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!

Another critique of the genre from a vet

2

Comments

  • jtcgsjtcgs New Port Richey, ILPosts: 1,777Member
    Originally posted by crazzyjake

    I'll get straight to the point,

    First and foremost in my mind is the complete shift from social to solo content.

     

    I will also get straight to the point,

    Your post was based on a false premise.

    I will start with Ultima Online, only because previous MMO's didn't have the label. UO was almost 100% soloable. Was easy to forget that wasn't it?

    Asherons Call 1. Almost entirely 100% soloable short of a few major bosses and elite dungeons.

    Anarchy Online, all but the dungeons were soloable.

    SWG, that's right...until they nerfed the ability to have two At-at's out at once and three pets out it was almost 100% soloable...and even after they did, it was still almost entirely soloable.

    There you go, 4 out of the first 10 MMORPGs, very very solo friendly.

    It isn't that games are becoming more solo friendly, its that PEOPLE are becoming more solo friendly and so do it. Guess that is what happens when guilds turn games into a damn job with raid schedules and gear reqs...took the fun right out of PLAYING and instead made raiding a freaking profession, that plus always waiting waiting waiting for all group members to get their crap together.

    “I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

  • SpeelySpeely Seattle, WAPosts: 861Member

    Jake, I feel largely the same on all accounts, especially character building/diversity. On the topic of solo content, while I agree that player-to-system interaction is inferior to player-to-player interaction in regard to meaningful, complex gameplay, I think the ultimate culprit of the perceived shift in content to the former is something other than mere developer mandate. There are two issues I would like to discuss thusly.

    The first is the ubiquitous nature of modern social networks. In this genre's infancy, there was plenty of solo content available, as the poster above illustrated so succinctly and bluntly. However, the ability to interact with others on the scale and in the fashion that mmorpgs offer was something of a novelty, and grouping up may have been a kind of de facto gameplay style merely because it was possible. Sure, games like EQ encouraged it mechanically, but given the community that game had, I don't think it would have been so different even had they not done so. At least not early on.

    These days everyone is connected to everyone and everything all the time. We live our lives connected to the networked world that has come to dominate our waking hours. Our online experience is like one big mmo

    Just look at this forum for an example of that. 

    In this environment, someone being introduced to mmorpgs might approach such a game model as merely an extension of their already networked social circles. The content itself and people playing in the same world become iterations of social content they are already accustomed to conceptually. MMOs are not viewed as virtual worlds but rather socially and thematically-networked content. Developers adapt to this rapidly growing market by providing content in this manner because, despite what they might prefer, their publishers are in the business to make money, after all. It's just good business, and us dinosaurs are left scratching our heads wondering where all the magic went while being told to adapt to what we view as an increasingly streamlined model of mmo gameplay driven by easily-consumable content.

    Virtual worlds don't print money. Consumable content does. I hate it, but it's true. I am sure someone will cite examples of modern games that failed under this model, but flawed implementations do not alter the sensibility of a good business model.

    The second issue I have is with system-enforced gameplay. I don't think forcing people to group is a good way to recapture the magic. We have to move forward, because that old magic was a product of its time, and the culture of gaming has changed dramatically and rapidly. Instead, perhaps we should be looking at WHY players should want to group in the first place in this day and age. "Because it's more gratifying" is not an acceptable answer given the wide variance of swiftly-adopted opinions on this topic.

    My solution is danger. If the virtual world you are playing in is supposed to be dangerous, let's see some danger. That brings people together. Meaningful open-world PvP with little to no safe zones can do this, provided that the "meaningful" part is supported by smart gameplay mechanics. For those who don't like PvP, it's a bit trickier. Since a lack of PvP or inclusion of safe PvP offers no danger and thus no immediate need of grouping, the only option is system-encouraged grouping like EQ and FFXI employed (in differing ways.)

    While I want to say that's all well and good, I can't help but think there is a better way, if for no other reason than fearing for the longevity of a game using such a model.

    TL;DR I agree and feel your pain, but solo content isn't the problem in and of itself. Also, we are dinosaurs.

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,467Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Boneserino

    Yup todays games have all of these problems. 


     

    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.

