I dunno this is sort of hard because a game like AC1 did have features that today would seem revolutionary, such as dodging spells. Even though DDO has had this for years too, most people are simply too ignorant and fanboyish to realize anything.
On the other hand a game like EQ was not actually all that reolutionary in a RPG respect as most stuff existed in the MUDs it was based on and it has been emulated by tons of games including the biggest one on the market.
Sometimes the nostalgia is just that sometimes it has a very good point to it.
The biggest thing with nostalgia is it seems to gloss over all the problem somethings caused. Travel in EQ is one the big ones there, same with corpse runs. Both of which were not invented by EQ of course and were actually toned down compared to many MUDs.
I dunno this is sort of hard because a game like AC1 did have features that today would seem revolutionary, such as dodging spells. Even though DDO has had this for years too, most people are simply too ignorant and fanboyish to realize anything.
On the other hand a game like EQ was not actually all that reolutionary in a RPG respect as most stuff existed in the MUDs it was based on and it has been emulated by tons of games including the biggest one on the market.
Sometimes the nostalgia is just that sometimes it has a very good point to it.
The biggest thing with nostalgia is it seems to gloss over all the problem somethings caused. Travel in EQ is one the big ones there, same with corpse runs. Both of which were not invented by EQ of course and were actually toned down compared to many MUDs.
I'm not sure I understand. Nostalgia makes everything better, it doesn't gloss over any problems. Observe:
What could possibly be wrong with that? See the guy in the background? He looks giddy with innocent glee. Or that may be a murderous glint in his eye... either way, he's enjoying himself.
Surely you can't deny that to go forwards, we must look to the past: sandboxes. Forward is backwards. Similarly, you must spend money in order to save it, but that's a different topic.
- Well, Tom, he wins himself a nice shiny new Ford Mustang, built to dazzle and fall apart in 3 years!
- He sure must be glad he traded in that dependable, slow-moving Honda that has brought him to where he is today!
HEY NOW!
I own a 2001 Mustang. Looks like it just came off the assembly line, and runs like a champ despite having 143,000+ miles on it. No rust either.
The allusion being made to how current cars wear out much faster than the 'dinosaurs' of said industry did/do. But, I'm certain the metaphor wasn't missed, and I'm glad you found humor in it.
Sidenote: for a decade-old car with 143000 miles and no rust... you're a car's dream owner! What do you do to keep it purring at age?
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
What reaspon could it be for a company to make its product more mainstream? profit ofcourse. By making MMo more accessible to masses companies manage to make greater profits then before. Like i said there is a reason why WOW is the king and small companies who make so called niche games (Icarus studio laying half of its staff) are struggling for survivial.
BINGO!!! Dring dring dring!!!
- And what does he win, Fred?
- Well, Tom, he wins himself a nice shiny new Ford Mustang, built to dazzle and fall apart in 3 years!
- He sure must be glad he traded in that dependable, slow-moving Honda that has brought him to where he is today!
Where does profit = quality gaming? Hint: that was a rhetoric.
The primary goal of business, *contrary to popular belief* is NOT to make money. The primary goal of business is to increase the quality of life for both the service provider's employees and the customers, through the act of free trade.
The second a business shifts their crosshairs to the by-product of trade (currency), the trade itself suffers. There are entirely too many past and present-day examples of businesses that fail to understand this, and ultimately fail.
By focusing on profit, quality of product diminishes. Endstate. Feel free to disagree, but myself personally prefer to form opinions based on factual observations, not intrinsic satisfactions.
Piggy-backing this post with today's headlines from US News and World Report:
" Indeed, if you want evidence that there's a problem in business education today, "the financial crisis is Exhibit A," says Judith Samuelson, executive director of the Aspen Institute Business and Society Program. The accusations against business schools are many, but a chief criticism is that educators overwhelmingly focus on short-term profits instead of the long-term consequences of business decisions. "
Odd how seemlessly this applies to market trends inside of MMOs.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
When I was a kid, there were no videogames. We played board games. What's funny is, board games penalized you for making a mistake, or just being unlucky.
Monoploly: "Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200."
Parcheesi: Another player lands on your piece, you go back to start.
Chess: Lose a piece, and you don't get it back unless you can advance a pawn.
I was 7 years old and I accepted that mistakes, and even misfortune, had consequences. But that was part of the challenge. Back then, challenge was fun - not just instant gratification.
But today, if you are even inconvenienced for more than a minute or so you hear the howls about time wasting and lack of fun.
And you wonder why people see this as a "dumbing down." It's not just a dumbing down of videogames. It's a dumbing down of the very concept of games.
ROTFL, and I would add...
Monoploly (1970): "Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200."
Monopoly (2010): "Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Purchase a get-out-of-jail-free card at the cash shop in the courthouse to bypass your incarceration. Collect $200 anyway."
---
Parcheesi (1970): Another player lands on your piece, you go back to start.
Parcheesi (2010): Another player lands on your piece. You activate a temporary 'safe space' that restores you to your former position on the board. This is a limited buff -- You may only do this 1,457 times per game."
---
Chess (1970): Lose a piece, and you don't get it back unless you can advance a pawn.
Chess (2010): "Lose a piece, buy a respec potion and reset your pieces to the way they were at the beginning of the game. You opponent's pieces, however, remain in their current positions."
lol.. Too true.
Many players these days have been conditioned to expect that they should be rewarded for even the most miniscule "achievement"... But don't you *dare* penalize them for making mistakes... that's just *not fair*! It's not fun to have a penalty for making mistakes! You can never reward them for "too much' no matter how minor the 'achievement', but even one meaningful penalty for dying is going too far!
"Games are about having fun, not being challenged!" "Games are about being rewarded!" "Games are about feeling like no matter what you do, you'll always come out the winner!" "Games are about there being no losers!" "Games are about making everyone feel like they're "The Hero"!" "Games are about making sure someone who just started the game can be on equal ground with someone who has played for a year in a fraction of the time!" "Games are about having what you want, when you want it, how you want it because you bought the game and are entitled to it!"... and so on.
If anyone thinks I'm being facetious or using hyperbole in those quotes above... I'm not, sadly. Each of those statements is a paraphrasing of arguments I've seen made by people on these forums over the past few years of "how MMORPGs are supposed to be". Many people - though they'll feign indignity and swear otherwise when called on it - want MMORPGs to be nothing more than watered down success-dispensers where no achievement is too small to warrant a disproporationate reward, but no failure is ever great enough to be penalized beyond a minor "inconvenience" - and many bitch that even an "inconvenience" is too much. They want the proverbial "win button", unconditionally.
