Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

MMO's are no longer "Worlds"

123578

Comments

  • MaelwyddMaelwydd CrawleyPosts: 1,123Member
    Originally posted by Scot

    We live in societies which are increasingly accomplished in both science and technology. I wish I could say the same for the average person. This film satirises where we seem to be heading and was rather good:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk

    I love that film and the scary part is, I see the effects all around me. I don't claim to be the smartest guy around and if that is true then damn me but there are a lot of really stupid people!

    Point being, while not 100% accurate, generally speaking dumbed down games will appeal to people who are dumb a lot more then games that are created with more complexity. It isn't a hard rule, but it a growing trend that as games are dumbed down (i.e. the mechanics are simplified) then a broader, and by definition, dumber audiance is attracted.

    That doesn't mean if you play one of these dumbed down games you are dumb, but it might be worth asking the question...

  • aattssaattss Hello, GAPosts: 40Member

    I agree with the OP. I remember when I played Warcraft 3, there was a custom map called Titan's Land or whatever where one player was invincible and able to do an amazing amount of things to foster roleplay. I suspect that the first step to reaching the ideal MMORPG would be to increase focus on inter-player interactions.

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by Maelwydd

     

    I love that film and the scary part is, I see the effects all around me. I don't claim to be the smartest guy around and if that is true then damn me but there are a lot of really stupid people!

    Point being, while not 100% accurate, generally speaking dumbed down games will appeal to people who are dumb a lot more then games that are created with more complexity. It isn't a hard rule, but it a growing trend that as games are dumbed down (i.e. the mechanics are simplified) then a broader, and by definition, dumber audiance is attracted.

    That doesn't mean if you play one of these dumbed down games you are dumb, but it might be worth asking the question...

    So essentially, you think to be of 'superior intellect' because you play a more 'complex' VIDEO GAME.

    Oh the irony....

    I personally don't care whether the game is a 'world' or not, as long as it is fun.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Maelwydd

     

    I love that film and the scary part is, I see the effects all around me. I don't claim to be the smartest guy around and if that is true then damn me but there are a lot of really stupid people!

    Point being, while not 100% accurate, generally speaking dumbed down games will appeal to people who are dumb a lot more then games that are created with more complexity. It isn't a hard rule, but it a growing trend that as games are dumbed down (i.e. the mechanics are simplified) then a broader, and by definition, dumber audiance is attracted.

    That doesn't mean if you play one of these dumbed down games you are dumb, but it might be worth asking the question...

    So essentially, you think to be of 'superior intellect' because you play a more 'complex' VIDEO GAME.

    Oh the irony....

    I personally don't care whether the game is a 'world' or not, as long as it is fun.

    I agree. I don't play games to show-off/train intellect. I do it for fun. Intellect i use for work.

     

  • CianoCiano Not telling, HIPosts: 34Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Ciano

     

    I called people willing idiots. This was not a reference to their intelligence. It was a reference to their willingness to buy into revolving doors games that are shallow, lack complexity, rely on gerbil wheel or treadmill advancement, and dumb down player interaction to instanced qeue based gameplay.

    That is just putting people down to feel superior. So what if those games lack complexity .. if they are fun, and serve the purpose to kill some time.

    Calling people names just because they play certain kind of games?

     

    No it's a description of the behavior. Getting wrapped up in the way I choose to convey the picture seems to be an issue you can't get past.

    Many of these people find these games fun because they don't know any better. They refuse to try any other type of gameplay because it's all they know. Significant numbers of them were brought into MMO's during the Treadmill era. None of them know what it's like to play an immersion based MMO. Most of us that grew up with immersion based MMO's at least have tried the Treadmill MMO and a great many of us have dismissed them as being boring. 

    I can't tell you how many times I've tried to get people to play an immersion based MMO and it's usually the same excuses. They are afraid of open world pvp, they are afraid of full loot rules, they don't want other player's decisions to affect them, the graphics are not the latest things, it's too complex, there is are no instances, there are no battlegrounds. My god man I don't know how MMO's ever existed before WOW the way these people talk.