    Haha so ruining a genre is something players should adapt to?Yep that makes lots of sense to me .../not.

    Oh yes people that don't like hockey should be able to still play hockey but THEIR way,they should be able to drive cars around the rink and use shotguns,why not that is the exact same mentality.Then to those who actually enjoy the genre of hockey,we tell them ..."you need to adapt"  lmao ,ya ok ,i see the perfect logic in that.

    You know what,i don't even want to play hocvkey at all,i want to press one button and get the end game score.But wait what about all those that actually want to play the game,what if they want to keep the integrity of the game in tact?Screw them,it is my money,i want to get what i want out of my game and i don't care what happens to the game to get it....they can adapt!

     


    Samoan Diamond

  • SpeelySpeely Seattle, WAPosts: 861Member
    Originally posted by Wizardry
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Boneserino

    Yup todays games have all of these problems. 


     

    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.

    Haha so ruining a genre is something players should adapt to?Yep that makes lots of sense to me .../not.

    Oh yes people that don't like hockey should be able to still play hockey but THEIR way,they should be able to drive cars around the rink and use shotguns,why not that is the exact same mentality.Then to those who actually enjoy the genre of hockey,we tell them ..."you need to adapt"  lmao ,ya ok ,i see the perfect logic in that.

     

     

    I don't even... why is this... what is life?

    Words fail me in the face of this spiralling abyss of logic.

     

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by PerfArt
    Originally posted by Wizardry
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Boneserino

    Yup todays games have all of these problems. 


     

    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.

    Haha so ruining a genre is something players should adapt to?Yep that makes lots of sense to me .../not.

    Oh yes people that don't like hockey should be able to still play hockey but THEIR way,they should be able to drive cars around the rink and use shotguns,why not that is the exact same mentality.Then to those who actually enjoy the genre of hockey,we tell them ..."you need to adapt"  lmao ,ya ok ,i see the perfect logic in that.

     

     

    I don't even... why is this... what is life?

    Words fail me in the face of this spiralling abyss of logic.

     

    What do you mean... the, If I don't like it no one can, is a very common argument here. I've been told if you say it often enough it becomes true. These people obviously believe it.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wizardry
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Boneserino

    Yup todays games have all of these problems. 


     

    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.

    Haha so ruining a genre is something players should adapt to?Yep that makes lots of sense to me .../not.

    Oh yes people that don't like hockey should be able to still play hockey but THEIR way,they should be able to drive cars around the rink and use shotguns,why not that is the exact same mentality.Then to those who actually enjoy the genre of hockey,we tell them ..."you need to adapt"  lmao ,ya ok ,i see the perfect logic in that.

    You know what,i don't even want to play hocvkey at all,i want to press one button and get the end game score.But wait what about all those that actually want to play the game,what if they want to keep the integrity of the game in tact?Screw them,it is my money,i want to get what i want out of my game and i don't care what happens to the game to get it....they can adapt!

     

    Old gamers were not expected to adapt, if they all left they would have been replaced by the player base the MMO industry was chasing at the time. PC RPG < PC MMO Gamers < Console solo < Social Media gamers. Each time they have looked to the bigger player base, they would love to keep the old one too, but the bigger one was the prize. They are still in the process of chasing Social Media gamers, but you can already see changes in MMOs made for that new larger player base.

     

  • crack_foxcrack_fox WellingtonPosts: 402Member
    Originally posted by jtcgs

    It isn't that games are becoming more solo friendly, its that PEOPLE are becoming more solo friendly and so do it. Guess that is what happens when guilds turn games into a damn job with raid schedules and gear reqs...took the fun right out of PLAYING and instead made raiding a freaking profession, that plus always waiting waiting waiting for all group members to get their crap together.

    FFS, can we please have a 'like' button? Even Massively has one. 

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,223Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by crazzyjake

    I'll get straight to the point,

    First and foremost in my mind is the complete shift from social to solo content.

    I will also get straight to the point,

    Your post was based on a false premise.

    I will start with Ultima Online, only because previous MMO's didn't have the label. UO was almost 100% soloable. Was easy to forget that wasn't it?

    Asherons Call 1. Almost entirely 100% soloable short of a few major bosses and elite dungeons.

