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 older games seem better...

1679111217

Comments

  • NildenNilden null, NBPosts: 1,284Member Uncommon

    While I get that some things are subjective and players have preferences I want to bring up the cold hard facts from a technical standpoint. When a new game can not do what EQ1 did in 1999 from a technical standpoint in many areas because the engine or netcode just suck. No amount of rose colored glasses can change simple technical facts.

    If a game has more loading screens, smaller zones, ankle deep water, unable to render or even play in anything but a slideshow with lots of people, invisible walls, server lag, or anything that EQ1 did better on 56k modems and pentiums the new game should be ashamed.

    I almost feel like doing an article and the research for this myself because this is just EQ1 I use as a benchmark when WOW set the bar even higher for seemless open world with flight as well as doing many things better on the technical front.

    How to post links.

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer

  • HarikenHariken Brighton, MAPosts: 984Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by drakaena
    Because devs used to make games they wanted to play instead of corporation's deciding what will make them the most money. MMOs lost their soul. Sort of like D&D.

    I totally agree with this. MMO's pre wow are alot different in just about everything. I find myself going back to those games alot more now. My new fav is Neocron 2. Brought back from the dead by people that loved the game. Talk about an old school game. No hand holding here. Graphics are from 2001 but the game is filled with people that could care less because they love the game. And its mostly older people from the UK and Germany. The chat is filled with English and German. I played this game when it first came out with a couple of friends. And these new people in control of it are fixing things all the time and listening to the player base about bugs they find. But already the game is running better than it did.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    If people stick around to play the game, killing the community won't drive them away.

    "Un-intended" consequences for years and years? "Uni-inteneded" consequences when they expand LFR and convenience features?

    I doubt the consequences are anything but intended if it goes on for years, and devs is driving more and more in the "less community" direction. Don't tell me Blizz is unaware of what is happening for years.

     

     

    Maybe they don't or didn't know or believe how much it effects their games.   Developers seem(ed) very dogmatic about ease and accessiblity.   Short term face value polling and metrics probably supports it because its a path of least resistance.  Long term consequences is that your eliminating long term hooks to a game that makes more money the longer a player plays/pays.  

     

    Think of it as mice given two paths.  One with predators and the other with a field of food and no predators.  The one with predators is harder path and some will die and some will refuse to try.  Those who do make it can see it to the long term goal.  In the field of food is glorious but there is a drop in half way through that most mice can't jump so its short lived.   So the equation becomes do you want a harder path with attrition and refusal or an easy path with lots of volunteers but very few who will make it long term.    

    You are just speculating. Why would developers be very dogmatic about ease and accessibility?

    They weren't before. The only reason is that they found their audience like ease and accessibility more than other aspects (like community) and so they focus on what their audience like.

     

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Oxon Hill, MDPosts: 1,147Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    If people stick around to play the game, killing the community won't drive them away.

    "Un-intended" consequences for years and years? "Uni-inteneded" consequences when they expand LFR and convenience features?

    I doubt the consequences are anything but intended if it goes on for years, and devs is driving more and more in the "less community" direction. Don't tell me Blizz is unaware of what is happening for years.

     

     

    Maybe they don't or didn't know or believe how much it effects their games.   Developers seem(ed) very dogmatic about ease and accessiblity.   Short term face value polling and metrics probably supports it because its a path of least resistance.  Long term consequences is that your eliminating long term hooks to a game that makes more money the longer a player plays/pays.  

     

    Think of it as mice given two paths.  One with predators and the other with a field of food and no predators.  The one with predators is harder path and some will die and some will refuse to try.  Those who do make it can see it to the long term goal.  In the field of food is glorious but there is a drop in half way through that most mice can't jump so its short lived.   So the equation becomes do you want a harder path with attrition and refusal or an easy path with lots of volunteers but very few who will make it long term.    

    You are just speculating. Why would developers be very dogmatic about ease and accessibility?

    They weren't before. The only reason is that they found their audience like ease and accessibility more than other aspects (like community) and so they focus on what their audience like.

     

     

    I can only speculate but I'm going on what developers/insiders/in the know say that metrics and polling etc point to this.  Just go read some interviews and you'll hear about ease and accessibility in whatever terms before the release and obvious the games themselves speak for it as well.  

