To post comments, please login.

Shut Up. We're Talking.
Host: Darren and Karen
Darren and Karen present this commentary podcast covering recent topics found within the MMORPG Blogging and Podcasting community.

Subscribe via iTunes  Subscribe to RSS Feed  


This Podcast Sponsored by:
   Wilhelm2451
   Belo




Help the Collective. Become a supporter or sponsor on the Support Page.
Shut Up! We're Talking #16
Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:58:00 GMT [download/play]



Agenda:
  • Introductions
  • Listener mail/What we're playing
  • Leave it Alone
  • Why Can't they do that?
  • Too many MMOs?
  • The Moments of 2007
  • Blog of the Week

    Hosts:
  • Darren - Commonsensegamer.com
  • Karen - Journeys With Jaye
  • Troy - Wife Aggro Podcast
  • Mark - Channel Massive

    Topics:
  • Anyway Games
  • Random-battle
  • Nerfbat

    Blog of the Week:
  • Mrrx's Gaming Journal

  • Login to post a comment
    Previous Episodes
    Episode #77 - Duration: 2925 - Released: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 06:16:01 +0000
    Episode #76 - Duration: 7730 - Released: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:34:01 +0000
    Episode #75 - Duration: 4659 - Released: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:57:48 +0000
    Episode #74 - Duration: 4071 - Released: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 20:22:45 +0000
    Episode #73 - Duration: 4943 - Released: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 19:41:07 +0000
    Episode #72 - Duration: 4707 - Released: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:28:52 +0000
    Episode #71 - Duration: 3820 - Released: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:39:28 +0000
    Episode #70 - Duration: 4623 - Released: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:51:32 +0000
    Episode #69 - Duration: 4837 - Released: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:07:07 +0000
    Episode #68 - Duration: 01:13:32 - Released: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 15:34:00 GMT
    Episode #67 - Duration: 01:12:09 - Released: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:24:00 GMT
    Episode #66 - Duration: 00:59:30 - Released: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 23:26:00 GMT
    Episode #65 - Duration: 01:23:43 - Released: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:03:00 GMT
    Episode #64 - Duration: - Released: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:51:00 GMT
    Episode #63 - Duration: 01:13:26 - Released: Sun, 16 May 2010 17:52:00 GMT
    Episode #62 - Duration: 01:12:04 - Released: Thu, 6 May 2010 23:28:00 GMT
    Episode #61 - Duration: 01:26:12 - Released: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:26:00 GMT
    Episode #60 - Duration: 01:57:27 - Released: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:34:00 GMT
    Episode #59 - Duration: 01:37:24 - Released: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 03:48:00 GMT
    Episode #58 - Duration: 01:21:01 - Released: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:45:00 GMT
    Episode #57 - Duration: 01:47:46 - Released: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:01:00 GMT
    Episode #56.5 - Duration: 00:02:21 - Released: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:26:00 GMT
    Episode #56 - Duration: 01:01:53 - Released: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:41:00 GMT
    Episode #55 - Duration: 01:16:27 - Released: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:31:00 GMT
    Episode #54 - Duration: 01:14:25 - Released: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:51:00 GMT
    Episode #53 - Duration: 01:31:47 - Released: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 04:12:00 GMT
    Episode #52.5 - Duration: 00:04:12 - Released: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:43:00 GMT
    Episode #52 - Duration: 01:04:24 - Released: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:35:00 GMT
    Episode #51 - Duration: 01:17:30 - Released: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:49:00 GMT
    Episode #50 - Duration: 01:35:33 - Released: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:15:00 GMT
    Episode #49 - Duration: 01:03:31 - Released: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:27:00 GMT
    Episode #48 - Duration: 01:13:44 - Released: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:25:00 GMT
    Episode #47 - Duration: 01:10:07 - Released: Sun, 10 May 2009 21:21:00 GMT
    Episode #46 - Duration: 01:27:11 - Released: Mon, 4 May 2009 02:05:00 GMT
    Episode #45 - Duration: 01:04:36 - Released: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:01:00 GMT
    Episode #44 - Duration: 00:56:47 - Released: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:15:00 GMT
    Episode #43.1 - Duration: 00:18:59 - Released: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:11:00 GMT