    Anarchy Online, all but the dungeons were soloable.

    SWG, that's right...until they nerfed the ability to have two At-at's out at once and three pets out it was almost 100% soloable...and even after they did, it was still almost entirely soloable.

    There you go, 4 out of the first 10 MMORPGs, very very solo friendly.

    It isn't that games are becoming more solo friendly, its that PEOPLE are becoming more solo friendly and so do it. Guess that is what happens when guilds turn games into a damn job with raid schedules and gear reqs...took the fun right out of PLAYING and instead made raiding a freaking profession, that plus always waiting waiting waiting for all group members to get their crap together.

    Don't forget Lineage. That makes 5. That too was entirely soloable, especially if you were good enough. It wasn't really until EQ and DAoC that this contrived one-dimensional forced grouping thing reared its ugly head.

    Your last paragraph hits the nail square on the head. It's the main reason I'm in only 2 guilds (just GW2 and EQ2) and both of those are small family style.

    It's not that the industry made people adapt. It's that the industry made changes that people asked for. Devs have just followed the money.

  • ZairuZairu Portland, ORPosts: 469Member
    Originally posted by Whiplash931
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     

    ................

     

    For the MMO gamers who started with WoW I feel sorry for you.

     

     

    don't feel sorry for me.

     

    WoW was a great game pre-WotLK and I know enough about the ones that came before it to know that i did not miss anything that i did not get in the time that i did play WoW.

    i would not have minded a little more of a death penalty, as death in WoW was just a ghost run, but aside from that, i did not miss out on the 'amazing social interaction' that you speak of. WoW was very social back in the day with a wide variety of people playing, and back then, most of them were talkative and fun.

    all that WoW really lacked in those days was player housing. other than that, it was great, and i would not trade it being my first MMO.  this is not an insult to the older games, just a statement that i know what they offered and i KNOW that i did not miss out on anything special. (i research things avidly, and i know what i like).

     

    keep your sympathy for things that ACTUALLY need it, like i don't know... real problems maybe?

     

  • ZairuZairu Portland, ORPosts: 469Member
    Originally posted by jtcgs
     that is what happens when guilds turn games into a damn job with raid schedules and gear reqs...took the fun right out of PLAYING and instead made raiding a freaking profession, that plus always waiting waiting waiting for all group members to get their crap together.

     

    this pretty much sums up why games shifted.

     

    i will add, that i always hated voice chat in mmo's. i avoided raiding a lot because of how much i hated hearing people talk about their boring lives, and spewing racial jokes while waiting for one person to stop being afk. it was funny (not really) to see how badly a raid would do per 'wait period for member to return'. all that ever did was break immersion, the voice chat AND the waiting.

  • observerobserver Houston, TXPosts: 3,013Member Uncommon

    Trying to define what is casual and solo-able is arbitray and futile, and this in turn, leads developers trying to appease to all types of gamers, which usually creates a bad experience, because they try to create content, and balance it, for solo players and group players, and also pvp players.  This is basically the only genre in gaming that tries to do this.

    • It's not possible to guage "when, how, and where", gamers will spend their time when they log in. 
    • Will they stay on for an hour or less?  or 5 hours or more?
    • How much of that time will they pvp?  or quest?  or just socialize with friends?  rp? etc.

    As you can see, it's impossible to please everyone, because it's impossible to know what they want, or when they want it.

    It's easy to critique the developers, that the content one desires, is being neglected, but there are literally millions of other people who differ in their desires.

    The developers have to balance several target-audiences, which is never an easy thing to do.

    OP mentions instancing & mandatory forced-grouping, but fails to see how that worked out in the past.

    Any veteran will point out the negatives of these two aspects in MMOs.

    • latency/lag
    • disconnections
    • random leaves
    • wasting time waiting on randoms (10 min. 15 min. 1 hour. 4 hours?, etc.)
    • waiting on friends/guildies
    • etc.
    ...and these negatives are just for grouping, in non-instanced & instanced content.
    This leads on to the next subject, and that is the mythical claim that "socialization" is ruined.
     
