Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
I don't believe you can have a widely social game with these power gaps.
Amaranthar
Member EpicPosts: 5,797
This is driving me buggy, and it has for a long time before this recent contention of "old school" games going on.
I don't believ you can have a widely social game when you also have the sorts of power gaps that come with the level grinds that have dominated game design since Ultima Online.
I see people talking about EQ, AC, SWG, DAoC, and Vanguard in this context. Now, many are talking about something different as far as "old school", and talking about the way games were harder as opposed to the ease of instant instances and that sort of thing. I understand that point and think it's valid. But I also see a lot of people saying that these old school games were more social, and I see very minimal validation there.
When you have games designed around levels, with power gaps to make levels the most important factor in your game play, the most exciting thing to accomplish (and all of these games had that), then you divide the player base by leveled content. That's a fact, there's no way around that fact. You have to stick to content that fits into your own level group, and you have to play with players who are in the same level group as you or go solo.
How can anyone think that this is a "social" environment? How can anyone see this as either "Worldly" or "Sandbox"?
And this is why I think some of these games didn't draw large numbers as expected. If you're going to have the power gaps, and the excitement of very noticeable boosts every time you level up, then you have a level grind game, and you're best off going all the way with that (like WoW did). Because the social aspects are limited because of this designed division of the player base, and therefore simply will not work well at all, by and large. There's always small pockets of exceptions, but that's not enough.
And I would propose to you all that small boosts in power in a game where that's the norm is just as exciting as large boosts in games where that's the norm. And then you can also add a wide range of social aspects, from economics/trade to politics/governement to real fame/glory for accomplishments.
Once upon a time....
Comments
And you have completely missed the point of a sandbox. Themeparks are a linear progression along a predefined route designed by the devs and in this context you are correct; hence the lack of any real community spirit in themepark games. A sandbox is a persistent world where character level is not the be all and end all of the game. You make of it what you will. In SWG for instance some players spent their entire playing time entertaining other players in the cantinas or tending to their wounds in the medical centres. Other players spent their time crafting and running their own shops etc. People needed these services and it bred a community spirit. Hope that helps clarify things a little; a lot more to it of course but I'm not writing a book here.
Strange reply. You can't have a Sandbox when the content is divided by level groupings.
In SWG the players who spent their time in cantinas or medical centers did so mostly because they were level grinding for themselves. Is that truly "social"? What kind of social grouping was created by that? How many people even remembered another's name? Sure, it happened and some friendships were made, but that was not the norm.
Carfting and running their own shop? Great, yes, and how often did anyone remember or even meet the other person? Again, a little, but hardly the norm.
Every village or town I ran across, and went back to to look for new items on the vendors, I met no one at all. No one. Of course, I didn't play it for very long, so.....
On the other hande, in UO, the "villages" or "towns" created by players usually had at least someone there, and when they met for guild events there were a lot of players there. Because they all participated together, and weren't divided...just as I explained.
And your reply shows exactly the difficulty I've had getting this point accross over quite a few years now. Honestly, I don't think most of you players really want "Sandbox", nor social viability. You just want a few people to play with and call that "good enough". Which is fine if that's all you want. But that doesn't change my point, you know.
Once upon a time....
You miss how? How is a cross server, insta LFG dungeon tool, that will pair you with people that aren't even on your server a positive social tool? In games like EQ, you acted like a jerk, ninja looted something, or were a horrible player, people put the word out.....Now...you get to LFG tool around and be a tool to everyone!
SWG wasn't level based before CU/NGE...It was skill based and a new person could go out with others.
Level content is fine, you have tons of other people your level to play with, people make alts...etc....As for WoW references, I don't get em...I only played beta and didn't like it.
doesn't sound like you played SWG pre CU there was alot more people and no level's and we had to go to the cantina or to a doc to get buffs or cure battle fatigue and sit around and chat. It was very social. There was whole guilds of people who just went touring doing dance and music shows and held like concerts and stuff.
