Howdy, Stranger!

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

Old School..Whats wrong with everyone ?

17810121315

Comments

  • umcorianumcorian Member UncommonPosts: 519
    Originally posted by vesuvias
    Originally posted by umcorian

    I honestly think the key to success in an MMO is to listen to Agent Smith from the Matrix:

    "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization."

    If no one's suffering in your game, you've created a fairy tale world that everyone's just going to log off from... because success no longer has any value. Everyone can do it. Hell, LoL, the most successful game in recent history, has half its players suffer at any one time - in every MOBA, there's a winner and a loser. This "everyone can succeed" model developer shoot for to appease the crying masses just ruins the very reason the whiners care and never leads anywhere. 

    I understand you guys are really broken up about the late 90's being over but holy crap. You don't need to make a game mostly steeped in misery so that the actual "fun" parts can feel fun by relative comparison. Are you MMO "vets" suffering from some sort of MMO PTSD that prevents you from integrating into modern MMOs based on abuse you suffered in those old MMOs? This is like the MMO equivilent of people cutting themselves.

    There's a difference between "mostly steeped in misery" and having a game where the bottom 25% of  players have a very difficult time progressing because they just aren't good enough yet.  

    The problem with modern MMOs is that they try to make everyone happy. If everyone can succeed, that removes any feeling of accomplishment. Feeling a sense of accomplishment is vital to any MMO and constant "accessability buffs" have just removed that feeling from most of the genre. 

    At this point, most MMOs are like playing poker without money, without chips... and without hand strength. You just throw cards away at random, make pointless choices under the illusion of freedom. At the end of the hand, you show everyone that you managed to make it to the end with 5 cards in your hand and everyone playing is declared a winner. 

  • zekeofevzekeofev Member UncommonPosts: 240

    New games are too easy. Old school PVE used to be harsh. The lack of good online guides also assisted this as players had to band together and pool knowledge to tackle some of the harder tasks in the game.

     

    Things were not spelled out for people and needed to be discovered such as the crafting systems of ultima or the spellcreation systems of asheron's call or the resource gathering of star wars galaxies.

     

    I wish similar systems like these could come back in some way. Current MMOs feel whitewashed because it feels like the game wants to guide the player on rails the entire time. I don't necesarrily want a sandbox, but I would like the rails to be more like a spiderweb of multiple trails some of which are rarely chosen rather than a multiple lane interstate highway.

     

    I wish the discovery of the game was put back into the players hands rather than promo trailers and websites.

     

    I miss the sense of exploration and discovery and the benefits of befriending others.

  • VelocinoxVelocinox Member UncommonPosts: 1,010
    Originally posted by Demogorgon
    Originally posted by Velocinox

    Game Company: makes new DO ANYTHING sandbox of FREEDOM!

    Smart Players: Think up a way to game the system.

    Jealous Players: Cry about the smart players gaming the system in the FREEDOM! game.

    Game Company: makes new rules restricting smart player exploits. (Also known as restricting FREEDOM!)

    Smart Players: Find new ways to exploit system.

    Jealous Players: Cry about the new exploits.

    Game Company: makes even more rules, and further restricts their FREEDOM! game.

    (100x iterations of this process)

    ...eventually...

    Players: Your game isn't a FREEDOM! sandbox anymore!

    Game Company: But that's what you cried for!!

     

    Dead FREEDOM! game.

     

     

    You people ask for something (pure FREEDOM! sandbox) and then proceed to cry about players exercising their FREEDOM! in the new sandbox FREEDOM! game. And you STILL continue to beg for the next FREEDOM! sandbox without ever realizing that the very thing you're begging for is the thing that will make you hate the game...

     

    (Well, unless you're the first one to adopt the exploit and get rich.)

     

    You know, if any of you were actual Old Timer's you would recognize this cycle by now. I have. (and for the poseurs, no, I didn't 'sploit AA, didn't play AA, because I knew what was coming from when I played UO... just look at my sig about the cat and the sandbox.)

     

    Ok gotcha... By smart you mean cheaters & by freedom  you mean exploit game weaknesses  instead of reporting them to make the game ACTUALLY BETTER FOR EVERYONE.

    No need to say more...

