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!

You are wrong. Older gamers are not more resistant to change. Most MMO's really are just shallow.

12346»

Comments

  • Neo_ViperNeo_Viper NotyourbusinessPosts: 598Member

    I think the main problem of many "older gamers" is that they somehow built the image of the "perfect MMORPG" in their mind over the years, and any game that strays even a bit away from that image is, in their mind again, a "failure". Much said on this forum actually confirms that theory.

    I'm an old gamer with an open mind. I'm willing, no I'm yearning for new experiences different from the same old I've already done. I also have some "perfect MMORPG" image somewhere, but I don't let it go in the way when I try new games.

    When I see people asking for a copy of old EQ with better graphics, I can't help but facepalm. Exactly the same people complain that many of the latest games are "clones", which makes it a double facepalm.

    Oh, and worth mentioning too: most of those images of the "perfect MMORPG" are totally non viable and would tank and fail faster and harder than any of the games those "old gamers" critic harshly and pretend being failures.

    My computer is better than yours.

  • AdamantineAdamantine NowherePosts: 3,514Member Common

    I'm not resistant to change, if I see that its change to the better.

    In fact I spend a lot of my time to try to change the world for the better.

    But I dont jump on fashions that make no sense to me though. For example, I simply dont need a cellphone, and I hate this attitude of being reacheable all the time. I dont need that, thank you very much.

     

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

     

    Oh, and worth mentioning too: most of those images of the "perfect MMORPG" are totally non viable and would tank and fail faster and harder than any of the games those "old gamers" critic harshly and pretend being failures.

    Fans aren't businesspeople working for games companies. They ask for games they want to play, not games they think will sell. Which is as it should be since they get no benefit from a good selling game that they don't personally enjoy.

    PS I'd like to try EQ with better graphics since I never got to play the original one :)

     

  • RodentofdoomRodentofdoom NottinghamPosts: 273Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
     

    Learning becomes more difficult as one gets older and as a result people may stick with tried and true as they get on in age, which is what people tend to misinterpret as the older one gets the more they resist change. 

    Various experts on the mechanics of the learning process will disagree with that viewpoint.

    A Maslow & G Petty are just 2 of the many Authors within the education & learning sector that believe the ability to learn is not linked to age.

     

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Neo_Viper

     

    Oh, and worth mentioning too: most of those images of the "perfect MMORPG" are totally non viable and would tank and fail faster and harder than any of the games those "old gamers" critic harshly and pretend being failures.

    Fans aren't businesspeople working for games companies. They ask for games they want to play, not games they think will sell.

    Fans expect the companies to absorb losses and make High Art That Supports The Principles of Fine Gaming.

    Companies continue to make what earns profits, ideally maximal profits.

    (This shocks and baffles fans. A basic clash between idealism and reality.)

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

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

    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Neo_Viper
      Oh, and worth mentioning too: most of those images of the "perfect MMORPG" are totally non viable and would tank and fail faster and harder than any of the games those "old gamers" critic harshly and pretend being failures.

    Fans aren't businesspeople working for games companies. They ask for games they want to play, not games they think will sell.

    Fans expect the companies to absorb losses and make High Art That Supports The Principles of Fine Gaming.

    Companies continue to make what earns profits, ideally maximal profits.

    (This shocks and baffles fans. A basic clash between idealism and reality.)

     

    But is this really the case with MMORPGs?

    The equivalent to MMORPG is that the Avengers sell record numbers and 90 percent of movies released afterwards are super hero that flop in the box office(subscriptions) and make money with DVD gimmicks(P2P). People who like other movies are then told to watch older movies or give up on movies period. People proclaim that nobody wants to watch any other type of movie based on making continuous flops that turn a profit later in life.


    I don't think breaking a failure to bring in a narrowly targeted segment of gamer with mediocre games and mediocre profit in compared to whats being emulated is high art. I think that it says a lot about desires of the casual base that they can't give the games away to meet a quarter of a base of WoW subscribers.
  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Neo_Viper

     

    Oh, and worth mentioning too: most of those images of the "perfect MMORPG" are totally non viable and would tank and fail faster and harder than any of the games those "old gamers" critic harshly and pretend being failures.