This is why the chess/Parcheesi/Monopoly analogy is so dead on. It offers a perfect analogy of the way gamers weened on the post-WoW era of games have been conditioned to think. They've been taught to believe that MMORPGs are supposed to be a reward-fest, and any penalty beyond a slap on the wrist - however big the failure - is unfair. Anything that's more than a minor inconvenience is "game breaking" and sends them howling in outrage at the developers.
And, yes, the difference in playstyle is very obvious to those of us who have experienced it from both sides of the coin. I see *far* more people being careless, sloppy, ignorant and overall completely oblivious to the idea that doing something stupid will get them killed in the typical post-WoW MMO. Why? Because death has no penalty, and so they can literally "fail their way to success". I've said this before... but anytime dying is deemed a convenient mode of travel across entire zones (because there are those who think having to run anywhere *at all* is "unfair!" as well)... theres' something wrong.
That said, I don't need "nostalgia goggles" to see the difference, because the difference can be seen today. MMOs built around the concept of harsher penalties still exist, right along side those that give every player a set of training wheels and safety pads, and line the ground with light, fluffy cushions so 'baby don't get a boo-boo if they fall'. I still prefer the older gameplay model. I don't need to be pampered and treated as though I'm a fragile little snowflake who might fall apart at the slightest penalty. Apparently, many others still agree enough to keep some of those games viable.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Who says that people of all ages and gender and from every aspect of social life did not enjoy old MMOs?
If it was true you would be playing the the new games with same old mechanics instead of posting in 'nostalgia goggles'. MMOs went mainstream for a reason.
Pray-tell, according to *you*, what reason would that be? Objective supporting facts? Casual reminder that substituting quantitative figures as interpretative for qualitative ones is a reasoning blunder. In before that slight of hand is attempted.
What reaspon could it be for a company to make its product more mainstream? profit ofcourse. By making MMo more accessible to masses companies manage to make greater profits then before. Like i said there is a reason why WOW is the king and small companies who make so called niche games (Icarus studio laying half of its staff) are struggling for survivial.
BINGO!!! Dring dring dring!!!
- And what does he win, Fred?
- Well, Tom, he wins himself a nice shiny new Ford Mustang, built to dazzle and fall apart in 3 years!
- He sure must be glad he traded in that dependable, slow-moving Honda that has brought him to where he is today!
Where does profit = quality gaming? Hint: that was a rhetoric.
The primary goal of business, *contrary to popular belief* is NOT to make money. The primary goal of business is to increase the quality of life for both the service provider's employees and the customers, through the act of free trade.
The second a business shifts their crosshairs to the by-product of trade (currency), the trade itself suffers. There are entirely too many past and present-day examples of businesses that fail to understand this, and ultimately fail.
By focusing on profit, quality of product diminishes. Endstate. Feel free to disagree, but myself personally prefer to form opinions based on factual observations, not intrinsic satisfactions.
I disagree. That statement about the primary goal not being to make money is incorrect. If a business can't stay open through an adequate revenue stream, all other goals and considerations are moot. Therefore, the revenue is the primary goal.
Here is one answer to the question of a business's primary goal, relative to an acupuncture business.
"When students and experienced practitioners of acupuncture are asked this question, many answers are given, most of which pivot around a common theme: using the healing arts to help patients get well.
Though these are the benefits of your service, they are not the goal of business. The goal of business in an open market system like the United States is to make money, period. This is how you evaluate the progress of your business -- by the money you make and keep."
I came back to this thread and I will admit that I haven't read every page, but I've read a lot and it seems to me that a lot of people are saying that nostalgia isn't the problem as much as a lack of new games that cater to an older style of play. I think they'd like something that looks shiny and new, but plays a little differently than most of the current offerings.
Can most of us agree that variety is good? Mainstream is great, but havingoptions is better.
There's a possibility that if a company could pull together a decent looking title for a low enough budget that can appeal to this niche market and make a profit, they could have at least a minor hit. And the players would have something new to be nostalgic about a few years after that.
What might that look like? Maybe group oriented play, perhaps a little slower, perhaps with more downtime or a need for a keener grasp of mana/energy/resource management, and so on. You'd probably want a lot more secrets to be figured out, i.e., less information divulged to the player about the underlying mechanics so they either RP around what they don't know or experiment until they have a working hypothesis. (Some people like to figure things out themselves. Shocking, I know.)
Edit: ... On second thought, maybe the problem isn't mainstream vs. niche or old vs. new gameplay styles at all, but just a lack of interesting ideas out there among the people who are supposed to have the ideas. ._.
I came back to this thread and I will admit that I haven't read every page, but I've read a lot and it seems to me that a lot of people are saying that nostalgia isn't the problem as much as a lack of new games that cater to an older style of play. I think they'd like something that looks shiny and new, but plays a little differently than most of the current offerings.
Can most of us agree that variety is good? Mainstream is great, but havingoptions is better.
There's a possibility that if a company could pull together a decent looking title for a low enough budget that can appeal to this niche market and make a profit, they could have at least a minor hit. And the players would have something new to be nostalgic about a few years after that.
What might that look like? Maybe group oriented play, perhaps a little slower, perhaps with more downtime or a need for a keener grasp of mana/energy/resource management, and so on. You'd probably want a lot more secrets to be figured out, i.e., less information divulged to the player about the underlying mechanics so they either RP around what they don't know or experiment until they have a working hypothesis. (Some people like to figure things out themselves. Shocking, I know.)
^^^ THIS.
People may call it nostalgia, but in reality its just a desire for something different. Some of us enjoy being challenged in a way that is different from someone else. Hell, some of us like to take the back roads rather than the highway because we like to take in the surroundings and are not really in any hurry. Just because the highway is quicker with less stops along the way doesn't mean its the better path. Because better is subjective and on a per person basis. And just because more people use the highway than taking the back road doesn't mean the back road has less to offer.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
People may call it nostalgia, but in reality its just a desire for something different. Some of us enjoy being challenged in a way that is different from someone else. Hell, some of us like to take the back roads rather than the highway because we like to take in the surroundings and are not really in any hurry. Just because the highway is quicker with less stops along the way doesn't mean its the better path. Because better is subjective and on a per person basis. And just because more people use the highway than taking the back road doesn't mean the back road has less to offer.
