this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
134 points (96.5% liked)

Games

33505 readers
467 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Horizon the robot dinosaur game, not Forza Horizon the racing game in case anyone was confused like me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] illi@lemm.ee 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Point was Warcraft was primarily single player RTS. Yes, with multiplayer mode but MMORPG is pretty big genre shift. In the end, it's just about using the IP, nothing more.

You gave examples of games that tried something like this that failed, I just pointed out an example where it was quite successful.

We will never know if the Horizon MMO would be good or bad. I think the IP would fit MMO genre quite well tbh.

The real issue with live service game failiures is that studios design cash grabs, not games they would want to play.

[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Oh, I didn't mean this-therefore-that ... I was trying to say that these two games in my experience having enjoyed the single-player, I think would have failed in the multiplayer realm as the desire doesn't seem to be there. I'm certain there are examples in the opposite direction.

The IP "could" make sense as the gameplay goes for a very fetch questy type of mechanic and the land is vast and they could expand the lore.

I was just assuming (out of my ass) that these successful single-player story driven games are "forced" to do multiplayer games for cash grabs.

Albeit Blizzard did it for WarCraft, but I always saw Blizzard differently in this regard as it seemed like they had (very much past tense) the desire to do so.

Once again, all assumptions. I'm wrong, often am.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Quality isn't necessarily measured by desire. One can enjoy something they never desired before it existed. And one can loathe something they always desired before it was made, see the Warcraft movie (for me, at least).

[–] illi@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Might have been a cash grab - in fact it likely was. But I tend to reserve my judgement. I'm not on the live service hate train - in fact I'm often interested in what they might have on offer. I like to have a main game, and live service games are great for people like me as there is always something to look forward to. And I for one fucking hate the constant cach grab fails.

People always hate on live service games just because of the label, but there is serious lack of good live service games compared to good single player games.

My comment migh've come partyl from a place of frustration so apologies if I was harsh or something

[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

lol no worries, my comment came off as arrogant so it'd be deserved. Reserving judgment is good and something I some practice more as well.