    Don't take it personally. I didn't call you stupid, but some people think FREEDOM! sandbox means leave a cat turd in it. To them THAT is FREEDOM! And it's not even their fault. Freedom is not a constant. It means different things to different people. Just like folks asking for small government, but bring up some subjects and even those people suddenly start talking about making laws to restrict those activities.

     

    It's the exact same in MMOs. People think, "I want FREEDOM! to do what I want to do, everyone else has to stop doing that thing that bugs ME so I can have FREEDOM!". It doesn't exist. Look at Ultima Online, People placed houses in such a way that blocked off areas of the map. If you weren't in that clan/guild sorry that part of the map was off limits to you. Best hunting area? Sorry. Troll spawn... tooo bad. It wasn't breaking any rules, but people (who weren't in that clan) hated it. Should it be stopped? Why? it's not an exploit (technically speaking), so why stop it?

     

    Jump forward to AA...  It has rules that prevented much of what happened in UO, BUT... they introduced so many more systems that now they have a ton of questions left unresolved that leave room for the players that don't break rules (technically speaking) but that annoy other players that either didn't get on board early, or don't like that happening in their FREEDOM!

     

    And on and on it will go. The more FREEDOM! you make your game, the more people will take it as an excuse to exploit it (within the rules or without) and the more people that didn't get in on the advantage will cry about it. Another real world example? Monopolies, it helped build America's elite wealthy, when they got there they listened to the whining poor and helped pass antitrust laws. The poor stopped crying and the new rich just smiled and thought not only did we get here quick and we shut off access to anyone else trying the same, but we made the people happy by refusing them the same opportunity.

     

    ...aren't we smart.

    'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.


    When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.


    No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.


    How to become a millionaire:
    Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,180
    Originally posted by zekeofev

    New games are too easy. Old school PVE used to be harsh. The lack of good online guides also assisted this as players had to band together and pool knowledge to tackle some of the harder tasks in the game.

     

    Depends on the game really, PVE in SWG pre-cu as an example was anything but harsh. Which their buff system made it even worse (essentially god mode)..

    DAOC wasn't all that tough PVE wise either. EQ  is the main western one that focused on that type of thing (harsh penalty). They tried going that route with SWG, yet even by then (a couple years after EQ) that stuff was wearing thin on players and it was removed right after launch.

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


  • zekeofevzekeofev Member UncommonPosts: 240
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by zekeofev

    New games are too easy. Old school PVE used to be harsh. The lack of good online guides also assisted this as players had to band together and pool knowledge to tackle some of the harder tasks in the game.

     

    Depends on the game really, PVE in SWG pre-cu as an example was anything but harsh. Which their buff system made it even worse (essentially god mode)..

    DAOC wasn't all that tough PVE wise either. EQ  is the main western one that focused on that type of thing (harsh penalty). They tried going that route with SWG, yet even by then (a couple years after EQ) that stuff was wearing thin on players and it was removed right after launch.

    There was still a need to socialize to get these buffs though and not all combat was made trivial with them. Krayt dragons come to mind but sure the combat was easier than others I give you that. DAOC was more grindy than hard but it still encouraged grouping.

     

    However, there was not the hand holding quest leveling systems that waypoint the next place to go like current MMOs. In DAOC and SWG you at least had to discover through world exploration good places to level or find resources (or hear about them from friends).

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,180
    Originally posted by zekeofev
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by zekeofev

    New games are too easy. Old school PVE used to be harsh. The lack of good online guides also assisted this as players had to band together and pool knowledge to tackle some of the harder tasks in the game.

     

    Depends on the game really, PVE in SWG pre-cu as an example was anything but harsh. Which their buff system made it even worse (essentially god mode)..

    DAOC wasn't all that tough PVE wise either. EQ  is the main western one that focused on that type of thing (harsh penalty). They tried going that route with SWG, yet even by then (a couple years after EQ) that stuff was wearing thin on players and it was removed right after launch.

    There was still a need to socialize to get these buffs though and not all combat was made trivial with them. Krayt dragons come to mind but sure the combat was easier than others I give you that. DAOC was more grindy than hard but it still encouraged grouping.