You're more than welcome to desire anything you want, that doesn't obligate anyone to actually produce a game that meets your desires unless you can produce evidence that there is a sizeable market of people willing to pay for such a game. WoW is clear proof that there is a massive market for casual MMOs. Where is your current-day proof that the same exists for old-school gaming enthusiasts.
Until it can be provided, then no matter what you want, it's not going to happen and it shouldn't happen, it would be financial suicide.
I didn't really like the forced grouping, spawn camping and excessive downtime of early MMOs. I don't really think they were good mechanics and i'm not sure they are ever likely to make much of a comeback. What I did like was that those old MMOs had a genuine world feel and the meat of the game was to find your way in that world. It wasn't always convenient. Newer MMOs tend to feel much more like a series of mini-games which happen to be set in a persistent world, as long as that world doesn't get in the way.
There is an instance from vanilla WoW which illustrates perfectly what i'm saying: Blackrock Depths. BRD is a basically a vast, underground dwarven city with quest chains that take you back and forth all over the instance. In short, it's a pain the ass. It takes ages to complete and you can rarely find a group where everybody has the same objectives to complete. But it is also utterly magnificent and very memorable.
Contrast this with the instances found in WoW's expansions which generally follow the formula Trash-Boss-Trash-Boss-Trash-Boss, done in 30 minutes.
To me these represent two totally different styles of gaming. I'm not saying the old style is better and I think it's clear the latter style is much more accessible and popular, but i believe there is room in the genre for both styles and it has nothing to do with nostalgia.
People may call it nostalgia, but in reality its just a desire for something different. Some of us enjoy being challenged in a way that is different from someone else. Hell, some of us like to take the back roads rather than the highway because we like to take in the surroundings and are not really in any hurry. Just because the highway is quicker with less stops along the way doesn't mean its the better path. Because better is subjective and on a per person basis. And just because more people use the highway than taking the back road doesn't mean the back road has less to offer.
You're more than welcome to desire anything you want, that doesn't obligate anyone to actually produce a game that meets your desires unless you can produce evidence that there is a sizeable market of people willing to pay for such a game. WoW is clear proof that there is a massive market for casual MMOs. Where is your current-day proof that the same exists for old-school gaming enthusiasts.
Until it can be provided, then no matter what you want, it's not going to happen and it shouldn't happen, it would be financial suicide.
Actually what WoW shows is that there is a massive market for WoW. Other games that have come out to appeal to this 'Massive Market' are left with subscription numbers that mimic the numbers of these 'old school' games from the past. If the proof points out that the market is all about the casual player, then why don't all these new casual games have higher populations then games from back in the day?
Thing is if any other company made WoW I can bet the game wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of subs it has today. If SOE were to have made World of Everquest (copying every bit of WoW from game design to polish and mass media advertising) and released it (Note with Blizzard never getting into the MMO scene) WoE would likely still run at max 500k subscriptions.
Because again, Blizzard had the installed playerbase of millions of players across all thier games as well as Bnet. Once the game got the attention of the media through news and advertising the rest of the people hoped on like teh Rubicks cube trend of the 80's - everyone just had to have one or feel left out.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Some people just cannot let go and move on. I played all of those games back in their heyday and while I had great times, I'd rather remember them they way they were and not try to revisit them today.
I've tried to go back to UO and DAoC, but its just not the same. The games have changed and so have I.
Im sorry, new member to MMORPG.com, is that you have a new account cause youve pissed people off with your old account or are you new to MMO gaming?
Did you even play any of these older games? Most of the people who talk smack about, "people not being able to let go" are people who in fact never played these games.
It has nothing to do with letting go, it has to do with playing games that are somewhat a challenege, with real consequence. All you new school gamers who entered an industry of clear "pussification" and all you cry babies who don't like to loose your "shiney" new weapon clearly ruined this industry.
What the industry isn't ruined? Games like WoW have millions of subs? Yes youre right, from a business standpoint the industry is doing just fine, but from a challenging game standpoint it clearly sucks. Hell now its so farking easy we have mods that time down to tell us when a boss mob is going to do its special ability? Seriosuly gaming is so easy these days its not even worth playing. Yes... lets all go hold our peckers and mash buttons so just maybe we can get a single piece of gear if we're lucky, and if we're not we'll do it over and over again till we get our full set of poorly designed low poly count gear. Ohhhh even better!!! There will be a new patch next month with even better gear, so we can go grind and grind again to get that even better gear... It all makes alot of sense, like hamsters on a wheel.
Originally posted by Murashu Dismissing other players enjoyment of older games as purely nostalgia has led us to this wonderful age where multiple MMOs are released each month all vying for the same population. Until a modern game comes along that combines todays technology with the features so many of us miss from older games then your claims of nostalgia will remain just an opinion with zero evidence to support it.
Then what do you call it? I'll agree with shae because I'm starting to wonder why there's so much stigma against using this word. If you're looking back and wanting something from past experiences that you feel isn't available today, then thats nostalgia, pure and simple.
-------------------------------------------------- (here's the definition from dictionary.com so we can stop arguing silly semantics) nos·tal·gia noun 1. a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time: a nostalgia for his college days. --------------------------------------------------
You're not any less of an MMO player if you like looking back, but I think what many are saying is that the grass is always going to be greener on the other side. Nothing will ever be like your very first time when it comes to anything and everything.
I think many people here that do point out nostalgia are really just trying to help others by reminding them of this so maybe they wouldn't set themselves up for disappointment and open up to new experiences. I think this openness is crucial because MMO's are probably the most dynamic genre that has ever existed in entertainment to the point where one game from 5 years ago would not be the same game today. To me, this is one of the greatest strengths of MMO's and persistent worlds.
Actually what WoW shows is that there is a massive market for WoW. Other games that have come out to appeal to this 'Massive Market' are left with subscription numbers that mimic the numbers of these 'old school' games from the past. If the proof points out that the market is all about the casual player, then why don't all these new casual games have higher populations then games from back in the day? Thing is if any other company made WoW I can bet the game wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of subs it has today. If SOE were to have made World of Everquest (copying every bit of WoW from game design to polish and mass media advertising) and released it (Note with Blizzard never getting into the MMO scene) WoE would likely still run at max 500k subscriptions. Because again, Blizzard had the installed playerbase of millions of players across all thier games as well as Bnet. Once the game got the attention of the media through news and advertising the rest of the people hoped on like teh Rubicks cube trend of the 80's - everyone just had to have one or feel left out.