    Socializing was never ruined.  It's always been there (guild chat & websites, world channels, friends list, vent, etc.).  The only reason people socialized in one spot was because back in EQ1 (and others), people literally had to wait in one spot for a mob to spawn.  They had to literally wait for 12+ hours, in fear of some other guild stealing it.  I'm sorry, but i'm going to be blunt, and say that is just wasting one's life away.  MMO design has changed for the better in this aspect.
     
    If someone really wants to socialze that way, there is always Second Life or old-fashioned IRC.
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon

    Another of those "grouping = socialization, solo = antisocial" threads.

    As a much older "vet", I totally disagree with that notion, as I already said in the dozens of threads on that topic.

    Originally posted by observer

    The only reason people socialized in one spot was because back in EQ1 (and others), people literally had to wait in one spot for a mob to spawn.  They had to literally wait for 12+ hours, in fear of some other guild stealing it.  I'm sorry, but i'm going to be blunt, and say that is just wasting one's life away.  MMO design has changed for the better in this aspect.

    Well said! image

    And you weren't blunt, you were quite nice actually.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • PyndaPynda Posts: 738Member Uncommon

    Disagree - I'm flat out against 'forced grouping'. And forced PvP for that matter, too. When designers start telling me what I must like, think, and do in a MMORPG I rebel (that is, I quit). Because I like doing lots of different things - and doing both soloing and grouping. But I am for features that encourage grouping in a non immersion breaking manner. For example having lots of group content (and PvP content), and having high quality guild tools. But something I dislike are group finders. And especially so when they are 'cross realm'. If you want to find a pickup group for a specific dungeon, I say plop down a little tavern near it somewhere. And let people meet up and socialize there. I realize that this is not as convenient as a group finder, but...


    Agree - Not allowing people to play all classes/skills on one character. I just gave a spiel about freedom in games, but this is an increasingly common 'feature' which bugs the hell out of me. And again I suppose, from an immersion breaking perspective. It's just so darn fake. And I enjoy thinking closely about my character build (because it really should matter), committing to it, and then forming some kind of weird emotional attachment. So once more, convenience is not always a good thing in my book.


    (I was surprised and pleased to see that a lot of other people in this thread seemed to feel the same way about this.)

  • crazzyjakecrazzyjake Schenectady, NYPosts: 19Member

    Thanks for all the spirited discussion guys, and keeping the post from degrading into typical trolling and spam that many seem to devolve into.

    Just to clarify a few things about my original post. I still firmly believe that a games build can directly drive its community  in terms of group vs soloable content In other words, if a game puts a focus on group content it will help breed a community that values a social and cooperative environment that will permiate through all aspects of a game. I didn't mean to imply that "all" content should be only for groups. I just think progression should be much quicker and efficient by tackling content with a group. I would look at it as more of a rewarding system for those in groups rather than one that is seen as a punishment for those that prefer to play solo. I guess it all depends on your point of view, but the discrepancy should be very apparent in terms of progression. We already have some forced grouping in most games for dungeons and raids, indeed most end game content. I just want it throughout the game as well.

    I know that devs are just responding to the overwhelming success of more casual games like WoW but the pendulum has just swung too far. The vast majority of the games since Wow could be seen as less than a success, with huge drops in subscription numbers and then the inevitable move to F2P. I believe this is directly due to the huge increase in progression speed and the focus on soloable content. Devs are putting all these action RPG elements into MMO's and people are sutprised when we play them like action games, bulldozing content and leaving after we "beat" the game.

    Just to respond to the notion that I should go play one of the old school titles that has all the things I am looking for. It is hard to get past the downright awful looking graphics of the older games, not to mention the near desolate wasteland they have become, with empty servers and no new players to go through the leveling progression with.

    If anyone has any suggestions for upcoming games or recently released games I should be looking into feel free to suggest them. I was playing FF XIV ARR. It had a great old school feel to it but the crazy zerg fest in terms of progression as well as the notion that every character can be every class, making no one unique whatsoever really turned me off.

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by DamonVile

    Originally posted by PerfArt

    Originally posted by Wizardry

    Originally posted by Gdemami

    Originally posted by Boneserino
    Yup todays games have all of these problems.
    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.
    Haha so ruining a genre is something players should adapt to?Yep that makes lots of sense to me .../not.

