Howdy, Stranger!

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

Replacing reality with a dream...

2»

Comments

  • StonesDKStonesDK Member UncommonPosts: 1,805

    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Originally posted by Starpower

    As much as I loved EQ back then, it really was a game for elitists. The gap between the haves and the have not was very big. The endgame content was only accessible by a lesser percentage of the playerbase. Is that ok when everybody pays the same fees?

     

    I love challenges in games, the fact you have to work for things and having a certain risk involved, I also see why it doesn't have appeal. The weekend warriors want to experience endgame content, they want to be able to set themselves realistic goals to complete without feeling left out of certain content, even though they pay the same price as everybody else.

    And MMO's now aren't for elitists? I see a ton of name calling and bragging about players accomplishments and gear in many of today's MMO's. It's nothing new.

    No one is left out of content...it's available to everyone who pays, it's just up to the player how quick they want to reach it. It's just the player who puts in the effort, or has more time gets there faster is all....hence, costs them less money (Based ona  monthly sub) to get there.

    Most seem to want to race one another to the end....then complain there isn't enough content to keep them busy, or move on to another MMO to rinse and repeat.

    There will always be elitists. Only today they have a harder time bragging because the average player have easier access to the gear. Back in the old EQ days as I said the gap was much larger. Back then even levels meant something for the average elitist because levels weren't easy to come by.

     

    That's why EQ was an elitists wet dream. Games like WoW and Rift today makes it much harder for those types of players. it goes hand in hand with instant gratification, welfare epics and how this generations entitlement issues are being catered to, etc etc. people like to complain about.

     

    All content are available TODAY, It wasn't back then. Not everybody was able to get in a top tier guild nor complete content only very few guilds were capable off. That's the challenge we are talking about. Sure you can just up and form a guild, try and recruit the right players day after day, spend countless of hours trying to do research on how to beat raid mobs then whip a guild into shape into actually able to beat it. It's all so simple and easy right?. No not back then.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Member Posts: 1,214

    Originally posted by Starpower

    Originally posted by Goatgod76


    Originally posted by Starpower

    As much as I loved EQ back then, it really was a game for elitists. The gap between the haves and the have not was very big. The endgame content was only accessible by a lesser percentage of the playerbase. Is that ok when everybody pays the same fees?

     

    I love challenges in games, the fact you have to work for things and having a certain risk involved, I also see why it doesn't have appeal. The weekend warriors want to experience endgame content, they want to be able to set themselves realistic goals to complete without feeling left out of certain content, even though they pay the same price as everybody else.

    And MMO's now aren't for elitists? I see a ton of name calling and bragging about players accomplishments and gear in many of today's MMO's. It's nothing new.

    No one is left out of content...it's available to everyone who pays, it's just up to the player how quick they want to reach it. It's just the player who puts in the effort, or has more time gets there faster is all....hence, costs them less money (Based ona  monthly sub) to get there.

    Most seem to want to race one another to the end....then complain there isn't enough content to keep them busy, or move on to another MMO to rinse and repeat.

    There will always be elitists. Only today they have a harder time bragging because the average player have easier access to the gear. Back in the old EQ days as I said the gap was much larger. Back then even levels meant something for the average elitist because levels weren't easy to come by.

     

    That's why EQ was an elitists wet dream. Games like WoW and Rift today makes it much harder for those types of players. it goes hand in hand with instant gratification, welfare epics and how this generations entitlement issues are being catered to, etc etc. people like to complain about.

    Completely agree there.

  • aspekxaspekx Member UncommonPosts: 2,167

    Originally posted by Starpower

    Originally posted by Goatgod76


    Originally posted by Starpower

    As much as I loved EQ back then, it really was a game for elitists. The gap between the haves and the have not was very big. The endgame content was only accessible by a lesser percentage of the playerbase. Is that ok when everybody pays the same fees?

     

    I love challenges in games, the fact you have to work for things and having a certain risk involved, I also see why it doesn't have appeal. The weekend warriors want to experience endgame content, they want to be able to set themselves realistic goals to complete without feeling left out of certain content, even though they pay the same price as everybody else.

    And MMO's now aren't for elitists? I see a ton of name calling and bragging about players accomplishments and gear in many of today's MMO's. It's nothing new.