I disagree with many points made here. Sure, WoW could be an exception to the rule, but I think the numbers today with other newer games does not resemble the old school MMO's since many people really didn't know about MMO's then, only the nerdy of the nerdy with their hopes and dreams answered in terms of online play and 3d worlds with others.
The true reason why the new games don't have higher populations because they are competing for the same audience at this point and none of them can do it better than WoW. Plain and simple - Blizzard delivers very well, to the victor goes the spoils.
I think you are right about being the first to grab the attention of the general population but by this time, they have already have been breaking records, kicking ass and taking names. The media didn't create their success, Blizzard created their own and the media reported. I don't feel the attention grabbed was to the extreme where people dropped their everything at hand to go out and buy 1.
Let's not forget the other important thing about great business, sure Blizzard did a great job attracting peoople to them, but they also do a great job keeping players there. That's why I don't care how strong anyone's opinions are against WoW, they obviously are still doing things right if they still have many many people playing their game, which cannot be said for many other MMO's.
Actually what WoW shows is that there is a massive market for WoW. Other games that have come out to appeal to this 'Massive Market' are left with subscription numbers that mimic the numbers of these 'old school' games from the past. If the proof points out that the market is all about the casual player, then why don't all these new casual games have higher populations then games from back in the day?
Thing is if any other company made WoW I can bet the game wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of subs it has today. If SOE were to have made World of Everquest (copying every bit of WoW from game design to polish and mass media advertising) and released it (Note with Blizzard never getting into the MMO scene) WoE would likely still run at max 500k subscriptions.
Because again, Blizzard had the installed playerbase of millions of players across all thier games as well as Bnet. Once the game got the attention of the media through news and advertising the rest of the people hoped on like teh Rubicks cube trend of the 80's - everyone just had to have one or feel left out.
The fact is, trying to copy WoW makes no logical sense. People already have WoW. Those people who already like WoW aren't going to leave WoW for something that looks exactly like what hey already had. Those people who are dissatisfied with WoW aren't going to go play a game that looks exactly like something they already don't like. It's no wonder these games fail, their creators are only out for a fast buck, not to attract legitimate customers. If developers want to attract some of the current WoW players, they need to create something significantly different and significantly better than what WoW already is. But that takes time and effort and money, three things nobody seems willing to spend right now.
The fact is, there's plenty of room for improvement in the WoW model if anyone was actually brave enough to take on the task. Virtually nobody is, therefore we keep getting a string of failed copies. The same is true in Hollywood, when a movie comes out that's popular, lots of cheap knock-offs come along trying to steal away some of that money and, almost without exception, they all fail too. Does that prove there's no call for movies?
Actually what WoW shows is that there is a massive market for WoW. Other games that have come out to appeal to this 'Massive Market' are left with subscription numbers that mimic the numbers of these 'old school' games from the past. If the proof points out that the market is all about the casual player, then why don't all these new casual games have higher populations then games from back in the day?
Thing is if any other company made WoW I can bet the game wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of subs it has today. If SOE were to have made World of Everquest (copying every bit of WoW from game design to polish and mass media advertising) and released it (Note with Blizzard never getting into the MMO scene) WoE would likely still run at max 500k subscriptions.
Because again, Blizzard had the installed playerbase of millions of players across all thier games as well as Bnet. Once the game got the attention of the media through news and advertising the rest of the people hoped on like teh Rubicks cube trend of the 80's - everyone just had to have one or feel left out.
The fact is, trying to copy WoW makes no logical sense. People already have WoW. Those people who already like WoW aren't going to leave WoW for something that looks exactly like what hey already had. Those people who are dissatisfied with WoW aren't going to go play a game that looks exactly like something they already don't like. It's no wonder these games fail, their creators are only out for a fast buck, not to attract legitimate customers. If developers want to attract some of the current WoW players, they need to create something significantly different and significantly better than what WoW already is. But that takes time and effort and money, three things nobody seems willing to spend right now.
The fact is, there's plenty of room for improvement in the WoW model if anyone was actually brave enough to take on the task. Virtually nobody is, therefore we keep getting a string of failed copies. The same is true in Hollywood, when a movie comes out that's popular, lots of cheap knock-offs come along trying to steal away some of that money and, almost without exception, they all fail too. Does that prove there's no call for movies?
I think not.
Which just reinforces what I, and a lot of others, have been saying.
We are not asking for the exact same game that was created several years ago. We are asking for the genre to go back to the way it was with development teams trying to make something new and different from the other games currently on the market. Instead we get the same game recycled a hundred times and told we should deal with it because its what the 'masses' want. And for what, maybe 100k to 200k players tops?
What the genre needs is more variation. And your Hollywood analogy again proves a point we have been trying to make. There will always be that one big popular movie that people will make knock offs of. But there are also movies that do just as well due to the fact they are nothing like that movie. There are people in Hollywood that know that playing it safe isn't always the best way to go. And thats what this genre needs again, someone who can think different and try something new.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I think people get caught up in exagerating just how much of the market emulates wow and ignore all the games that don't.
There have been a good number of mmos that have tried their own formulas, but not found large success. Sure there have been some developers that just tried to reskin wow or tack on some new features and expect millions to flock to their doors, but there really has been a number of other games that did their own thing.
There is failure across the board, but somehow only games that try to emulate wow get scrutinized while everything else gets a pass? Is it just hyperbole or do people really not recall other games that were not direct wow clones?
I think people get caught up in exagerating just how much of the market emulates wow and ignore all the games that don't.
There have been a good number of mmos that have tried their own formulas, but not found large success. Sure there have been some developers that just tried to reskin wow or tack on some new features and expect millions to flock to their doors, but there really has been a number of other games that did their own thing.
There is failure across the board, but somehow only games that try to emulate wow get scrutinized while everything else gets a pass? Is it just hyperbole or do people really not recall other games that were not direct wow clones?
This is a fair question, since there have been a number of very non-WoW-like games that have done pretty well for themselves. They might not have active accounts in the millions, but they are doing ok doing their own thing.
