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...

1568101117

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
     

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

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

     

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

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

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

     

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

     

    No. You are totally off base.

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

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

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

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

     

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,088
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
     

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

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

     

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

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

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

     

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

     

    No. You are totally off base.

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

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

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

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

     

    Puzzles in the likes of the SH games are good but as I said that's indie, you will find many real adventure games in the indie scene. AG came back as an indie scene, but I am talking about mainstream here. It is the big guys who are putting puzzles down the list and making Adventure Games all about story and atmosphere. I should clarify that both of those are key elements for a AG as well, but you will notice the one thing that is difficult for players, puzzles is being side lined. Once again another example of games having their difficulty dumbed down and there is no slider for puzzles, so I am not sure the new wave of AG from the big publishers is yet deserving of that name.

    I did use the example of science, I can see why you think that's off base, but it was not what I am getting at. Science aims for a consensus of opinion, that's not what I am aiming at. When I talked about common ground, I meant ensuring the arguments remain rational and reasons were given for them. Not just "I don't like this." I see gaming as more like politics, players have rather entrenched views. Reaching a consensus in political thought does not happen often, but the arguments put forward are rational not "I don't like that." That's the only way we can see how much common ground there is.

    Looking at your examples, there are reasons why people think slow travel is bad. I can think of three types of slow travel in fact. One where it takes a long time and you don't have to be at the PC (SWG shuttle trips). Another where you have to be at your PC but do not do much (changing horses while cross country riding in DAOC). Finally one where travel say on a mount, you are doing all the direction and it takes a while to get where you need to go.

    So you see already it is not just like or don't like. For me there is good gameplay in taking a mount to a far of location. Having a down time in DAOC where you could not really leave the screen was pointless. When it comes to the likes of shuttle waits they too were pointless to my mind, but I know others who went and did a house chore or whatever, they utilised the time better.

    So what is a long wait? A one minute transfer, 5 minutes? For me anything over a minute would be pushing it, but if I was in a group and people were chatting then 5 mins would be fine. So again, it is why we like or dislike elements of gameplay that allows others to see if there is any common ground.

    As I said before there are areas of life where views are way more entrenched and far more subjective than gaming. Just saying its all subjective and throwing up your hands is defeatist.

     

     

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

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

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • fivorothfivoroth Member UncommonPosts: 3,916
    One major reason why a lot of people think that older MMOs were better is because they started playing MMOs back then so they tend to have a first love relationship with their first mmo. This is why a lot of people will tell you that EQ is the best thing since sliced bread. In reality it's not and they just love it and are nostalgic about it because it was their first mmo. From there they start to make wild generalisations about other MMOs. Same can be said for people who started with wow or any other mmo. All this lead to significant bias.

    Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,366
    Originally posted by fivoroth
    One major reason why a lot of people think that older MMOs were better is because they started playing MMOs back then so they tend to have a first love relationship with their first mmo. This is why a lot of people will tell you that EQ is the best thing since sliced bread. In reality it's not and they just love it and are nostalgic about it because it was their first mmo. From there they start to make wild generalisations about other MMOs. Same can be said for people who started with wow or any other mmo. All this lead to significant bias.

    One of the worst arguments on the internet. Think about everything else in your life.

    First car? Mine was a Chevy Monza, piece of crap, it isn't  better than my 2012 Nissan Frontier.

    First bicycle? - A great 24" Schwinn, can't hold a candle to my new 21 speed Street cruiser

    First Computer?  Trash 80 (or IBM PC Compatible) - Seriously, my current old laptop can practically launch the space shuttle.

    First Calculator?  1975, cost $100.00, you can buy same functionality for less than $20.00 and for $100, it is a virtual computer.

    First Cellphone?  C'mon, it made phone calls, period,  compared to the current products, might as well have been a brick.

    So why do I like all of the modern version of the above products more than their early predecessors? Because they all have undergone an significant evolution and improved in features and quality many times over, and they are clearly superior.

