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!

Why so many Haters? MMORPG your great:)

2»

Comments

  • bliss14bliss14 eleva, WIPosts: 565Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Psycospank
     

     

    Passion for a topic is a good start to any persons views. I have no problem in some one having a discussion or even being harsh...Haulling a game/organisation over the coals, if you will, in the hope of refining it into a better product. 

    What I am really sharing is my disappointment with certain posters who seem to hate too much, seek to destroy not refine.

     

     

    Well, there are several types of people.

    Some are just "negative". That's who they are. In some cases they are angry disenfranchised people who are looking to lash out at something because of their own issues.

    You then have people who have been burned one time too many. They see some of the issues in these games, the developers, the genre really, and when they hear the marketing pitch they assume (and in some cases rightly so) that it's another pitch for snake oil.

    And then you have the isuse that this is a text based site. Meaning that just because someone says "x game is crap" they might not mean it to come off as an angry tirade but just a casual aside.

    Also, as per another poster, I'm not convinced that this site is about taking kickbacks for a good review. There are players who strongly assert that if the review is good and it doesn't jive with what they believe or what is considered "common knowledge" on this site then somehow a bribe happened.

    I have read many of the reviews on this site and they seem to be more close to genuine than not. Meaning, I get that these reviewers are earnest in their opinion. their spelling mistakes aside. However...

    One caveat to that is that I can easily see someone saying "do the review and couch your language in such a way that it softens the negative".

    Because it seems that there are members of this and other sites who take a rant for telling the truth and "being honest". You can completley lambaste something and not even break a sweat or seem like you are taking a sledgehammer to it.

    Still, there is something to be said that some people are just blunt. that's who they are. And because everything is being done through text we are missing that.

     

    Sovrath, you are too reasonable for the internet.

  • thecapitainethecapitaine West Chester, PAPosts: 400Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jjix

    Many posters (and writers) here seem to be stuck in a timewarp.  There's nothing wrong with cherishing old-school games and gameplay but philosophically they're stuck in the old paradigm as well, still believing that individual games succeed or fail based on the success or failure of other individual games.  When there were three or four or five games calling themselves MMOs that may arguably have been the case but it's not that way now.  We don't, as a community, benefit from creating little themepark and sandbox and FFA and RvRvR and hardcore and carebear ghettoes for ourselves.  The genre transcends all these despite personal preferences. 

     

    There are tens of millions of people playing MMOs or their cousins and they've come far enough in 20 years that the only excuse a game has for failing is simply not being good enough.  The overriding tendency to suggest that the reason the kind of game one wants to play isn't getting made is because of the existence of another kind of game is akin to suggesting that point-and-click adventures previously died out because of the success of RPGs instead of the inability for those adventure games to keep up with the changing tastes and demands of the audience they were trying to capture.  It's a timewarped mentality not in touch with today that doesn't see that there is room for all types of games and that, eventually, someone will make that great long-sought game.

     

     

    On the one hand you are saying there is room for all types of games and that eventually the game some people are dreaming of will be made, but then in the same breath you admit that the type of game these same gamers are dreaming of isn't being made because it is dated and not in tune with the current tastes and demands of the community. Huh?

     I don't see how you got to that conclusion from what I said.  The statements "eventually the game some people are dreaming of will be made" and "the type of game these gamers are dreaming of isn't being made" are two separate and non-exclusive points.  The example I provided, namely that of point-and-click adventures, illustrates precisely what I mean.  They were among the forerunners of home computer games, they disappeared for awhile, now they are being made and played again.  One could argue that old-school gaming, as embodied  in EQ, DAOC, and UO, were the forerunners of today's MMOs, disappeared for awhile after WoW, and are making a similar comeback.  Not sure what's not clear.

    ETA: Maybe it's the notion of the games being "dated and not in tune with current tastes" (your words) that you're taking issue with, perhaps?  If so, I still stand by what I said, though it's not meant as pejorative as maybe it came out.  Corpse runs, long waits on boats, harsh death penalties certainly did fall out of favor with mainsteam MMO gaming, along with spawn camping, mob grinding and many other aspects of those original games.  To a greater extent, much of those mechanics aren't ever going to make a popular comeback, even in newer games modeled on the old.  This next spate of old-school throwbacks will have to find a way to sate the hunger for creating virtual worlds with consequence and freedom but will probably do so using entirely new ways.  Much in the same way as newfangled adventure games employ quick-time events, cinematic cut-scenes, and other advancements while still hearkening back to yesteryear.