     

    However, there was not the hand holding quest leveling systems that waypoint the next place to go like current MMOs. In DAOC and SWG you at least had to discover through world exploration good places to level or find resources (or hear about them from friends).

    That's true, they did both require socialization, as well as questing took a backseat to give the presentation of a world the spotlight.

    My personal stance on OS vs NS, is that they both offer something the other did not. New School has added a lot in terms of storytelling, types of content, production quality, etc.. Yet they left behind the good parts of the OS games, community oriented mechanics. Could just be a matter that time doesn't allow for a focus on both in terms of development. Could be that modern devs just don't like the result that freedom based community oriented design brings to the table. There's always a hole to plug in those designs, plug one and another opens. Straight forward themepark design; while it has it's faults, it's much easier to maintain a level playing field with.

    Who knows really, it's one of those questions that could have any answer.

     

     

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


  • vesuviasvesuvias Member UncommonPosts: 151
    Originally posted by umcorian

    There's a difference between "mostly steeped in misery" and having a game where the bottom 25% of  players have a very difficult time progressing because they just aren't good enough yet.  

    The problem with modern MMOs is that they try to make everyone happy. If everyone can succeed, that removes any feeling of accomplishment. Feeling a sense of accomplishment is vital to any MMO and constant "accessability buffs" have just removed that feeling from most of the genre. 

    At this point, most MMOs are like playing poker without money, without chips... and without hand strength. You just throw cards away at random, make pointless choices under the illusion of freedom. At the end of the hand, you show everyone that you managed to make it to the end with 5 cards in your hand and everyone playing is declared a winner. 

    As for the highlighted portion: thinking like that and applying it to a persistent always on MMO where power is decided by time invested is essentially designing for failure. You can't design an MMO around relative accomplishment. It doesn't work mathmatically. Let me repeat that so everyone understands: You can not design an MMO around relative accomplishment (meaning your sense of accomplishment is derived from how much you have accomplished that others have not).

    You want only the top 5% to accomplish the goal of the game but you still want the other 95% to still play and paticipate? You aren't enslaving your player base and forcing them to participate. They are doing so willingly because they supposedly find it fun. Chasing an unreachable carrot is rather obvious these days. If the chase is mostly a miserable experience softened only by the fact that once you reach the goal you will feel a sense of accomplishment, then you lose every person who doesn't reach the goal or that never had a chance to.

    So you ok with the loss, its a niche game you say, only for the top 5% anyway. Eventually everyone drops your left with only the top 5% who feelt that great feeling of accomplishment. But not so much anymore, now everyone in the game is just like you, you chased everyone else away. There is nothing left to distiguish you because you are amoung peers of equal skill. So you raise the bar again, again the Top 5% feel the game is awesome because they accomplished something the other 95% didn't and the bottom 95% quit. On and on until there is only one person left in the game.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,769
    Originally posted by umcorian

    And no, you never said anything about those like most people don't. If it's not AAA, it's not worth mentioning. Another sad reality. 

    Well .. i do play indie games .. just not indie MMOs.

    And yes .. since MMO costs so much (unless we are talking about hearthstone ... if you count it as one), if it is not AAA, it is probably not worth mentioning. (That is .. i count marvel heroes as AAA).

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,769
    Originally posted by umcorian
     

    I honestly think the key to success in an MMO is to listen to Agent Smith from the Matrix:

    "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization."

     

    You think the design philosophy of ENTERTAINMENT should be taken out of dialog of a sci-fi movie?

    I don't think i want to "suffer" through my entertainment. I don't suffer when i read a novel. I don't suffer when i watch a movie, and i certainly do not play games to suffer. If it is not fun (to me), ... next.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,769
    Originally posted by umcorian
     

    It doesn't really matter what we call Hearthstone. Blizzard gets to break the rules. They're cloning LoL and they're cloning TF2... and they will be wildly successful. Why? Because Blizzard. Mike Morheime can hire one million people to take craps into a box, slap a Blizzard logo and it will be sold out in a month (that's my theory with Warlords of Draenor, anyway)

    Or just because Blizz knows how to make games fun for millions. It also shows that you don't have to be new to have fun. Polish, implementation, attention to details .. all matters.

    .. and don't afraid to junk stuff that does not work .. like titan.