    No one is left out of content...it's available to everyone who pays, it's just up to the player how quick they want to reach it. It's just the player who puts in the effort, or has more time gets there faster is all....hence, costs them less money (Based ona  monthly sub) to get there.

    Most seem to want to race one another to the end....then complain there isn't enough content to keep them busy, or move on to another MMO to rinse and repeat.

    There will always be elitists. Only today they have a harder time bragging because the average player have easier access to the gear. Back in the old EQ days as I said the gap was much larger. Back then even levels meant something for the average elitist because levels weren't easy to come by.

     

    That's why EQ was an elitists wet dream. Games like WoW and Rift today makes it much harder for those types of players. it goes hand in hand with instant gratification, welfare epics and how this generations entitlement issues are being catered to, etc etc. people like to complain about.

     

    All content are available TODAY, It wasn't back then. Not everybody was able to get in a top tier guild nor complete content only very few guilds were capable off. That's the challenge we are talking about. Sure you can just up and form a guild, try and recruit the right players day after day, spend countless of hours trying to do research on how to beat raid mobs then whip a guild into shape into actually able to beat it. It's all so simple and easy right?. No not back then.

    poor, sad elitists. what ever shall we do with them? ;)

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230

    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Originally posted by Quirhid

     

    Funny, because EQ probably has more expansions than all MMO's post-WoW put together, and "end game" was an after thought due to there being so much other stuff to do.

    And as far as "end game" being the point MMO's are at their best is hogwash IMO.  It's just players griefing low levels or engaging in zerg PvP warfare out of boredom...sitting in major cities spamming for groups for the mind numbing raiding required for the big shinies...which is pretty much all there is left to do in most MMO's at "end game".

     

    And I never said it didn't originate with MMO's...however, what I AM saying is, although it originated here, it has no place in the genre. When I think of the term "end game"...emphasis on the word end.....I think of console games. Which is what most MMO's are becoming...sadly.

    You just about listed all the PvP types I don't consider to be proper PvP. And I am one of those people who consider the game "ended" when they have played through all of the content. I don't need to grind that final dungeon 10 times just I can get the shinies - I tend to avoid PvP games that rely heavily on grinding.

    I like balanced PvP. If there is a point where PvP is the most balanced, it is the endgame. You also have the most tools at your disposal compared to "earlygame". The "as far as I'm concerned" extended to the following sentece. Therefore it is my personal opinion. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

    And finally, I don't know why you connect the term "endgame" with console games, I tend to think of Indiana Jones when I see an artefact up at a pedestal. Others might think of something else.

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

  • IhmoteppIhmotepp Member Posts: 14,495

    Originally posted by Drokar


      Games like Vanguard, while it had a poor release, is now perhaps the best mmo out and it hasnt had dev attention in well over a year.  If all these people that troll on these forums were truly interested in a challenge, Vanguard would be rolling with subs. 

    "Challenge" alone isn't going to do it.

    You also need a good game.

    Vangaurd had a LOT of problems when it released. It was buggy, laggy, to begin with.

    Then it had features which sucked.

    HUGE world, which had players of different races start at opposite ends of the world. Why do that in a PvE game? Trainers for certain races missing in some areas, so you had to train up in your racial area, further separating players in what was supposed to be a grouping game.

    Diplomacy?

    What the hell? A single player mini game, in a game that's supposed to be encouraging group play?

    People are standing around doing nothng, and you wonder, what are they doing? Lost in single player mini game. Really belongs in a solo game like WoW.

    that's just for starters.

    Good =/= challenging.

    Darkfall is challenging. Go play that.

    image

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Member Posts: 1,214

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Goatgod76


    Originally posted by Quirhid

     

    Funny, because EQ probably has more expansions than all MMO's post-WoW put together, and "end game" was an after thought due to there being so much other stuff to do.

    And as far as "end game" being the point MMO's are at their best is hogwash IMO.  It's just players griefing low levels or engaging in zerg PvP warfare out of boredom...sitting in major cities spamming for groups for the mind numbing raiding required for the big shinies...which is pretty much all there is left to do in most MMO's at "end game".