    Now, let's look at Modern MMORPG's vs their forebears. Sure, there's been improvements in graphics, interfaces, but when it comes to design features, they've had much stripped out of them that I favored in the earlier title.

    Game mechanics that encouraged grouping and socialization, complexity in character builds, differences in racial stats, open world PVP, variances in armor/weapon damage types and a significant reason to use one over another depending on the situation.

    Let's examine that last one for a minute.  Take DAOC and how archery works, did you know that in addition to being able to use bows which can have stats to improve their damage by adding fire, ice or other abilities, but there actually are 3 different types of arrows, each doing additional damage determined by the armor type of the opponent.  One works well against leather, the 2nd against chain, the 3rd against plate with everything destroying cloth.

    They largely have taken these and many other mechanics that I enjoyed (I liked longer travel times) out from current MMO's to streamline them and make them more appealing to a broader target audience.

    People say EVE is nothing but a spreadsheet game, believe me, we were using spreadsheets in DAOC long before EVE came along to calculate our builds  and I'm still using them today.

    It would be akin to my first car being a 2002 top end BMW but now I'm being asked to drive a base model 2013 Camry.  Sure, the new Camry would have features the BMW lacked in the day, but it still doesn't match up to the luxury car of 10 years ago.

    So stop pointing to the "first game" syndrome, its more a fiction than reality.  Fact is, many peoples first games were quite different, arguably more complicated and more involved, and provided challenges they cannot find today, not even in those older titles which have been largely turned into shells of their former selves. (which is why I play a private shard reset to 2003 rules).

    Strangely enough, even vanilla WOW falls into this category, the title has changed some much since it's early days, it's almost not recognizable to people who played back then, so if that was their first MMO even they feel that something is largely lacking from current MMORPG offerings.

     

     

     

     

    "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






  • NadiaNadia Member UncommonPosts: 11,798

    the reason I have fond memories of EQ is because of the community

     

    EQ is a "time sink" game

    time sinks do help foster community when players need assistance from each other

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    More likely the community felt better because it was smaller.

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

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,366
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    More likely the community felt better because it was smaller.

    Really?  Back in early DAOC I played on KT and it averaged 1700 players a night logged in. (there were about 10 servers)

    Modern MMORPG's?  usually have similar numbers of people on a specific server, even if there are 400 plus servers.

    But let's compare it to modern day SWTOR, I think they have 10 servers, probably no more players per server than DAOC, so the community size is comparable.

    Do you really think the communities between then and now are really comparable, or perhaps theres' some additional factors involved here such as changes in game design and even in the make up of the player base itself?

     

    "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






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

    Puzzles in the likes of the SH games are good but as I said that's indie, you will find many real adventure games in the indie scene. AG came back as an indie scene, but I am talking about mainstream here. It is the big guys who are putting puzzles down the list and making Adventure Games all about story and atmosphere. I should clarify that both of those are key elements for a AG as well, but you will notice the one thing that is difficult for players, puzzles is being side lined. Once again another example of games having their difficulty dumbed down and there is no slider for puzzles, so I am not sure the new wave of AG from the big publishers is yet deserving of that name.

    Yes, SH is indie but i will say it is as good, in terms of production value, compared to AAA games. I don't think puzzle is side-lined, as much as "assessible". Even in the SH games, you can get hint, and most mini-game puzzles are skippable. Personally, i don't skip but who am i to say that is not a "good" way to play for some?

    Looking at your examples, there are reasons why people think slow travel is bad. I can think of three types of slow travel in fact. One where it takes a long time and you don't have to be at the PC (SWG shuttle trips). Another where you have to be at your PC but do not do much (changing horses while cross country riding in DAOC). Finally one where travel say on a mount, you are doing all the direction and it takes a while to get where you need to go.

    So you see already it is not just like or don't like. For me there is good gameplay in taking a mount to a far of location. Having a down time in DAOC where you could not really leave the screen was pointless. When it comes to the likes of shuttle waits they too were pointless to my mind, but I know others who went and did a house chore or whatever, they utilised the time better.

