Howdy, Stranger!

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

why older games seem better...

2456717

Comments

  • BladestromBladestrom Member UncommonPosts: 5,001
    For e.g a truth : since Lotr/vanilla wow there has never been a mmorg that has taken the open works and made it bigger/better (true open works not with portals)

    rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar

    Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D

  • SnarlingWolfSnarlingWolf Member Posts: 2,697

    The OP is missing the fact that all forms of entertainment have become simplified and streamlined. Movies cut out a lot of the in-between moments, dialog, and general "slowness" to make sure movies were faster paced and that the action/sex/violence came at quicker intervals. If you ask certain people they will say that movies were better, deeper, and more artistic back in the day where as now they are formulaic, shallow, unintellectual, full of sex and violence. You ask other people, they'll say how good modern movies are.

     

    The same thing happened with music and it is happening with video games. Companies can work off a basic formula of more constant dings to spur the desire to keep playing instead of having slow parts that may build communities and relationships. Some people will say that older video games required more thought, had deeper story lines, more lore, stronger communities, and were more original from one another and that newer games are all the same, no depth, no intelligence, just constant action and rewards. You ask other people and they'll say how good modern games are.

     

     

    Movies now have things like the Sundance Film Festival where more artistic, deeper and intellectual movies are screened. These movies have small budgets and attract a niche audience, but to that audience they are the only place to go for movies. Video games will be growing that small niche side and the mainstream will be the been there done that flashy new game over and over. Most will enjoy that. So how can the companies be told they're doing it wrong?

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,585


    Originally posted by Neo_Viper
    And as said, most of those games are still around... just play them!
    The weakest argument on the internet. The old games are NOT the same games they once were. They have been "modernized" to entice the newer players. I could probably max level in EQ1 in a few months of serious gameplay and not even need to group. They now have mercenaries that you can hire to help you out. The leveling is MUCH faster. The combat is pretty much the same, though. I spent 3 years playing EQ1 and never got above level 38 (I think level 60 was max at that time). No. Not the same game.

    When I do get the itch, which is not that often since EQ1 was never my ideal MMORPG, I can play on a private server that is fairly true to the game circa 1999 :)

    - 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


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,878
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     


    Originally posted by Neo_Viper
    And as said, most of those games are still around... just play them!

    The weakest argument on the internet. The old games are NOT the same games they once were. They have been "modernized" to entice the newer players. I could probably max level in EQ1 in a few months of serious gameplay and not even need to group. They now have mercenaries that you can hire to help you out. The leveling is MUCH faster. The combat is pretty much the same, though. I spent 3 years playing EQ1 and never got above level 38 (I think level 60 was max at that time). No. Not the same game.

     

    When I do get the itch, which is not that often since EQ1 was never my ideal MMORPG, I can play on a private server that is fairly true to the game circa 1999 :)

    I wonder how popular private servers are and would be if they weren't quashed by legal entanglements. Would they really be that popular with the older crowd?

    From my perspective the old games don't feel modernized as much as they made changes in response to their core players. Lineage isn't the game it was in 2002 - 2003, but then again most Lineage players I know were glad the game became a little more forgiving and allowed players to save months or years of character play rather than requiring a complete reroll.

    I played the last month or two before NC closed the NA servers and it was a much better and friendlier game with none of what made it good lost on those changes.

    I'm a little older (46 as I write this) and while I still like some older games like EQ2 and would play Lineage again if they reopened the servers, I think many modern changes have made mmo gaming more fun.

    The only change I don't like is how the focus is on end game and the speed at which players are brought there. That is mostly because I don't like gear treadmills for the sake of tier/level increases. That's more a side effect of playing themeparks that are raid centric than it is when the generation of the game though. Raiders, as a whole, seem to like skipping everything else and just doing end game raids. For a demographic that is supposedly the minority, it's odd to me so many games focus on that.