    The bottom line is they are willingly ignorant because they are afraid to try somthing different. It's not a matter of superiority. It's a matter of their behavior indicating that they would rather go on completely ignorant of other options out there that just might be better than what they are playing. If more people were willing to drop the instant-gratification gameplay and give some of the old style MMO's a chance, a major company might actually come along and produce a decent product along that style of MMO.

    I liken this arguement to an American trying to convince someone in the jungles of Africa that an American town is better than a treehouse. The guy in the treehouse doesn't know anything else and is unwilling to leave the jungle to find out. That is willing ignorance. If you want to get insulted and label it ethnocentrism as means of attacking my position then be my guest.

    If it makes you feel good to dismiss my arguments because you feel I am some sort of elitist prick then be my guest. It really doesn't affect me any more than this thread will change the world of MMO gaming.

  • CianoCiano Not telling, HIPosts: 34Member
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Maelwydd

     

    I love that film and the scary part is, I see the effects all around me. I don't claim to be the smartest guy around and if that is true then damn me but there are a lot of really stupid people!

    Point being, while not 100% accurate, generally speaking dumbed down games will appeal to people who are dumb a lot more then games that are created with more complexity. It isn't a hard rule, but it a growing trend that as games are dumbed down (i.e. the mechanics are simplified) then a broader, and by definition, dumber audiance is attracted.

    That doesn't mean if you play one of these dumbed down games you are dumb, but it might be worth asking the question...

    So essentially, you think to be of 'superior intellect' because you play a more 'complex' VIDEO GAME.

    Oh the irony....

    I personally don't care whether the game is a 'world' or not, as long as it is fun.

    That would actually only be ironic if you have definitive proof that people who play complex video games were all literal idiots......

    In any event that isn't what he is saying. The more you generalize somthing to appeal to a broader audience, the lower the average quality of the final result will be. This is universally true except in cases where you selectively include only objects of high quality in your intended group to maintain a high average in the finished product.

    Based on that assumption, the more you simplify a game to appeal to a broader section of the population, then generally it means that it is effectively "dumbed down" to appeal to less complex or less intelligent people. However you want to define that is argueable.

    What he DID SAY was that by virtue of challenge or complexity those games will generally appeal to more intelligent people. How you define intelligence is debatable and probably not somthing any of us are qualified to do here.

    What he did NOT SAY was that he believe he was superior to anyone who plays simple games by virtue of him playing a more complex game.

    It would require a scientific study to prove anything to this effect but I would be willing to say the following:

    Intelligent individuals can enjoy simple games and thus are not unintelligent by virtue of enjoying playing that game. However, complex games require intelligence or creativity and thus by that virtue people who play more complex games are likely on average intelligent individuals.

    To put it another way: It is far more likely that people playing complex games are intelligent, than it is to suppose that people playing simple games are dumb. However, we can safely assume that by virtue of averages, more dumb people play simple games than complex games based on appeal alone.

    Assuming all individuals who like simple game are dumb, is a logical fallacy. He wasn't making that arguement to begin with anyhow.

    This is why you don't see stupid people participating in math competitions, successful philosophical debates, or anything else that requires logical reasoning or complex problem solving.

    Perfectly intelligent people can however be willingly ignorant or blind themselves to something better. That was my original point that kicked off this debate. That does not make them dumb.

  • CianoCiano Not telling, HIPosts: 34Member
    Originally posted by eyelolled
    Another sandboxer that isn't suffering from elitism, but manages to label any gamers that don't follow his ideals as idiots. 

    Hey look sarcasm! I've never seen that before!

    No I did not say that they were all idiots. That implies that they have no control over it. I called them willing idiots. That is a description of the behavior they are engaging in. You can act ignorant or revel in ignorance and still be a perfectly intelligent individual.

    I've never bothered to argue the point with anyone who's said they tried it and it wasn't for them. Fair enough. I reserve my arguement for the vast majority who never even attempt to try somthing that isn't some rendition of the current MMO fad.