     

    And I never said it didn't originate with MMO's...however, what I AM saying is, although it originated here, it has no place in the genre. When I think of the term "end game"...emphasis on the word end.....I think of console games. Which is what most MMO's are becoming...sadly.

    You just about listed all the PvP types I don't consider to be proper PvP. And I am one of those people who consider the game "ended" when they have played through all of the content. I don't need to grind that final dungeon 10 times just I can get the shinies - I tend to avoid PvP games that rely heavily on grinding.

    I like balanced PvP. If there is a point where PvP is the most balanced, it is the endgame. You also have the most tools at your disposal compared to "earlygame". The "as far as I'm concerned" extended to the following sentece. Therefore it is my personal opinion. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

    And finally, I don't know why you connect the term "endgame" with console games, I tend to think of Indiana Jones when I see an artefact up at a pedestal. Others might think of something else.

    Not a big PvPer myself. But most of the time I was involved at any lvl in it, it only involved what I described in the earlier post. The ONLY time I saw decent PvP was in EVE Online personally.

    I am only connecting the term "end game" to console games because when I hear it, it makes me think of console games...where a clear cut ending is in place. "End game' in an MMO makes me think the player considers it the end of the game...the final goal. It's not that I think it is a term meant FOR console games too. It's just a way to describe the corrilation of endings between the two for me, and the point that having an ending in an MMO is ridiculous. May as well be a console RPG in that case.

    But I do know the way you mean it...just have different outlooks on it, and that is fine.

  • OrthelianOrthelian Member UncommonPosts: 1,034

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp

    HUGE world, which had players of different races start at opposite ends of the world.

    That is one of the best things about Vanguard, frankly. Universal starting locations are near the top of my list of things I hate about modern MMO trends.

    Favorites: EQEVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CUPantheon
  • AtaakaAtaaka Member UncommonPosts: 213

    Nice post.

     

    MMOG's are merely visual chat lines (rofl let me finish). They provide a place for us to communicate freely, express ourselves, and a host of other not-so-social things. There are some truly imaginative players out there, mixed with theorycraftist, and complete nerds (which isn't a bad thing), today's MMOG's are babysitters, 'mans best friend', a vent, an avenue, a means to justify the end... the buck doesn't stop here.

    The playerbase is key to people's happiness. There is a game out where you start off as a human and finally transform into a dragon. The players are helpful, inviting and not-so-elitist. But, the graphics are out-dated, there are some physics that suck to all be damned and the return on the investment isn't the greatest.

    My point is that there is no way for any one of us to completely sum the feelings or attitude of teh masses. We simply do not have that power. Developers try to build playgrounds were everyone can get along. While some choose and enjoy the sliding board, others like the pullups bars, and there are those who think they are better off climbing the monkey bars.

    Human behavior is predictable to a certain degree. I refuse to think that Sigmund F. encompassed the entire human race 100 years before the world itself gave birth to a plethora of unknown human issues. Do you not think that the internet caused problems in relationships after it's birth? Tell me... what was the main concern in relationships before the internet?

    So, yes... People can suck, games can suck, but I don't have to be around it to know it's true. I certainly won't pay to be insulted, I can get that for free.

    MMOG's havent replaced the real world because the last time I checked, this is the real world. My friends exist online and offline... I may never see that cute voice from Texas, but then again I haven't seen my best friend in seven years... and we chat every day in one form or another.

    This is real... so find a place where you can be yourself.

     

     

  • IhmoteppIhmotepp Member Posts: 14,495

    Originally posted by Saerain

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp



    HUGE world, which had players of different races start at opposite ends of the world.

    That is one of the best things about Vanguard, frankly. Universal starting locations are near the top of my list of things I hate about modern MMO trends.

     

    Well, sure if you want a solo friendly game. Makes no difference if you start 4 hours away from any other player on the map if you're going to play solo.

    image

  • LisXiaLisXia Member Posts: 390

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp

    Originally posted by Saerain


    Originally posted by Ihmotepp



    HUGE world, which had players of different races start at opposite ends of the world.

    That is one of the best things about Vanguard, frankly. Universal starting locations are near the top of my list of things I hate about modern MMO trends.

     

    Well, sure if you want a solo friendly game. Makes no difference if you start 4 hours away from any other player on the map if you're going to play solo.