    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,585


    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    Originally posted by Neo_Viper
    And as said, most of those games are still around... just play them!
    The weakest argument on the internet. The old games are NOT the same games they once were. They have been "modernized" to entice the newer players. I could probably max level in EQ1 in a few months of serious gameplay and not even need to group. They now have mercenaries that you can hire to help you out. The leveling is MUCH faster. The combat is pretty much the same, though. I spent 3 years playing EQ1 and never got above level 38 (I think level 60 was max at that time). No. Not the same game.When I do get the itch, which is not that often since EQ1 was never my ideal MMORPG, I can play on a private server that is fairly true to the game circa 1999 :)
    I wonder how popular private servers are and would be if they weren't quashed by legal entanglements. Would they really be that popular with the older crowd?From my perspective the old games don't feel modernized as much as they made changes in response to their core players. Lineage isn't the game it was in 2002 - 2003, but then again most Lineage players I know were glad the game became a little more forgiving and allowed players to save months or years of character play rather than requiring a complete reroll.I played the last month or two before NC closed the NA servers and it was a much better and friendlier game with none of what made it good lost on those changes.I'm a little older (46 as I write this) and while I still like some older games like EQ2 and would play Lineage again if they reopened the servers, I think many modern changes have made mmo gaming more fun.The only change I don't like is how the focus is on end game and the speed at which players are brought there. That is mostly because I don't like gear treadmills for the sake of tier/level increases. That's more a side effect of playing themeparks that are raid centric than it is when the generation of the game though. Raiders, as a whole, seem to like skipping everything else and just doing end game raids. For a demographic that is supposedly the minority, it's odd to me so many games focus on that.
    The server I play on usually has about 200-400 players on their one PvE sever (they also have a PvP server) whenever I log in.

    I agree that the focus on the "end game" is not my cup of tea. I have tried raiding and it is just too hectic for me. I want gear that fits my character, not some boss the devs thought up. Therefor, I do not grind for gear. I am playing the devs game, not my game when that happens.

    - 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


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • VicodinTacoVicodinTaco Member UncommonPosts: 804
    Originally posted by aspekx

    first to be clear, there are significant differences in the mmorpg's from 10-15 years back (or more). so i am not belittling those changes. however, its interesting to note that a number of us older gamers can look back and think: my gahd, what was i thinking camping that spawn all day.

     

    the sad truth, that i am coming to accept, is that neurologically speaking its becoming more and more evident that the brain's ability to adapt to change as we age does diminish and it does diminish noticeably.

     

    im afraid that neurologically speaking some of us are simply getting older. and i mean that sincerely, not casting any aspersions. but the facts are that as you age your neuronal pathways become less and less "flexible" in forming new connections or altering paths.

     

    note, this is not about intelligence or the ability to process information. it seems that in some ways its easier when you are older. but the ability to form new paths or adapt older ones in new ways is affected (even if you are doing Sudoku every morning).

     

    this is often why older folks are stereotypically seen as not embracing change. neurologically, its just harder. so those things we've enjoyed in the past seem more pleasurable because in a sense they really are more pleasurable. and the reason is that the brain is not having to overcome an increasingly difficult hurdle towards change.

     

    this doesn't mean that everyone over 40 can't change or adapt. but it does mean that it is decreasing over time.

    WTF is this crap post?

     

    Show me ONE new game that follows this formula:

    There is a goal to overcome such as: "This quest is hard!  The enemies are too difficult!"

    Then to overcome the problem:  Level up, gear up, skill up, craft up, learn to play better, or group up to complete the quest.

     

    In new games you NEVER even face a difficult enemy or problem, you are already leveled up or your gear has just been handed to you from the last easy mode quest, your skills are cookie cut to overcome any enemy you face, crafting is a mini game for money sink, you cant play any better than hitting 1 2 3, grouping in pointless.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by VicodinTaco

    In new games you NEVER even face a difficult enemy or problem, you are already leveled up or your gear has just been handed to you from the last easy mode quest, your skills are cookie cut to overcome any enemy you face, crafting is a mini game for money sink, you cant play any better than hitting 1 2 3, grouping in pointless.

    Diablo 3 Inferno MP10. Enough said. (Yeah, not a MMO, but close enough for me)

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,168

    Well...

     

    I hope you young-ans can appreciate that us "Old Schooler's"  used to have to play our MMOs at -30 in the snow. That's why they called us "hardcore" It didn't have anything to do with porn.

     

    Now... where was I.....

     

    well..... ya.....

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • AntiquatedAntiquated Member RarePosts: 1,415
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Antiquated

    OP Posits.

    Responses can be paraphrased "Old games were just better 'cause they were."

    Unassailable position, of course, because qualitative judgements are after all judgements.

    "Why are red cars better?"

    "I said so."

    "Well, ok then. For you, they are indeed."

     

    The problem becomes escaping from the corner you have painted yourself into, should they stop manufacturing red paint. That too is a purely personal problem.