    And for me, taking a mount to a far location is not good gameplay. See, not agreeing again. In fact, i would say that is very bad (to me) gameplay. I would rather do kill 10 rats quests than riding riding and riding.

    As I said before there are areas of life where views are way more entrenched and far more subjective than gaming. Just saying its all subjective and throwing up your hands is defeatist.

     There is little value in trying to find common ground, or find some sliver of objectivity in entertainment preferences. We are not making a deal to lift the deft ceiling. We are just shooting breeze.

    Hence, even if you admit that preferences are totally subjective, it does not hamper the fun on these forums. And to be honest, i see this push for a consensus of "quality" nothing but a disguise to push one's preferences onto others.

    It would be defeatist if I think my preference is any less valid than random dudes on the internet.

     

     

  • fivorothfivoroth Member UncommonPosts: 3,916
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by fivoroth
    One major reason why a lot of people think that older MMOs were better is because they started playing MMOs back then so they tend to have a first love relationship with their first mmo. This is why a lot of people will tell you that EQ is the best thing since sliced bread. In reality it's not and they just love it and are nostalgic about it because it was their first mmo. From there they start to make wild generalisations about other MMOs. Same can be said for people who started with wow or any other mmo. All this lead to significant bias.

    One of the worst arguments on the internet. Think about everything else in your life.

    First car? Mine was a Chevy Monza, piece of crap, it isn't  better than my 2012 Nissan Frontier.

    First bicycle? - A great 24" Schwinn, can't hold a candle to my new 21 speed Street cruiser

    First Computer?  Trash 80 (or IBM PC Compatible) - Seriously, my current old laptop can practically launch the space shuttle.

    First Calculator?  1975, cost $100.00, you can buy same functionality for less than $20.00 and for $100, it is a virtual computer.

    First Cellphone?  C'mon, it made phone calls, period,  compared to the current products, might as well have been a brick.

    So why do I like all of the modern version of the above products more than their early predecessors? Because they all have undergone an significant evolution and improved in features and quality many times over, and they are clearly superior.

    Now, let's look at Modern MMORPG's vs their forebears. Sure, there's been improvements in graphics, interfaces, but when it comes to design features, they've had much stripped out of them that I favored in the earlier title.

    Game mechanics that encouraged grouping and socialization, complexity in character builds, differences in racial stats, open world PVP, variances in armor/weapon damage types and a significant reason to use one over another depending on the situation.

    Let's examine that last one for a minute.  Take DAOC and how archery works, did you know that in addition to being able to use bows which can have stats to improve their damage by adding fire, ice or other abilities, but there actually are 3 different types of arrows, each doing additional damage determined by the armor type of the opponent.  One works well against leather, the 2nd against chain, the 3rd against plate with everything destroying cloth.

    They largely have taken these and many other mechanics that I enjoyed (I liked longer travel times) out from current MMO's to streamline them and make them more appealing to a broader target audience.

    People say EVE is nothing but a spreadsheet game, believe me, we were using spreadsheets in DAOC long before EVE came along to calculate our builds  and I'm still using them today.

    It would be akin to my first car being a 2002 top end BMW but now I'm being asked to drive a base model 2013 Camry.  Sure, the new Camry would have features the BMW lacked in the day, but it still doesn't match up to the luxury car of 10 years ago.

    So stop pointing to the "first game" syndrome, its more a fiction than reality.  Fact is, many peoples first games were quite different, arguably more complicated and more involved, and provided challenges they cannot find today, not even in those older titles which have been largely turned into shells of their former selves. (which is why I play a private shard reset to 2003 rules).

    Strangely enough, even vanilla WOW falls into this category, the title has changed some much since it's early days, it's almost not recognizable to people who played back then, so if that was their first MMO even they feel that something is largely lacking from current MMORPG offering

    It's a bit different to your examples. Those things (cars, pcs etc.) are more functional. It's pretty much a no-brainer that something which is better in terms of hardware will be better for you. It's not a matter of preference which is the case with MMOs. It's not enough to just pump up the graphics. There is no clear way of "upgrading" MMOs. 