  • DemogorgonDemogorgon Member UncommonPosts: 337
    Originally posted by vesuvias
    Originally posted by umcorian

    There's a difference between "mostly steeped in misery" and having a game where the bottom 25% of  players have a very difficult time progressing because they just aren't good enough yet.  

    The problem with modern MMOs is that they try to make everyone happy. If everyone can succeed, that removes any feeling of accomplishment. Feeling a sense of accomplishment is vital to any MMO and constant "accessability buffs" have just removed that feeling from most of the genre. 

    At this point, most MMOs are like playing poker without money, without chips... and without hand strength. You just throw cards away at random, make pointless choices under the illusion of freedom. At the end of the hand, you show everyone that you managed to make it to the end with 5 cards in your hand and everyone playing is declared a winner. 

    As for the highlighted portion: thinking like that and applying it to a persistent always on MMO where power is decided by time invested is essentially designing for failure. You can't design an MMO around relative accomplishment. It doesn't work mathmatically. Let me repeat that so everyone understands: You can not design an MMO around relative accomplishment (meaning your sense of accomplishment is derived from how much you have accomplished that others have not).

    You want only the top 5% to accomplish the goal of the game but you still want the other 95% to still play and paticipate? You aren't enslaving your player base and forcing them to participate. They are doing so willingly because they supposedly find it fun. Chasing an unreachable carrot is rather obvious these days. If the chase is mostly a miserable experience softened only by the fact that once you reach the goal you will feel a sense of accomplishment, then you lose every person who doesn't reach the goal or that never had a chance to.

    So you ok with the loss, its a niche game you say, only for the top 5% anyway. Eventually everyone drops your left with only the top 5% who feelt that great feeling of accomplishment. But not so much anymore, now everyone in the game is just like you, you chased everyone else away. There is nothing left to distiguish you because you are amoung peers of equal skill. So you raise the bar again, again the Top 5% feel the game is awesome because they accomplished something the other 95% didn't and the bottom 95% quit. On and on until there is only one person left in the game.

    Thats complet BS dude. I'm the living proof & i'm not alone... seriously.

    I've never been part of that 5% you talk about ( came close in FFXI ), but you know what, it gave me something to work toward, a goal, call it whatever you want.

    The only people it makes go away, are people you don't want in the game in the 1st place anyways.

    I really don't see the problem. These people choose to fixate on what they can't get NOW & they quit... good ridance. They were not in the genre for them, as simple as that.

    There's a niche for people who want a journey, but there's no game right now for us. There's only either PvP crapbox or one month Wonder soon forgotten.

    When finally a game that goes at a much slower pace comes come, with things to do at every levels in a realistic flesh out world, you'll see how wrong you are. But to be honest, I'm not getting my hopes up for that actually happenneing for the obvious reason that its a lot harder to make & devs only see the quick bucks.

    /shrug

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,180
    Originally posted by Demogorgon
     

    When finally a game that goes at a much slower pace comes come, with things to do at every levels in a realistic flesh out world, you'll see how wrong you are. But to be honest, I'm not getting my hopes up for that actually happenneing for the obvious reason that its a lot harder to make & devs only see the quick bucks.

    /shrug

    It's harder to make? based on what exactly? Since this is a "what bothers me" thread for the most part; I'll have to say this is what bothers me. This kind of statement, because if we're going to be realistic, what you're basing this on is old games, and they were not harder to make. They entailed significantly less in terms of development (scope is another story, ie SWG). Those games were essentially blank canvases, the players made the game. The devs simply designed UI's, Ai, some sort of profession system, as well as a crafting/combat system, the rest was really up to us as players. 

    When it comes to these discussions this is the biggest fallacy I see in them, the idea that a world is hard to make. What's hard is selling just a world. Sure there's an audience for it, but it requires a lot more time commitment from the player, as well as you have to give them reason to care about being in that world. SWG worked because it's Star Wars... UO is Ultima, which was huge back then in terms of RPG properties. Popular properties have really been key to the success stories in terms of many western titles. It can take years for a new property to really start catching people in mass, for an MMO that's too long.