     

    They weren't before because success was redefined by WoW which hasn't been matched nor likely can be.  Yes short term players do like ease and accessibility but as can be shown by almost every game released post 2004 in the western market focused on ease, accessibility have flopped into free to play.  Yet you had games like UO/EQ etc be sub based for  more than a decade.   That's enough evidence for me honestly.  No, I'm not claiming F2P is the inferior model payment but it obviously fits a lot better with games that don't have what it takes to last.  F2P allows lots of money to be made at will while Subs are slower money.  

     

    You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game.  I didn't play enough to know.  

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    If people stick around to play the game, killing the community won't drive them away.

    "Un-intended" consequences for years and years? "Uni-inteneded" consequences when they expand LFR and convenience features?

    I doubt the consequences are anything but intended if it goes on for years, and devs is driving more and more in the "less community" direction. Don't tell me Blizz is unaware of what is happening for years.

     

     

    Maybe they don't or didn't know or believe how much it effects their games.   Developers seem(ed) very dogmatic about ease and accessiblity.   Short term face value polling and metrics probably supports it because its a path of least resistance.  Long term consequences is that your eliminating long term hooks to a game that makes more money the longer a player plays/pays.  

     

    Think of it as mice given two paths.  One with predators and the other with a field of food and no predators.  The one with predators is harder path and some will die and some will refuse to try.  Those who do make it can see it to the long term goal.  In the field of food is glorious but there is a drop in half way through that most mice can't jump so its short lived.   So the equation becomes do you want a harder path with attrition and refusal or an easy path with lots of volunteers but very few who will make it long term.    

    You are just speculating. Why would developers be very dogmatic about ease and accessibility?

    They weren't before. The only reason is that they found their audience like ease and accessibility more than other aspects (like community) and so they focus on what their audience like.

     

     

    I can only speculate but I'm going on what developers/insiders/in the know say that metrics and polling etc point to this.  Just go read some interviews and you'll hear about ease and accessibility in whatever terms before the release and obvious the games themselves speak for it as well.  

     

    They weren't before because success was redefined by WoW which hasn't been matched nor likely can be.  Yes short term players do like ease and accessibility but as can be shown by almost every game released post 2004 in the western market focused on ease, accessibility have flopped into free to play.  Yet you had games like UO/EQ etc be sub based for  more than a decade.   That's enough evidence for me honestly.  No, I'm not claiming F2P is the inferior model payment but it obviously fits a lot better with games that don't have what it takes to last.  F2P allows lots of money to be made at will while Subs are slower money.  

     

    You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game.  I didn't play enough to know.  

     

    Without a doubt polling, metrics and focus groups played their part. They are the bane of the entertainment industry today and gaming is now a slave to them as much as any other part of the industry.

     

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    You are quite right, subjective does not mean 'impossible to determine what is better', but that is how some posters are using it, including yourself. The fun and goodness in a game are not subjective, but I agree they are an area where it is difficult to achieve objectivity. Politics is an area where it is difficult for people to be objective, do we just give up and shout at each other or try to form common ground? Just because something is hard to do does not mean it should not be attempted.

    The difficult game versus a game with a difficulty slider is a case in point. It is a complex area because difficulty is measured in many ways. Most difficulty sliders just make the opposition tougher, they rarely make the AI of opponents better or make the puzzles harder. Personally I don't mind difficulty sliders in a FPS, you can achieve at various levels, but even a FPS can have puzzle elements. Puzzles which will no doubt be dumbed down as they can't put a slider on them. But the games of yesteryear were harder, and the puzzles often better. I notice that a couple of classic old games have been re-released on consoles recently with graphic updates. These games from 10+ years ago leave modern releases looking pedestrian. This is not nostalgia, they were just such great games.

     

    I think you are still confused. I never said it is "impossible to determine what is better". I said "what is better" is different to me and you.

    Case in point, UO and EQ are very bad games to me. Eve is a very bad game to me (and i can list my reasons, but that is not the point). Many here hold a different opinion. This shows that universal "goodness" is not possible. All the arguments here boils down to "i think it is good" and "you think it is bad".

    This applies to death penalty, virtual world, slow travelilng, and almost any game design argument, and yes, difficulty sliders.

     

    But your argument here could be used about anything, you can say anything a person believes to be true has a subjective element, even science. I am saying that gaming should be no different from any other area be it politics where beliefs are entrenched or art which is very subjective. They is still room for common ground, there are reasons why we think a death penalty that is too harsh is bad, too easy is bad. It is not just about do you think it is fun or not. You can express why you think it is fun or why you don't.