I don't think it is a question of whether something is like WoW or not. People immediately jump to "WoW did this, WoW did that" when the topic of "dumbing down" comes up, but I don't think that's necessarily fair. I think it is a general lack of very specific features in polished, subscription-based titles that's got people looking in the rose-colored rear view mirror.
Some people want more mystery. Some people want harsher death penalties. Some people don't even like maps. Some people despise instanced zones of any sort. Some people want grouping to be required for advancement. Some people hate quest-driven games. Some people want a virtual fantasy world, more than a game to beat. There are certainly titles out there that have some desired features or that lack some unwanted features, but there's not much out there that puts a number of these together in an exciting, interesting virtual world that will run on an average computer and not have an item mall. This situation has created a few disgruntled people out there still looking for their next obsession.
I am pretty happy messing around in newer games, and I play item mall games too. I even buy items occasionally. And some of those games actually have some interesting features, even if they don't float everyone's boat. It just seems a shame that some people feel like they've been left on shore without even a boat to float.
no such thing as nostalgia goggles- games just date. That place you want to hang out- just is an ugly eyesore now. Its like playing old retro games- good old PS games that are just horrid to look at now. Same for the 8 and 16 bit games.
no such thing as nostalgia goggles- games just date. That place you want to hang out- just is an ugly eyesore now. Its like playing old retro games- good old PS games that are just horrid to look at now. Same for the 8 and 16 bit games.
I have no trouble at all playing Starcraft now.
Cartoony graphics age much better than those which attempted to look realistic.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
- Well, Tom, he wins himself a nice shiny new Ford Mustang, built to dazzle and fall apart in 3 years!
- He sure must be glad he traded in that dependable, slow-moving Honda that has brought him to where he is today!
Where does profit = quality gaming? Hint: that was a rhetoric.
The primary goal of business, *contrary to popular belief* is NOT to make money. The primary goal of business is to increase the quality of life for both the service provider's employees and the customers, through the act of free trade.
The second a business shifts their crosshairs to the by-product of trade (currency), the trade itself suffers. There are entirely too many past and present-day examples of businesses that fail to understand this, and ultimately fail.
By focusing on profit, quality of product diminishes. Endstate. Feel free to disagree, but myself personally prefer to form opinions based on factual observations, not intrinsic satisfactions.
I disagree. That statement about the primary goal not being to make money is incorrect. If a business can't stay open through an adequate revenue stream, all other goals and considerations are moot. Therefore, the revenue is the primary goal.
Here is one answer to the question of a business's primary goal, relative to an acupuncture business.
"When students and experienced practitioners of acupuncture are asked this question, many answers are given, most of which pivot around a common theme: using the healing arts to help patients get well.
Though these are the benefits of your service, they are not the goal of business. The goal of business in an open market system like the United States is to make money, period. This is how you evaluate the progress of your business -- by the money you make and keep."
Sadly, you missed the post I made following this one.
Business, as a by-product, creates revenue. But one must first understand what revenue symbolizes. What is currency? What defines its value?
The primary goal of business is to offer services, products etc that generate increased wellbeing- again through fair trade.
Approach this from your angle: if the primary goal of business *was* to *make money* then it wouldn't matter *what* you're in business *for*. It doesn't matter what you're peddling, so long as it's making dough. Under this angle, you quickly see how that falls apart. Remember that currency is defined based on what it can purchase, not based on the value that is written on its tender. 100,000USD is nothing. But in a market of free trade, I might be able to purchase a Porsche.
But the person selling the Porsche is not approaching business from the angle of 'make mad cash'. They are arguably interested in delivering the best *PRODUCT* to the market that they are able. Yet, because of this focus, and as a by-product of 'good business', their PRODUCT *generates* cash flow.
This example complete avoids the major, glaring, issue with profit-focused industry: breakdown in ethics. Just because the 'measuring stick' chooses currency as its standard unit, and just because of the reality of maintaining a business involves currency... does not allude in the slightest that it should be the primary focus. When it does become the primary focus, you get beauties like Enron, Schwinn, GM and the like. Less product, more revenue... which ironically leads to more bankrupt.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Which just reinforces what I, and a lot of others, have been saying.
We are not asking for the exact same game that was created several years ago. We are asking for the genre to go back to the way it was with development teams trying to make something new and different from the other games currently on the market. Instead we get the same game recycled a hundred times and told we should deal with it because its what the 'masses' want. And for what, maybe 100k to 200k players tops?
What the genre needs is more variation. And your Hollywood analogy again proves a point we have been trying to make. There will always be that one big popular movie that people will make knock offs of. But there are also movies that do just as well due to the fact they are nothing like that movie. There are people in Hollywood that know that playing it safe isn't always the best way to go. And thats what this genre needs again, someone who can think different and try something new.
I agree that it needs more variation, I'm just saying that MMOs, like any industry, are not going to provide them for you. The exact same complaints you have about MMOs you could make about any media genre. Movies. TV shows. Books. All of them are the same. All of them do the same thing. Expecting any of them to change is just asking for disappointment.
Perhaps the biggest reason for it all is that investors, the people who make any of it possible, aren't gamers and never will be. They just want money. Virtually no game developer has the money required to make an MMO without ouside investors, therefore their hands are tied from the get-go. They have to make the games that the people with the checkbooks want them to make, or make no games at all. Take your pick.
I'm not saying I agree with the system, I'm just pointing out that's the way things are, like it or not. Until you get some independently wealthy game developers who can do what they want and not have to listen to investors at all, what we have today is the best we can hope for.
Which just reinforces what I, and a lot of others, have been saying.
We are not asking for the exact same game that was created several years ago. We are asking for the genre to go back to the way it was with development teams trying to make something new and different from the other games currently on the market. Instead we get the same game recycled a hundred times and told we should deal with it because its what the 'masses' want. And for what, maybe 100k to 200k players tops?
What the genre needs is more variation. And your Hollywood analogy again proves a point we have been trying to make. There will always be that one big popular movie that people will make knock offs of. But there are also movies that do just as well due to the fact they are nothing like that movie. There are people in Hollywood that know that playing it safe isn't always the best way to go. And thats what this genre needs again, someone who can think different and try something new.
I agree that it needs more variation, I'm just saying that MMOs, like any industry, are not going to provide them for you. The exact same complaints you have about MMOs you could make about any media genre. Movies. TV shows. Books. All of them are the same. All of them do the same thing. Expecting any of them to change is just asking for disappointment.