Yes never met alot of the vendors but I had a favourite tailer AS WS etc and I was good friends with all of them and used to speak often and they had rights to my house and would just go to my house to drop stuff off or take stuff as they pleased
The reason alot of us say these older games were more social has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game in a themepark / sandbox respect. They were more social because the player base back then was alot smaller, we KNEW most of the people on our servers and there was none of this re-naming and character transfer crap thats abundant these days.
The result of this was that your reputation was EVERYTHING in these games. If you were a dick the whole server knew it and since the games required group cooperation at the higher levels you limited your own progression. You could'ent pay $20 and get a new name of server so the most important attribute your character carried was not thier gear, or level, or guild .. it was thier personal reputation. You would'ent find it on any character sheet but trust me it was there.
These days there are no ramifications for being a dick in there games, annonimaty is king. $20 buys you a clean slate meh.
See, each one of you don't "get it". How many times did you log on and go to a specific place just to meet up with friends to see what you could find to do? To talk about what's happening in the game world?
I have no doubts that each of you can reply with a "yes". But my entire point is that that was not the norm in SWG or any of the other games. At least after the game was established. One of you (sorry, should have made note of your name) made the comment that I must not have played early on. And that is true. I started SWG after a few months of release, but it was before the changes. If players acted that way in the beginning, they didn't anymore by the time I got there. And again, that's my point. The game's design, whether they called it "levels" or not, had the level gaps. Heck, they had levels of mats to go with it. That does not foster "Sandbox", it fosters level grind. And it divides the player base. And that's anti-social for most of the game, whether a few of you played socially or not. What you did wasn't the norm, because the norm was playing for level gaps, and that was by design.
Once upon a time....
Your missing the basic resons why it was "social" in EQ just about everywhere that was best to lvl up took a group and the paceing was slower becose of waiting for respawns or mana. becose you where gona be there with the same people for a few hours at a time people actualy talked and helped each other.
Now days if you group its for 5 min to do a quest people dont even ask if they wana do it they just throw up an invite and charge the mob.
In PvP, I fully agree that large power disparities are unnecessary and are counter productive to a game's social system. It limits participation in something that should involve as many players as possible.
In PvE though, giving new players the power to complete end game content would result in new players completing end game content and skipping everything else in the game. Not everyone, but enough people would to make the 'leveling' content useless. Giving players the power to complete end game content, but then telling them they can't do it is even worse than making them earn the power to do end game content by playing the rest of the game.
If you remove character progression, so that there is no 'leveling' and 'end game' content, you remove a large part of the reason for actually playing the content. It's easy to say, "Well, make the content fun and people would do it", but much harder to actually do this in practice. A large part of the fun is your character's progress...denoted by their level or location in a game. It's not just a core feature of games either. In television, movies and books, characters progress...get more powerful or more knowledgeable. If nothing else, they get more good or evil. I'm not sure you can remove 'progression' or 'power level' and still have a game.
Are there examples of games (mmorpg or not) where there is no power level?
** edit **
Other than PvP, I don't think adjusting the relative power levels would have any impact, because the content would likely still be gated. A level '10' character wouldn't enter a level '20' dungeon.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Is that a good way to foster real social interaction? Being forced to wait in line to play the game?
By the way, that was the primary reason WoW went to instanced content. There were many, many complaints about having to wait like that. And then having a guild of self centered jerks come along and not wait their turn.
Once upon a time....
First off, let me quote my last comment from the OP....
"And I would propose to you all that small boosts in power in a game where that's the norm is just as exciting as large boosts in games where that's the norm. And then you can also add a wide range of social aspects, from economics/trade to politics/governement to real fame/glory for accomplishments."
So I'm not talking about removing it. I'm talking about keeping it much closer so that players aren't divided into groups, and can mostly play together. Sure, newbs and elite will always have quite a difference, but players don't stay newbs for long and under this sort of system, elites are valuable to all the other players for what they can offer, which still isn't guaranteed success.
But again, you are another who doesn't quite get what I'm pointing out. You think that it's viable in PvP but not in PvE? When the entire point I'm making is that players are divided to different sections of the game because of these power gaps? That means they are divided on PvE content. It means that guild mates need more than their guild, they need a sub-set of players in their own level grouping. And when that starts to fall apart, so does their social group.
Once upon a time....