    I still remember my first console/PC etc. And I remember the amazing feelnig I had when I tried them. That's because it was for the first time. Do I get the same excitement with a new PC now? Not really.

    Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,088
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot

    As I said before there are areas of life where views are way more entrenched and far more subjective than gaming. Just saying its all subjective and throwing up your hands is defeatist.

     There is little value in trying to find common ground, or find some sliver of objectivity in entertainment preferences. We are not making a deal to lift the deft ceiling. We are just shooting breeze.

    Hence, even if you admit that preferences are totally subjective, it does not hamper the fun on these forums. And to be honest, i see this push for a consensus of "quality" nothing but a disguise to push one's preferences onto others.

    It would be defeatist if I think my preference is any less valid than random dudes on the internet.

     

    No one is saying anyone's preferences are less valid than anyone else, what I am pointing out is that you need more details than "I don't like this" to even get a real idea of what people want in a MMO. As I said before I am not pushing for a consensus, just posters setting their stalls out better so we know why it is they prefer the gameplay style they do. With equal paranoia you could say not trying to define what we think quality is has been used by posters to shy away from admitting the poor quality we now have in many areas of MMO gameplay.

    Less paranoia is always a good thing. :D

     

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

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

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

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

    No one is saying anyone's preferences are less valid than anyone else, what I am pointing out is that you need more details than "I don't like this" to even get a real idea of what people want in a MMO. As I said before I am not pushing for a consensus, just posters setting their stalls out better so we know why it is they prefer the gameplay style they do. With equal paranoia you could say not trying to define what we think quality is has been used by posters to shy away from admitting the poor quality we now have in many areas of MMO gameplay.

    Less paranoia is always a good thing. :D

     

    Sure ... but aren't you already getting that everyday?

    For example, why do i dislike old traditional MMOs like EQ?

    One reason is the slow travel is very boring to me. If i want to wait 10 min for public transport, i go out to the closest bus stop and i don't want it in my games.

    Is that detailed enough for you?

  • vandal5627vandal5627 Member UncommonPosts: 788

    Older games weren't better but....IMHO, i feel that those atrocious grind sessions the older games had did create better communities in turn people were staying with the games because of the great communities and comradery that was built.  These days, you'll be lucky to see any comradery at all, it's all about me me me these days and the modern day games definitely pushes that envolope quite a bit.

    Back in the day, people do stuff with and for each other.  These days, you ask someone for help, they ask what's in it for me.

  • Stone_FountainStone_Fountain Member UncommonPosts: 233

    I'm not sure I agree with the OP but he does make some good points. Others have said some of the reasons that I feel MMOs have gone downhill in quality. For one, appealing to the masses, casual gamer and cross platform. Instanced...everything, redundant, boring crafting and quests and no originality. 

     

    In EQ, if a camp was camped, you either asked to join or moved on to another one. Mistakes were costly and sometimes dire. *shudders remembering being the only rogue with SoS during a nasty raid wipe in the plane of hate* There are no more highs and lows anymore. There is just following a story and getting to the next part. They are designed to be doable if you just play. No skill or working out the mechanics of how the AI works, you just play through and if you make an error, big deal. 

    The stories are generic for everyone. SWTOR had only minor differences from class to class. The good started over here, the bad over here but the journey was very similar. EQ, SWG, those are games that had me logging in for a decade. No game has even come close and here I sit with a $3000 computer...wanting. I will say that Star Citizen is promising though. $24 million donated from fans of the Wing Commander games. Can't wait for that to be released. 

    First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by vandal5627

    Older games weren't better but....IMHO, i feel that those atrocious grind sessions the older games had did create better communities in turn people were staying with the games because of the great communities and comradery that was built.  These days, you'll be lucky to see any comradery at all, it's all about me me me these days and the modern day games definitely pushes that envolope quite a bit.