Perhaps the biggest reason for it all is that investors, the people who make any of it possible, aren't gamers and never will be. They just want money. Virtually no game developer has the money required to make an MMO without ouside investors, therefore their hands are tied from the get-go. They have to make the games that the people with the checkbooks want them to make, or make no games at all. Take your pick.
I'm not saying I agree with the system, I'm just pointing out that's the way things are, like it or not. Until you get some independently wealthy game developers who can do what they want and not have to listen to investors at all, what we have today is the best we can hope for.
Cue: Curt Schilling. Runic. ... probably others too. 'The times... they are a'changin'...'
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Cue: Curt Schilling. Runic. ... probably others too. 'The times... they are a'changin'...'
Be sure to let us know when they've actually changed. I'm really tired of people announcing big things are on the way, they never seem to actually arrive.
Be sure to let us know when they've actually changed. I'm really tired of people announcing big things are on the way, they never seem to actually arrive.
Indeed. 38 studios has some great names attached, but I haven't heard anything that tells me that 'Copernicus' will be anything but a darker WoW.
IF it ever gets made.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Comments
I dunno this is sort of hard because a game like AC1 did have features that today would seem revolutionary, such as dodging spells. Even though DDO has had this for years too, most people are simply too ignorant and fanboyish to realize anything.
On the other hand a game like EQ was not actually all that reolutionary in a RPG respect as most stuff existed in the MUDs it was based on and it has been emulated by tons of games including the biggest one on the market.
Sometimes the nostalgia is just that sometimes it has a very good point to it.
The biggest thing with nostalgia is it seems to gloss over all the problem somethings caused. Travel in EQ is one the big ones there, same with corpse runs. Both of which were not invented by EQ of course and were actually toned down compared to many MUDs.
I'm not sure I understand. Nostalgia makes everything better, it doesn't gloss over any problems. Observe:
What could possibly be wrong with that? See the guy in the background? He looks giddy with innocent glee. Or that may be a murderous glint in his eye... either way, he's enjoying himself.
Surely you can't deny that to go forwards, we must look to the past: sandboxes. Forward is backwards. Similarly, you must spend money in order to save it, but that's a different topic.
The allusion being made to how current cars wear out much faster than the 'dinosaurs' of said industry did/do. But, I'm certain the metaphor wasn't missed, and I'm glad you found humor in it.
Sidenote: for a decade-old car with 143000 miles and no rust... you're a car's dream owner! What do you do to keep it purring at age?
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Piggy-backing this post with today's headlines from US News and World Report:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-business-schools/2010/04/15/business-school-teaching-more-than-work-ethic.html
" Indeed, if you want evidence that there's a problem in business education today, "the financial crisis is Exhibit A," says Judith Samuelson, executive director of the Aspen Institute Business and Society Program. The accusations against business schools are many, but a chief criticism is that educators overwhelmingly focus on short-term profits instead of the long-term consequences of business decisions. "
Odd how seemlessly this applies to market trends inside of MMOs.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
lol.. Too true.
Many players these days have been conditioned to expect that they should be rewarded for even the most miniscule "achievement"... But don't you *dare* penalize them for making mistakes... that's just *not fair*! It's not fun to have a penalty for making mistakes! You can never reward them for "too much' no matter how minor the 'achievement', but even one meaningful penalty for dying is going too far!
"Games are about having fun, not being challenged!" "Games are about being rewarded!" "Games are about feeling like no matter what you do, you'll always come out the winner!" "Games are about there being no losers!" "Games are about making everyone feel like they're "The Hero"!" "Games are about making sure someone who just started the game can be on equal ground with someone who has played for a year in a fraction of the time!" "Games are about having what you want, when you want it, how you want it because you bought the game and are entitled to it!"... and so on.
If anyone thinks I'm being facetious or using hyperbole in those quotes above... I'm not, sadly. Each of those statements is a paraphrasing of arguments I've seen made by people on these forums over the past few years of "how MMORPGs are supposed to be". Many people - though they'll feign indignity and swear otherwise when called on it - want MMORPGs to be nothing more than watered down success-dispensers where no achievement is too small to warrant a disproporationate reward, but no failure is ever great enough to be penalized beyond a minor "inconvenience" - and many bitch that even an "inconvenience" is too much. They want the proverbial "win button", unconditionally.
This is why the chess/Parcheesi/Monopoly analogy is so dead on. It offers a perfect analogy of the way gamers weened on the post-WoW era of games have been conditioned to think. They've been taught to believe that MMORPGs are supposed to be a reward-fest, and any penalty beyond a slap on the wrist - however big the failure - is unfair. Anything that's more than a minor inconvenience is "game breaking" and sends them howling in outrage at the developers.
And, yes, the difference in playstyle is very obvious to those of us who have experienced it from both sides of the coin. I see *far* more people being careless, sloppy, ignorant and overall completely oblivious to the idea that doing something stupid will get them killed in the typical post-WoW MMO. Why? Because death has no penalty, and so they can literally "fail their way to success". I've said this before... but anytime dying is deemed a convenient mode of travel across entire zones (because there are those who think having to run anywhere *at all* is "unfair!" as well)... theres' something wrong.
That said, I don't need "nostalgia goggles" to see the difference, because the difference can be seen today. MMOs built around the concept of harsher penalties still exist, right along side those that give every player a set of training wheels and safety pads, and line the ground with light, fluffy cushions so 'baby don't get a boo-boo if they fall'. I still prefer the older gameplay model. I don't need to be pampered and treated as though I'm a fragile little snowflake who might fall apart at the slightest penalty. Apparently, many others still agree enough to keep some of those games viable.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I disagree. That statement about the primary goal not being to make money is incorrect. If a business can't stay open through an adequate revenue stream, all other goals and considerations are moot. Therefore, the revenue is the primary goal.
Here is one answer to the question of a business's primary goal, relative to an acupuncture business.
"When students and experienced practitioners of acupuncture are asked this question, many answers are given, most of which pivot around a common theme: using the healing arts to help patients get well.