    They copied part of the EQ1 design in VG, namely unique separated starter city.

    Unfortunately, EQ1 has enough people to keep it going.  As an Ogre i will soon meet the trolls, but takes a while to make it to EC and then meet the humans.

    The crashed launch of VG doomed this, there are only 10 players online, you will never see anyone.

  • ladyattisladyattis Member Posts: 1,273


    Then your definition of realism is different from mine. I'd call that... coherence. ...or having features that complement each other and form a larger whole.

    I call it good architectural decisions, but realism seems a better term for me since often I use ontology (computer science) to describe things. It's a great way to handle design.


    There are some aspects which usually contribute to the "goodness" of the game. For example, people generally like high production values or good coherence between features.

    Which is entirely subjective.


    Why should I cater to the minority?

    Why should I cater to vegans? Because there's money in it.



    You cannot possibly claim that WoW and Rift are bad games.

    Yeah, I can. They suck, period. That's the beauty of values, they're subjective. *hands Q copies of Human Action and Process and Reality*


    You cannot call today's MMOs worse just because their target audience has shifted away from you.

    If I can point out weaknesses both on the business side and the consumer side of MMOs, then that means they're worse off. Why? Because investors get little in terms of their return for the time it takes to produce one (even lower quality ones) and because consumers have made numerous complaints regarding them (btw, the biggest complainers are casual gamers, not veterans like me). If you want further proof, watch any video by Ben Croshaw (aka Yahtzee).


    What? How did you build a strawman like that out of what you quoted?

    You're the one defending the undefendable, dude.


    Can you show any industry metric for MMOs anywhere?
    Why don't you google for yourself? http://www.industrygamers.com/news/mmorpg-market-to-reach-8-billion-worldwide-this-year/

    Why don't you actually post it first before assuming something to be true?

  • MurlockDanceMurlockDance Member Posts: 1,223

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Oh please. You say that MMOs are doing worse but that is only your opinion. I atleast can point to a concrete measure of success: sales numbers. On top of that, I never liked the old-school MMORPGs. I'm quite happy how things are going.

    I think though that there could be troubled times up ahead for the MMO industry, especially how it's going nowadays. There is an issue coming up with the cost of making the AAA MMOs and what sort of money the big studios believe they will earn back from the players. With the current push to put in more and more RMT in many games, gaming seems to be on a track of becoming more and more expensive to play for the average gamer. That is not including inevitable price rises for internet, electricity, and perhaps cash-strapped governments will investigate whether to tax us for our gameplay.

    There are already discussions in places like France for example about whether to scrap unlimited internet accounts completely. If many countries do something like this, this will have a very negative effect on the MMO industry, Taxing peoples' online game time or the internet cash they earn would probably scare off many MMO players. I think the industry is shooting itself in the foot by making the difference between ingame currency and real currency so grey...

    There has been a bit of lag felt in the MMO industry with respect to the economic crisis because it has been cheap. But game companies and ISPs could ruin that for us soon.

     

    I do like many of the old-school MMOs more than the current batch of MMOs, though I thought Rift was pretty good because I liked the features it offers, even if it's not a huge departure from WAR and WoW. Each old-school MMO had more individuality than many of the F2A games I've played and certainly more individuality than the current batch of themepark games. They had their annoying quirks to be sure, and were much less polished on average than today's games, but they did an amazing job overall with the resources available at the time and they made something that I think has longer lasting value for many gamers than much of the more recent games.

    That's one thing that has me wondering about the fate of more recent games. Will people be playing them in 10 years time like people are still playing UO and EQ1 off and on?

    Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.

    image
  • MurlockDanceMurlockDance Member Posts: 1,223

    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Funny, because EQ probably has more expansions than all MMO's post-WoW put together, and "end game" was an after thought due to there being so much other stuff to do.

    And as far as "end game" being the point MMO's are at their best is hogwash IMO.  It's just players griefing low levels or engaging in zerg PvP warfare out of boredom...sitting in major cities spamming for groups for the mind numbing raiding required for the big shinies...which is pretty much all there is left to do in most MMO's at "end game".

