Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Should Indie MMORPGs Be Scored on a Different Scale than AAA Games? | One Good Roll | MMORPG.com

135

Comments

  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 3,491
    Brainy said:
    Luxury vs Budget doesnt speak to the size of the company making the product.  Large companies can make a budget car the same as small companies can make luxury cars.

    The problem with judging MMO's fully on price, is all the different models of payment out there.  F2P games can actually cost thousands, Subs can cost $180 over a year with only a small investment upfront.

    The other problems is the price is really not that large in the first place.  $20 - $100 is not a large price difference.  There really isnt any MMO's out there that cost $1000's to play other than maybe Diablo Immortal.  The AAA titles are pretty cheap overall, so if you want a real quality game you cant go up in price to the next teir really.
    Small companies with little of the way of assets and know how won't be making luxury cars. They'd be lucky to be able to produce a limited number of budget ones.

    Judging MMORPGs based on price is ridiculous. The mandatory cost of all of them is exceedingly low for the hours of entertainment they provide.

    Diablo Immortal does not require thousands of dollars to play. It does illustrate how much some are willing to pay when there is no limit other than their own wealth.

    You can go up in price actually, for anything other than subscription fees.

    For example, many game expansions offer several tiers at varying cost. Also, even those that can command ongoing subscription supplement their revenue otherwise, though not so blatantly as their fellows. They have the modesty to keep their cash shops outside the game rather than highlight them within, but they exist nonetheless.
  • theGnadetheGnade Member UncommonPosts: 133
    No
  • lykosfx2lykosfx2 Newbie CommonPosts: 3


    Oi!
    Bom dia!

    Concordo com os comentários acima, que não deve existir diferenças entre Independentes, AAAs, BBBs ou CCCs e etc.

    Hoje existe vários tipos de Engines, Ex: Godot, Unit, UR5 e outros. São Engines que facilitam a vida de muitos desenvolvedores iniciantes e profissionais.

    Dar privilégios por ter um orçamento pequeno, médio, ou grande, não faz sentido. Quem entra na chuva é para se molhar (andar na chuva é bom).

    Na minha opinião…

    Não deveria existir pontuações, porque as pontuações levam ao erro e ao engano. O que é DIVERTIDO para uma pessoa, pode não ser DIVERTIDO para a outra pessoa.

    O que deveria ser avaliado, seria se o jogo é DIVERTIDO Ou NÃO DIVERTIDO.

    E como essa avaliação poderia ser feito?…

    - Avaliando se o Sistema de Coleta é DIVERTIDO;
    - Avaliando se o Sistema de Comércio é DIVERTIDO;
    - Avaliando se o Sistema de PvE é DIVERTIDO;
    - Avaliando se o Sistema de PvP é DIVERTIDO;
    - Avaliando se o Sistema de Missões é DIVERTIDO;
    - Avaliando se o Sistema de Explação do Mundo é DIVERTIDO;
    - Etc.

    Usando esse tipo de avaliação, as análises seriam objetivas, fáceis de entendimento e corretas.

    Obrigado pela sua atenção
    lykosfx

    ----------------

    Hey!
    Good Morning!

    I agree with the comments above, that there should be no differences between Independents, AAAs, BBBs or CCCs and etc.

    Today there are several types of Engines, Ex: Godot, Unit, UR5 and others. They are engines that make life easier for many beginners and professionals.

    Giving privileges for having a small, medium, or large budget makes no sense. Anyone who enters the rain is to get wet (walking in the rain is good).

    In my opinion…

    There shouldn't be scores, because scores lead to error and deceit. What is FUN for a person, it might not be FUN for the other person.

    What should be evaluated would be whether the game is FUN or NOT FUN.

    And how could this evaluation be done?…

    - Assessing whether the Collection System is FUN;
    - Assessing whether the Trading System is FUN;
    - Assessing whether the PvE System is FUN;
    - Assessing whether the PvP System is FUN;
    - Assessing whether the Quest System is FUN;
    - Assessing whether the World Explanation System is FUN;
    - Etc.

    Using this type of evaluation, the analyzes would be objective, easy to understand and correct.

