamically as a result of community actions.

That's when I think MMO's will start moving towards next-gen. As I mentioned at the start of my post though, the MMO genre has been derailed by EQ clones. UO and Asheron's Call were both moving the genre towards the above scenario. Imagine what these games could be like today if it had stayed on track.

Bloody hell, you got me hyped for a game that isn't even announced. 

[QUOTE="Edeescam"]What one feature would bring about that change?sircyrus

But in regards to your question... most people are going to say twitchy combat, but I disagree. Part of the current problem with MMO's is that their endgame is so dull and time consuming. The only reprieve from the repetitiveness is that you don't have to pay attention 100% of the time. Now imagine a 5+ hour raid involving 40 players with you clicking away on the mouse or making sure your crosshairs are in the correct location. That would be horrible. The core gameplay in MMO's needs to change, not just the auto-attack combat system.

There isn't one single feature that would bring about the change towards next-gen MMO's, it will be several features and the abandonment of several current pitfalls. First of all the level system needs to go. Levels are the easy way out of having to create an exciting combat system. It's basically saying, "This monster has 45000hp and you have to have 4.5M experience points to be able to damage it". That's a lame way of forcing the player to invest time into the game in order to unlock new content. Skill-based characters offer more individuality for the player resulting in more of a connection with their toon, more flexibility in combat so you aren't forced to take on a cookie-cutter role (ie: warriors tank, clerics heal, rogues backstab), and more diversity among the playerbase because of everyone approaching the game their own way.

The features that will bring things into the next-gen are going to be getting the community together by creating a virtual world that they all exist in. Not a world chopped up into levelling areas. Not a world with no purpose and you wander around aimlessly. A virtual world where players can see the results of their actions both in the short term and long term.

Example: Consider Civilization III. Why it is fun is because you decide exactly what direction you will take and you see what effects your actions cause. Now translate the core elements of Civilization III into a MMO. Suddenly you're not killing monsters for the sake of getting loot and XP so you can kill bigger monsters. Instead you're securing areas so that your civilization will expand into it. You'll see a small village pop up first. If it survives attacks, food shortages, and being cut off from the larger population areas it will expand to become a town. Now it's better defended, there's roads being built into it. Businesses are arriving. Soon after it becomes a city and you extend further.

Now imagine that progress with orc attacks, hostages being taken, monsters attacking convoys, pirates attacking ship convoys, a plague due to a nearby necromancer, anything. Perhaps a drought in that region kills the crops leaving the town with few resources and they get taken over by a monster horde (or alien invasion as fantasy MMO's are getting old). Maybe even players from your own side decide to raid the village for resources to build their own town.The point is all of this would have occurred because you and the community pushed forward into the wilderness to secure it for expansion. None of this "Ok, at level 5 I'll do the plague quest" nonsense. Events happen dynamically as a result of community actions.

That's when I think MMO's will start moving towards next-gen. As I mentioned at the start of my post though, the MMO genre has been derailed by EQ clones. UO and Asheron's Call were both moving the genre towards the above scenario. Imagine what these games could be like today if it had stayed on track.

I must say very well said and I agree with almost everything you said.

Moving beyond leveling and grinding is a definate. When you have a game like EQ or a clone, most people grind and grind till the end then there is nothing to do but gain better gear.

Quests need to be revamped in some way as well. Getting item A for Merchant B to gain item C is really played out. I remember someone saying in a state of the MMO Address a long time ago " The merchant in Qeynos still has a rat problem" Then there are the variations: Get item A, give to erson B who gives item C, take item C to location D....rinse and repeat

There needs to be more reliance on skills rather than having the higher level/equpiment. This is where it gets tricky because almost overy game (if not EVERY game) relies on the 1d20 Dungeons and Dragons  cookie cutter way of determining damage. So someone with better gear and higher levels will win 99% of the time.

 Anarchy Online had something similar to what you described where you could take over a piece of land and put up defenses and defend it. For some reason it never seemed to take off (it was probably implemented way too late in the game's life).

Another problem is PvP.  50% like it and 50% hate it. You cannot please everyone. However, it is inevitable that a good game needs good PvP. A good PvP system would be a must in a next gen MMO.

I would like to hear more suggestions! 