    Except you can easily quantify why they were different (better is a subjective term) and those difference are why I prefer them to more modern titles.

    Now, depending on your tastes you may prefer newer designs to older, but there is a clear reason why today's titles might not be a person's cup of tea, but their lack of ability to change (not willingness) really has nothing to do with it.

     

     

    But that won't save you when they're no longer manufacturing cars with red paint.

    No one is making games like 2000 any more. If you want to, you have no choice except to play the originals.

    If the original (also) aren't good enough, for whatever reason...well, you can complain ineffectually, I guess.

  • thecapitainethecapitaine Member UncommonPosts: 408

    MMOs seem better because they were novel experiences for many of us and were born at a time when the bounds of the internet were measurably closer, when the number of offerings was far smaller, when social media was virtually non-existent, and before gaming (particularly console gaming) exploded into what it is now.  For me it's like asking why haven't we had another proper Woodstock (despite later attempts) to recapture that experience.  Sure, we still have great musicians, plenty of motivated young people, and ample venues but having all the parts just isn't enough to reproduce that event. 

     

    I can't emphasize enough how often this or very similar questions are posed in every artistic genre we humans are capable of.  You cannot talk movies, television, music, literature, theater, art, dance, or journalism without running into it.  There will always be a group of "veterans" who likely got their first or early exposure at a time they now consider to be the apex of the form, the high point that all subsequent efforts fail to reach.  It's such a common occurrence and transcends so many bounds that we have to start questioning its validity and whether it's just a basic part of human existence.  Either across the board, in nearly every facet of human endeavor, we are simply becoming less talented, less inspired, less capable and discerning.  Or, there's a strong predilection towards mythologizing what came before despite our best efforts at seeing things clearly. 

     

    I'm greatly inclined to believe it's the latter.

     

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,168
    Originally posted by thecapitaine

    MMOs seem better because they were novel experiences for many of us and were born at a time when the bounds of the internet were measurably closer, when the number of offerings was far smaller, when social media was virtually non-existent, and before gaming (particularly console gaming) exploded into what it is now.  For me it's like asking why haven't we had another proper Woodstock (despite later attempts) to recapture that experience.  Sure, we still have great musicians, plenty of motivated young people, and ample venues but having all the parts just isn't enough to reproduce that event. 

     

    I can't emphasize enough how often this or very similar questions are posed in every artistic genre we humans are capable of.  You cannot talk movies, television, music, literature, theater, art, dance, or journalism without running into it.  There will always be a group of "veterans" who likely got their first or early exposure at a time they now consider to be the apex of the form, the high point that all subsequent efforts fail to reach.  It's such a common occurrence and transcends so many bounds that we have to start questioning its validity and whether it's just a basic part of human existence.  Either across the board, in nearly every facet of human endeavor, we are simply becoming less talented, less inspired, less capable and discerning.  Or, there's a strong predilection towards mythologizing what came before despite our best efforts at seeing things clearly. 

     

    I'm greatly inclined to believe it's the latter.

     

    Wow a hell of a lot can happen in the last 50-60 years. When it comes to video games, most of the pioneer's are still heavily involved in their craft.

     

    I would have to believe that the golden age of video games is in the future and not in the past. The computer age is still in its infancy.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,563
    Originally posted by Antiquated
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Antiquated

    OP Posits.

    Responses can be paraphrased "Old games were just better 'cause they were."

    Unassailable position, of course, because qualitative judgements are after all judgements.

    "Why are red cars better?"

    "I said so."

    "Well, ok then. For you, they are indeed."

     

    The problem becomes escaping from the corner you have painted yourself into, should they stop manufacturing red paint. That too is a purely personal problem.

    Except you can easily quantify why they were different (better is a subjective term) and those difference are why I prefer them to more modern titles.

    Now, depending on your tastes you may prefer newer designs to older, but there is a clear reason why today's titles might not be a person's cup of tea, but their lack of ability to change (not willingness) really has nothing to do with it.

    But that won't save you when they're no longer manufacturing cars with red paint.

    No one is making games like 2000 any more. If you want to, you have no choice except to play the originals.

    If the original (also) aren't good enough, for whatever reason...well, you can complain ineffectually, I guess.

    Bingo, that's why I'm playing a DAOC freeshard that has it's code base more or less set to circa 2003, because even the live version of the game is a former shadow of itself.

    I'll poke my head out from time to time to see if the landscape has changed much, but otherwise it will be either this or EVE I think for now.