    No, the truth is the success of some games, most notably WoW, have profoundly impacted the types of other games being made and how they are made. And while, yes, there are more games made today than in the past, the diversity of games is actually less because the success of WoW caused a massive rush to immitate its design philosophy. In the old days, the difference between SWG, Everquest, and Shadowbane were profound. Today, while there is definitely some diversity, many if not most of the games -- particularly if we are talking AAA titles -- are basically following the lead of some previous title, resulting in many clones and less diversity of game philosophy. For example, while there are a ton of Korean MMOs in the market -- certainly a lot to choose from -- they are all so similar to one enough we might just consider them just ONE game, maybe two. (Age of Wushu looks interesting . . . )

    Again, I disagree.  The notion that LOTRO and STO and TERA and GW2 and EVE and WoW and SWTOR and The Secret World and Wizards 101 and many, many others can all be given the same "WoW-clone" moniker tells me that either the definition of WoW-clone is so broad as to lack meaningful boundaries or is simply a method of conveniently dismissing the very real differences between them to reinforce an broadly-held, rarely scrutinized opinion.  Beyond the fact that Everquest, UO, DAOC, and other genre starters still exist, it's simply untrue that there is less variety in MMO now than there was back then.  It may not be the type of variety that one person enjoys, it may not be a true emulation or update of kinds of gameplay that the genres forefathers created, but it's a fact that the MMO space is more diverse than ever, not less, the differences between various games at one spectrum and the other even further amplified than before.

     

    The reality is that when it comes to AAA games, they are so expensive to make these days that companies aren't willing to take huge risks. They want to stick with what they know (think) works. In that regard, there is actually less diversity. However, with the failure of SWTOR there has been a huge breaking up of the certainty over what works, offering a period of innovation and diversity similar to the 2nd gen mmorpgs. But that is precisely because one game, ONE GAME, failed. So I do think the success or failure of one game does make a huge difference to the rest of the market. 

     

    Anyway . . . kind of off topic here.

    I didn't mean to imply that success of a game has no bearing or impact on the industry.  I took pains to make it clear that the success of a single game does not necessarily impact positively or negative the success or failure of another individual game.  It's the nature of both art and business to see what's come before and borrow (sometimes liberally) but the suggestion that somehow SWTOR failed because of WoW or that Neverwinter's success or failure relies on the existence of WoW is a hollow argument.  Yes, WoW helped define the genre, in much the same way as Baldur's Gate defined CRPGs and DOOM defined shooters.  The comparisons will be there; features that seem to work will be iterated upon and brought into new titles.  However, the success of a game relies on its own implementation, its own creativity, it's own fun.

  • JjixJjix Boston, MAPosts: 141Member
    Originally posted by thecapitaine

     I don't see how you got to that conclusion from what I said.  The statements "eventually the game some people are dreaming of will be made" and "the type of game these gamers are dreaming of isn't being made" are two separate and non-exclusive points.  The example I provided, namely that of point-and-click adventures, illustrates precisely what I mean.  They were among the forerunners of home computer games, they disappeared for awhile, now they are being made and played again.  One could argue that old-school gaming, as embodied  in EQ, DAOC, and UO, were the forerunners of today's MMOs, disappeared for awhile after WoW, and are making a similar comeback.  Not sure what's not clear.

    ETA: Maybe it's the notion of the games being "dated and not in tune with current tastes" (your words) that you're taking issue with, perhaps?  If so, I still stand by what I said, though it's not meant as pejorative as maybe it came out.  Corpse runs, long waits on boats, harsh death penalties certainly did fall out of favor with mainsteam MMO gaming, along with spawn camping, mob grinding and many other aspects of those original games.  To a greater extent, much of those mechanics aren't ever going to make a popular comeback, even in newer games modeled on the old.  This next spate of old-school throwbacks will have to find a way to sate the hunger for creating virtual worlds with consequence and freedom but will probably do so using entirely new ways.  Much in the same way as newfangled adventure games employ quick-time events, cinematic cut-scenes, and other advancements while still hearkening back to yesteryear.

    Alright, so the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. But the critical thing is that the baby got thrown out. When a game, like WoW, that has thrown out the baby meets overwhelming success, the debate naturally becomes whether the baby really was a baby, or was just bathwater. This is an important debate to be had, and the essence of WoW bashing. The success of WoW meant many of the amazing features of pre-WoW games got tossed aside for a generation before developers began to reexamine them. Sure, eventually they did, but that is just the good guys winning the war.

    No, the truth is the success of some games, most notably WoW, have profoundly impacted the types of other games being made and how they are made. And while, yes, there are more games made today than in the past, the diversity of games is actually less because the success of WoW caused a massive rush to immitate its design philosophy. In the old days, the difference between SWG, Everquest, and Shadowbane were profound. Today, while there is definitely some diversity, many if not most of the games -- particularly if we are talking AAA titles -- are basically following the lead of some previous title, resulting in many clones and less diversity of game philosophy. For example, while there are a ton of Korean MMOs in the market -- certainly a lot to choose from -- they are all so similar to one enough we might just consider them just ONE game, maybe two. (Age of Wushu looks interesting . . . )

    Again, I disagree.  The notion that LOTRO and STO and TERA and GW2 and EVE and WoW and SWTOR and The Secret World and Wizards 101 and many, many others can all be given the same "WoW-clone" moniker tells me that either the definition of WoW-clone is so broad as to lack meaningful boundaries or is simply a method of conveniently dismissing the very real differences between them to reinforce an broadly-held, rarely scrutinized opinion.  Beyond the fact that Everquest, UO, DAOC, and other genre starters still exist, it's simply untrue that there is less variety in MMO now than there was back then.  It may not be the type of variety that one person enjoys, it may not be a true emulation or update of kinds of gameplay that the genres forefathers created, but it's a fact that the MMO space is more diverse than ever, not less, the differences between various games at one spectrum and the other even further amplified than before.