     

     

     

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by Ciano
     

    /snip

    This is why you don't see stupid people participating in math competitions, successful philosophical debates, or anything else that requires logical reasoning or complex problem solving.

    Perfectly intelligent people can however be willingly ignorant or blind themselves to something better. That was my original point that kicked off this debate. That does not make them dumb.

    Trying to figure out why you expect the red text to be present in an entertainment product or why you are suprized that the vast majority of people do not want those to be in their entertainment product.

     

    'something better'?  For who?

    Video games are an entertainment product by definition. As long as it delivers that, is something really 'better'?

    Maybe you find 'complex math problems' in your video game to be fun, but don't be surprized if you are the minority.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Maelwydd

    Originally posted by Scot We live in societies which are increasingly accomplished in both science and technology. I wish I could say the same for the average person. This film satirises where we seem to be heading and was rather good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk
    I love that film and the scary part is, I see the effects all around me. I don't claim to be the smartest guy around and if that is true then damn me but there are a lot of really stupid people!

    Point being, while not 100% accurate, generally speaking dumbed down games will appeal to people who are dumb a lot more then games that are created with more complexity. It isn't a hard rule, but it a growing trend that as games are dumbed down (i.e. the mechanics are simplified) then a broader, and by definition, dumber audiance is attracted.

    That doesn't mean if you play one of these dumbed down games you are dumb, but it might be worth asking the question...



    That filtering mechanism you're talking about only works if people choose games based on the intelligence it takes to play the games. That's not how people choose to play games though, is it? They look at the picture on the box, or the website, and if it looks more interesting, they are more likely to play it.

    Sure, a more intelligent person is more likely to read the game's features to see if they'll like it, but most people aren't like that, are they?

    For example, Half Life 2 is a very simple game. It is a run and gun shooter. Fallout 3 is a more complex game than Half Life 2. It could be argued that a more intelligent person would choose HL2 over FO3, but that's not really how it works out, is it? You would think that a more intelligent person would be more successful at one game over the other, wouldn't you? Except it doesn't work out like that either, does it?

    I keep hearing a lot of stuff about IQ and games, but nobody ever comes up with specific examples of anything. It's always just more intelligent people play a "certain kind of game", or are better at those games. It doesn't work out in the real world though.

    ** edit **
    There is plenty of evidence that video games in general can improve intelligence. The Navy calls it, "Fluid Intelligence". It can improve short term memory and brain plasticity. Lots of research on video games and intelligence. There is zip on certain kinds of video games requiring or attracting more intelligent people.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • CianoCiano Not telling, HIPosts: 34Member
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Ciano
     

    /snip

    This is why you don't see stupid people participating in math competitions, successful philosophical debates, or anything else that requires logical reasoning or complex problem solving.

    Perfectly intelligent people can however be willingly ignorant or blind themselves to something better. That was my original point that kicked off this debate. That does not make them dumb.

    Trying to figure out why you expect the red text to be present in an entertainment product or why you are suprized that the vast majority of people do not want those to be in their entertainment product.

     

    'something better'?  For who?

    Video games are an entertainment product by definition. As long as it delivers that, is something really 'better'?

    Maybe you find 'complex math problems' in your video game to be fun, but don't be surprized if you are the minority.

    You know, when you take my statement out of context like that, your response suggests that you believe the vast majority of gamers are in fact stupid.

    To answer your question there are cases where things are "better". Mario is better the Pacman. The Legend of Zelda smashed Mario when it came out. Final Fantasy smashed The Legend of Zelda. They are all "entertaining" but some things are more entertaining than others. 

     

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Maelwydd

     

    I love that film and the scary part is, I see the effects all around me. I don't claim to be the smartest guy around and if that is true then damn me but there are a lot of really stupid people!

    Point being, while not 100% accurate, generally speaking dumbed down games will appeal to people who are dumb a lot more then games that are created with more complexity. It isn't a hard rule, but it a growing trend that as games are dumbed down (i.e. the mechanics are simplified) then a broader, and by definition, dumber audiance is attracted.