    Back in the day, people do stuff with and for each other.  These days, you ask someone for help, they ask what's in it for me.

    Yeh .. and most likely i will just ignore random chat.

    I think devs have figured out that consumers want their games to be fun, and community is not always necessarily for that.

     

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,944
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by vandal5627

    Older games weren't better but....IMHO, i feel that those atrocious grind sessions the older games had did create better communities in turn people were staying with the games because of the great communities and comradery that was built.  These days, you'll be lucky to see any comradery at all, it's all about me me me these days and the modern day games definitely pushes that envolope quite a bit.

    Back in the day, people do stuff with and for each other.  These days, you ask someone for help, they ask what's in it for me.

    Yeh .. and most likely i will just ignore random chat.

    I think devs have figured out that consumers want their games to be fun, and community is not always necessarily for that.

     

    I don't think that's the case.  Its more likely unintended consequences of creating a game a certain way without knowing the repercussions.   MMORPG's are based deeply in psychology.  

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Quirhid More likely the community felt better because it was smaller.
    Really?  Back in early DAOC I played on KT and it averaged 1700 players a night logged in. (there were about 10 servers)

    Modern MMORPG's?  usually have similar numbers of people on a specific server, even if there are 400 plus servers.

    But let's compare it to modern day SWTOR, I think they have 10 servers, probably no more players per server than DAOC, so the community size is comparable.

    Do you really think the communities between then and now are really comparable, or perhaps theres' some additional factors involved here such as changes in game design and even in the make up of the player base itself?

     




    People are still limited to keeping track of about 150 people at a time, but now there's an awareness of all the other people on the server rather than only the 150 people who are all within talking and walking distance.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by vandal5627

    Older games weren't better but....IMHO, i feel that those atrocious grind sessions the older games had did create better communities in turn people were staying with the games because of the great communities and comradery that was built.  These days, you'll be lucky to see any comradery at all, it's all about me me me these days and the modern day games definitely pushes that envolope quite a bit.

    Back in the day, people do stuff with and for each other.  These days, you ask someone for help, they ask what's in it for me.

    Yeh .. and most likely i will just ignore random chat.

    I think devs have figured out that consumers want their games to be fun, and community is not always necessarily for that.

     

    I don't think that's the case.  Its more likely unintended consequences of creating a game a certain way without knowing the repercussions.   MMORPG's are based deeply in psychology.  

    If that is not the case, why game design favor convenience over socialization, why favor solo over forced group content, why favor LFR/LFD over chat-based grouping?

    I think all these intention decisions show that games are not designed for communities, they are designed to entertain. And it is great.

     

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



    People are still limited to keeping track of about 150 people at a time, but now there's an awareness of all the other people on the server rather than only the 150 people who are all within talking and walking distance.

     

    In fact, i highly doubt 150 is more fun than just 50.

    The most massive number of toons i saw is probably in Orgrimmar waiting for my instance to pop and to be honest, i care less if i can see only 50 vs 200.

    And even in some of those big instance battles ...if you double the number of players, i doubt i will notice.

     

  • vandal5627vandal5627 Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by vandal5627

    Older games weren't better but....IMHO, i feel that those atrocious grind sessions the older games had did create better communities in turn people were staying with the games because of the great communities and comradery that was built.  These days, you'll be lucky to see any comradery at all, it's all about me me me these days and the modern day games definitely pushes that envolope quite a bit.

    Back in the day, people do stuff with and for each other.  These days, you ask someone for help, they ask what's in it for me.

    Yeh .. and most likely i will just ignore random chat.

    I think devs have figured out that consumers want their games to be fun, and community is not always necessarily for that.

     

    I don't think that's the case.  Its more likely unintended consequences of creating a game a certain way without knowing the repercussions.   MMORPG's are based deeply in psychology.  

    If that is not the case, why game design favor convenience over socialization, why favor solo over forced group content, why favor LFR/LFD over chat-based grouping?