    Thank you for your attention
    lykosfx


    maskedweaselBrainyKyleran
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 15,886


    Nobody with any sense would hold Embers Adrift to the general standard set by the most successful of MMORPGs. Allowances would have been made for many of the shortfalls between a game made by a small, independent team and one by a major corporation with abundant resources.

    Totally disagree.
    If they want to compete in the space then they need to be competitive in the product they send out.  Was Valheim made by a huge company? No.  Was their product comparable to that produced by bigger companies?  Yes. 

    Did people buy it because it was made by a small team or because it was a game they wanted to play?

    Is Valheim the standard? No, it is an outlier. It is exception, not the rule.
    It's an example.  Most indie games are simply not good.  This one was.  Thus it thrived.
    It didn't thrive because it was a good indie game.  It thrived because it was a good game that the community enjoyed.

    BrainyKyleranSovrath

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 15,886
    Splattr said:


    Nobody with any sense would hold Embers Adrift to the general standard set by the most successful of MMORPGs. Allowances would have been made for many of the shortfalls between a game made by a small, independent team and one by a major corporation with abundant resources.

    Totally disagree.
    If they want to compete in the space then they need to be competitive in the product they send out.  Was Valheim made by a huge company? No.  Was their product comparable to that produced by bigger companies?  Yes. 

    Did people buy it because it was made by a small team or because it was a game they wanted to play?
    That's a good point about Valheim. It makes me ponder 2 questions though.

    1. What if Valheim would have hyped itself up before release? Would streamers have been as kind to it if they went in with higher expectations? Would reviewers have given it a low score based on the graphics and other flaws? Valheim didn't oversell itself, and was able to pick up steam by word of mouth. And that word of mouth spread that the graphics sucked but it was worth playing because of the gameplay. So new players went in expecting bad graphics but ignored it because they expected it.

    2. What if Valheim would have been made by a AAA studio? Would we have given it the same pass on the graphics quality? Would we have torn apart some of the jankiness of the gameplay elements? Just imagine if EA or Bethesda had made Valheim. I think it would have been a completely different story.
    I just used Valheim as an example but there are others (Disco Elysium jumps to mind).

    I guess the main point is that there is ONE market for these games. Most people are not going to play an inferior game simply because it was made by a small team.   They will play it if they see things that they cannot get elsewhere or if parts of the game are simply better than elsewhere.

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • UNH0LYEV1LUNH0LYEV1L Member UncommonPosts: 538
    No. If they are going to compete for a players time they need to realize they are competing directly against AAA titles. Maybe then we will stop getting unpolished 2D/retro graphic tentacle porn MMORPGs and maybe some real effort instead.
    Brainy
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,582
    No. If they are going to compete for a players time they need to realize they are competing directly against AAA titles. Maybe then we will stop getting unpolished 2D/retro graphic tentacle porn MMORPGs and maybe some real effort instead.
    A 2D retro graphic tentacle porn MMORPG sounds a lot better idea than most of the indie MMOs: Big productions can be successful because they're well done, but for indies the only way to succeed is usually making by making something unique.
     
  • LackingMMOLackingMMO Member RarePosts: 662
    i think certain things can be given a slide for indie projects but like others said, if the game sucks.. it sucks.
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 3,491


    Nobody with any sense would hold Embers Adrift to the general standard set by the most successful of MMORPGs. Allowances would have been made for many of the shortfalls between a game made by a small, independent team and one by a major corporation with abundant resources.

    Totally disagree.
    If they want to compete in the space then they need to be competitive in the product they send out.  Was Valheim made by a huge company? No.  Was their product comparable to that produced by bigger companies?  Yes. 

    Did people buy it because it was made by a small team or because it was a game they wanted to play?

    Is Valheim the standard? No, it is an outlier. It is exception, not the rule.
    It's an example.  Most indie games are simply not good.  This one was.  Thus it thrived.
    It didn't thrive because it was a good indie game.  It thrived because it was a good game that the community enjoyed.