    Fans aren't businesspeople working for games companies. They ask for games they want to play, not games they think will sell.

    Fans expect the companies to absorb losses and make High Art That Supports The Principles of Fine Gaming.

    Companies continue to make what earns profits, ideally maximal profits.

    (This shocks and baffles fans. A basic clash between idealism and reality.)

    Most of the variety we got from the 1st round of MMORPG's wasn't due to any idealistic purpose on the part of the developers, it  was more due to the fact they didn't really know what features and designs would sell the best.

    Once Blizzard showed everyone the way to high profits it pretty much sealed the deal in terms of how MMO's would be designed going forward and will likely remain the same until some firm ventures off the path a bit and manages to have an unexpected break out hit using some more radical designs.

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by Kyleran

    Once Blizzard showed everyone the way to high profits it pretty much sealed the deal in terms of how MMO's would be designed going forward and will likely remain the same until some firm ventures off the path a bit and manages to have an unexpected break out hit using some more radical designs.

    Exactly so. Essentially, an entirely different genre.

    Since the original ideas aren't exactly appearing from thin air on demand, we're awaiting the next basic major re-thinking of all of the core concepts, the One Great Game that spawns a hundred new ideas, followed by another fine-tuning period.

    What won't work is turning the clock hands backwards 15 years, stomping yet again along already well-worn pathways.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

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

    Originally posted by Kyleran Once Blizzard showed everyone the way to high profits it pretty much sealed the deal in terms of how MMO's would be designed going forward and will likely remain the same until some firm ventures off the path a bit and manages to have an unexpected break out hit using some more radical designs.

    Exactly so. Essentially, an entirely different genre.

    Since the original ideas aren't exactly appearing from thin air on demand, we're awaiting the next basic major re-thinking of all of the core concepts, the One Great Game that spawns a hundred new ideas, followed by another fine-tuning period.

    What won't work is turning the clock hands backwards 15 years, stomping yet again along already well-worn pathways.

     

    I think many like me are waiting on change. But I don't see the harm in letting it be know there are lots of players who want older game types or point out that emulation of WoW has not produced any game a quarter of the success. These games haven't held subscriptions while older games still held stable subscriber bases.

  • Neo_ViperNeo_Viper NotyourbusinessPosts: 598Member
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Neo_Viper

     

    Oh, and worth mentioning too: most of those images of the "perfect MMORPG" are totally non viable and would tank and fail faster and harder than any of the games those "old gamers" critic harshly and pretend being failures.

    Fans aren't businesspeople working for games companies. They ask for games they want to play, not games they think will sell. Which is as it should be since they get no benefit from a good selling game that they don't personally enjoy.

    PS I'd like to try EQ with better graphics since I never got to play the original one :)

    Fans aren't developers either, nor designers. The vast majority of them have dreams that just can't come true, or that nobody else except themself would play.

    Not saying every game should have WoW's player base. But you need a minimum success to be able to keep your game running, and making a game as expensive as a MMORPG with only 100 people ending playing it on long term doesn't work.

    ___________

    This is not for the quoted person, but in general:

    By the way, do you really think the people who made UO, EQ or AC1 didn't expect profit? If yes... it's a nice fantasy world you're living in.

    My computer is better than yours.

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

    Most of the variety we got from the 1st round of MMORPG's wasn't due to any idealistic purpose on the part of the developers, it  was more due to the fact they didn't really know what features and designs would sell the best.

    Once Blizzard showed everyone the way to high profits it pretty much sealed the deal in terms of how MMO's would be designed going forward and will likely remain the same until some firm ventures off the path a bit and manages to have an unexpected break out hit using some more radical designs.

     

    Yeah, and to be fair, companies do experiment all the time. Otherwise, we won't have MOBAs, WoT type instanced pvp games, and TCGs.

    What you don't expect most companies to do is to go back to old, tried, and failed ideas.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Speaking on a tangent here, but human beings (in general, regardless of age) are BOTH adaptable and resistant to change. These are NOT mutualy exclusive concepts and in fact are traits selected for by millions of years of evolution because they both have important roles as survival mechanisms.