Yes actualy it is im not talking about some far off dungen where people are fighting over mobs im talking about just about any zone in the game. Yes you could kill these mobs solo but takeing 5 min to get group up(and yes it rarely took longer then that) you would get a little better xp and you "get" to be in a group.
Grouping back then was why I played i didnt care about lvling up in fact i never hit cap i played for around 2 years and just kept makeing new classes. When you played there wasnt this theres nothing to do untell i hit cap its wow there some interesting mobs over here lets find some people and see if we can kill it. That is whats gone from games today actualy "wanting" to get a group to just mess around if you where to try people would just lol or ignore you.
And still you don't get it. Ok, you made all these friends and had great social interaction. Then you did it again. And again. How deep was that social interaction again?
Once upon a time....
How do you define "social"? If you mean chatting in local leveling hubs or grouping up then it's easy to agree that the difference in lvls sparates you from other players that are not in your range. But not all player interaction has to be limited by your (adventuring) level.
I'm not sure i got the OP right, but one thing is sure, i stop playing few mmo, especially hardcore themepark with heavy group leveling, simply because my best friends over or under leveled me and i had none else but random parties. It was a complain before Wow and fast leveling kicks in for sure. It is still a complain today because people want to be able to play together without any artificial limit imposed to them.
For me only one game managed the power gap correctly, it was UO. And it was not due to the fact its a sandbox or because its old school, but because UO had a very unique way to manage character power. All the character had a very small hp pool that you had to compensate with your healing if you wanted to be alive. So 1er everyone was in the same boat. Second your player ability dictated your character survivability. It was very unique, i don't thing a single mmo looked at character power the same way. They are all about the traditional ad&d way of raising your hp pool to stupidly high number as your character take levels. Your character in ad&d is like becoming a semi-god or whatever. Richard Garriot was against the idea and wanted the character to be more "human", that mean weak but smart. I wish we had more of this kind of guy behind our modern mmos.
And yes i think UO was a lot more social and anti social at the same time. Definitely, one of the reason is the power gap, but that's not the only reason for sure, just one of them.
"And I would propose to you all that small boosts in power in a game where that's the norm is just as exciting as large boosts in games where that's the norm. And then you can also add a wide range of social aspects, from economics/trade to politics/governement to real fame/glory for accomplishments."
So I'm not talking about removing it. I'm talking about keeping it much closer so that players aren't divided into groups, and can mostly play together. Sure, newbs and elite will always have quite a difference, but players don't stay newbs for long and under this sort of system, elites are valuable to all the other players for what they can offer, which still isn't guaranteed success.
But again, you are another who doesn't quite get what I'm pointing out. You think that it's viable in PvP but not in PvE? When the entire point I'm making is that players are divided to different sections of the game because of these power gaps? That means they are divided on PvE content. It means that guild mates need more than their guild, they need a sub-set of players in their own level grouping. And when that starts to fall apart, so does their social group.
It makes sense in PvP because participation is very much limited by the relative power levels of the players. Reduce or remove that power disparity, and you'll get more players fighting against each other because they aren't limited by their relative power levels.
In PvE, players will move on to new content regardless of relative power levels. There's just a limited amount of content available and once you're finished with it, you're just farming mobs or other resources that new players to the area probably need. This is going to be true no matter what.
The only thing stopping older players from helping newer players is the older players. They aren't going to want to run content they've already run, even if they get xp for it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If you want players to socialize in a game, then you have to take away the heavy pressure of "you should stop socializing because you need to go grind levels in this or that or you'll fall behind".
So....the social interaction he enjoyed is not "deep"? All because he disagrees with you?
Not only was the player base much smaller, but these games appealed to a single niche audience, the majority of people on the server had the same outlook, the same goals and the same life experience. Today, you have dozens of different groups of people, each with their own "community", each wanting different things out of the game, etc. It's no wonder there isn't a single, cohesive community, there isn't a single type of player running around in the game. Everyone ran with the same group, thus people who were dicks in that group all knew about it. Today, you just rename the character, create an alt, or switch groups and you can do whatever you want.