Kinda hard to say, I've been playing WoW for 2 years now, but are quitting soon due to lack of brains at the dev. team.

A new breaking MMO should definatly NOT be a WoW clone. Sure, it was great for a long time, now its just living on the hype, and many oldschoolers are leaving.

I would have to say the advent of a twitch type MMORPG that combines a FPS with the traditional MMORPG. Depending a little more on Skill than equipment/level.Edeescam

It's fine for you to say that, but unless you're talking "Oblivion"-type twitch, rather than "Huxley"-type twitch, it sounds like you're describing an MMOFPS with psuedo-RPG elements, to me, which might well be a good and popular game, but sure isn't "the next generation of MMORPG".

I'd love to see an MMORPG that depending more on skill and less on equipment and level, but the fact is, such MMORPGs already exist. Dark Age of Camelot is basically entirely dependent on skill, at level 50. Due to DAoC's stat-caps, in the end, 99% of characters have the same stats, and it takes approximately 1/3 of the time it does to reach 60 (not 70) in WoW to reach 50 (max level) in DAoC.

The skill in DAoC is generally more based on being quick-thinking, smart, and a good team player than being "twitchy", but it's definately skill, nonetheless. WAR may well replicate this, though you'll no doubt mindlessly write it off as a "WoW clone".

As for games being either an EQ clone or a WoW clone, that's laughable. WoW IS an EQ clone! So the problem is that all MMORPGs are EQ clones, essentially, and that's definately a problem. However, you need to realize that WoW got 8 million customers precisely by being "like EQ only more accessible". It thus made it so that any next-gen MMORPG needs to be as accessible as WoW, so that's something that's necessary.

Ein-7919 - EVE Online "jumping on it's deathbed" - Oh, so doubling it's customers every year for the past three years is "dying" is it? I guess have 150k customers expected to hit 300k before the end of 2007 is "lethal"? You have to be kidding me. EVE isn't a good model to follow, because it's a niche game, but "dying"? What nonsense.

Personally, I think we won't see the real "next gen" MMORPG on PCs, or released on them as an afterthought. The new, almost untapped MMORPG market is on the Xbox 360 and PS3. It would be easy for an "action-based" MMORPG to succesd on such machines, so long as it was:

A) Fun.

B) Accessible (read: "easy to play, hard to master").

C) Mass-market appealling (read: "somewhat cliched, but vibrant").

Such a game would likely combine a fantasy setting with action-based gameplay, perhaps a little like Oblivion, as I mentioned, only hopefully a whole hell of a lot more fun. It would need a setting as exciting and colourful as WoW's to be truly successful - Conan will likely sink under the weight of it's own cool-but-impenetrable-and-ancient setting. It would also need MMORPG elements heavy enough to mean that "advancement" actually counts for something, or everyone would stop playing after a few weeks.

You mention skills i.e. knowing how to be a team player, timing a cast of a spell etc, knowing your class etc. However those skills are ones that require you to either be dedicated to the group you are in or being lazy. I remember in EQ2 I'd just sit back and let my pet fight, only hitting a button or two then sipping my coffee or toking on my pipe. other tims when I wanted to, I'd cast and play my class very well. Either way all it took was hitting a few extra buttons to get the spell off.

I think 100% twitch is the way to go, like controlling a character in jedi academy or something. requiring you to put together moves, getting behind someone, dodging gun fire etc. Like in EQ, you sit there and no matter what, you will get hit by someone or some monster. You have no choice when you are fighting, YOU WILL GET HIT! I want the opportunity to practice my skill and have a fight where I do not get hit , not because of my level or gear but because I am good and I practiced.

The 1d20 rules has to be thrown out the window in order to move onto the next level. Mostly because the gameplay of any MMO will be similar if that system is left in place. 

Maybe some deviation from the norm like controlling your own town and defending it would be a change, and it may be fun even with the 1d20 system, but the mechanics will be similar and it will still depend more on level. 

The 1d20 system is getting played out. 