    Oh yes people that don't like hockey should be able to still play hockey but THEIR way,they should be able to drive cars around the rink and use shotguns,why not that is the exact same mentality.Then to those who actually enjoy the genre of hockey,we tell them ..."you need to adapt"  lmao ,ya ok ,i see the perfect logic in that.


    I don't even... why is this... what is life?

    Words fail me in the face of this spiralling abyss of logic.


    What do you mean... the, If I don't like it no one can, is a very common argument here. I've been told if you say it often enough it becomes true. These people obviously believe it.
    C'mon now. It really is not rocket science.

    Is the general feel of MMOs today any different from the general feel of MMOs 10+ years ago? Try to answer truthfully.

    Of course they are, meaning that in order to expand their playerbase, developers changed the way MMOs played, kind of like if The National Hockey Association wanted to get the numbers football draws, so they change the game to entice these new "fans" into following their sport. MMOs did the same thing, a few times. They changed to be more "palatable" to players who did not like them in the first place.

    So, those players of MMOs awhile back do not have the games they actually enjoyed playing anymore, but rather this new kind of game that may, or may not appeal to them.

    Really, not to tough to understand if one actually puts their mind to it, don't ya think? I should not even have to explain the concept, yet here I am, doing just that...

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Boneserino

    Yup todays games have all of these problems. 


     

    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.

    Why should customers "adapt" to anything? Corporations need to meet the demand, not dictate to customers what they want.

    Considering there were like 1 million total MMORPG players in 2000, spread between UO, EQ and AC1, and there are over 50 million nowadays, it seems that the corporations adapted just fine...

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Boneserino

    Yup todays games have all of these problems. 


     

    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.

    Why should customers "adapt" to anything? Corporations need to meet the demand, not dictate to customers what they want.

    Considering there were like 1 million total MMORPG players in 2000, spread between UO, EQ and AC1, and there are over 50 million nowadays, it seems that the corporations adapted just fine...

    The gaming companies shaped that demand as much as adapted to it. Just in the same way as fashion houses shape demand but also responds to what their customers want.

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     


    Originally posted by DamonVile

    Originally posted by PerfArt

    Originally posted by Wizardry

    Originally posted by Gdemami

    Originally posted by Boneserino
    Yup todays games have all of these problems.

    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.
    Haha so ruining a genre is something players should adapt to?Yep that makes lots of sense to me .../not.

     

    Oh yes people that don't like hockey should be able to still play hockey but THEIR way,they should be able to drive cars around the rink and use shotguns,why not that is the exact same mentality.Then to those who actually enjoy the genre of hockey,we tell them ..."you need to adapt"  lmao ,ya ok ,i see the perfect logic in that.


    I don't even... why is this... what is life?

     

    Words fail me in the face of this spiralling abyss of logic.


    What do you mean... the, If I don't like it no one can, is a very common argument here. I've been told if you say it often enough it becomes true. These people obviously believe it.
    C'mon now. It really is not rocket science.

     

    Is the general feel of MMOs today any different from the general feel of MMOs 10+ years ago? Try to answer truthfully.

    Of course they are, meaning that in order to expand their playerbase, developers changed the way MMOs played, kind of like if The National Hockey Association wanted to get the numbers football draws, so they change the game to entice these new "fans" into following their sport. MMOs did the same thing, a few times. They changed to be more "palatable" to players who did not like them in the first place.

    So, those players of MMOs awhile back do not have the games they actually enjoyed playing anymore, but rather this new kind of game that may, or may not appeal to them.

    Really, not to tough to understand if one actually puts their mind to it, don't ya think? I should not even have to explain the concept, yet here I am, doing just that...

    You're right it isn't rocket science...but it isn't me that's confused. You can complain all you like about how these games have changed, or how you don't enjoy them anymore. One day you may actually put it all together and figure out...your games didn't change because the devs just felt like it at random, or wanted to make ones that where easier. They changed because there was more money in making games for some one else.

    You're not trying to explain the concept of an unhappy gamer to me, you're explaining what happens to people when they no longer matter to the market they were once part of but don't want to admit it.