     

    And I never said it didn't originate with MMO's...however, what I AM saying is, although it originated here, it has no place in the genre. When I think of the term "end game"...emphasis on the word end.....I think of console games. Which is what most MMO's are becoming...sadly.

    I so agree with you. Well said! I can't stand the game at max level in many games. The only themepark game whose endgame I liked was DAoC's pre-ToA. I like the current form of DAoC's endgame too since they simplified ToA and made it so that people no longer really have to raid it to get MLs and artifacts.

    GW, EVE, Ryzome, SWG... they didn't have endgames at all and I by far prefer that. EQ2 has a lot of stuff to do at endgame as well, but there is the unfortunate push to try to get people to raid anyway by the majority of players.

    That makes me wonder about ToR. It is so story driven and normally in Bioware games there's an ending. So what is going to happen when you hit max level and have done all of the stories?

     

     

     

    Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.

    image
  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Member Posts: 1,214

    Originally posted by MurlockDance

    Originally posted by Goatgod76



    Funny, because EQ probably has more expansions than all MMO's post-WoW put together, and "end game" was an after thought due to there being so much other stuff to do.

    And as far as "end game" being the point MMO's are at their best is hogwash IMO.  It's just players griefing low levels or engaging in zerg PvP warfare out of boredom...sitting in major cities spamming for groups for the mind numbing raiding required for the big shinies...which is pretty much all there is left to do in most MMO's at "end game".

     

    And I never said it didn't originate with MMO's...however, what I AM saying is, although it originated here, it has no place in the genre. When I think of the term "end game"...emphasis on the word end.....I think of console games. Which is what most MMO's are becoming...sadly.

    I so agree with you. Well said! I can't stand the game at max level in many games. The only themepark game whose endgame I liked was DAoC's pre-ToA. I like the current form of DAoC's endgame too since they simplified ToA and made it so that people no longer really have to raid it to get MLs and artifacts.

    GW, EVE, Ryzome, SWG... they didn't have endgames at all and I by far prefer that. EQ2 has a lot of stuff to do at endgame as well, but there is the unfortunate push to try to get people to raid anyway by the majority of players.

    That makes me wonder about ToR. It is so story driven and normally in Bioware games there's an ending. So what is going to happen when you hit max level and have done all of the stories?

     

     

     

    IDK. I have pre-ordered SWTOR through Gamestop, but the more I hear about SWTOR, the less and less I want to pay it up and play it. I have a feeling it will just be another single player RPG in an MMO wrapper with a highly stagnant community of foul mouthed elitists. I grew up with Star Wars (Originals) and love it a lot...but I don't want to pay $60 for the game then $15 a month for virtual daycare and mind numbing cookie cutter features either. I play MMO's (Or did anyways) to escape reality for portions of any given day.

    And MMORPG's are suppose to be about the journey, NOT the destination. I don't want to fly through levels and be bored and wondering why I am paying a monthly fee to be bored and pray for an expansion. Sigh...MMO's are so dying. At least in the sense they started in.

  • psyclumpsyclum Member Posts: 792

    Originally posted by Drokar


    This is why EQ wasn't that successful.  At least not when comparing vs. WoW's subs.  Games like Vanguard, while it had a poor release, is now perhaps the best mmo out and it hasnt had dev attention in well over a year.  If all these people that troll on these forums were truly interested in a challenge, Vanguard would be rolling with subs. 

    EQ wasnt successful because of SOE.   you can only release so many brokeware they called expansions before people got fed up with it.   for a LONG while, they werent even TRYING to fix the bugs.  they were just releaseing BIGGER bugs to distract people from the smaller bugs of the previous expansion:D

    I never tried vangard because well....   it's EQ with better graphics....   same dev, same publisher, same everything pretty much except player housing and flying mount....   if they managed to screw up EQ that badly, how is it going to be any different in vangard?  here is a quote from YOU

    "it hasnt had dev attention in well over a year."

    you are SERIOUSLY recommending people to play that game?:D   at least AoC tried to fix their game:D  heck if vanguard and EQ were sold to funcom, I might actually go back:D

    EQ is like alexander the great, their failures towers over other people's successes.  BUT!  he's NOT Genghis Khan...  which towers over anyone in history.  in the MMO world, that would be WoW

Sign In or Register to comment.