     

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "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






  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,878

    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    The server I play on usually has about 200-400 players on their one PvE sever (they also have a PvP server) whenever I log in.

    I agree that the focus on the "end game" is not my cup of tea. I have tried raiding and it is just too hectic for me. I want gear that fits my character, not some boss the devs thought up. Therefor, I do not grind for gear. I am playing the devs game, not my game when that happens.

    That's really interesting. I would think that should be enough to keep one of those servers running and not be too expensive for the player if they don't charge more than the actual publisher.

    I would think publishers would wake up and find a way to sponsor these instead of trying to shut them down. Imagine having full support and the ability to patch selectively as the server operator wishes. They could have better support, official assets, make money and focus their development in more creative areas.

    I sort of didn't mind raiding except that it became the entire focus of the game and what a shallow thing it is. It's entire purpose shifted from challenging group encounters to a method to keep players subscribing indefinitely. Bad game design.

    Originally posted by thecapitaine

    MMOs seem better because they were novel experiences for many of us and were born at a time when the bounds of the internet were measurably closer, when the number of offerings was far smaller, when social media was virtually non-existent, and before gaming (particularly console gaming) exploded into what it is now.  For me it's like asking why haven't we had another proper Woodstock (despite later attempts) to recapture that experience.  Sure, we still have great musicians, plenty of motivated young people, and ample venues but having all the parts just isn't enough to reproduce that event. 

    I can't emphasize enough how often this or very similar questions are posed in every artistic genre we humans are capable of.  You cannot talk movies, television, music, literature, theater, art, dance, or journalism without running into it.  There will always be a group of "veterans" who likely got their first or early exposure at a time they now consider to be the apex of the form, the high point that all subsequent efforts fail to reach.  It's such a common occurrence and transcends so many bounds that we have to start questioning its validity and whether it's just a basic part of human existence.  Either across the board, in nearly every facet of human endeavor, we are simply becoming less talented, less inspired, less capable and discerning.  Or, there's a strong predilection towards mythologizing what came before despite our best efforts at seeing things clearly. 

    I'm greatly inclined to believe it's the latter.

    Good post. That's one thing that makes me glad I got to participate in the early days of the net and mmos. It was that novel experience that would only last a short time that I really wax nostalgic over. Instead of people trying to recreate that they would be better served enjoying what they have now and whatever novel experiences come their way.

    I don't think it's that we're becoming less talented, but that there is room for more than just the top talent as those art forms mature. I think that is mixed heavily with the combination of mythologizing (nice word!) what came before. So we see a lot of dissatisfaction expressed by those who were fortunate enough to experience the "bliss years".

    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,096
    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.

    Pretty much spot on.  100% agree.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by Antiquated
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Antiquated

    OP Posits.

    Responses can be paraphrased "Old games were just better 'cause they were."

    Unassailable position, of course, because qualitative judgements are after all judgements.

    "Why are red cars better?"

    "I said so."

    "Well, ok then. For you, they are indeed."

     

    The problem becomes escaping from the corner you have painted yourself into, should they stop manufacturing red paint. That too is a purely personal problem.

    Except you can easily quantify why they were different (better is a subjective term) and those difference are why I prefer them to more modern titles.

    Now, depending on your tastes you may prefer newer designs to older, but there is a clear reason why today's titles might not be a person's cup of tea, but their lack of ability to change (not willingness) really has nothing to do with it.

    But that won't save you when they're no longer manufacturing cars with red paint.

    No one is making games like 2000 any more. If you want to, you have no choice except to play the originals.

    If the original (also) aren't good enough, for whatever reason...well, you can complain ineffectually, I guess.

    I'm having trouble making sense of either of your points.

     

    You can absolutely have a discussion about what type of game is better as long as you agree on what makes a game "better." If you think depth, and player retention are indicative of a good game, then you can have a discussion/debate about how one game is better than the other. It's not just "I think this game is better just because." Too many people make the mistake of saying that just because there are subjective elements at play, that means anybody's opinion is as good as anybody else's and you can't discuss it in an objective way. That's just false. 

     

    Also, just because they're not currently making games that resemble the oldschool games we claim to miss doesn't mean that they won't in the future. In fact, it seems to me that there's a relatively large sandbox resurgence on the horizon.

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,878
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Antiquated
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Antiquated

    OP Posits.

    Responses can be paraphrased "Old games were just better 'cause they were."