Though these are the benefits of your service, they are not the goal of business. The goal of business in an open market system like the United States is to make money, period. This is how you evaluate the progress of your business -- by the money you make and keep."
http://acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=27654
I came back to this thread and I will admit that I haven't read every page, but I've read a lot and it seems to me that a lot of people are saying that nostalgia isn't the problem as much as a lack of new games that cater to an older style of play. I think they'd like something that looks shiny and new, but plays a little differently than most of the current offerings.
Can most of us agree that variety is good? Mainstream is great, but having options is better.
There's a possibility that if a company could pull together a decent looking title for a low enough budget that can appeal to this niche market and make a profit, they could have at least a minor hit. And the players would have something new to be nostalgic about a few years after that.
What might that look like? Maybe group oriented play, perhaps a little slower, perhaps with more downtime or a need for a keener grasp of mana/energy/resource management, and so on. You'd probably want a lot more secrets to be figured out, i.e., less information divulged to the player about the underlying mechanics so they either RP around what they don't know or experiment until they have a working hypothesis. (Some people like to figure things out themselves. Shocking, I know.)
Edit: ... On second thought, maybe the problem isn't mainstream vs. niche or old vs. new gameplay styles at all, but just a lack of interesting ideas out there among the people who are supposed to have the ideas. ._.
^^^ THIS.
People may call it nostalgia, but in reality its just a desire for something different. Some of us enjoy being challenged in a way that is different from someone else. Hell, some of us like to take the back roads rather than the highway because we like to take in the surroundings and are not really in any hurry. Just because the highway is quicker with less stops along the way doesn't mean its the better path. Because better is subjective and on a per person basis. And just because more people use the highway than taking the back road doesn't mean the back road has less to offer.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
You're more than welcome to desire anything you want, that doesn't obligate anyone to actually produce a game that meets your desires unless you can produce evidence that there is a sizeable market of people willing to pay for such a game. WoW is clear proof that there is a massive market for casual MMOs. Where is your current-day proof that the same exists for old-school gaming enthusiasts.
Until it can be provided, then no matter what you want, it's not going to happen and it shouldn't happen, it would be financial suicide.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I didn't really like the forced grouping, spawn camping and excessive downtime of early MMOs. I don't really think they were good mechanics and i'm not sure they are ever likely to make much of a comeback. What I did like was that those old MMOs had a genuine world feel and the meat of the game was to find your way in that world. It wasn't always convenient. Newer MMOs tend to feel much more like a series of mini-games which happen to be set in a persistent world, as long as that world doesn't get in the way.
There is an instance from vanilla WoW which illustrates perfectly what i'm saying: Blackrock Depths. BRD is a basically a vast, underground dwarven city with quest chains that take you back and forth all over the instance. In short, it's a pain the ass. It takes ages to complete and you can rarely find a group where everybody has the same objectives to complete. But it is also utterly magnificent and very memorable.
Contrast this with the instances found in WoW's expansions which generally follow the formula Trash-Boss-Trash-Boss-Trash-Boss, done in 30 minutes.
To me these represent two totally different styles of gaming. I'm not saying the old style is better and I think it's clear the latter style is much more accessible and popular, but i believe there is room in the genre for both styles and it has nothing to do with nostalgia.
Actually what WoW shows is that there is a massive market for WoW. Other games that have come out to appeal to this 'Massive Market' are left with subscription numbers that mimic the numbers of these 'old school' games from the past. If the proof points out that the market is all about the casual player, then why don't all these new casual games have higher populations then games from back in the day?
Thing is if any other company made WoW I can bet the game wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of subs it has today. If SOE were to have made World of Everquest (copying every bit of WoW from game design to polish and mass media advertising) and released it (Note with Blizzard never getting into the MMO scene) WoE would likely still run at max 500k subscriptions.
Because again, Blizzard had the installed playerbase of millions of players across all thier games as well as Bnet. Once the game got the attention of the media through news and advertising the rest of the people hoped on like teh Rubicks cube trend of the 80's - everyone just had to have one or feel left out.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Im sorry, new member to MMORPG.com, is that you have a new account cause youve pissed people off with your old account or are you new to MMO gaming?
Did you even play any of these older games? Most of the people who talk smack about, "people not being able to let go" are people who in fact never played these games.
It has nothing to do with letting go, it has to do with playing games that are somewhat a challenege, with real consequence. All you new school gamers who entered an industry of clear "pussification" and all you cry babies who don't like to loose your "shiney" new weapon clearly ruined this industry.
What the industry isn't ruined? Games like WoW have millions of subs? Yes youre right, from a business standpoint the industry is doing just fine, but from a challenging game standpoint it clearly sucks. Hell now its so farking easy we have mods that time down to tell us when a boss mob is going to do its special ability? Seriosuly gaming is so easy these days its not even worth playing. Yes... lets all go hold our peckers and mash buttons so just maybe we can get a single piece of gear if we're lucky, and if we're not we'll do it over and over again till we get our full set of poorly designed low poly count gear. Ohhhh even better!!! There will be a new patch next month with even better gear, so we can go grind and grind again to get that even better gear... It all makes alot of sense, like hamsters on a wheel.
Then what do you call it? I'll agree with shae because I'm starting to wonder why there's so much stigma against using this word. If you're looking back and wanting something from past experiences that you feel isn't available today, then thats nostalgia, pure and simple.
--------------------------------------------------
(here's the definition from dictionary.com so we can stop arguing silly semantics)
nos·tal·gia
noun
1. a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time: a nostalgia for his college days.
--------------------------------------------------
You're not any less of an MMO player if you like looking back, but I think what many are saying is that the grass is always going to be greener on the other side. Nothing will ever be like your very first time when it comes to anything and everything.
I think many people here that do point out nostalgia are really just trying to help others by reminding them of this so maybe they wouldn't set themselves up for disappointment and open up to new experiences. I think this openness is crucial because MMO's are probably the most dynamic genre that has ever existed in entertainment to the point where one game from 5 years ago would not be the same game today. To me, this is one of the greatest strengths of MMO's and persistent worlds.
I disagree with many points made here. Sure, WoW could be an exception to the rule, but I think the numbers today with other newer games does not resemble the old school MMO's since many people really didn't know about MMO's then, only the nerdy of the nerdy with their hopes and dreams answered in terms of online play and 3d worlds with others.
The true reason why the new games don't have higher populations because they are competing for the same audience at this point and none of them can do it better than WoW. Plain and simple - Blizzard delivers very well, to the victor goes the spoils.