    The only thing it is an example of is exception. There are many good indie games that didn't break out to the same degree.
  • psychicwarspsychicwars Member UncommonPosts: 12
    Of course, any MMO can be fun because of its social nature. Just like you and your friends can get together and enjoy a terrible movie, a community can enjoy a terrible MMO together. So, in that sense, "is it fun" is sometimes not the BEST yardstick. For MMOs, this is difficult to account for; the whole point of these games is the social aspect, and reviewing an MMO based only solo play is not going to be entirely fair.
    And I would say that is something to take in to account when reviewing these indie MMOs especially. Many of them are sandbox games, and some run on private servers from the outset. The community can set the whole gameplay experience in one of these games. MMOs, especially sandbox MMOs, are the biggest case of "mileage may vary".

    That said, how does a reviewer score a game? Well, maybe the best metric is simply, "does it do what it set out to do, and do it well?"

    If an indie MMO sets its goals reasonably, then it should be regarded on its own merits and not "does it stack up against WoW?" But if it sets out to REVOLUTIONIZE THE MMO INDUSTRY and BE THE LAST MMO YOU WILL EVER PLAY then... yeah, give it both barrels in the review.
  • BrainyBrainy Member EpicPosts: 1,459

    The only thing it is an example of is exception. There are many good indie games that didn't break out to the same degree.
    Well I play a ton of indie games, I cant really think of 1 single MMO, RPG or Survival game that I thought was amazingly fun that didn't sell millions of copies.  There are many games that could have been good, but had OBVIOUS fatal design flaws that were rejected by the mass majority of players.

    Even graphics doest kill good games, Valheim, Vampire survivors, Terraria, Rimworld all successes with poor graphics.

    Even indie games with limited content like Subnautica, Vrising do well.  So if you know of an amazing MMO, RPG or Survival game that hasnt broke out, please let me know, because I am always on the lookout for a decent game.

    More likely your definition of what a good game is compared to the rest of the entire playerbase doesn't match up.

    Its way too easy to get your name out there these days, Steam, Epic, MMO Sites all have free advertising.  If a game cant get over 1000 concurrent players after launching its doing something wrong, simple as that.
    Slapshot1188
  • BrainyBrainy Member EpicPosts: 1,459
    Dont get me wrong, I am not saying niche mechanics cannot also be popular, I understand there are a Billion potential gamers.  If you like griefing, or restrict inventory, harsh death mechanics, a game like this can still be popular. 

    Devs needs to realize if they put out a game to a niche population, it needs to be as good or better than other competitors including AAA games otherwise whats the incentive for people to leave thier current game.
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 3,491
    That said, how does a reviewer score a game? Well, maybe the best metric is simply, "does it do what it set out to do, and do it well?"

    Why would I care what a reviewer feels is done well? What I want from reviews is accurate information of what is done. Whether it is well or not is for me to decide based on those facts and my preferences.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 15,886


    Nobody with any sense would hold Embers Adrift to the general standard set by the most successful of MMORPGs. Allowances would have been made for many of the shortfalls between a game made by a small, independent team and one by a major corporation with abundant resources.

    Totally disagree.
    If they want to compete in the space then they need to be competitive in the product they send out.  Was Valheim made by a huge company? No.  Was their product comparable to that produced by bigger companies?  Yes. 

    Did people buy it because it was made by a small team or because it was a game they wanted to play?

    Is Valheim the standard? No, it is an outlier. It is exception, not the rule.
    It's an example.  Most indie games are simply not good.  This one was.  Thus it thrived.
    It didn't thrive because it was a good indie game.  It thrived because it was a good game that the community enjoyed.


    The only thing it is an example of is exception. There are many good indie games that didn't break out to the same degree.
    Because they were not considered good enough by most people.
    This is not a hard concept to grasp.
    When people like something they play it. When they do not like it they do not play it.

    Whether a game is made by 1 person or 1000 has no bearing on whether it is fun or not.
    Brainy

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member RarePosts: 1,175
    edited November 2022
    I think like all things, there are "levels", and those levels are "graded" by their level, not the industry as a whole.