    That doesn't mean if you play one of these dumbed down games you are dumb, but it might be worth asking the question...

    So essentially, you think to be of 'superior intellect' because you play a more 'complex' VIDEO GAME.

    Oh the irony....

    I personally don't care whether the game is a 'world' or not, as long as it is fun.

    You have it the wrong way round, you are not more intelligent because you play a complex video game; you play a complex video game because you are more intelligent.

    image
    "It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    And that is a complete load of rubbish.  The entertainment or diversions that someone chooses to engage in, in their downtime are not reflective of their intelligence level.  You will have a hard to finding any credible corroborating evidence, anecdotal or otherwise to support such a statement. 

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • Dim_sumDim_sum TaipeiPosts: 17Member

    "Catering to the masses does not maketh a good game."

    (Genesis 15:2-4)

     

    Lots or critically acclaimed games have sold poorly in the past, 'lesser' games have flourished in other instances. Same thing applies to movies and books and music or whatever. 

     

    Is commercial success a barometer for a games intrinsic values? I say no.

     

    The question is whether an artform can be objectively better than another. The problem is in defining what makes it so. 

    Many will argue taste is completely subjective:

    "Who are you to say this movie is terrible, I enjoyed it, and your opinion is no better than mine."

    "I have 1000 friends who enjoyed it, so therefore it must be a good movie."

     

    Go with peace and god in your hearts.

     

    Dim_sum

  • dave6660dave6660 New York, NYPosts: 2,543Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    And that is a complete load of rubbish.  The entertainment or diversions that someone chooses to engage in, in their downtime are not reflective of their intelligence level.  You will have a hard to finding any credible corroborating evidence, anecdotal or otherwise to support such a statement. 

    It depends on the hobby.

    If somebodies hobby is building home made integrated circuits for robotics competitions, it's fair to say they're intelligent.

    If their hobby is collecting match books then you don't have enough information.

     

    “There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.”
    -- Herman Melville

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,762Member Uncommon

    Liking a game that requires you to think now and then is not a demonstrtion of interlectual prowess, just a demonstration of how thinking can be fun.

  • EleazarosEleazaros Neverneverland, WAPosts: 206Member

    I laughed a lot at your post.  Not insultingly really but it was a most excellent laugh. 

    MMO gamers don't play anymore - they "race through it" - to "have" and "be there", not explore and adventure. 

    Challenging?  To do that you can't have "published info on every encounter".  You can't have "overpowered players farming others in PvP" nor "better stuff" and "higher levels" (easing all other aspects of the game).  etc...

    Challenges are from not being able to predict and not being able to out gear your opposition and that is *NOT* how MMO gamers operate be that in PvE or PvP.

    Why the hell do you think you have gold and item shops for these games available everywhere?  Look at the "logic" of "risks vs rewards" -- they don't want to adventure and be challenged, they want to have and be rewarded with things to make it much easier to play and obtaining the levels and items is "grind time".

    If you want challenges and open worlds to play in, try Oblivion, Fallout, The Witcher - standalone.  For PvP style coflicts try Starcraft or Civ - that ilk for competition.  Going with games that have 'better weapons" and 'higher levels" for how you compete and such -- that doesn't work for challenges - that becomes fodder and farmers and farmers don't need better skills, just "better stuff" when they can start encounters much more powerful than their opposition.

    MMO's haven't been balanced for combat...  *EVER* because they based it upon the PvE gaming model Dungeons & Dragons which had levleing up, which granted more power to your chars.  D&D was built upon groups of friends doing things together - not soloists "grinding out levels".

    That means "grind time" > skill and if you can't "grind time" to get ahead, check the local gold & power-leveling services -- which now are "adjusted" in other ways so your wallet is for "winning". 

    Again, it's not about playing - it's about winning and this is what is killing MMO's these days.

    Everything is about winning by having - levels & stuff.  They become boring and non-challenging when you have "won" and if you haven't "won" yet, "you suck".  Nothing to do with adventures and exploration - everything to do with "rewards" of a pixel variety.