    To illustrate the point....  If I eat red berries and I have a positive experience (e.g. I don't get sick and die) then I will continue to select those same berries again WHEN they are available. I will eschew trying green berries as long as the red berries are availble because the green berries may very well poison and kill me. This trait of sticking with the familiar as long as it is positive is ingrained in our instincts. We may be able to overrule it on a level of higher logic and purposefully make different choices, but we feel it on a gut level.

    Now if conditions change and red berries no longer become easly available or become less positive in some way (e.g. you have to go into the territory of a dangerous predator to get them) THEN we go into ADAPTATION mode and try to experiment with different food sources or different ways of obtaining food because doing so is generaly a more effective survival strategy then starving or getting eaten trying to obtain the red berries....even though SOME of us will likely get poisoned and die with such experimentation. That adaptablity IS part of what makes us such a successfull species. WILLINGNESS to change when CONDITIONS DEMAND IT....is also part of our ingrained instincts.

    BOTH these instincts are well recognized by marketers in the commercial world. For example....once a person goes shopping in a particular store and has a positive experience, they will tend to return to that store time and again, often not even bothering to try other stores. The more positive the experience, the more likely they are to return and not experiment. However, when conditions change....either for the store or the person.... the barrier to that person experimenting is significantly decreased. That's one reason, for example, Supermarkets often focus alot of marketing toward new and expecting parents.... that major life event where people are forced to buy products they never have before represents an opportunity to break thier in-grained shopping patterns and draw them to try shopping in different stores.

    NOTE importantly here people develop patterns off of experiences that they percieve as POSITIVE and nothing about change itself implies that the change will provide a BETTER experience for the individual.

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
    I think many like me are waiting on change. But I don't see the harm in letting it be know there are lots of players who want older game types or point out that emulation of WoW has not produced any game a quarter of the success. These games haven't held subscriptions while older games still held stable subscriber bases.

    Right. The only emulation that produced a quarter of WoW's success was...WoW. WoW was definitely the most successful emulation of EQ...certainly much better than EQ2 (or EQ3)...

    OTOH, you can make exactly the same claim for EVE, or whatever this week's sandbox hero is, too. No game that's copied it has a quarter of its success.

    You're betting (without confirmation data) on Faith in Some Company to speak the right Marketing (earning your dollars). Knowing full well that most publishing companies haven't done at all well fulfilling their marketing promises since 2004. Brand loyalty sure has a winning record over the past decade, yarr.

     

    Keep betting the long shot, by all means. You're keeping the old work horses in Ferraris, while they flail about for not-producing original ideas and come up with ... what was the best game of 2007 again? 2009? 2011?

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Neo_Viper
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by Neo_Viper

     

    Oh, and worth mentioning too: most of those images of the "perfect MMORPG" are totally non viable and would tank and fail faster and harder than any of the games those "old gamers" critic harshly and pretend being failures.

    Fans aren't businesspeople working for games companies. They ask for games they want to play, not games they think will sell. Which is as it should be since they get no benefit from a good selling game that they don't personally enjoy.

    PS I'd like to try EQ with better graphics since I never got to play the original one :)

    Fans aren't developers either, nor designers. The vast majority of them have dreams that just can't come true, or that nobody else except themself would play.

    Not only could not necessarily come true or make profit, but also, they might not like themselves when implemented. It takes a certain degree of introspection to know what you like and why, and it takes proficiency in game design to know what tickles those fancies just right.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

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

    Fans expect the companies to absorb losses and make High Art That Supports The Principles of Fine Gaming.

    Companies continue to make what earns profits, ideally maximal profits.

    (This shocks and baffles fans. A basic clash between idealism and reality.)

    I'm neither shocked nor baffled (maybe some fans are?). I know companies exist to make money. It won't stop me from asking for the games I want or taking a certain satisfaction when blatant cash grab games fail. It's up to the companies to figure out what makes them the most profit. It's up to us to figure out what we want and ask for it. 

     

    If I was CEO of one of these companies I would take months doing a cost benefit analysis of an idea, not a couple of minutes to whip up a forum post of an idea that sounds good to me at the time. :) It's totally a different mindset.