    Episode #43 - Duration: 00:59:34 - Released: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:24:00 GMT
    Episode #42 - Duration: 01:11:28 - Released: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:14:00 GMT
    Episode #41 - Duration: 01:06:59 - Released: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:55:00 GMT
    Episode #40.5 - Duration: 00:02:50 - Released: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:48:00 GMT
    Episode #40 - Duration: 01:16:52 - Released: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:45:00 GMT
    Episode #39 - Duration: 01:08:43 - Released: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:01:00 GMT
    Episode #38 - Duration: 00:37:38 - Released: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:49:00 GMT
    Episode #37 - Duration: - Released: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:26:00 GMT
    Episode #36 - Duration: 01:10:59 - Released: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 03:03:00 GMT
    Episode #35 - Duration: 00:49:08 - Released: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:54:00 GMT
    Episode #34 - Duration: 01:08:50 - Released: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:38:00 GMT
    Episode #33 - Duration: 00:58:54 - Released: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:42:00 GMT
    Episode #32 - Duration: 01:03:27 - Released: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:01:00 GMT
    Episode #31 - Duration: 01:05:03 - Released: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:13:00 GMT
    Episode #30 - Duration: 00:59:20 - Released: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:44:00 GMT
    Episode #29 - Duration: 00:28:31 - Released: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:48:00 GMT
    Episode #28 - Duration: 01:09:13 - Released: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:31:00 GMT
    Episode #27 - Duration: 01:14:25 - Released: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 02:42:00 GMT
    Episode #26 - Duration: 01:06:47 - Released: Mon, 19 May 2008 03:10:00 GMT
    Episode #25 - Duration: 01:01:48 - Released: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:46:00 GMT
    Episode #24 - Duration: 00:57:48 - Released: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:00:00 GMT
    Episode #23 - Duration: 00:47:54 - Released: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:05:00 GMT
    Episode #22 - Duration: 01:12:16 - Released: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:54:00 GMT
    Episode #21 - Duration: 01:56:55 - Released: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 05:01:00 GMT
    Episode #20 - Duration: 00:49:01 - Released: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:08:00 GMT
    Episode #19 - Duration: 01:01:05 - Released: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 05:08:00 GMT
    Episode #18 - Duration: 01:08:01 - Released: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:35:00 GMT
    Episode #17 - Duration: 01:36:26 - Released: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 04:07:00 GMT
    Episode #16 - Duration: 01:06:39 - Released: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:58:00 GMT
    Episode #15 - Duration: 01:33:23 - Released: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:24:00 GMT
    Episode #14 - Duration: 01:24:15 - Released: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:47:00 GMT
    Episode #13 - Duration: 01:22:18 - Released: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:30:00 GMT
    Episode #12 - Duration: 01:17:38 - Released: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:55:00 GMT
    Episode #11 - Duration: 01:17:01 - Released: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:30:00 GMT
    Episode #10 - Duration: 01:00:37 - Released: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 03:33:00 GMT
    Episode #9 - Duration: 01:12:13 - Released: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:47:00 GMT
    Episode #8 - Duration: 01:24:35 - Released: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 02:44:00 GMT
    Episode #7 - Duration: 01:11:21 - Released: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:05:00 GMT
    Episode #6 - Duration: 01:10:07 - Released: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:13:00 GMT
    Episode #5 - Duration: 00:58:57 - Released: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:50:00 GMT
    Episode #4 - Duration: 01:13:04 - Released: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 03:52:00 GMT
    Episode #3 - Duration: 01:10:25 - Released: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:20:00 GMT
    Episode #2 - Duration: 01:09:48 - Released: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 05:20:00 GMT
    Episode #1 - Duration: 01:08:21 - Released: Mon, 28 May 2007 02:12:00 GMT