    Unassailable position, of course, because qualitative judgements are after all judgements.

    "Why are red cars better?"

    "I said so."

    "Well, ok then. For you, they are indeed."

    The problem becomes escaping from the corner you have painted yourself into, should they stop manufacturing red paint. That too is a purely personal problem.

    Except you can easily quantify why they were different (better is a subjective term) and those difference are why I prefer them to more modern titles.

    Now, depending on your tastes you may prefer newer designs to older, but there is a clear reason why today's titles might not be a person's cup of tea, but their lack of ability to change (not willingness) really has nothing to do with it.

    But that won't save you when they're no longer manufacturing cars with red paint.

    No one is making games like 2000 any more. If you want to, you have no choice except to play the originals.

    If the original (also) aren't good enough, for whatever reason...well, you can complain ineffectually, I guess.

    I'm having trouble making sense of either of your points.

    You can absolutely have a discussion about what type of game is better as long as you agree on what makes a game "better." If you think depth, and player retention are indicative of a good game, then you can have a discussion/debate about how one game is better than the other. It's not just "I think this game is better just because." Too many people make the mistake of saying that just because there are subjective elements at play, that means anybody's opinion is as good as anybody else's and you can't discuss it in an objective way. That's just false. 

    Also, just because they're not currently making games that resemble the oldschool games we claim to miss doesn't mean that they won't in the future. In fact, it seems to me that there's a relatively large sandbox resurgence on the horizon.

    There is no consensus here on what makes a game better, hence the "because I said so" in light of someone disagreeing with a proposed definition. I agree you could have that discussion in a smaller more intimate group. Not so much in a larger open discussion.

    The sandbox resurgence doesn't mean they will make them old school. In fact the only triple A sandbox game on the horizon, if you can even call it that, is EQN and it looks nothing like oldschool games. I think there is a valid argument somewhere that very niche games might be able to made with "oldschool" in mind, but they still won't be like they were "back then". We'll never see games made and played like they were "back then" again because "back then" is gone. Even EQ:N doesn't bill itself as sandbox, but sandbox styled. Is there any game being made now that is being created like they used to be?

    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • Ice-QueenIce-Queen Member UncommonPosts: 2,483
    To me older games like UO and AC1 were better because they had more to do and were more quality games than most of the F2P crap they keep putting out. Devs these days are lazy copycats, until that changes, we will see no more quality mmo's for a while.

    image

    What happens when you log off your characters????.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
    Dark Age of Camelot

  • mbolmembolme Member Posts: 48

    I think older games were better because they contained some very irritating things. I remember a high-level mob that would path through the newbie area in DAOC-midgard. Toestubber.  He would gank all the newbs, and there was nothing we could do unless a higher-level character was there to resue us. It was very irritating. I still remember his name.

    Once I got big enough, though, I was happy to stomp him into the ground whenever I saw him. I would jump off my horse if I saw him on the way to somewhere else just to thrash him. It was irritating, but at the end, there was reward. The key was to have some easier stuff (a lot of easier stuff) but some long spawn times and other irritations.

    Modern games have taken away all the irritation, and what's left seems shallow.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Antiquated
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Antiquated

    OP Posits.

    Responses can be paraphrased "Old games were just better 'cause they were."

    Unassailable position, of course, because qualitative judgements are after all judgements.

    "Why are red cars better?"

    "I said so."

    "Well, ok then. For you, they are indeed."

    The problem becomes escaping from the corner you have painted yourself into, should they stop manufacturing red paint. That too is a purely personal problem.

    Except you can easily quantify why they were different (better is a subjective term) and those difference are why I prefer them to more modern titles.

    Now, depending on your tastes you may prefer newer designs to older, but there is a clear reason why today's titles might not be a person's cup of tea, but their lack of ability to change (not willingness) really has nothing to do with it.

    But that won't save you when they're no longer manufacturing cars with red paint.

    No one is making games like 2000 any more. If you want to, you have no choice except to play the originals.

    If the original (also) aren't good enough, for whatever reason...well, you can complain ineffectually, I guess.

    I'm having trouble making sense of either of your points.

    You can absolutely have a discussion about what type of game is better as long as you agree on what makes a game "better." If you think depth, and player retention are indicative of a good game, then you can have a discussion/debate about how one game is better than the other. It's not just "I think this game is better just because." Too many people make the mistake of saying that just because there are subjective elements at play, that means anybody's opinion is as good as anybody else's and you can't discuss it in an objective way. That's just false. 