  • TatercakeTatercake Auburn, WAPosts: 279Member

    i understand what your saying and agree with a lot of it me i like the uo mortal  build I like that hey i can be anything and use anything if i spend the time  and points to skill that up but ya this new generation of gamer wants everything right now and they do not want to work for it give me give me give me is what they want not like the old days shit uo had over 10 million people  at one point if i remember correctly  i feel like in gw2 and eso that the community  wasnt there so much ya eso in betta but to me its a gw2 clone 

    so we will see what the future holds i hope destiny dose something special and changes everything

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Boneserino

    Yup todays games have all of these problems. 


     

    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.

    Why should customers "adapt" to anything? Corporations need to meet the demand, not dictate to customers what they want.

    Considering there were like 1 million total MMORPG players in 2000, spread between UO, EQ and AC1, and there are over 50 million nowadays, it seems that the corporations adapted just fine...

    The gaming companies shaped that demand as much as adapted to it. Just in the same way as a fashion houses shape demand but also responds to what their customers want.

    That comparison doesn't make any sense.

    Fashion houses actually change the "trends" so that fashion addicted people buy a new wardtrobe every year. For instance, if one winter, the trend for women is to higher heeled boots, you can be sure that the next winter it will be either wedged or low heeled boots. And the lobotomized fashionistas buy, buy and buy more just to be in the mood.

    That's definitely not what MMORPG developers do, proof being the massive amount of similar WoW clones we got the last 9 years.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by DamonVile

    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    Originally posted by DamonVile

    Originally posted by PerfArt

    Originally posted by Wizardry

    Originally posted by Gdemami

    Originally posted by Boneserino
    Yup todays games have all of these problems.
    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.
    Haha so ruining a genre is something players should adapt to?Yep that makes lots of sense to me .../not.Oh yes people that don't like hockey should be able to still play hockey but THEIR way,they should be able to drive cars around the rink and use shotguns,why not that is the exact same mentality.Then to those who actually enjoy the genre of hockey,we tell them ..."you need to adapt"  lmao ,ya ok ,i see the perfect logic in that.
    I don't even... why is this... what is life?

    Words fail me in the face of this spiralling abyss of logic.


    What do you mean... the, If I don't like it no one can, is a very common argument here. I've been told if you say it often enough it becomes true. These people obviously believe it.
    C'mon now. It really is not rocket science.Is the general feel of MMOs today any different from the general feel of MMOs 10+ years ago? Try to answer truthfully.Of course they are, meaning that in order to expand their playerbase, developers changed the way MMOs played, kind of like if The National Hockey Association wanted to get the numbers football draws, so they change the game to entice these new "fans" into following their sport. MMOs did the same thing, a few times. They changed to be more "palatable" to players who did not like them in the first place.So, those players of MMOs awhile back do not have the games they actually enjoyed playing anymore, but rather this new kind of game that may, or may not appeal to them.Really, not to tough to understand if one actually puts their mind to it, don't ya think? I should not even have to explain the concept, yet here I am, doing just that...
    You're right it isn't rocket science...but it isn't me that's confused. You can complain all you like about how these games have changed, or how you don't enjoy them anymore. One day you may actually put it all together and figure out...your games didn't change because the devs just felt like it at random, or wanted to make ones that where easier. They changed because there was more money in making games for some one else.You're not trying to explain the concept of an unhappy gamer to me, you're explaining what happens to people when they no longer matter to the market they were once part of but don't want to admit it.
    You are right, of course. I have no delusions anymore, though. I have realized that I do not matter anymore to the industry, if I ever did :)

    That is a bitter pill to swallow and I hope you fare better with the situation than many have when it happens to you, for it will happen sometime, somewhere. It is not a fun experience.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • KanethKaneth Posts: 1,930Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Beatnik59

    My gripe is that there's simply nothing to do in the games but combat.  Combat, combat and more combat.  No platform for expression.  No platform for roleplay.  No thought is even given to the notion that simply partaking in a work of shared fiction is, in itself, worth something. <Snip>

    I agree with so much of your post, but the first little paragraph really speaks volumes. MMOs have really missed out on so much potential when it comes to extra activities. What if I want to play as a merchant? Shouldn't I be able to set up a shop with a smallish amount of items and some start up cash and have a chance to grow the business? Shouldn't crafters be able to peddle their wares without having to step into the realm of combat? If a group of miners needed to have a mine cleared out so they can set up operations, shouldn't they be able to hire out some warriors to do just that?