    Episode 16 Discussion Thread

    'SOE compared to CCP.' by Syncaine
    Submitted on 2007-12-26 12:56:29 CST
    I think this came up in a recent podcast, sorry if I'm thinking of something else.

    The whole issue with SOE transferring test characters to live servers, and the backlash from the community. Someone said a while back they are surprised CCP did not catch more crap for the whole boot.ini issue with Trinity, and if SOE did something like that they would be getting flamed left and right. The difference to me then, and even more now, is that that was something rare for CCP, while SOE has a long history of player abuse and missteps. This is only magnified by the fact that CCP offered a legitimate apology and explanation, while SOE almost tried to turn the blame on the player community.

    Bad business, especially from a company who is trying to recover from all the nightmares they created in their past.



    'Too many?' by Token
    Submitted on 2007-12-27 22:54:23 CST
    The too many mmo's topic made me chuckle. It actually sounded like he said he wanted to see less MMO's because they diminish the chances of MMO's being made. *reaches for the co-codomol*

    P.s I love Karen's insights but please do something about her volume and echo's! :D *finishes off the co-codomol*



    'Too many...' by darrenl
    Submitted on 2007-12-28 19:11:14 CST
    Yeah...for some reason Karen's sweet, salutary voice seems to echo the most. I'll work on it the next time I have her on.


    'The explosion of MMOs post-EQ.' by Nosferum
    Submitted on 2007-12-30 09:49:57 CST
    ---My first MMOG was Ultima Online. After UO, I heard about Everquest and Asheron's Call in development. At that time, those were the only three MMOGs in discussion. EQ came out, with AC several months later. Before AC was even out, the list of MMOGs in development ballooned. That's when I first heard of, for example, Project Entropia. Now, the list seems long enough to be silly, but I have to assume it's only because I'm accustomed to playing a genre of games that was once so rare I could count all the games on one hand.

    ---In all this, function variety has only decreased. Consider how different Meridian 59's functions were. UO was different. AC was somewhat different. Hell, A Tale in the Desert was very different. Now, feature list in games all read pretty much the same.

    ---It's a shame to think how many of these are technological and feature steps backwards. Anarchy Online didn't even have full 3D. Now, with full instancing, so many of these games are really just the older style "online" games with glorified lobbies. I remember the developers of AC2 gleefully telling would-be players how they "wouldn't have to" do this anymore, and "you'll never have to deal with" that again. I could see the decline in quality quite clearly, then. Oh, if only Vanguard functioned.



    'The world of carebears, we need a PvP Savior' by Edward78
    Submitted on 2008-01-01 12:24:46 CST
    I was wondering if you guys agree? Anyway why is the MMORPG world so carebare, well really I guess I know the answer. Almost no one wants PvP with any risk to it, look at World of Warcraft, it should be a lot better PvP wise. I remember playing Warcraft games & burning horde villages, that is what war should be. There is Shadowbane, but it is on life support & Eve online, but that is to slow/job like for me. There is a game that is not out yet (Will it ever come out?) Darkfall online, but I have given up hope for that, I have been on the guild closed beta list since Nov. 2005.


    'The world of carebears, we need a PvP Savior' by Edward78
    Submitted on 2008-01-01 12:29:14 CST
    I was wondering if you guys agree? Anyway why is the MMORPG world so carebare, well really I guess I know the answer. Almost no one wants PvP with any risk to it, look at World of Warcraft, it should be a lot better PvP wise. I remember playing Warcraft games & burning horde villages, that is what war should be. There is Shadowbane, but it is on life support & Eve online, but that is to slow/job like for me. There is a game that is not out yet (Will it ever come out?) Darkfall online, but I have given up hope for that, I have been on the guild closed beta list since Nov. 2005.


    '$$$$$' by Wilhelm2451
    Submitted on 2008-01-02 17:10:08 CST
    Why is the MMORPG world so carebear? Because that is where the money is. PvP oriented MMOs allow a small minority of the game population kick the crap out of the vast majority of the population, until that majority gets tired of it a leaves. Not a viable business model in the long run. Then the publisher has to either "sell out" to the carebears or go under. So expect a lot more carebear features and very little in the way of non-consentual PvP going forward.


    'I understand, but' by Edward78
    Submitted on 2008-01-03 10:38:21 CST
    Ya PvE is where the money is, but why can't a MMORPG be both, well More I mean. Look at eve, that has been around for years & still is. When did MMORPGers get so whiney? There was UO way back & it had a good life for 10ish years??? Anyway most devs. are lazy, they take the easiest way out. Just because a majority of players like PvE, lets shut the PvP players out. Why, make a game that has content for everyone. Then there is VG a game where they almost got it right in the PvP part, but it is a sytem that makes no since, in PvE you drop your invetory when you die, but it is unlootable, I assume it is the same in PvP.


    'Shifting baselines.' by Nosferum
    Submitted on 2008-01-03 11:20:47 CST
    ---EVE is relatively popular, but not in the US. If PvPers want to PvP in games, they exist. There are PvP servers on other games, but, generally, the quality of PvP is low (not designed for it). If PvPers want a PvP game, they need to vote with their virtual feet. Until then, the PvP community only shows itself to be a very small minority. That isn't intended as a slur. Developers just tend to not make games for small audiences.