    That is one of the biggest hurdles for a new game, unless it's carrying with it an established name, it's nothing more than generic setting number 2,000,001, hence no one really cares about it's world, or the stories behind it, therefor that world doesn't really sell.

    There are exceptions like EQ, or EVE, but they're certainly not the rule, random luck, and the right commitment as well as time played huge parts in those success stories.

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


  • TorikTorik Member UncommonPosts: 2,342
    Originally posted by zekeofev

    However, there was not the hand holding quest leveling systems that waypoint the next place to go like current MMOs. In DAOC and SWG you at least had to discover through world exploration good places to level or find resources (or hear about them from friends).

    Are you forgetting the SWG mission terminals which told you to go to waypoints where a mob lair would spawn so you could kill it and then go to the next mission waypoint?  When I played SWG pre-CU that was the primary way for people to level.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,180
    Originally posted by Torik
    Originally posted by zekeofev

    However, there was not the hand holding quest leveling systems that waypoint the next place to go like current MMOs. In DAOC and SWG you at least had to discover through world exploration good places to level or find resources (or hear about them from friends).

    Are you forgetting the SWG mission terminals which told you to go to waypoints where a mob lair would spawn so you could kill it and then go to the next mission waypoint?  When I played SWG pre-CU that was the primary way for people to level.

    True, yet they were more or less tasks to make credits or xtra xp, they served their purpose, without really needing to disguise themselves as interesting content.

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


  • DemogorgonDemogorgon Member UncommonPosts: 337
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Demogorgon
     

    When finally a game that goes at a much slower pace comes come, with things to do at every levels in a realistic flesh out world, you'll see how wrong you are. But to be honest, I'm not getting my hopes up for that actually happenneing for the obvious reason that its a lot harder to make & devs only see the quick bucks.

    /shrug

    It's harder to make? based on what exactly? Since this is a "what bothers me" thread for the most part; I'll have to say this is what bothers me. This kind of statement, because if we're going to be realistic, what you're basing this on is old games, and they were not harder to make. They entailed significantly less in terms of development (scope is another story, ie SWG). Those games were essentially blank canvases, the players made the game. The devs simply designed UI's, Ai, some sort of profession system, as well as a crafting/combat system, the rest was really up to us as players. 

    When it comes to these discussions this is the biggest fallacy I see in them, the idea that a world is hard to make. What's hard is selling just a world. Sure there's an audience for it, but it requires a lot more time commitment from the player, as well as you have to give them reason to care about being in that world. SWG worked because it's Star Wars... UO is Ultima, which was huge back then in terms of RPG properties. Popular properties have really been key to the success stories in terms of many western titles. It can take years for a new property to really start catching people in mass, for an MMO that's too long.

    That is one of the biggest hurdles for a new game, unless it's carrying with it an established name, it's nothing more than generic setting number 2,000,001, hence no one really cares about it's world, or the stories behind it, therefor that world doesn't really sell.

    There are exceptions like EQ, or EVE, but they're certainly not the rule, random luck, and the right commitment as well as time played huge parts in those success stories.

    If you're going to sit there & tell me that the games we have today hard harder to make, I'm just going to have to disagree.

    Instanses aren't hard to do... thats why they are doing it. Thats only tip of the iceberg of the dumbing down of every system that use to be part of traditionnal MMORPG. Moving on...

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,180
    Originally posted by Demogorgon
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Demogorgon
     

    When finally a game that goes at a much slower pace comes come, with things to do at every levels in a realistic flesh out world, you'll see how wrong you are. But to be honest, I'm not getting my hopes up for that actually happenneing for the obvious reason that its a lot harder to make & devs only see the quick bucks.

    /shrug

    It's harder to make? based on what exactly? Since this is a "what bothers me" thread for the most part; I'll have to say this is what bothers me. This kind of statement, because if we're going to be realistic, what you're basing this on is old games, and they were not harder to make. They entailed significantly less in terms of development (scope is another story, ie SWG). Those games were essentially blank canvases, the players made the game. The devs simply designed UI's, Ai, some sort of profession system, as well as a crafting/combat system, the rest was really up to us as players. 