     

    No. You are totally off base.

    There is no "true" preference. The truth is my "preference is x" and "your preference is y".

    This is different than science where the goal is to be able to predict. That is objective if you can match data to theory.

    Preference is obviously not the same. Ask 100 people if The Avenger is a good movie ... many will say "yes" and some "not". To the ones who do not, it is "truly" not a good movie.

    And given the flames here, common ground is not possible. Heck, there is little common ground between you and me. I say slow travel is very bad. Do you agree? I believe LFR is very good. Do you agree?

    There is no "true" preference unless you've given each game an honest shot. You like to talk about how EVE isn't for you... but you yourself have admitted that you didn't play it that long. You yourself have said that if you don't find a game fun within 15 minutes, then you don't continue to play it. What you "prefer" means basically nothing. 

     

    Here's how you could determine what game or game type is best: You get a sufficiently large enough sample of people and you have them play each game that you're testing. They have to play each game enough to have a deep understanding of it. And preferably the people you pick would have no prior bias or experience in these games, but still be proficient enough in video games to understand how to play them and perform well enough to get a full experience.

     

    If you could measure the overall amount of enjoyment these people got from each game or game type, that would determine which game is better. Plain and simple. Nobody is claiming to be able to test this. However, we are trying to argue why we believe certain games would win out in a scenario like that. I personally am trying to claim that the average sandbox game player gets more enjoyment out of his game than the average themepark player.

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

    You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game.  I didn't play enough to know.  

    No, you should look at the explosion of the MMO market with the advancement of ease & assessibility.

    As for wow, its expansion continues through CATA, and ease & accessibility starts way before that. Its decline is probably caused by it is a very very old game.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal

    You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game.  I didn't play enough to know.  

    No, you should look at the explosion of the MMO market with the advancement of ease & assessibility.

    As for wow, its expansion continues through CATA, and ease & accessibility starts way before that. Its decline is probably caused by it is a very very old game.

    Because there is always going to be the difference between mainstream, mediocre products and good (not all of them), niche products. As a general rule the more you invest in something, the more you're going to get back. There are always going to be products that offer ease and accessibility at the cost of a deeper appreciation; and products that take an investment of attention and effort before you get into it. 

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal

    You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game.  I didn't play enough to know.  

    No, you should look at the explosion of the MMO market with the advancement of ease & assessibility.

    As for wow, its expansion continues through CATA, and ease & accessibility starts way before that. Its decline is probably caused by it is a very very old game.

    Because there is always going to be the difference between mainstream, mediocre products and good (not all of them), niche products. As a general rule the more you invest in something, the more you're going to get back. There are always going to be products that offer ease and accessibility at the cost of a deeper appreciation; and products that take an investment of attention and effort before you get into it. 

     

    One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.

    Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?

     

  • HarikenHariken Brighton, MAPosts: 984Member Uncommon
    What about the fact that we are living in the console age. This is one of the reasons that games seem dumbed down. Look what happened to Elderscrolls games once they went to consoles. So mmo devs to make money now make games that you don't have to think to play. If they went back to the way mmo's used to be made they will lose money . I just loaded up Neocron 2 which is back and completely f2p.. Talk about old school mmo gaming. Totally having a blast playing this again and the community seems to be older players mostly from UK and Germany. This topic comes up in chat. How older mmo's will always be better. The game is completely run by the community and being fixed. Its running better than it used too. Nice to see a chat full of people that love the game they are playing and no your mom jokes.
  • ZorgoZorgo Deepintheheartof, TXPosts: 2,226Member

    image

     

     

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

    One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.

    Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?

     

    Sounds good to me. I play games to have fun, not to "invest".

    And do we always need to get "something we have not seen before"?

    I was playing Marvel Heroes and i had fun precisely because i have seen and like those characters before.

     

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot

    One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.

    Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?

     

    Sounds good to me. I play games to have fun, not to "invest".

    And do we always need to get "something we have not seen before"?

    I was playing Marvel Heroes and i had fun precisely because i have seen and like those characters before.

    The problem is you're interpreting this wrongly. The point isn't that you spend more time playing the game, the point is that the time you're spending at first is about learning the game and getting a deeper understanding of it because... well it's a deeper game. It's not like people playing WoW spend less time in game than people playing UO or SWG... or at least not to my knowledge. The point is how much do you have to invest?