    A Honda and a Ferrari are both cars. Should they be graded the same just because they are both used to commute to work by their owners? Can we complain that one is so much more expensive than the other? Even if they cost the same, could a Ferrari owner complain that his new tires cost $10k and annual service is $3500?... and can the Honda owner complain that he can't go 0-100 in under seven seconds and run the Nürburgring in the mid 7 minute mark?

    I think indie and AAA should be taken into account. There were expectations when Amazon released an MMO that we wouldn't have had for an indie company. Your voice doesn't have a lot of pull with a massive company like Amazon. It could with a small studio with eight employees.

    Because there are different expectations we have with developers and the money they invest in their product, there should be different expectations with the games they release.
    KyleranBrainy
  • BrainyBrainy Member EpicPosts: 1,459
    I think like all things, there are "levels", and those levels are "graded" by their level, not the industry as a whole.

    A Honda and a Ferrari are both cars. Should they be graded the same just because they are both used to commute to work by their owners? Can we complain that one is so much more expensive than the other? Even if they cost the same, could a Ferrari owner complain that his new tires cost $10k and annual service is $3500?... and can the Honda owner complain that he can't go 0-100 in under seven seconds and run the Nürburgring in the mid 7 minute mark?

    I think indie and AAA should be taken into account. There were expectations when Amazon released an MMO that we wouldn't have had for an indie company. Your voice doesn't have a lot of pull with a massive company like Amazon. It could with a small studio with eight employees.

    Because there are different expectations we have with developers and the money they invest in their product, there should be different expectations with the games they release.

    I am confused by your Honda vs Ferrari analogy!  Who exactly is the indie company in this example? 

    Honda is less expensive and makes lower priced cars, but also has much more revenue than Ferrari.

    The car industry divides vehicles into catagory types like, sports, suv, convertible, sedan, mini-van, truck etc...  To my knowledge, how large the company is doesnt get calculated.  Why would it?  If Ferrari makes a sedan then it will be judged within that catagory.  So your analogy seems offbase.

    Games sites also divide games into catagories, like MMO's, RPG, FPS, Strategy, Simulation, Puzzle etc...


  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 3,491


    Nobody with any sense would hold Embers Adrift to the general standard set by the most successful of MMORPGs. Allowances would have been made for many of the shortfalls between a game made by a small, independent team and one by a major corporation with abundant resources.

    Totally disagree.
    If they want to compete in the space then they need to be competitive in the product they send out.  Was Valheim made by a huge company? No.  Was their product comparable to that produced by bigger companies?  Yes. 

    Did people buy it because it was made by a small team or because it was a game they wanted to play?

    Is Valheim the standard? No, it is an outlier. It is exception, not the rule.
    It's an example.  Most indie games are simply not good.  This one was.  Thus it thrived.
    It didn't thrive because it was a good indie game.  It thrived because it was a good game that the community enjoyed.


    The only thing it is an example of is exception. There are many good indie games that didn't break out to the same degree.
    Because they were not considered good enough by most people.
    This is not a hard concept to grasp.
    When people like something they play it. When they do not like it they do not play it.

    Whether a game is made by 1 person or 1000 has no bearing on whether it is fun or not.

    You have no basis for that assumption.

    It may be something not good enough to most people. It may also be something good enough that appeals to less people. Not all genres have an equally broad draw.

    The only direct way for people to determine if they like something is to play it.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 15,886

    You have no basis for that assumption.

    It may be something not good enough to most people. It may also be something good enough that appeals to less people. Not all genres have an equally broad draw.

    The only direct way for people to determine if they like something is to play it.
    LOL.  You literally just used double speak.

    It is "good enough that it appeals to less people."

    Think about that for a bit.

    Look.  At the end of the day, a game is a game.  Whether its indie or AAA or anything else.  An indie game is competing against all the other games out there. 

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 24,846
    Since everyone else seems to be saying that no, they shouldn't be on different scales, I'll take a contrarian tack and say that yes, they should.  AAA games should be on a scale of 3-9, while indie games should be on a scale of 1-10.  Of course, those indie games will pretty much always end up as somewhere in 3-9.
    maskedweasel
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 3,491

    You have no basis for that assumption.