    When it comes to these discussions this is the biggest fallacy I see in them, the idea that a world is hard to make. What's hard is selling just a world. Sure there's an audience for it, but it requires a lot more time commitment from the player, as well as you have to give them reason to care about being in that world. SWG worked because it's Star Wars... UO is Ultima, which was huge back then in terms of RPG properties. Popular properties have really been key to the success stories in terms of many western titles. It can take years for a new property to really start catching people in mass, for an MMO that's too long.

    That is one of the biggest hurdles for a new game, unless it's carrying with it an established name, it's nothing more than generic setting number 2,000,001, hence no one really cares about it's world, or the stories behind it, therefor that world doesn't really sell.

    There are exceptions like EQ, or EVE, but they're certainly not the rule, random luck, and the right commitment as well as time played huge parts in those success stories.

    If you're going to sit there & tell me that the games we have today hard harder to make, I'm just going to have to disagree.

    Instanses aren't hard to do.. .thats why they are doing it. Moving on...

    (morrowind voice) Ah yes, make some strawman counter and move on...who said anything about instances? I'm referring to overuse of pre-generated worlds, simple content types like SWG's mission systems, or simply camping one world boss all day long. That's what content was back then... The tech.. as well as knowledge of that tech created limitations that didn't allow for much more, on a technical level these games have come a long way....

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


  • DemogorgonDemogorgon Member UncommonPosts: 337
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Demogorgon
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Demogorgon
     

    When finally a game that goes at a much slower pace comes come, with things to do at every levels in a realistic flesh out world, you'll see how wrong you are. But to be honest, I'm not getting my hopes up for that actually happenneing for the obvious reason that its a lot harder to make & devs only see the quick bucks.

    /shrug

    It's harder to make? based on what exactly? Since this is a "what bothers me" thread for the most part; I'll have to say this is what bothers me. This kind of statement, because if we're going to be realistic, what you're basing this on is old games, and they were not harder to make. They entailed significantly less in terms of development (scope is another story, ie SWG). Those games were essentially blank canvases, the players made the game. The devs simply designed UI's, Ai, some sort of profession system, as well as a crafting/combat system, the rest was really up to us as players. 

    When it comes to these discussions this is the biggest fallacy I see in them, the idea that a world is hard to make. What's hard is selling just a world. Sure there's an audience for it, but it requires a lot more time commitment from the player, as well as you have to give them reason to care about being in that world. SWG worked because it's Star Wars... UO is Ultima, which was huge back then in terms of RPG properties. Popular properties have really been key to the success stories in terms of many western titles. It can take years for a new property to really start catching people in mass, for an MMO that's too long.

    That is one of the biggest hurdles for a new game, unless it's carrying with it an established name, it's nothing more than generic setting number 2,000,001, hence no one really cares about it's world, or the stories behind it, therefor that world doesn't really sell.

    There are exceptions like EQ, or EVE, but they're certainly not the rule, random luck, and the right commitment as well as time played huge parts in those success stories.

    If you're going to sit there & tell me that the games we have today hard harder to make, I'm just going to have to disagree.

    Instanses aren't hard to do.. .thats why they are doing it. Moving on...

    (morrowind voice) Ah yes, make some strawman counter and move on...who said anything about instances? I'm referring to overuse of pre-generated worlds, simple content types like SWG's mission systems, or simply camping one world boss all day long. That's what content was back then... The tech.. as well as knowledge of that tech created limitations that didn't allow for much more, on a technical level these games have come a long way....

    Cuz thats the only thing you want to see.

    Like I said moving on... Don't bother. I disagree with you. Can you accept that?

  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,554
    Originally posted by Demogorgon

    Cuz thats the only thing you want to see.

    Like I said moving on... Don't bother. I disagree with you. Can you accept that?

    But what other hard dev created world content was there in SWG that today's MMO's don't do?

    image
  • ReklawReklaw Member UncommonPosts: 6,495
    Originally posted by immodium
    Originally posted by Demogorgon

    Cuz thats the only thing you want to see.

    Like I said moving on... Don't bother. I disagree with you. Can you accept that?

    But what other hard dev created world content was there in SWG that today's MMO's don't do?

    What do you mean with "hard dev created world content"? Cause due to the tools the developers gave us it was we the community who created the content. 