Ein-7919 - EVE Online "jumping on it's deathbed" - Oh, so doubling it's customers every year for the past three years is "dying" is it? I guess have 150k customers expected to hit 300k before the end of 2007 is "lethal"? You have to be kidding me. EVE isn't a good model to follow, because it's a niche game, but "dying"? What nonsense.

veveqa

So, you're saying that a game that has taken 4 years to get the customer base of current day UO is alive and kicking?  Seems like people who read my post are misinterpreting what I am saying.  By "jumping on its deathbed" I am saying that it is on the deathbed, but it's jumping on it...you know, like a little kid using the bed as a trampoline.  To put it in another way, it may not be all dead...but it's mostly there.  Saying it's niche is no excuse either.  Auto Assault is a niche game as well since it deviates pretty heavily from the EQ model...and it is on life support.

First of all, by being on its deathbed, means that financially the company is making zero profit and slowly getting negative returns.  So your saying you know their financials and even with those statistics the ever growing population is barely letting the company stay afloat?  That is bs to the extreme, a game does not need 5 million subscribers in order for it to be a success and gain a profit.  Considering the fact in order to support the 4.7million more subscribers you'd have to spend a ton more on hardware, employees, office space, etc. 

Honestly it just pisses me off seeing someone call a "niche" game a dying one, cuz it turns people away from trying it out and who may possibly enjoy it. 

Well I think any of these niche games are going to suffer because WoW is the king now. Sure there are smaller games like Eve and a few others that are "different" than the WoW/EQ model, however it is not "next gen" enough to make them better than the fore mentioned games.

Everyone seemed to have their own idea how to break away, yet they all still rely on this 1d20 system that should have died once EQ1 ran its course.

problem is a lot of developers are too scared to get away from that system. ones that do produce an unfinished, half assed game that no one wants to play.

A NEW ULTIMA ONLINE , one of the only MMORPGs that playes like a god, so open and free, PVP , RP was a must (kind of) evil high lvl nerd guilds fight against the united lower lvl devine guilds, looting eachother, town wars by NPC / demons , skills that make a difference and dont cap like world of crapcraft.....

Oh god give us another Ultima :)

From what I hear, TabulaRasa is supposed to be the "next great MMO" however they said that about every MMO after EQ.

Anarchy Online probably would have been up there if the game did not release with all the bugs, then proceed to release a patch (I think it was 12.7) that did not allow you to over equip things. That was the final nail in the coffin that killed a good game and a good concept. I think half the population left after that patch.

[QUOTE="Edeescam"]What one feature would bring about that change?sircyrus

But in regards to your question... most people are going to say twitchy combat, but I disagree. Part of the current problem with MMO's is that their endgame is so dull and time consuming. The only reprieve from the repetitiveness is that you don't have to pay attention 100% of the time. Now imagine a 5+ hour raid involving 40 players with you clicking away on the mouse or making sure your crosshairs are in the correct location. That would be horrible. The core gameplay in MMO's needs to change, not just the auto-attack combat system.

There isn't one single feature that would bring about the change towards next-gen MMO's, it will be several features and the abandonment of several current pitfalls. First of all the level system needs to go. Levels are the easy way out of having to create an exciting combat system. It's basically saying, "This monster has 45000hp and you have to have 4.5M experience points to be able to damage it". That's a lame way of forcing the player to invest time into the game in order to unlock new content. Skill-based characters offer more individuality for the player resulting in more of a connection with their toon, more flexibility in combat so you aren't forced to take on a cookie-cutter role (ie: warriors tank, clerics heal, rogues backstab), and more diversity among the playerbase because of everyone approaching the game their own way.

The features that will bring things into the next-gen are going to be getting the community together by creating a virtual world that they all exist in. Not a world chopped up into levelling areas. Not a world with no purpose and you wander around aimlessly. A virtual world where players can see the results of their actions both in the short term and long term.

Example: Consider Civilization III. Why it is fun is because you decide exactly what direction you will take and you see what effects your actions cause. Now translate the core elements of Civilization III into a MMO. Suddenly you're not killing monsters for the sake of getting loot and XP so you can kill bigger monsters. Instead you're securing areas so that your civilization will expand into it. You'll see a small village pop up first. If it survives attacks, food shortages, and being cut off from the larger population areas it will expand to become a town. Now it's better defended, there's roads being built into it. Businesses are arriving. Soon after it becomes a city and you extend further.