    Also, just because they're not currently making games that resemble the oldschool games we claim to miss doesn't mean that they won't in the future. In fact, it seems to me that there's a relatively large sandbox resurgence on the horizon.

    There is no consensus here on what makes a game better, hence the "because I said so" in light of someone disagreeing with a proposed definition. I agree you could have that discussion in a smaller more intimate group. Not so much in a larger open discussion.

    The sandbox resurgence doesn't mean they will make them old school. In fact the only triple A sandbox game on the horizon, if you can even call it that, is EQN and it looks nothing like oldschool games. I think there is a valid argument somewhere that very niche games might be able to made with "oldschool" in mind, but they still won't be like they were "back then". We'll never see games made and played like they were "back then" again because "back then" is gone. Even EQ:N doesn't bill itself as sandbox, but sandbox styled. Is there any game being made now that is being created like they used to be?

    I don't know many people who would disagree that depth and player retention are good things. But either way, that doesn't equal "because I said so." That implies that it's purely subjective, which it isn't. 

     

    Also, I didn't say anything about AAA. I, and a lot of other "oldschool" advocates don't need a game to be AAA in order for us to enjoy it. This should be obvious because so many of us play private servers of games that are like 10 years old. And I'm not sure how oldschool they have to be in order to be put into that category, but The Repopulation looks like it's going to share a lot of elements with SWG and Shadowbane, which is are both oldschool games.

  • Tindale111Tindale111 Member UncommonPosts: 273
    your theory dos'nt really work, as the mechanics of a game haven't really changed much. except that its easier now it was mash buttons then and its mash buttons now, only on games like eq and eq2 you had about a hundred to chose from not the 6 or 8 you get now ..the newer games today are to easy everything is handed to you on a plate I don't want to go back to the old games because of graphics and the ive been their done that, but I don't see much progression in todays games in fact I would say they have taken a step backward in a lot of ways, as an example look at final fantasy a lot of people love the crafting which is quite fun but obtaining the mats is way to easy go to mine 2 yards away another mine respawn by the time you have done first and rinse repeat the zones are small and nothing seems difficult to beat so tho im middle aged I don't find games harder to get in to just they are boring. but I am still an optimist I hold out hope for games like teso and black desert in fact any game that will give my tired old neural network a try out :)
  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Antiquated
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Antiquated

    OP Posits.

    Responses can be paraphrased "Old games were just better 'cause they were."

    Unassailable position, of course, because qualitative judgements are after all judgements.

    "Why are red cars better?"

    "I said so."

    "Well, ok then. For you, they are indeed."

     

    The problem becomes escaping from the corner you have painted yourself into, should they stop manufacturing red paint. That too is a purely personal problem.

    Except you can easily quantify why they were different (better is a subjective term) and those difference are why I prefer them to more modern titles.

    Now, depending on your tastes you may prefer newer designs to older, but there is a clear reason why today's titles might not be a person's cup of tea, but their lack of ability to change (not willingness) really has nothing to do with it.

    But that won't save you when they're no longer manufacturing cars with red paint.

    No one is making games like 2000 any more. If you want to, you have no choice except to play the originals.

    If the original (also) aren't good enough, for whatever reason...well, you can complain ineffectually, I guess.

    Bingo, that's why I'm playing a DAOC freeshard that has it's code base more or less set to circa 2003, because even the live version of the game is a former shadow of itself.

    I'll poke my head out from time to time to see if the landscape has changed much, but otherwise it will be either this or EVE I think for now.

     

    What he said.

    Although games like EQ1 and UO and DAOC might technically still be around, they are so different from the originals, that they might as well be different games.

    Same is true of many games that are not managed well over time, or are otherwise dumbed down by changes, intentional or not. (Heck, almost every long running MMORPG has a patch or expansion that causes the game to "jump the shark", I can't really think of one that hasn't.)

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,630
    Originally posted by thecapitaine

    MMOs seem better because they were novel experiences for many of us and were born at a time when the bounds of the internet were measurably closer, when the number of offerings was far smaller, when social media was virtually non-existent, and before gaming (particularly console gaming) exploded into what it is now.  For me it's like asking why haven't we had another proper Woodstock (despite later attempts) to recapture that experience.  Sure, we still have great musicians, plenty of motivated young people, and ample venues but having all the parts just isn't enough to reproduce that event. 