    And that's the difference with todaty's MMO's as people expect content to be generated by the game itself regardless if the game gives player the tools to create their own content. The majority will flock towards what is given.

    But regardless it's hard to come up with a good solution bringing old-school into today's genre because as we all can see there is allot of difference in between like's/dislike's even between old school players and I am talking about those of us who truly enjoy some of the old school games as I also know plenty of old school gamers who are pretty satisfied with today's MMO's

     

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,514
    Originally posted by vesuvias

    I started with Uo/EQ an despite that I always find myself on the oppisite side of the arguement from the "Old School" crowd here. I esspecially find the juvinile arguement style of claiming old school games were for "adults" especially ironic. It's the type of comment my 13 year old daughter makes to her younger sibling all the time.

    I do however empathize with what the "vets" are trying to say, to a certain degree. I just wish instead of holding there ground and claiming things like forced grouping, non-instanced camps, yelling for groups, corpse runs, harsh death penalties and long leveling times were what made old school games great they would just simply stick with saying Community, Immersion, and Interdependancy aren't as prevelant now as they were then. I could agree with that statement and get behind it. But I will never play another game that has Corpse runs in they way EQ had corpse runs. That mechanic was broken and poorly designed. While it might have provided a sense of danger and urgency when deep in the bowls of the dungeoun it was far too punitive to be an effective game mechanic for anyone but masocists. 

    This belief that these old mechanics are the only way to move the genre forward is a fallacy. We moved on from these mechanics not because the goal was to eliminate Community, Immersion or Interdependancy but because they were poorly designed mechanics that were more likely to chase people out of the game than they were to encourage the former. 

    Figure out what it was at the core of the experience that made is so much fun. Was it forced grouping that made it fun or the fact that you explored deep in a dungeon with others that were all focused and prepared for a difficult task. Wasn't it more a factor of the fact that your actions had meaning positive or negative for the groups success or failure. Did you really need to lose half your XP on death in order to "force" every other player to focus? Did you really need to be the only one that could "heal" in order to make your actions have meaning?

    Its too intellectually lazy to simply say, EQ was fun, EQ had corpse runs, camping, long leveling, and harsh death penalties. Therefore the only games that are fun as those that have corpse runs, camping, long leveling and harsh death penalties. To champion those mechanics because you can endure the downsides without it ruining your fun is completely discounting the number of people for whom those mechanics pretty much made the game unplayable.

     

     

    What you're saying is, community, interdependency, teamwork etc are great, but all the things that promote them are bad.  Cool story!

    Shared adversity fosters community.  Theres an entire genre designed around this now and its called "Survival."  Those kinds of things aren't for everyone, and perhaps they weren't for you.


  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,554
    Originally posted by Reklaw
    Originally posted by immodium
    Originally posted by Demogorgon

    Cuz thats the only thing you want to see.

    Like I said moving on... Don't bother. I disagree with you. Can you accept that?

    But what other hard dev created world content was there in SWG that today's MMO's don't do?

    What do you mean with "hard dev created world content"? Cause due to the tools the developers gave us it was we the community who created the content. 

    And that's the difference with todaty's MMO's as people expect content to be generated by the game itself regardless if the game gives player the tools to create their own content. The majority will flock towards what is given.

    But regardless it's hard to come up with a good solution bringing old-school into today's genre because as we all can see there is allot of difference in between like's/dislike's even between old school players and I am talking about those of us who truly enjoy some of the old school games as I also know plenty of old school gamers who are pretty satisfied with today's MMO's

     

    I was just wondering why it was harder for developers to create worlds in old games.

    I agree with you, the developers created tools for the player to create the content (housing for example in SWG).

    IMO I think it's a lot harder for developers today to create engaging worlds where players aren't really necessary. Take Skyrim for example. yes it's a single player game but the world is so engrossing people do say they would love to play that with others.

    Old MMO's, for me,  just seemed the opposite to that. The worlds were not that amazing to explore but because your playing with friends it will do. Even though people did solo in SWG. I couldn't, the planets weren't that interesting.

    A world has to be great even solo.

    image
  • umcorianumcorian Member UncommonPosts: 519
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by umcorian
     

    I honestly think the key to success in an MMO is to listen to Agent Smith from the Matrix:

    "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization."