     

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Eleazaros

    I laughed a lot at your post.  Not insultingly really but it was a most excellent laugh. 

    MMO gamers don't play anymore - they "race through it" - to "have" and "be there", not explore and adventure. 

    Challenging?  To do that you can't have "published info on every encounter".  You can't have "overpowered players farming others in PvP" nor "better stuff" and "higher levels" (easing all other aspects of the game).  etc...

    Challenges are from not being able to predict and not being able to out gear your opposition and that is *NOT* how MMO gamers operate be that in PvE or PvP.

    Why the hell do you think you have gold and item shops for these games available everywhere?  Look at the "logic" of "risks vs rewards" -- they don't want to adventure and be challenged, they want to have and be rewarded with things to make it much easier to play and obtaining the levels and items is "grind time".

    If you want challenges and open worlds to play in, try Oblivion, Fallout, The Witcher - standalone.  For PvP style coflicts try Starcraft or Civ - that ilk for competition.  Going with games that have 'better weapons" and 'higher levels" for how you compete and such -- that doesn't work for challenges - that becomes fodder and farmers and farmers don't need better skills, just "better stuff" when they can start encounters much more powerful than their opposition.

    MMO's haven't been balanced for combat...  *EVER* because they based it upon the PvE gaming model Dungeons & Dragons which had levleing up, which granted more power to your chars.  D&D was built upon groups of friends doing things together - not soloists "grinding out levels".

    That means "grind time" > skill and if you can't "grind time" to get ahead, check the local gold & power-leveling services -- which now are "adjusted" in other ways so your wallet is for "winning". 

    Again, it's not about playing - it's about winning and this is what is killing MMO's these days.

    Everything is about winning by having - levels & stuff.  They become boring and non-challenging when you have "won" and if you haven't "won" yet, "you suck".  Nothing to do with adventures and exploration - everything to do with "rewards" of a pixel variety.

     

    I see it as depressing that we have reached a point where the audience is so fractured and "gone" that we have pen and paper purists telling people how to play a computer game.

    There will be always guides, it depends on the content if the guide destroys it or not, good content is good content even with a guide.

    Obtaining the gear (or skills) to outgear the content can also be challenging, it is more funny if you consider that the same people arguing for "unpredictability" as a challenge sometimes (but maybe not in this case) argue against rng.

    Farming is not only solo and not only negative, because it temporarily removes the "win" aspect, replacing it with "being as efficient as possible", which can do wonders in the community area if done properly.

    But with the winning you are right.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by Eleazaros I laughed a lot at your post.  Not insultingly really but it was a most excellent laugh.  MMO gamers don't play anymore - they "race through it" - to "have" and "be there", not explore and adventure.  Challenging?  To do that you can't have "published info on every encounter".  You can't have "overpowered players farming others in PvP" nor "better stuff" and "higher levels" (easing all other aspects of the game).  etc... Challenges are from not being able to predict and not being able to out gear your opposition and that is *NOT* how MMO gamers operate be that in PvE or PvP. Why the hell do you think you have gold and item shops for these games available everywhere?  Look at the "logic" of "risks vs rewards" -- they don't want to adventure and be challenged, they want to have and be rewarded with things to make it much easier to play and obtaining the levels and items is "grind time". If you want challenges and open worlds to play in, try Oblivion, Fallout, The Witcher - standalone.  For PvP style coflicts try Starcraft or Civ - that ilk for competition.  Going with games that have 'better weapons" and 'higher levels" for how you compete and such -- that doesn't work for challenges - that becomes fodder and farmers and farmers don't need better skills, just "better stuff" when they can start encounters much more powerful than their opposition. MMO's haven't been balanced for combat...  *EVER* because they based it upon the PvE gaming model Dungeons & Dragons which had levleing up, which granted more power to your chars.  D&D was built upon groups of friends doing things together - not soloists "grinding out levels". That means "grind time" > skill and if you can't "grind time" to get ahead, check the local gold & power-leveling services -- which now are "adjusted" in other ways so your wallet is for "winning".  Again, it's not about playing - it's about winning and this is what is killing MMO's these days. Everything is about winning by having - levels & stuff.  They become boring and non-challenging when you have "won" and if you haven't "won" yet, "you suck".  Nothing to do with adventures and exploration - everything to do with "rewards" of a pixel variety.  
    I see it as depressing that we have reached a point where the audience is so fractured and "gone" that we have pen and paper purists telling people how to play a computer game.