Now imagine that progress with orc attacks, hostages being taken, monsters attacking convoys, pirates attacking ship convoys, a plague due to a nearby necromancer, anything. Perhaps a drought in that region kills the crops leaving the town with few resources and they get taken over by a monster horde (or alien invasion as fantasy MMO's are getting old). Maybe even players from your own side decide to raid the village for resources to build their own town.The point is all of this would have occurred because you and the community pushed forward into the wilderness to secure it for expansion. None of this "Ok, at level 5 I'll do the plague quest" nonsense. Events happen dynamically as a result of community actions.

That's when I think MMO's will start moving towards next-gen. As I mentioned at the start of my post though, the MMO genre has been derailed by EQ clones. UO and Asheron's Call were both moving the genre towards the above scenario. Imagine what these games could be like today if it had stayed on track.

Dynamic events such as what you are describing is what Arena.net hopes to do with Guild Wars 2. 

You mention skills i.e. knowing how to be a team player, timing a cast of a spell etc, knowing your class etc. However those skills are ones that require you to either be dedicated to the group you are in or being lazy. I remember in EQ2 I'd just sit back and let my pet fight, only hitting a button or two then sipping my coffee or toking on my pipe. other tims when I wanted to, I'd cast and play my class very well. Either way all it took was hitting a few extra buttons to get the spell off.

 

I think 100% twitch is the way to go, like controlling a character in jedi academy or something. requiring you to put together moves, getting behind someone, dodging gun fire etc. Like in EQ, you sit there and no matter what, you will get hit by someone or some monster. You have no choice when you are fighting, YOU WILL GET HIT! I want the opportunity to practice my skill and have a fight where I do not get hit , not because of my level or gear but because I am good and I practiced.

 

The 1d20 rules has to be thrown out the window in order to move onto the next level. Mostly because the gameplay of any MMO will be similar if that system is left in place.

 

Maybe some deviation from the norm like controlling your own town and defending it would be a change, and it may be fun even with the 1d20 system, but the mechanics will be similar and it will still depend more on level.

The 1d20 system is getting played out.

Edeescam

what you suggest is combining the fps style rpg similar to Oblivion, with a MMORPG.  If you could iron out the connection issues, this would be badass, especially adding Dark Age of Camalot style realm on realm combat.  Ultimatley, it would only work well if they kept 56k people off, and kept the servers very region specific, with no option to go outside your geographical region.  Can only dream of such a game. 

"Ultimatley, it would only work well if they kept 56k people off, and kept the servers very region specific, with no option to go outside your geographical region."

Is that such a bad thing?  I wish a developer would make usch a game, and not fret about loosing sales to people with crappy connections.  It's about time my 6mb comcast connections get to do some serious work :P

First of all, by being on its deathbed, means that financially the company is making zero profit and slowly getting negative returns. So your saying you know their financials and even with those statistics the ever growing population is barely letting the company stay afloat? That is bs to the extreme, a game does not need 5 million subscribers in order for it to be a success and gain a profit. Considering the fact in order to support the 4.7million more subscribers you'd have to spend a ton more on hardware, employees, office space, etc.

 

Honestly it just pisses me off seeing someone call a "niche" game a dying one, cuz it turns people away from trying it out and who may possibly enjoy it.

Nimwei

Again, somebody who didn't understand what I was saying.

Things I am not saying:

• You need a 1-10 million customer player base
• You need to be associated with EA, Sony, or Blizzard
  
• EVE is dead
• Niche MMOs are a failing venture

Things that I am saying:

• Taking 4 years to get the player base of a well-known franchise MMO that's been in existence for over a decade is a sign that it's not a healthy MMO
• Even dying MMOs are still fun (look at Auto Assault)
• Asheron's Call was probably the last truly innovative main-stream MMO
• The game that could have made huge strides in MMO innovation would have been Ultima Worlds: Online
• We need to move away from the EQ model of MMOs...but still make them accessible to people

what you suggest is combining the fps style rpg similar to Oblivion, with a MMORPG.  If you could iron out the connection issues, this would be badass, especially adding Dark Age of Camalot style realm on realm combat.  Ultimatley, it would only work well if they kept 56k people off, and kept the servers very region specific, with no option to go outside your geographical region.  Can only dream of such a game. ElvisNixon

One answer to this wall of text. Darkfall.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_bYYT6Wg3Gg

Darkfall will make or break a next-gen mmo. it will either be holy crap or holy fail. My guess is the latter but i still have hiiiigh hopes :)Sameo

I've had my eye on that game forever, as I know many other people have. It will be either a great success or a great failure. The only problem is that its been in development for so long that a lot people are wondering if it will ever be released, and I am one of those people. 