     

    You think the design philosophy of ENTERTAINMENT should be taken out of dialog of a sci-fi movie?

    I don't think i want to "suffer" through my entertainment. I don't suffer when i read a novel. I don't suffer when i watch a movie, and i certainly do not play games to suffer. If it is not fun (to me), ... next.

    You're reading too much into the word 'suffering'. Think of 'suffering' in an MMO context as losing a LoL match. Not succeeding. Being set back because you just weren't good enough at a particular part of the game. 

    I feel most modern MMORPGs have abandoned any notion of suffering and have made it so anyone can succeed through the vast majority of the content given enough time. I feel that has devolved the genre and driven away a large number of MMORPGers who actually enjoyed the rewards that came with being skilled in more difficult MMORPG settings - thus the rise of MOBAs and competative MMO games. 

    Reinsert a little suffering into the genre that drives players to gradually improve and I suspect everything will get a little better. 

  • pkpkpkpkpkpk Member UncommonPosts: 201

    "If"! Your idea of design in games is a childish, fantastical one.  Why don't, as a homework project, you research the costs of games over the years--the average sizes of the staffs? Did you know there was once a time when a company that made a game would have been likely to have made one before?  There will never be a new "old school" MMORPG. The first and second generations were not made for schoolchildren and illiterates. The only way to get an old school MMORPG is to play one. No worth while designer would give serious credence to someone who wants an "old school" game, but refuses to play the ones in existence because of graphics.

     

    MMORPGs have become poor man's entertainment, and will never again be anything but; mark my words. Flying on an airplane used to be  glamorous; people would put on their best clothes; they would enjoy the flight in luxury, as they traveled through the skies, en route to another country. Now they are stripped of their dignity and searched at the airport, and then crowded onto the airplane like cattle. MMORPGs are the same.

  • JadawwaJadawwa Member Posts: 9
    Too many point and counter points too many discounted perspectives and splitting of hairs. Is not the core of this simply that game play is evolving but it is leaving behind some of what got it here? Suffering from a loss--learn a lesson or change tactics. Patience for progress--whats that? Its odd but sometimes the statements made about game progress seem to be excuses for not having penalties because then people might walk away. A trophy for everyone mentality.
  • jaxomejaxome Member UncommonPosts: 76
    Originally posted by Jadawwa
    Too many point and counter points too many discounted perspectives and splitting of hairs. Is not the core of this simply that game play is evolving but it is leaving behind some of what got it here? Suffering from a loss--learn a lesson or change tactics. Patience for progress--whats that? Its odd but sometimes the statements made about game progress seem to be excuses for not having penalties because then people might walk away. A trophy for everyone mentality.

    This so much of this. I remember vanilla WoW and I remember loathing it, I remember arguing with my friends as they abandoned SWG for WoW (not cause it was a better game or more fun but because of the great creature handler nurf and intense hate for SOE, those of you who were there know what im talking about). The reason I hated WoW then was cause i thought it was giving cry babies trophies to easy and it was gonna ruin mmorpgs. Point is as much as I hate WoW, i appreciate much of what it has done for making games more fun now, and it has done lots, that is not debatable. 

    Most games now are trying to recreate what WoW did, and mmorpgs are suffering. Archeage had the potential to be great but current F2P cash shops and toxic communities killed the crap out of that game from what I understand, personally I could never get the crap to launch on my computer so I dont know lol. Game devs are forgetting what made mmorpgs great, if you want evidence look at WoW, from what I understand the most recent expansion is moving the game more towards vanilla WoW and away from the direction it was going. Im guessing they see the next wave of the future and its going to be getting healthy happy communities and getting people to feel like they are living in a world and blah blah blah... Games are so much better now then when SWG happened, I and most old school people would agree with that idea, however I dont understand why anyone would disagree with the idea that we are losing something and should strike a balance lol.

    Honestly I think the real solution is for game devs to stop trying to be the next WoW, or the next f2p scam for some quick money, and instead to focus on making a game that speaks directly to a large enough population to make money and not to make all the money, you cant make everyone happy so why not just focus on the people you can... Its not leaving farm land unused so much as making sure you will have fresh dirt for next years plants.

Sign In or Register to comment.