    ---Moreover, I don't think we can look at games past and argue that the game models can be resurrected with the same or greater success. No significant number of players would play a graphically updated UO or Tradewars. We expect different things in games as our experiences vary. Games didn't get "whiney". Wilhelm2451 already explained that the majority of players grew tired of being exploited. Also, as the number of MMOG players grew, the populous of PvPers didn't grow nearly as much as the populous of non-PvPers.

    ---By "VG", do you mean Vanguard? If so, Vanguard was never intended for PvP. If they "got it right", it was almost assuredly by accident. Warhammer Online is coming out with a system very similar to DAoC, but with less PvE content. I think the almost complete eradication of PvP in UO, AC and WoW (games that were designed with PvP in mind, originally) would predict that Warhammer Online will begin with heavy PvP, then either go the way of the dodo or create very popular PvE servers, and patch the game with more and more PvE content.



    'Ok explain...' by Edward78
    Submitted on 2008-01-03 14:50:18 CST
    How was WoW designed with PvP in mind? I played beta & the first time I looked at it, I thought OMG, what happened to warcraft??!! How can a game that looks like this have decent PvP & it didn't you can kill the opisite faction, but what is the point? A time of war & I can't steal inventory from my victim, yawn. Well lets see, can a raid group take over a town in contested territory....no. I loved burning horde villages in warcraft 1, how could they turn WoW into what is is? I admit calling players whiney, might have been to much, but why did they carebear up UO with trammel. Did some of the players post & post on the forum about them nasty pvpers killing them & getting thier epic loot, or did the company just decide to do it on their own? Instead of fixing the exploits they take a few hundred swings with the nerf bat before it is all done. Sorry if I seem harsh, but if you want a PvE only MMORPG, stay with hello kitty online & leave us alone to play our PvP MMORPGs alone.


    'World PvP in WoW.' by Nosferum
    Submitted on 2008-01-03 16:03:48 CST
    ---PvP in WoW was intended for zone contention, and it still exists on PvP servers. The point of PvP in that game appears to have been the zone contention (ie: this zone is more likely to be in Horde control, so they have access to it's dungeons and the loot. If Alliance wants it, they'll have to pay for it with coordination, extra time, and annoyance). The ability to loot one's enemy doesn't really define PvP. That's just one possible aspect (and a very valid one); and the same goes for contended cities. It may have not been the portions of PvP you wanted, but it's still PvP with risk, reward, and real consequences for all players on the server. DAoC made PvP that affected everyone on the server, but not with such major impacts on a disinterested player's time.

    ---I certainly agree that Trammel severely damaged UO. Specifically, it was such a fundamental change to the game that it really ceased to be UO. I really dislike fundamental changes to an existing game, and I think, surely, NGE was a stern warning against such. In the case of UO, they had been losing players without any real MMOG competition. The most common complaints on, at least, the EQStratics forums was exploitation and PvP. Since then, the ability to affect someone else's game experience without their express permission has waned. I actually think that is a bad change. There comes a point where MMOGs have ceased to be Massive, and become just be Online. That's an older and cruder type of game. Hell, these days, WoW is 33% single-player, 33% online (instances), and 33% massive (outdoor zones).



    'You make your bed...' by Wilhelm2451
    Submitted on 2008-01-04 01:59:22 CST
    "Sorry if I seem harsh, but if you want a PvE only MMORPG, stay with hello kitty online & leave us alone to play our PvP MMORPGs alone."

    Are you trying to make some sort of point by exaggerating the PvP'er stereotype Edward?

    What you said is just the problem, people decided that they didn't want to "your" game (how did it become "your" game, btw?) and started leaving. When the company found out why, the decided they would rather make money being "Hello Kitty Online" than lose money catering to the "I can only feel good if I make somebody else feel bad" crowd.

    Griefer MMOs just are not viable from a business perspective. Figure out a way to change that and make some money, otherwise you're just covering ground that has been covered a thousand times before.



    'Make my bed, what do you mean by that?!! ' by Edward78
    Submitted on 2008-01-04 13:15:00 CST
    Yes, my point is the PvE/crafting croup messes what games we have up, like Starwars & yes the imfamous UO Trammel. You tell me why they started out with more PvP then slowly carebeard up? Did people spam the forums with "____ is not fair" posts or did the companies decide to ruin their games with out the posts? Fix the exploits/ban the exploiters don't cater to the PvP haters.