     

    That's the question you have to ask because the concept of investing in order to get a higher return is like basically a staple of reality across almost every facet of human nature. Most of the time, you have to invest more to get more. That's why my claim is that sandbox players on average enjoy and appreciate their game of choice more than the average themepark player.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal

    You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game.  I didn't play enough to know.  

    No, you should look at the explosion of the MMO market with the advancement of ease & assessibility.

    As for wow, its expansion continues through CATA, and ease & accessibility starts way before that. Its decline is probably caused by it is a very very old game.

    Because there is always going to be the difference between mainstream, mediocre products and good (not all of them), niche products. As a general rule the more you invest in something, the more you're going to get back. There are always going to be products that offer ease and accessibility at the cost of a deeper appreciation; and products that take an investment of attention and effort before you get into it. 

     

    One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.

    Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?

    I agree with you, if I'm understanding your point correctly. The problem of dumbing games down absolutely leaves less room for innovating. How much can you innovate if everybody is trying to streamline the process? It doesn't leave as much room for differing mechanics.

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Oxon Hill, MDPosts: 1,147Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal

    You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game.  I didn't play enough to know.  

    No, you should look at the explosion of the MMO market with the advancement of ease & assessibility.

    As for wow, its expansion continues through CATA, and ease & accessibility starts way before that. Its decline is probably caused by it is a very very old game.

    Because there is always going to be the difference between mainstream, mediocre products and good (not all of them), niche products. As a general rule the more you invest in something, the more you're going to get back. There are always going to be products that offer ease and accessibility at the cost of a deeper appreciation; and products that take an investment of attention and effort before you get into it. 

     

    One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.

    Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?

    I agree with you, if I'm understanding your point correctly. The problem of dumbing games down absolutely leaves less room for innovating. How much can you innovate if everybody is trying to streamline the process? It doesn't leave as much room for differing mechanics.

     

    The quest hub mechanic has ruined MMORPG's for me. Not that its a bad thing in general. It took as away from grinding mobs. But it's become a crutch for content and progression because developers have a lack of imagination beyond the get max level to play end game. No matter what you wrap around quest hubs most games are going to feel like I'm playing a WoW clone to me if there is progression solely based on it.  
  • vmopedvmoped Athens, GAPosts: 1,708Member

    I don't believe the issue is mainly about neuroplasticity as the OP implies, rather with carryover.  Older games offered new mechanics and were themselves a new genre.  As more and more titles emerged we carried the knowledge from the prior titles and applied it to the newer titles.  This resulted in less time required to learn how to function within the newer gaming worlds.  Add to this the changing/developing aspects of the games and their development as well.

    When I listen to a friend who has just discovered mmo's their words remind me of my own over 20 years ago.  It is a new experience.  Just like the first time you had sex, it will never be as good as your first mates..., but you can always add new elements to reinvigorate it!

    Cheers!

    MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S

  • iridescenceiridescence Elliot Lake, ONPosts: 1,486Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    Sounds good to me. I play games to have fun, not to "invest".

    And do we always need to get "something we have not seen before"?

    I was playing Marvel Heroes and i had fun precisely because i have seen and like those characters before.

     

    Learning new things is fun. Playing the same old thing over and over is not fun. At least that's how I feel. I barely liked WoW when I actually played it. I'm sick of playing games that take most of their ideas from it.

     

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    Sounds good to me. I play games to have fun, not to "invest".

    And do we always need to get "something we have not seen before"?

    I was playing Marvel Heroes and i had fun precisely because i have seen and like those characters before.

     

    Learning new things is fun. Playing the same old thing over and over is not fun. At least that's how I feel. I barely liked WoW when I actually played it. I'm sick of playing games that take most of their ideas from it.

     

     

    Not always. Otherwise, people would not be reading spiderman and iron man comics for decades. Otherwise, sequels won't be so popular.

    May be you don't play the latest Splinter Cell featuring Sam Fisher .. but i think that is fun, even when i have played other Splinter Cell games before.

     

     

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
    The quest hub mechanic has ruined MMORPG's for me. Not that its a bad thing in general. It took as away from grinding mobs. But it's become a crutch for content and progression because developers have a lack of imagination beyond the get max level to play end game. No matter what you wrap around quest hubs most games are going to feel like I'm playing a WoW clone to me if there is progression solely based on it.
    I could not agree more.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • goldtoofgoldtoof leedsPosts: 337Member
    Because they probably were.