    I think all these intention decisions show that games are not designed for communities, they are designed to entertain. And it is great.

     

    I think devs intentions were still to create communities but with all the conveniences added to all these newer games, it caused a side effect of not needing to socialize as much.

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,944
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by vandal5627

    Older games weren't better but....IMHO, i feel that those atrocious grind sessions the older games had did create better communities in turn people were staying with the games because of the great communities and comradery that was built.  These days, you'll be lucky to see any comradery at all, it's all about me me me these days and the modern day games definitely pushes that envolope quite a bit.

    Back in the day, people do stuff with and for each other.  These days, you ask someone for help, they ask what's in it for me.

    Yeh .. and most likely i will just ignore random chat.

    I think devs have figured out that consumers want their games to be fun, and community is not always necessarily for that.

     

    I don't think that's the case.  Its more likely unintended consequences of creating a game a certain way without knowing the repercussions.   MMORPG's are based deeply in psychology.  

    If that is not the case, why game design favor convenience over socialization, why favor solo over forced group content, why favor LFR/LFD over chat-based grouping?

    I think all these intention decisions show that games are not designed for communities, they are designed to entertain. And it is great.

     

     

    Again, those things aren't there to kill socialization.  They just were unintended consequences.   Do you think a game like WoW would be like lets find ways to kill community so player stick around less time and pay us less money.  

     

     

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

     

    Again, those things aren't there to kill socialization.  They just were unintended consequences.   Do you think a game like WoW would be like lets find ways to kill community so player stick around less time and pay us less money.  

     

     

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

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

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

     

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,088
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
     

    Again, those things aren't there to kill socialization.  They just were unintended consequences.   Do you think a game like WoW would be like lets find ways to kill community so player stick around less time and pay us less money.  

      

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

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

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

     

    It must have been obvious that the move to solo orientated MMOs was going to negatively effect the community. I am sure they did not want that to happen, communities bring in players, gaming companies don't do things which loose them players on purpose. But going solo brought in many more players so loosing community players was seen as an acceptable loss.

    It was not a case of players staying on regardless, it was a case of expanding into a solo market which held many times more players then the old virtual world RPG crowd. MMOs are now facing that again as gaming companies want a piece of the social media market. The numbers of people on social media is larger than gamers, but this time instead of a clash of gaming culture the gaming industry wants to expand into a market that has no gaming ethos. They are used to paying for small items though so cash shops are a shoe in.

     

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

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

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    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 dayNOT I..  I miss the ability to "camp" as a solo player or group for meaningful xp and loot.. The idea of hunting, tracking and waiting for super rare spawns was part of the fun.. That appears to be subjective.. Some of us enjoy the hunt, and some just want to go to a shooting gallery.. I wonder how many modern day gamers would enjoy FISHING..?? 

     

    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. I wouldn't say a person's ability to change diminish, cause that would indicate it's a medical reason.. I think it's more that people just say "why bother" as life moves on.. IE. Why would I change my kitchen if I'm pushing 80 years old.. As we grow older I do believe people might view change as "not worth it"..

     

    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. That may true, but that really doesn't apply with me or here.. I have always LIKED hamburgers.. I will not change to liking hot dogs, and as I get older makes NO difference..  You're talking about "learning" new things as it relates to change.. NOT changing our likes and dislikes..  

     

    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.

    Sorry, but this is way off base as I discussed briefly already..  You are talking about the ability to learn NEW things as it relates to change.. Such as someone of age trying to understand how to use and surf on the internet.. When people discuss their likes and dislikes of gaming doesn't apply here..  I enjoy old school MMO's for what they are, accepting a game that focuses on arena PvP play has nothing to do with me getting older.. 

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,944
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
     

     

    Again, those things aren't there to kill socialization.  They just were unintended consequences.   Do you think a game like WoW would be like lets find ways to kill community so player stick around less time and pay us less money.  

     

     

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

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

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

     

     

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

     

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

  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 2,909

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

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

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

    "You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon

    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer



Sign In or Register to comment.