    There will be always guides, it depends on the content if the guide destroys it or not, good content is good content even with a guide.

    Obtaining the gear (or skills) to outgear the content can also be challenging, it is more funny if you consider that the same people arguing for "unpredictability" as a challenge sometimes (but maybe not in this case) argue against rng.

    Farming is not only solo and not only negative, because it temporarily removes the "win" aspect, replacing it with "being as efficient as possible", which can do wonders in the community area if done properly.

    But with the winning you are right.

    Flame on!

    :)




    That "winning" seems to be what most people want, even if it means the game is over sooner. This seems to have always been the case with MMORPG. The "world" was off to the side. The thing most people went after was better gear or more power. Developers are just following along.

    It seems to be different with single player games. Games like Skyrim or Fallout keep getting made and keep selling a bazillion copies. I would assume this is because people want that type of thing in their single player games. It sells.

    Is it the competitive factor in MMORPG that drives more people to "winning", regardless of what that win state is? If other people are there, someone might have better gear, a higher level, more resources, etc., so it drives other people to compete, even in scenarios where there's not really that much competition. So developers follow the players.

    I don't think any of this matters when it comes to the definition of "MMO" though. People will decide whether having a virtual world of some sort is a requirement for a game to be an MMO. Eventually, multiplayer Bejeweled could be considered an MMO. Bleh. Even I would be telling people to get off my lawn at that point.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon

    ^^^ Doesnt mean other aspects of a true mmorpg should be neglected to follow some of the players. It hurts other gamers that prefer other play styles. Turning a mmorpg into a console rpg is just bad. Its why mmorpg's were made to begin with. Some just cant figure this out. Its why most mmorpgs get dropped, hit rock bottom, go f2p, or just die. There is no longevity or any hope for success just being a single player console with mmo strapped to the front. mmorpg = much much more than a console rpg, and we arent getting that.

    You arent given the option in todays linear mmo's. So kind of hard to tell what the majority want. Freedom to do what you want when you want, or linear story driven single player game where your content gets dried up in a month or 2..............

     

    Its easy to say oranges are better than apples when you have a bushel of oranges in front of you ;)

  • CianoCiano Not telling, HIPosts: 34Member

    At some point MMO's became the difference between story telling and movies.

    Nothing equals a well told story or even a book. The imagination can take you places that structures such movies or in game structures such as linear questing can't give you.

    Movies came along much like certain MMO's and mainstreamed everything. Now you can get hi-res porn, blue ray sci-fi flics, romance, comedy, en mass daily.

    But is it better? Are current linear MMO's better than the old open ended sandbox MMO's?

     

    At some point developers need to ask themselves at what point do they throw so much content into a game that it becomes more restrictive an ultimately drowns out player inspiration and invention.

    I wish game developers would strike a balance instead of pouring all their money into the flashiest GFX and the biggest content treadmills. They need to go back to the basics. Everything has a foundation on which it is built, I think the latest line of MMO's have gotten very flashy but forgotten the basic they were founded on. If you can't engage a player's imagination then it doesn't surprise me that these games goes F2P and then ultimately fail.

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Chicago, ILPosts: 2,229Member Uncommon

    I came to MMOs at a time when action/adventure titles were just...bad.

    Back in those days, in the early 21st century, you'd spend $40-$50 on a churned-out action adventure game (like Parasite Eve 2 or Resident Evil 3 or Legacy of Kain 2), play it for a weekend until done, then pick out the next action adventure title.