For me, I would not go near Conan. After what funcom pulled with Anarchy Online's release and the patch that killed the game, I will never buy another funcom product again.

having said that, if they take their time and play their cards right, Star Trek Online could be a VERY good game, but who knows anymore. 

[QUOTE="Nimwei"]

First of all, by being on its deathbed, means that financially the company is making zero profit and slowly getting negative returns. So your saying you know their financials and even with those statistics the ever growing population is barely letting the company stay afloat? That is bs to the extreme, a game does not need 5 million subscribers in order for it to be a success and gain a profit. Considering the fact in order to support the 4.7million more subscribers you'd have to spend a ton more on hardware, employees, office space, etc.

 

Honestly it just pisses me off seeing someone call a "niche" game a dying one, cuz it turns people away from trying it out and who may possibly enjoy it.

Ein-7919

Again, somebody who didn't understand what I was saying.

Things I am not saying:

• You need a 1-10 million customer player base
• You need to be associated with EA, Sony, or Blizzard
  
• EVE is dead
• Niche MMOs are a failing venture

Things that I am saying:

• Taking 4 years to get the player base of a well-known franchise MMO that's been in existence for over a decade is a sign that it's not a healthy MMO
• Even dying MMOs are still fun (look at Auto Assault)
• Asheron's Call was probably the last truly innovative main-stream MMO
• The game that could have made huge strides in MMO innovation would have been Ultima Worlds: Online
• We need to move away from the EQ model of MMOs...but still make them accessible to people

Seriously, people need to get past the word "dead" as meaning that I think a game is going to be discontinued in the next month.  "Dying" just means that it's not in the best state.  Having to consolidate servers, taking an extraordinarily long time to build a player base, and generally being in a genre that is best described as "dead-with-aspirations-of-twitching" are all symptoms that the game is not exactly a marketing success.  Does that mean that I think it's a horrible game?  Not at all.  Now, can we please get off this topic?  I should hope that I've made my point by now.

No...dying means just that...almost DEAD.  And the phrase "on it's death bed" means almost dead as well.  You may have tried to say something else, but you characterized what you wanted to say incorrectly.  Do not blame people for pointing out that your misrepresentation was inacurate.

""Dying" just means that it's not in the best state."

No...this is what dying means:

"1. About to die: dying patients. 2. Drawing to an end; declining: in the dying hours of the legislative session. 3. Done or uttered just before death: a dying request."

As somebody else pointed out...EVE is actually GROWING, therefore dying is completely he wrong term.

"Seriously, people need to get past the word "dead" as meaning that I think a game is going to be discontinued in the next month. "

Seriously...you need to learn to use words within their context, and not blame people for your mistakes.  A simple "I used the wrong term...this is what i meant" would have sufficed...

This Sounds like Darkfall FYI.

 By the way, there were a lot or revolutionary Ideas in SWG at release... thats as close as any MMO has ever been to 'Next Gen'

Yeah but that game sucked bad! Are people still playing that?

All I remember from playing beta was someone running around yelling, "I'm foreskin, I'm foreskin!!!" 

The last true "next gen" MMORPG was probably Asheron's Call...ever since then it's been EQ-clones flooding the market. But then again, look at the incentive to create an MMO that is outside the box: Motor City Online - scrapped, Auto Assault - on life support, Earth and Beyond - scrapped, Sims Online - scrapped, Eve Online - jumping on its deathbed, Planetside - disappeared into the sunset...never to be heard from again. Really now, the other MMOs that try to deviate from the EQ model kinda fizzle out. If only EA would resurrect development on Ultima Worlds: Online...we might have something to hope for...Ein-7919

that's a tough one..