    The problem is that mmos aren't designed to be large enough or open enough to support such systems. Typically, those games that have similar systems also have FFA pvp, thus many gamers won't even look at it.

    Forced grouping won't fix ANYTHING in mmos. It's not 15 years ago when mmos were new, and only nerds played them. Forced grouping doesn't create worlds, it just creates elitism and class separation. The things people seem to want are worlds, and well, not many games offer that at the moment.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Boneserino

    Yup todays games have all of these problems. 


     

    Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.

    Why should customers "adapt" to anything? Corporations need to meet the demand, not dictate to customers what they want.

    Considering there were like 1 million total MMORPG players in 2000, spread between UO, EQ and AC1, and there are over 50 million nowadays, it seems that the corporations adapted just fine...

    The gaming companies shaped that demand as much as adapted to it. Just in the same way as a fashion houses shape demand but also responds to what their customers want.

    That comparison doesn't make any sense.

    Fashion houses actually change the "trends" so that fashion addicted people buy a new wardtrobe every year. For instance, if one winter, the trend for women is to higher heeled boots, you can be sure that the next winter it will be either wedged or low heeled boots. And the lobotomized fashionistas buy, buy and buy more just to be in the mood.

    That's definitely not what MMORPG developers do, proof being the massive amount of similar WoW clones we got the last 9 years.

    No analogy works in every respect, gaming companies do not try to change trends every year as you say. I think pushing new MMOs onto players each year does happen though, that's what the hype train is for. But gaming companies do shape the genre, that decision to stick to the WoW format was just that.

  • mysticalunamysticaluna Scotia, NYPosts: 265Member Uncommon

    We have to have instancing to prevent crowds and lag. We have to prevent players from ninjaing and ganking other players with griefing. We have to keep players from being toxic bullies online, because the truth is a lot of gamers are mean and selfish abusive people, that is just the way that life is. 

    If you want to have contested open content you have to have reasonable short spawn timers an hour or less, no more boring archaic camping for bosses that require 6 to 24 hrs to spawn, and 100 people are sitting in line trying to camp them every single day 24/7. 

    You have to have quest updates for everyone in the group/raid and not only 1 person that was on reserved list to loot that quest part. Award everyone who put in the effort to kill that raid boss, not only 1 person. Fairness and fun gameplay over boring camping and daily quests. 

    Please put the fun back into mmos. Design cosmetics and fun fluff crafting. Design things like boats and housing with farmland, and let us tame mounts/pets without insane amounts of competition against millions of other players.

    Let pvp have its own game, so my pve games can be safe from constantly nerfing every pvp balance game update. 

    Give us servers, and no more cross realm zone nonsense, crowds ruin everything in life. Crowds ruin Disney World, crowds ruin World of Warcraft, and crowds ruin musical concerts. You can't enjoy anything properly when the zone is laggy/crashing / rare names are perma dead 24/7 cause they die in one second around the clock. 

    Please give us back a game like Star Wars Galaxies and Everquest 1. 

  • mysticalunamysticaluna Scotia, NYPosts: 265Member Uncommon

    Yes, I agree Everqeust 2 had class seperation. I'm not sure about the new channelers, but raids didn't want Wardens or Fury (druids) because Clerics (like Inquisitors) were overpowered. Everyone wanted to have 3 Inquisitors for a raid force, and cut out the Druids so they could have Shamans. 

    Why have class elitism? Brawlers like monks and bruisers weren't desired, because back in the past they couldn't tank as well as a plate wearing tank. Now they finally seem to have fixed class balance in Everquest 2, but a lot of games could have that same class unbalance favoritism going on. 

    They took out crowd control mezzing/stunning/daze/silence/etc and made Everquest 2 Enchanter/Bards another dps class. Everyone is expected to dps , even most of the healers ! 

    Everything turned into a dps check, instead of a strategy mezzing cc check... 

     

2
Sign In or Register to comment.