    MMOs, to me, were so much of a better value.  Here's something where I'd pay an initial box price, but I'd get many games in one.  I'd get an action/adventure title, an action-figure creator, a building game, an economic simulation, a virtual chatroom, a storytelling tool, and so much more...all for the price of one game and a maintenance fee.

    But, these days, all those other things I used to do have been removed or watered down in MMOs for the sake of the action/adventure stuff...and the action/adventure stuff is a whole lot worse than what I could get with Arkham City, Assasin's Creed, etc.

    So now I'm finding myself going back to console, not because I don't like MMOs, but that these current MMOs cost too much for too little.  Single player games on console are just so much better now, so much less expensive, and I don't have to deal with all of the baggage of having the publishers close down the games out from under me, or nerfing things, or making things too expensive.

     

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Originally posted by Eleazaros I laughed a lot at your post.  Not insultingly really but it was a most excellent laugh.  MMO gamers don't play anymore - they "race through it" - to "have" and "be there", not explore and adventure.  Challenging?  To do that you can't have "published info on every encounter".  You can't have "overpowered players farming others in PvP" nor "better stuff" and "higher levels" (easing all other aspects of the game).  etc... Challenges are from not being able to predict and not being able to out gear your opposition and that is *NOT* how MMO gamers operate be that in PvE or PvP. Why the hell do you think you have gold and item shops for these games available everywhere?  Look at the "logic" of "risks vs rewards" -- they don't want to adventure and be challenged, they want to have and be rewarded with things to make it much easier to play and obtaining the levels and items is "grind time". If you want challenges and open worlds to play in, try Oblivion, Fallout, The Witcher - standalone.  For PvP style coflicts try Starcraft or Civ - that ilk for competition.  Going with games that have 'better weapons" and 'higher levels" for how you compete and such -- that doesn't work for challenges - that becomes fodder and farmers and farmers don't need better skills, just "better stuff" when they can start encounters much more powerful than their opposition. MMO's haven't been balanced for combat...  *EVER* because they based it upon the PvE gaming model Dungeons & Dragons which had levleing up, which granted more power to your chars.  D&D was built upon groups of friends doing things together - not soloists "grinding out levels". That means "grind time" > skill and if you can't "grind time" to get ahead, check the local gold & power-leveling services -- which now are "adjusted" in other ways so your wallet is for "winning".  Again, it's not about playing - it's about winning and this is what is killing MMO's these days. Everything is about winning by having - levels & stuff.  They become boring and non-challenging when you have "won" and if you haven't "won" yet, "you suck".  Nothing to do with adventures and exploration - everything to do with "rewards" of a pixel variety.  
    I see it as depressing that we have reached a point where the audience is so fractured and "gone" that we have pen and paper purists telling people how to play a computer game.

     

    There will be always guides, it depends on the content if the guide destroys it or not, good content is good content even with a guide.

    Obtaining the gear (or skills) to outgear the content can also be challenging, it is more funny if you consider that the same people arguing for "unpredictability" as a challenge sometimes (but maybe not in this case) argue against rng.

    Farming is not only solo and not only negative, because it temporarily removes the "win" aspect, replacing it with "being as efficient as possible", which can do wonders in the community area if done properly.

    But with the winning you are right.

    Flame on!

    :)



    That "winning" seems to be what most people want, even if it means the game is over sooner. This seems to have always been the case with MMORPG. The "world" was off to the side. The thing most people went after was better gear or more power. Developers are just following along.

    It seems to be different with single player games. Games like Skyrim or Fallout keep getting made and keep selling a bazillion copies. I would assume this is because people want that type of thing in their single player games. It sells.

    Is it the competitive factor in MMORPG that drives more people to "winning", regardless of what that win state is? If other people are there, someone might have better gear, a higher level, more resources, etc., so it drives other people to compete, even in scenarios where there's not really that much competition. So developers follow the players.

    I don't think any of this matters when it comes to the definition of "MMO" though. People will decide whether having a virtual world of some sort is a requirement for a game to be an MMO. Eventually, multiplayer Bejeweled could be considered an MMO. Bleh. Even I would be telling people to get off my lawn at that point.