3d, first-person graphics perhaps?

or what would you say about more "interactive" features, such as trading of a couple of photos, or  more fun in-game features.

many people grow up and live on playing mmorpgs.

make them more interesting, more fun!!

(for instance, add a few /get crazy or /#$&$$$ commands..   ^_^'  ) 

i think the next gen mmos are gonna be AoC:hyborian adventures or WARThe_One_White

Thats disapointing because neither look interesting, WAR is just a PvP Version of WoW, and AoC ... just looking at the attack animations puts me to sleep .. 

There really weren't revolutionary features in SWG. They borrowed heavily from UO, and even UO2 to some degree (Koster and a few others were working on that before it was cancelled and they went over to SWG).

Yeah but that game sucked bad! Are people still playing that?

Edeescam

[QUOTE="The_One_White"]i think the next gen mmos are gonna be AoC:hyborian adventures or WARMeu2k7

Thats disapointing because neither look interesting, WAR is just a PvP Version of WoW, and AoC ... just looking at the attack animations puts me to sleep .. 

well each to his own i suppose

Nothing coming ut now really gets me excited to play a MMO again. The only game that seems close but is more of a diablo type game is hellgate: london.

When I say next gen MMO, I mean a game like EQ that really changed the genre. However I feel it will be impossible to bring a game like that to the table again in terms of being ground breaking. 

Seriously...you need to learn to use words within their context, and not blame people for your mistakes. A simple "I used the wrong term...this is what i meant" would have sufficed...

dnuggs40

Okay, look at my original statement. Now look at the context the original statement was made in. Note the incongruity of the statement "Jumping on its deathbed." Now, let me break this sentence down for you people who wish to jump to conclusions about my meaning:

There's a deathbed. This is symbolic of dying or being dead. Is this appropriate? Yup. And you know why? Because it's taken 4 freakin' years to develop a fan-base. Now, the "Jumping on" part. This is where most people miss the key word and, hence, the meaning. To indicate that the game is indeed dying, I would have said "Jumping in its deathbed," however, I said "Jumping on its deathbed." Do you what the disambiguation here is? "Jumping on" indicates that it is not in the deathbed. So what is it doing then? This is where I could have been more clear (but the brevity of my post and pace I was trying to keep prevented me from doing just that). In most of my experience, when somebody says that they are "Jumping on" their bed, that means that they are, in fact, jumping on their bed...much like a little kid who doesn't want to go to bed. So, to extend that simile to here, EVE Online is like a kid full of energy jumping on his/her bed. The fact that it's the deathbed merely adds to the incongruity of such a childish act. Overall, though, the statement was supposed to elicit the interpretation that EVE, while not the healthiest game out there, and was in fact a dead/dying game, is taunting those who say that it is dead.

And there is your lesson in grammar in semantics (the disambiguation of the word "on" vs "in"...way to suck the fun right out of it.

(it should be noted that I am quite surprised that nobody is leaping up to defend Auto Assault or Planetside...certainly more definitive statements like "Auto Assault - on life support" and "Planetside - disappeared into the sunset" would be grounds for even more vehemence thrown my way than "jumping on its deathbed"...sheesh)

A non-EQ clone, City of Heroes did well enough that City of Villians was released. The City of franchise has been around over three years now and still has a strong following and its eighth update, I9, about to come out.ButteredGroove

I would actually contend that the City of Heroes/Villains games are far too close to the EQ model than not. They both use the hard leveling system (you need xxxx amount of xp in order to indicate that you are stronger...after x amount of levels you get a new power/skill), grinding xp or grinding quests is the only way to level up (not a whole lot of RPing involved to gain xp), and solo'ing is extremely difficult/impossible at a certain point

No, what I am talking about, when speaking of "next gen," is a game where "level" doesn't exist. Where a person can gain xp in other ways that just fighting/killing critters (like, for example, being a diplomat and actually talk...for a change). That is what I am referring to when I speak of EQ-clones.

When I say next gen MMO, I mean a game like EQ that really changed the genre. However I feel it will be impossible to bring a game like that to the table again in terms of being ground breaking.Edeescam

I still maintain that EQ was the worst thing that could possibly happen to the MMO genre.  Sure, it brought a pretty face to the party...but it corrupted the RPG part of the MMORPG genre.