I think you are right about being the first to grab the attention of the general population but by this time, they have already have been breaking records, kicking ass and taking names. The media didn't create their success, Blizzard created their own and the media reported. I don't feel the attention grabbed was to the extreme where people dropped their everything at hand to go out and buy 1.
Let's not forget the other important thing about great business, sure Blizzard did a great job attracting peoople to them, but they also do a great job keeping players there. That's why I don't care how strong anyone's opinions are against WoW, they obviously are still doing things right if they still have many many people playing their game, which cannot be said for many other MMO's.
The fact is, trying to copy WoW makes no logical sense. People already have WoW. Those people who already like WoW aren't going to leave WoW for something that looks exactly like what hey already had. Those people who are dissatisfied with WoW aren't going to go play a game that looks exactly like something they already don't like. It's no wonder these games fail, their creators are only out for a fast buck, not to attract legitimate customers. If developers want to attract some of the current WoW players, they need to create something significantly different and significantly better than what WoW already is. But that takes time and effort and money, three things nobody seems willing to spend right now.
The fact is, there's plenty of room for improvement in the WoW model if anyone was actually brave enough to take on the task. Virtually nobody is, therefore we keep getting a string of failed copies. The same is true in Hollywood, when a movie comes out that's popular, lots of cheap knock-offs come along trying to steal away some of that money and, almost without exception, they all fail too. Does that prove there's no call for movies?
I think not.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Which just reinforces what I, and a lot of others, have been saying.
We are not asking for the exact same game that was created several years ago. We are asking for the genre to go back to the way it was with development teams trying to make something new and different from the other games currently on the market. Instead we get the same game recycled a hundred times and told we should deal with it because its what the 'masses' want. And for what, maybe 100k to 200k players tops?
What the genre needs is more variation. And your Hollywood analogy again proves a point we have been trying to make. There will always be that one big popular movie that people will make knock offs of. But there are also movies that do just as well due to the fact they are nothing like that movie. There are people in Hollywood that know that playing it safe isn't always the best way to go. And thats what this genre needs again, someone who can think different and try something new.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I think people get caught up in exagerating just how much of the market emulates wow and ignore all the games that don't.
There have been a good number of mmos that have tried their own formulas, but not found large success. Sure there have been some developers that just tried to reskin wow or tack on some new features and expect millions to flock to their doors, but there really has been a number of other games that did their own thing.
There is failure across the board, but somehow only games that try to emulate wow get scrutinized while everything else gets a pass? Is it just hyperbole or do people really not recall other games that were not direct wow clones?
This is a fair question, since there have been a number of very non-WoW-like games that have done pretty well for themselves. They might not have active accounts in the millions, but they are doing ok doing their own thing.
I don't think it is a question of whether something is like WoW or not. People immediately jump to "WoW did this, WoW did that" when the topic of "dumbing down" comes up, but I don't think that's necessarily fair. I think it is a general lack of very specific features in polished, subscription-based titles that's got people looking in the rose-colored rear view mirror.
Some people want more mystery. Some people want harsher death penalties. Some people don't even like maps. Some people despise instanced zones of any sort. Some people want grouping to be required for advancement. Some people hate quest-driven games. Some people want a virtual fantasy world, more than a game to beat. There are certainly titles out there that have some desired features or that lack some unwanted features, but there's not much out there that puts a number of these together in an exciting, interesting virtual world that will run on an average computer and not have an item mall. This situation has created a few disgruntled people out there still looking for their next obsession.
I am pretty happy messing around in newer games, and I play item mall games too. I even buy items occasionally. And some of those games actually have some interesting features, even if they don't float everyone's boat. It just seems a shame that some people feel like they've been left on shore without even a boat to float.
no such thing as nostalgia goggles- games just date. That place you want to hang out- just is an ugly eyesore now. Its like playing old retro games- good old PS games that are just horrid to look at now. Same for the 8 and 16 bit games.
I have no trouble at all playing Starcraft now.
Cartoony graphics age much better than those which attempted to look realistic.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Sadly, you missed the post I made following this one.
Business, as a by-product, creates revenue. But one must first understand what revenue symbolizes. What is currency? What defines its value?
The primary goal of business is to offer services, products etc that generate increased wellbeing- again through fair trade.
Approach this from your angle: if the primary goal of business *was* to *make money* then it wouldn't matter *what* you're in business *for*. It doesn't matter what you're peddling, so long as it's making dough. Under this angle, you quickly see how that falls apart. Remember that currency is defined based on what it can purchase, not based on the value that is written on its tender. 100,000USD is nothing. But in a market of free trade, I might be able to purchase a Porsche.
But the person selling the Porsche is not approaching business from the angle of 'make mad cash'. They are arguably interested in delivering the best *PRODUCT* to the market that they are able. Yet, because of this focus, and as a by-product of 'good business', their PRODUCT *generates* cash flow.
This example complete avoids the major, glaring, issue with profit-focused industry: breakdown in ethics. Just because the 'measuring stick' chooses currency as its standard unit, and just because of the reality of maintaining a business involves currency... does not allude in the slightest that it should be the primary focus. When it does become the primary focus, you get beauties like Enron, Schwinn, GM and the like. Less product, more revenue... which ironically leads to more bankrupt.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I agree that it needs more variation, I'm just saying that MMOs, like any industry, are not going to provide them for you. The exact same complaints you have about MMOs you could make about any media genre. Movies. TV shows. Books. All of them are the same. All of them do the same thing. Expecting any of them to change is just asking for disappointment.
Perhaps the biggest reason for it all is that investors, the people who make any of it possible, aren't gamers and never will be. They just want money. Virtually no game developer has the money required to make an MMO without ouside investors, therefore their hands are tied from the get-go. They have to make the games that the people with the checkbooks want them to make, or make no games at all. Take your pick.
I'm not saying I agree with the system, I'm just pointing out that's the way things are, like it or not. Until you get some independently wealthy game developers who can do what they want and not have to listen to investors at all, what we have today is the best we can hope for.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Cue: Curt Schilling. Runic. ... probably others too. 'The times... they are a'changin'...'
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Be sure to let us know when they've actually changed. I'm really tired of people announcing big things are on the way, they never seem to actually arrive.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Indeed. 38 studios has some great names attached, but I haven't heard anything that tells me that 'Copernicus' will be anything but a darker WoW.
IF it ever gets made.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2