     

    I am not quite sure you can blame this on the players, that the games do not effer enough outlets for their ambitions, that everything is concentrated into one single number (gearscore, dps, achievment points to a point).

    You cannot really expect the players to not compare themselves with the next guy if the next guy is in the environment (you know, multiplayer), whatever it may be, what you can do is give them more variables.

    In the past pvp jocks would kill anyone they wanted but they were always short on cash, combat was expensive, it created a nice balance of sorts, i am not saying this is the way to go, just to illustrate my point.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • FromHellFromHell NY, NYPosts: 1,311Member

    Elite:Dangerous will be a UNIVERSE, not just a world. Go help them out on their kickstarter campaign, I did

    Secrets of Dragon?s Spine Trailer.. ! :D
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwT9cFVQCMw

    Best MMOs ever played: Ultima, EvE, SW Galaxies, Age of Conan, The Secret World
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X_SbZCHpc&t=21s
    .


    .
    The Return of ELITE !
    image

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,610Member Uncommon

    I get a kick out of these "golden age" wistfull threads. Look: when are you guys going to get it through your heads that one of the cool things back then was that you were interacting with another human being who was half-way around the world on your computer. That was a BIG DEAL back in those "golden" 300 baud days. "Hey Ma, I'm playing a game with someone in Italy! Is that cool or what?"

    What you're really missing is the sense of wonder and enjoyment from doing something that was brand new and hadn't been done before. We now take all that for granted of course and get cranky when our hand-held device--which is infinitely more powerful than those 80's computers--gives us choppy "facetime" or Skype video.

    So forget that "playing with strangers from 1/2 way accross the world" factor as being a draw. That is just normal, routine stuff now.

    Then there is the "MUDD begot MMO" falacy stated as gospel truth. MUDDs were extremely niche text-based RPGs from a time where that was all that the technology could handle. But at the same time there was this other thing happening. You know? Those progressively more sophisticated and graphical single player RPGs happening on your PC. And someone said "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if we could link up a few computers so we could play together?" And that, was the real beginning of MMOs: not a child of MUDDs but of single player CRPGs.

    And those CRPGs have continued to evolve and have developed their own genre and language that is extremely closely linked to what new MMOs look and feel like. You can't really talk (positively or negatively) about today's MMOs as a phenomenom separate from CRPGs.

    And guess what? Where before there were a handful of those with mostly a Western-based fantasy theme, now there are thousands upon thousands of them with all kinds of lore foundations from all over the world.

    And you know something else? Just like how we made "Ultima" and "Wizardry" and "Baldur's Gate" popular back in the days by buying lots of copies of those games and created the gaming trends for those days, gamers today are continuing to do the same exact thing by voting with their wallet and setting the trends du jour.

    If you don't like it and want to whine about the loss of the "golden age," that just makes you a member of small minority who wants to live in the past. A conservative in the true sense of the word. Your insolence in describing the rest of the world who is quite content with living in the present as "noob carebears" who enjoy garbage is just a symptom of your habitual bitterness about a world that is passing you by.

    And btw... before you reply with your habitual knee-jerk response, no I'm not a kid...kids are what my children have living at home with them. So... go play "Wurm" and other dreary garbage you like so much and piss off with your "Woe is me! The world is going to hell! Kids these days!" garbage.

  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,426Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    (snip)

    If you don't like it and want to whine about the loss of the "golden age," that just makes you a member of small minority who wants to live in the past. A conservative in the true sense of the word. Your insolence in describing the rest of the world who is quite content with living in the present as "noob carebears" who enjoy garbage is just a symptom of your habitual bitterness about a world that is passing you by.

    (snip)

    That must be why today's MMO's are so successful.

    "The proof is in the pudding", as they say.

    Edit ti add: You know, I really don't know what it takes to get through to some of you. But one thing's obvious, MMO's are not going to be worth the investment until this attitude changes.

    Once upon a time....

Sign In or Register to comment.