     

  • IncomparableIncomparable KuwaitPosts: 872Member
    Originally posted by Deleted User

    This is a repost from another thread, to start a new topic. The real reason older gamers like their older games and dont like the new games? It's definitely not because they're older now.

    As someone who actually holds a degree in Family Studies & Gerontology (the study of the elderly), I wanted to debunk this myth, among others, and educate the forum here as to the facts about aging. I was disturbed by how many people jumped to agree to a complete and utter myth.

     

    Originally posted by a Misinformed User

    OP you are right that as you age people are more resistant to changes.

    I would like to see real scientific research articles supporting this random claim.

    Honestly, I am sick and tired of the laymen spouting off random statements as if they're automatic facts just because they fit a popular stereotype.

    How about a few links? If this is true, it should be easy enough to find some supporting evidence.

     

    I mean, come on... with a single moment in google and a few clicks of the mouse, you can actually grab the specific article or research theorist and paste their name or a quote into the OP along with a hyperlink. That way people can actually believe it if it's true, as opposed to mindlessly agreeing because it sounds "true enough" because they're preconditioned to believe in stereotypes.

     

    If you actually do real research on the matter, you will find most of the commonly held stereotypes on old people are wrong.

    Try this out, it has a lot of facts in it, that are confirmed by actual research and common knowledge in the field of gerontology. A field in which I hold a degree in, so I think I'd know whether or not old people are "more resistant to change".

    It is a powerpoint, which holds a lot of facts in it, along with common myths.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lsuagcenter.com%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2F5131510B-1610-478B-889E-F5F83554B881%2F79567%2FAgingMythsandFactsPowerPoint.ppt&ei=oaFpUpPqJYOqyAHR04G4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGLlIE-U9iVITEnImMKunCqFS9tkw&sig2=S7xFj5EuBF5KymPdhfKbgg&bvm=bv.55123115,d.aWc&cad=rja

     

    Myth (Slide 39)

    Most older adults become set in their ways and are resistant to change.

    The Facts: "The majority of older people are not "set in their ways and unable to change." There is some evidence that older people tend to become more stable in their attitudes, but it is clear that most older people do change. To survive, they must adapt to many events of later life such as retirement, children leaving home, widowhood, moving to new homes, and serious illness. Their political and social attitudes also tend to shift with those of the rest of society, although at a somewhat slower rate than for younger people.

    Older individuals have had extensive experience adapting to change!  "

     

    Edit: I strongly suggest reading through the powerpoints. They're extremely brief, and you go through them fast. If you're interested, you can read the actual paragraph of information in the slide which interests you. There are some very important myths debunked, such as the common myth that old people do not get their funk on. Not only do they get their funk on, they are VERY funky.

    I guess your degree is worthless. Any degree that is based on simple observation is a degree that can be earned in a blink of an eye with common sense.

    Firstly, look at old games and thier combat is a certain style.

    Then look at what old age means in terms of reaction time.

    Do you see many old pro FPS gamers? Not many, becuase their reaction time is not as good, and they are not accustomed to that.

    Also I have heard many times that older people prefer theme park MMO combat with 30 button mash with a gcd as opposed to a few abilities and the combat is more action oriented. Read action oriented as in requiring quicker reaction time, and closer to FPS games.

    So anything that requires people to spaz out, and use twitch like reflexed, the 'older' generation wont like that becuase 1. They are not used to it, and 2, they do not like to get thier adrenaline pumping at such an age, as action combat would since it is more intense.

    I am not advocating one kind of combat is better than others... but trying to change facts with your common sense degree does not change the reality of the matter.

    “Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble”

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Incomparable
    Originally posted by Deleted User
     

    I guess your degree is worthless. Any degree that is based on simple observation is a degree that can be earned in a blink of an eye with common sense.

    Firstly, look at old games and thier combat is a certain style.

    Then look at what old age means in terms of reaction time.

    Do you see many old pro FPS gamers? Not many, becuase their reaction time is not as good, and they are not accustomed to that.

    Also I have heard many times that older people prefer theme park MMO combat with 30 button mash with a gcd as opposed to a few abilities and the combat is more action oriented. Read action oriented as in requiring quicker reaction time, and closer to FPS games.