     

    I can't emphasize enough how often this or very similar questions are posed in every artistic genre we humans are capable of.  You cannot talk movies, television, music, literature, theater, art, dance, or journalism without running into it.  There will always be a group of "veterans" who likely got their first or early exposure at a time they now consider to be the apex of the form, the high point that all subsequent efforts fail to reach.  It's such a common occurrence and transcends so many bounds that we have to start questioning its validity and whether it's just a basic part of human existence.  Either across the board, in nearly every facet of human endeavor, we are simply becoming less talented, less inspired, less capable and discerning.  Or, there's a strong predilection towards mythologizing what came before despite our best efforts at seeing things clearly. 

     

    I'm greatly inclined to believe it's the latter.

     

    Wow, nicely stated.   Very much this.

     

    The 'Older Games were Better!' meme always has a funny taste to me, as I checked out all those games at the time, and the troubles, problems, and game design issues they had were enough to keep me from playing MMOs for years.   The folks who complain that they can't play in a style that they'd prefer, because those styles no longer exist, those folks I can relate to.  But the idea that those old games were in some sorta state of perfection (or even just better designed) is ludicrous.  Most of the developers were exploring unknown territory, and frequently got it wrong.    Hence things like the UO ability to besiege cities by piling up furniture around them.  Etc....

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465
    Originally posted by The1ceQueen
    To me older games like UO and AC1 were better because they had more to do and were more quality games than most of the F2P crap they keep putting out. Devs these days are lazy copycats, until that changes, we will see no more quality mmo's for a while.

    This was why I enjoyed original SWG so much: there was always something to go do.

    If I didn't want to PvP, I could go PvE for faction points, good creature resources, or for rare crafting-use loot components.

    If I didn't want to PvE, I could craft, and in original SWG that was almost a whole game to itself.

    If I didn't want to craft, I could go prospecting for areas where the rare materials spawned, or find an area with rare creatures (and creature babies, in the good CH days).

    If I didn't want to do that, I could play the space side of the game.

    And if I didn't want to do any of that, I could always hang out in the cantina and see what other people were doing, or search the vendors for things I needed, or work on the player city I lived in, or a bunch of other things.

     

    In most games these days, people get tired of even logging in, because there is usually only one thing to do (fight) and only one or two ways to do it (PvP or raid). And one way to get there (linear story path).

    In the older games, there were more things to do than just that.

    And that is what all the people who bash the old games (and the people who liked them) don't seem to get.

     

     

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by The1ceQueen
    To me older games like UO and AC1 were better because they had more to do and were more quality games than most of the F2P crap they keep putting out. Devs these days are lazy copycats, until that changes, we will see no more quality mmo's for a while.

    This has nothing to do with quality, what you're looking for is something deeper. Which actually will require less "quality" across the board, as it always has. The focus moves to larger scope, rather than better control, smoother animation, higher quality graphics resources, etc, etc...

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by thecapitaine

    MMOs seem better because they were novel experiences for many of us and were born at a time when the bounds of the internet were measurably closer, when the number of offerings was far smaller, when social media was virtually non-existent, and before gaming (particularly console gaming) exploded into what it is now.  For me it's like asking why haven't we had another proper Woodstock (despite later attempts) to recapture that experience.  Sure, we still have great musicians, plenty of motivated young people, and ample venues but having all the parts just isn't enough to reproduce that event. 

     

    I can't emphasize enough how often this or very similar questions are posed in every artistic genre we humans are capable of.  You cannot talk movies, television, music, literature, theater, art, dance, or journalism without running into it.  There will always be a group of "veterans" who likely got their first or early exposure at a time they now consider to be the apex of the form, the high point that all subsequent efforts fail to reach.  It's such a common occurrence and transcends so many bounds that we have to start questioning its validity and whether it's just a basic part of human existence.  Either across the board, in nearly every facet of human endeavor, we are simply becoming less talented, less inspired, less capable and discerning.  Or, there's a strong predilection towards mythologizing what came before despite our best efforts at seeing things clearly. 

     

    I'm greatly inclined to believe it's the latter.

    You're leaving out a third option, which is that MMORPGs are being changed to appeal to a broader audience. We're claiming that this makes the games less niche and therefore appeal to those people less deeply than a more targeted game would.

     

    Also, in industries where the major driving force for quality is individual talent, instead of technology, it would be incredibly weird if the "good times" WEREN'T behind us. 

Sign In or Register to comment.