    Lotro is a WoW clone with a few unique features. STO . . . I can't say much about having never played it. I can say the previous cryptic game, Champions Online, was a WoW clone (CoH was pre-WoW). Tera is a WoW/Korean clone with a cool combat system. Eve was made before WoW and belongs to the pre-WoW gen along with EQ, DAoC, and AO. Swtor is a WoW clone, the last true and most epic WoW clone imo. Don't know Wizards 101. GW2 (and perhaps Secret World?) is the first real 4th gen post-WoW game that represent this new exiting time, so it represents a diversification that lies beyond the horizon of influence of WoW.

    Obviously if you include old games that few people play anymore, like EQ, there is more diverisity, then we are just piling the new on top of the old, so obviously there will be more. But really the question is how much diversity is there among the truely compelling games, not fringe games that don't matter. IMHO, everything between WoW and GW2 was more or less a WoW clone in regard to the essential themepark design focused around quests/missions, soloability, raiding, etc.  Look, I played WoW for a week, and then tried again a few years later and lasted a week . . . I learned the essence of WoW not from WoW, but from the large variety of games I tried, from Tabula Rasa and Auto Assault, to Age of Conan and Rift, and by talking to countless players who were constantly comparing everything to WoW. Now that we are leaving that period of time, following the disappointment of SWTOR and the arrival of GW2,  I expect diversity to explode . . . and I think the last year or so suggests that that may be true. But the very acronym 'mmorpg' has become synonymous with games that model most of their features after WoW. The new games have to break the mold.

     

    The reality is that when it comes to AAA games, they are so expensive to make these days that companies aren't willing to take huge risks. They want to stick with what they know (think) works. In that regard, there is actually less diversity. However, with the failure of SWTOR there has been a huge breaking up of the certainty over what works, offering a period of innovation and diversity similar to the 2nd gen mmorpgs. But that is precisely because one game, ONE GAME, failed. So I do think the success or failure of one game does make a huge difference to the rest of the market. 

     

    Anyway . . . kind of off topic here.

    I didn't mean to imply that success of a game has no bearing or impact on the industry.  I took pains to make it clear that the success of a single game does not necessarily impact positively or negative the success or failure of another individual game.  It's the nature of both art and business to see what's come before and borrow (sometimes liberally) but the suggestion that somehow SWTOR failed because of WoW or that Neverwinter's success or failure relies on the existence of WoW is a hollow argument.  Yes, WoW helped define the genre, in much the same way as Baldur's Gate defined CRPGs and DOOM defined shooters.  The comparisons will be there; features that seem to work will be iterated upon and brought into new titles.  However, the success of a game relies on its own implementation, its own creativity, it's own fun.

    Of course the success of the game depends on the quality of that game itself. The issue isn't whether game X succeeded or not because of game Y. The issue is whether companies would even dare to make game Z after witnessing the success or failure of game Y.

  • VengerVenger York, PAPosts: 1,318Member
    Humans in general are becoming bigger douche bags so I'm not really surprised.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by achesoma

    You only noticed this in the past year?  Really?

     

    Seriously, the entire internet is like this, on every forum, on any subject. 

    And often there are topics being negative on negativity. It is nothing new.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by tinuelle
    Don't hate the players, hate the game :)

    Generally, I do hate the players, they are the ones that generally make the games not worth playing.  It's the players who are racing to endgame.  It's the players who are trying to cheat everyone around them for their own personal advancement, who are trying to get ahead on the backs of anyone they can dick over, etc.  It isn't the games who can't spell, it isn't the games who spam chat channels, it isn't the games who are obnoxious little gits.  Most games would be fun if there was an altogether better class of players.

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by tinuelle
    Don't hate the players, hate the game :)

    Generally, I do hate the players, they are the ones that generally make the games not worth playing.  It's the players who are racing to endgame.  It's the players who are trying to cheat everyone around them for their own personal advancement, who are trying to get ahead on the backs of anyone they can dick over, etc.  It isn't the games who can't spell, it isn't the games who spam chat channels, it isn't the games who are obnoxious little gits.  Most games would be fun if there was an altogether better class of players.

    You invest emotionally into others you don't even like? Just use the ignore button. It is not like you have to play with them. Even in a PUG, you can always quit whenever you meet someone you don't like.

    So what if others race to end-game. No one needs your approval to play a game. May be you should care less about how others enjoy their entertainment.

  • MikeBMikeB MMORPG.com Community Manager Queens, NYPosts: 5,716Administrator Uncommon
    Appreciate the intent, OP. But let's try to stick to discussing the games we all love (or hate!) and not the behavior of other users on the forums.

    Michael "MikeB" Bitton
    Community Manager
    Twitter: @eMikeB

2»
This discussion has been closed.