    So anything that requires people to spaz out, and use twitch like reflexed, the 'older' generation wont like that becuase 1. They are not used to it, and 2, they do not like to get thier adrenaline pumping at such an age, as action combat would since it is more intense.

    I am not advocating one kind of combat is better than others... but trying to change facts with your common sense degree does not change the reality of the matter.

    Twitch is skill useful in very limited set of games. What it refers to is the ability to use your twitch reflex to fire a weapon at someone while (often) camping a corner etc.

    Talking about twitch in the context of MMORPGs or action combat is... less than smart. It was not a prevalent skill in most FPSs either. Only MMORPG where I've used my twitch reflex is in Guild Wars 1 where I resized the target's casting bar big deliberately, so it would trigger my twitch reflex thus allowing me to use interruption skills to greater effect.

    I have yet to encounter a MMORPG other than GW1 where I could use twitch to my benefit. Please don't talk about twitch when you talk about action combat.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • jesteralwaysjesteralways ChittagongPosts: 1,040Member Uncommon
    Despite all the "casual transformation" UO still has more depth than any current "hand holding themepark" games. So why don't you "challenging gameplay seeking" players go play UO? who cares about crappy graphics when it has "challenging gameplay that adult players seek"? go on play UO instead of bitching in forums. and if you are not happy about the current games then pitch your idea to a publisher and we will see how much attention it gets. 

    i want an open world, no phasing, no instancing.i want meaningful owpvp.i want player driven economy.i want meaningful crafting.i want awesome exploration, a sense of thrill.i want ow housing with a meaningful effect on my entire gameplay experience, not just some instanced crap.i want all of these free of cost, i don't wanna pay you a cent, game devs can eat grass and continue developing game for me.
    Seems like that is the current consensus of western mmo players.

  • Neo_ViperNeo_Viper NotyourbusinessPosts: 598Member
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    Despite all the "casual transformation" UO still has more depth than any current "hand holding themepark" games. So why don't you "challenging gameplay seeking" players go play UO? who cares about crappy graphics when it has "challenging gameplay that adult players seek"? go on play UO instead of bitching in forums. and if you are not happy about the current games then pitch your idea to a publisher and we will see how much attention it gets. 

    The graphics and "point and click" just don't do it for me anymore. Once you tasted the immersion of true 3D worlds, it's hard to go back to isometric ones. At least for me.

    I hope that Garriott's new game, Shroud of the Avatar, will recapture some of that old school UO with those great 3D graphics. It seems that's what he's trying to do, many mechanics are similar, even if it won't be a true MMORPG.

    My computer is better than yours.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    Despite all the "casual transformation" UO still has more depth than any current "hand holding themepark" games. So why don't you "challenging gameplay seeking" players go play UO? who cares about crappy graphics when it has "challenging gameplay that adult players seek"? go on play UO instead of bitching in forums. and if you are not happy about the current games then pitch your idea to a publisher and we will see how much attention it gets. 

    So much wrong in this post...

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

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

    I hope that Garriott's new game, Shroud of the Avatar, will recapture some of that old school UO with those great 3D graphics. It seems that's what he's trying to do, many mechanics are similar, even if it won't be a true MMORPG.

    It does. I saw a video that shows that you can chop wood to make chairs.

    If that is the main part of the game, i will pass. I am not interested in making chairs.

     

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Neo_Viper

    I hope that Garriott's new game, Shroud of the Avatar, will recapture some of that old school UO with those great 3D graphics. It seems that's what he's trying to do, many mechanics are similar, even if it won't be a true MMORPG.

    It does. I saw a video that shows that you can chop wood to make chairs.

    If that is the main part of the game, i will pass. I am not interested in making chairs.

     

    Maybe players will be allowed to hit people over the head with them? image

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

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

    I hope that Garriott's new game, Shroud of the Avatar, will recapture some of that old school UO with those great 3D graphics. It seems that's what he's trying to do, many mechanics are similar, even if it won't be a true MMORPG.

    It does. I saw a video that shows that you can chop wood to make chairs.

    If that is the main part of the game, i will pass. I am not interested in making chairs.

     

    Maybe players will be allowed to hit people over the head with them? image

    I would much rather loot that chair +1 from interesting combat.

     

12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.