    'How many MMOs have you played?' by Nosferum
    Submitted on 2008-01-04 14:40:48 CST
    ---That you can distinguish UO as a "PvP" game from a "PvE/crafting" game is very odd, considering the game was quite well balanced with all three. Consider how many players spent most of their time crafting, playing checkers with strangers, and collecting items for house decoration. Can games not do more than one thing? Generally speaking, games have only *reduced* the number of features over the years. EQ taught us it's possible to create a successful MMOG with only PvE (crafting existed solely for PvE). Meridian59 was also more than just PvE back in '96. Only a handful of games since '98 have attempted more than just PvE. I saw the reduction of the form of PvP that negatively impacts non-participants before Trammel in UO; it was when Asheron's Call released, having removed the ability to loot players. Trammel came after that, as a far more visible change.

    ---We already explained why UO reduced PvP. I even added examples of other games that did the same, and made a prediction about Warhammer Online. So far, I've had to reiterate my arguments twice, so I recommend you read slower.

    ---I've heard for more than a decade (I've played 13 MMOGs since 1997) about this large body of PvP players (often referred to as "hardcore"), but they've never surfaced. The largest body of PvP players, to date, have been the "optional PvP" sort who participated heavilly in DAoC, and those who like the no-consequences form in WoW's Battlegrounds. EVE players seem to be not only a much more recent populous (created shortly after the game released), but a far more European lot. Those are the only "hardcore" PvPers I see. Still, if PvP players were such a significant force in UO, why was Felucca so deserted? One cannot seperate "open PvP" from the exploitation of those who don't wish to participate.



    'I don't want just a MMORPFG with PvP, just one that doesn't water it down' by Edward78
    Submitted on 2008-01-04 16:25:34 CST
    Shadowbane has the type of PvP I want, but that is all it has really. I am not saying I don't want more, I just want a game that includes PvP with reason to PvP. I don't mind PvE or crafting, infact it makes games interesting. It would have made shadowbane maybe last a bit longer, it is really a freedom issue. Why have a great Pve & crafting game with PvP, but it is lacking? Why can we never have all 3? Almost a decade ago, really ask some people this game called Darkfall online had promise of all 3, then the waiting began. 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, 8 years some people have waited, I have been on a guild's closed beta list since Nov. 05, so I admit, I might have some of that making my blood boil, but come on. Companies that try new things might find out, hey people like this. If no one tried anything new we would still be living in cave prob.


    'I don't want just a MMORPFG with PvP, just one that doesn't water it down' by Edward78
    Submitted on 2008-01-04 16:36:22 CST
    Shadowbane has the type of PvP I want, but that is all it has really. I am not saying I don't want more, I just want a game that includes PvP with reason to PvP. I don't mind PvE or crafting, infact it makes games interesting. It would have made shadowbane maybe last a bit longer, it is really a freedom issue. Why have a great Pve & crafting game with PvP, but it is lacking? Why can we never have all 3? Almost a decade ago, really ask some people this game called Darkfall online had promise of all 3, then the waiting began. 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, 8 years some people have waited, I have been on a guild's closed beta list since Nov. 05, so I admit, I might have some of that making my blood boil, but come on. Companies that try new things might find out, hey people like this. If no one tried anything new we would still be living in cave prob.


    'Darkfall Online.' by Nosferum
    Submitted on 2008-01-04 18:14:50 CST
    ---I recall the vast majority of the MMO gaming community declaring Darkfall Online vaporware several years ago. When I read the features of Darkfall Online years ago, I was reminded of Dawn. I doubt anyone here remembers Dawn, so I'll explain the connection. Dawn had only one producer, who was also the one community relations manager. The features list when the game was announced read like a gamer's dream list. Any skeptic (thank Thor for skeptics) would read it as a pipe dream. Whenever would-be players asked on a forum, "is X possible in your game?", the developer said, "yes", no matter how silly the question.

    ---I truly don't see any major MMOG coming out that will resurrect the PvP of attacking players who don't want to be attacked. EVE exists largely because it's almost exclusively PvP, it has virtually no competition, and it's almost only popular in Europe. Moreover, it has only one server, no instancing, and is built on entirely different technology. Don't get me wrong, though. I consider EVE incredibly boring. EVE may seem like the antithesis of A Tale in the Desert, but they both use the same philosophy.



    'I am sinking in the carebear sea...' by Edward78
    Submitted on 2008-01-08 11:57:06 CST
    I am going mad, I am looking for a PvP fix. There is shadowbane, the PvP/seige system is great, but besides that, well accept charecter customization, the game is in a sad state. There is EvE, the freedom is great, but I just can't have fun in it, I tried. So if there is any worthy games out tell me, I am playing City of Villains 15 day trial now, that is how desperate I am.