    Despite dozens of efforts no game after has bettered wow as a dungeon / raid farmer with a side order of pvp.

    A good few sandboxes have launched since eve, but none have bettered it.

    A couple of games have tried to go the daoc route of 50% open pve 50% mass pvp and not beaten it.
  • DauzqulDauzqul Detroit, MIPosts: 1,407Member Uncommon

    I disagree.

     

    I enjoyed SWG (early days). Show me a game that has all of the following features:

    • An extremely in-depth and complex harvesting / crafting system.
    • Gigantic worlds with endless world housing and player-built cities.
    • Ability to group with fellow crafters in order to produce world-mall-shops w/ operational vendors.
    • Ability to completely leave the base game to explore a deep and extensive space universe.
    • A game where many people have played for years, yet never experienced any form of combat.
    • Ability to delve into completely different looking races and/or extreme body types, e.g., skinny, short, fat, tall etc.
    • A game with incentive to socialize.
    • A game that feels like a virtual world - feeling like a part of it.
    • A game where each player isn't a "special little snowflake" - not having to follow some set-in-stone quest line.
    • A game that virtually has endless apparel customizations.
    • A game with over 30 different professions - that can be mixed and molded into your very own hybrid build.
    • A game that was clearly made for the educated.
     
     
    These modern games suck. That is the problem. I know we've talked about it before, but almost every new MMO is molded off of the WoW model, which is why most people quit within a single month.
  • AvarixAvarix Chicago, ILPosts: 381Member Uncommon

    Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.

     

    Here's a thought, some people prefer older games because they actually liked them more than newer games. What is this constant need to make that opinion seem silly or validate it as a flaw of the human condition? It's an opinion and it's allowed to be different from your own, get over it.

     

     

    TLDR;

    Older games SEEM better because they WERE better... FOR ME :)

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

    Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.

    I don't see why a core mechanics can be wrong. It just is .. and sometimes it is preferred by some players, and sometimes not.

    So what if solo content is put into a MMO.

    The only relevant question is if that solo content is fun. If so, i will play it, whether it is in a MMO, an SP game with online features, or SP game with no online features.

    And following your logic .. are you going dismiss a group of gamers because they prefer new games instead of old ones because they found the new games better because it is a "simpler way"?

    Your preference is not better than others.

     

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Avarix

    Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.

    I don't see why a core mechanics can be wrong. It just is .. and sometimes it is preferred by some players, and sometimes not.

    So what if solo content is put into a MMO.

    The only relevant question is if that solo content is fun. If so, i will play it, whether it is in a MMO, an SP game with online features, or SP game with no online features.

    And following your logic .. are you going dismiss a group of gamers because they prefer new games instead of old ones because they found the new games better because it is a "simpler way"?

    Your preference is not better than others.

    Preferences are not all created equal. They aren't. Stop acting like they are. Some preferences are better than others because some people have more experience than others. Likewise, some people are less biased than others. There are many ways somebody's opinion ca be better than somebody else's. Stop trying to push this nonsense that somebody's "preference" is god. People can be ill-informed, mistaken or just plain stupid. It happens.

     

    So what if solo content is put into an MMO? It's mixing genres, that's what. By making MMOs more like single player games, you're disenfranchising people who want to play an MMO. So what if metal became more like country music? Well, then people who like metal are missing out.

  • AvarixAvarix Chicago, ILPosts: 381Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Avarix

    Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.

    I don't see why a core mechanics can be wrong. It just is .. and sometimes it is preferred by some players, and sometimes not.

    So what if solo content is put into a MMO.

    The only relevant question is if that solo content is fun. If so, i will play it, whether it is in a MMO, an SP game with online features, or SP game with no online features.

    And following your logic .. are you going dismiss a group of gamers because they prefer new games instead of old ones because they found the new games better because it is a "simpler way"?

    Your preference is not better than others.

     

    As usual Nariuss, I have no clue what you are on about. I was referring to being able to solo as why I prefer older games, not newer ones (Having to group to experience content or being able to solo through all of it is, in my view, a core mechanic). I never said it was the right or wrong way. My statements are MY opinion only, if you had quoted my whole response you would have seen the "FOR ME" in capital letters, specifically for people like you.

Sign In or Register to comment.