    It may be something not good enough to most people. It may also be something good enough that appeals to less people. Not all genres have an equally broad draw.

    The only direct way for people to determine if they like something is to play it.
    LOL.  You literally just used double speak.

    It is "good enough that it appeals to less people."

    Think about that for a bit.

    Look.  At the end of the day, a game is a game.  Whether its indie or AAA or anything else.  An indie game is competing against all the other games out there. 

    How is it double speak to recognize that good games of genres that appeal to smaller audiences will have less players than good game of genres with broad appeal?

    Perhaps you'd like to think about think about things again.

    Yes, games of the same genre compete against each other regardless of being indie or AAA. There was no contention otherwise, so whatever.
  • BrainyBrainy Member EpicPosts: 1,459

    How is it double speak to recognize that good games of genres that appeal to smaller audiences will have less players than good game of genres with broad appeal?

    Thats not true at all.  Just because a game has a broad appeal does not automatically make them more popular.  Its all about supply and demand.

    Product A:  1 niche game appeals to 1 million potential players, has 9 competitors.

    Product B: Has 10 million potential players, but has 999 clones competing with it.

    Solution:
    Product A has 100,000 average customers per game, vs B has 10,000 average customers per game.


    Also there are other factors, what if the Niche game is the best in its catagory vs the larger game is the worst in its catagory.

    Just look on steam, some of the top selling games are indie Niche games.

    The only thing I would agree with is IF, a product is the Best in its catagory and appeals to potentially more people, it has the chance of being a bigger hit. 
    Slapshot1188
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 24,846
    You have no basis for that assumption.

    It may be something not good enough to most people. It may also be something good enough that appeals to less people. Not all genres have an equally broad draw.

    The only direct way for people to determine if they like something is to play it.
    LOL.  You literally just used double speak.

    It is "good enough that it appeals to less people."

    Think about that for a bit.

    Look.  At the end of the day, a game is a game.  Whether its indie or AAA or anything else.  An indie game is competing against all the other games out there. 
    Different people have different preferences.  A game that does a good job of meeting some relatively unpopular preferences may still be a good game.

    If you can make a game cheaply enough that 0.01% of gamers will gladly pay you $20 for, then you can make good money.  That won't work for an AAA game, however, as it has to target a bigger market.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 17,905
    No, they shouldn't be judged separately. 

    There are many examples of good indie games and there's no good reason to treat the bad ones with kids' gloves.

    One thing has become pretty obvious though: indie studios should stay the hell away from trying to develop MMORPGs and stick to developing  something more modest they can actually handle.
    SplattrSlapshot1188RemaliKyleran
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 15,886
    Quizzical said:
    You have no basis for that assumption.

    It may be something not good enough to most people. It may also be something good enough that appeals to less people. Not all genres have an equally broad draw.

    The only direct way for people to determine if they like something is to play it.
    LOL.  You literally just used double speak.

    It is "good enough that it appeals to less people."

    Think about that for a bit.

    Look.  At the end of the day, a game is a game.  Whether its indie or AAA or anything else.  An indie game is competing against all the other games out there. 
    Different people have different preferences.  A game that does a good job of meeting some relatively unpopular preferences may still be a good game.

    If you can make a game cheaply enough that 0.01% of gamers will gladly pay you $20 for, then you can make good money.  That won't work for an AAA game, however, as it has to target a bigger market.
    As I said, ALL games are competing against each other.  In your example, this indie game is trying to do something better than the other thousands of games.  Maybe it's a unique setting. Maybe it's a mechanic. Maybe it's something else.  But at the end of the day they are still trying to win customers. or at least players (remember not all indie games are even for sale). 
    I do not think any business plan or even hobbyist says "I want to make a product that is inferior to all other products out there. In every aspect of the game".  They all plan and hope to have SOMETHING special which they do better than the competition.

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • RemaliRemali Member RarePosts: 840
    Iselin said:


    One thing has become pretty obvious though: indie studios should stay the hell away from trying to develop MMORPGs and stick to developing  something more modest they can actually handle.
    I agree 100% with this

    Kyleran
Sign In or Register to comment.