That's the reality of MMO play today, people need to stop living in the past and just deal with today's reality, like it or 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
No, I think maybe I said it wasn't deep because there was no depth to it. He was grouping with strangers, and doing it over and over again.
If you call that deep, or social at all, I can probably find you a mannequin to date. It's strange that the world has so many complete idiots in it. How did this happen? Did baboons somehow get mistaken for children at some point?
This is why MMORPGs are becoming so lame. There's too many baboons with money to spend and playing them.
Once upon a time....
As I stated in another thread, "Depth" is a buzzword with no real meaning that varies from person to person. Basically if you like a game, it has depth. If you don't, it doesn't, or not as much.
Face it, the game was deep to some people and not to others. The "Depth" as you call it is completely defined by: 1. what you did during that social interaction. and 2. partially by what you talked about.
What we call deep social interaction in the real world is really just two people that like each other talking. They can talk about significant life changing things (now we call it deep) or minor day-day things, and we don't call that deep.
So how "Deep" a game is depends entirely on your definition, and what you did.
Personally I thought SWG was the most god-awful, bug filled game I've ever played. So so boring. About has deep as a puddle that coudln't drown a worm.
Venge
edit - however my brother loved it. Played it for years and made his own little city. Too each their own.
Well, see, "deep" means something (it's in the dictionary). And in this particular instance, I'm talking about deep social interaction. Ir at least, something more than a casual meet, where people play together on a consistent basis and work together for goals, in an ongoing fashion involved in the game.
Guilds in todays games offer very little. They could, but since players get divided even as they play because they don't often play the same amount, guilds also don't generally work. The social aspect of these "massively multiplayer" games is almost nil when it should be a big part of MMORPGs. Otherwise, it's played just like a Single Player game with multiplayer functionality, which they are, which just shows my point.
Once upon a time....
OP
you forget that a lot of these newer post wow games, while you may quickly get to max level have a whole load of hiden "levels" beyond that. You only get to play with people in your raid teir or arena bracket.
Also these newer games, particularly the likes of wow and rift - aree glorified loby games once you reach "end game", everyone is sat in cities queueing to go to an instance.
Yes, you're right. That's the ultimate fate of any social interactions in such games.
Not only do you have:
player division by level groupings and zoning
changing player division because of players playing different amounts of time, thus breaking up any social groupings that tried to form
and then as you bring up
End game that puts the final nails in the coffin for social interaction. Except, of course, for the raids themselves. But you don't even need to know those other character's names, once you set up your friends list and all that. I mean, who cares as long as they have the right class and perform their spcified duties according to Sir Hoyle.
Once upon a time....
Yes deep does have a definition, and your right is in the dictionary however when being used as an expression of something profound it is very very subjective. And actually the miriam webster does not even list this as a meaning other than to say "intensely engrossed or immersed... a feeling ofquality, grave in nature.
Those are all completely subjective so my point still stands. You can interact with people extremely well in WoW, in Lotro, in EQ, in Istaria, in CoH. It depends on you and what you choose to do.
If you choose to play like a single player game than it is, ifyou choose to go out and meet lots of people become heavily involved in whatever guilds, you still can. Yes you still can even make a name for yourself. It all depends on you. Guilds today offer just as much as guilds before. Some sucked some are good, some do a lot together some do a little. No difference.
The social aspect is just as much there as it was before in most (not all) games. You determine how social you choose to be. The people are there, they are not hard to find. You do it.
Venge
You can say that all you want. You can practice that all you want. But if the other players are not being widely social, you can't change that by your actions.
It's not a question of whether players want it or not, when a game offers a design that doesn't do anything for social interactions beyond "yes, there's other players here" then you won't get it from other players as a whole. Even if those other players want it. Because players, generally speaking, are not going to go out of their way to create something that a game doesn't support.
I mean, if you like t-bone steaks, you don't go to McDonalds and take a meat patty off the bun and place some fries in a "T" on top of it and say "you can make of it what you want."
Well...you can. But other people aren't going to play along.
And no, the social aspect is not there in these modern MMORPGs. As I've explained above. It's sad that most of the replies here don't even understand what's missing, how "social" is almost nil in these games.
Once upon a time....