Yes, communal aspects are dying. It's about fad's, fashion, and cliquing. If you aren't in my guild, DIE! If you don't have money for gear, DIE! If you are lost at a low lvl, DIE! It is becoming about individual aggrandizement, just like real life cultures the world over.
I remember in EQ how much folk just enjoyed helping each other. A lvl 17 stuck in a lvl 31 zone could expect help (if he knew the language) from a stronger player who would actually take the time to lead them back to their range of play.
My elf mage lvl 40, I used to enchant lvl 7 Halas barbarians just to help them have fun as a dynamo in the first and second fields.
I was a lvl 12 Iksar seated at the fire at the entry to Halas learning the northern tongue and not getting sniped just for being a rival race.
I dropped games a few years and returned with a long running game based on faction war called Champions of Regnum. Still a good community, and the point was to hate the other realms, but it had gotten severely hostile even for players who were in the same faction. If you were low lvl and were getting ganged up on, the elite ran right by (on his way to the next invasion point), too busy to care. Maybe those games helped t0 shape the solo mentality?
i don't know, I think the world is way greedier and hostile then even in Roman times. We are politically correct, morally conscious, (but not active) savages, who care about the few around us and have utter contempt for outside parties.
It shows in games too. Both in the kind folk play the most, and the attitudes reflected on servers.
The fellowship, is the basis of the RPG. The company of companions who needed one another to face the odds.
We might think a guild is the same, but we'd be totally jaded,,,and wrong.
People have always said that the world is going downhill and that youths are worse than earlier generations.
I don't think that really is the case here, it has more to do with MMOers isn't the same small subgroup it once was.
When I started MMOs the players really belonged either to pen and paper roleplayers or serious computer geeks (in many cases both). Almost all players had a lot in common and knew they belonged to a really small sub group of people. And the most offensive players were shunned and couldn't get a group no matter what because the servers were pretty small and word spread so they were usually gone fast.
In games who might have millions of players from many different sub groups things are different, it is kinda like living in a small town in the middle of nowhere or New york, you don't have to like everyone in a small town but you do know people and you know who you like and who you should avoid.
Also, certain MMO mechanics turns players against eachother. Need or greed for example, a mechanic that did work in smaller guild but always made PUGs hard. Locked combat encounters where people killsteals. Stuff like that doesn't really differ much.
People are and have always been greedy, but most people temper themselves around people they know, particularly if they belong to your own sub group. I don't think greed have changed much historically (with a few exceptions like the conquistadors), people just think it is easier to get away with being jerks in larger groups where noone knows them.
That's only true if the mechanics in the game are developed that way... in a way that makes asshattery possible. Well designed modern MMOs are not designed in a vacuum that ignores anti-social behavior: individual RNG loot drops are now common and do away with the FFA or need/greed roll of olden days, exclusive mob tagging has largely gone the way of the dodo, non-competitive instanced resource nodes are now common...
And beyond that, for several years now different developers have flirted with the idea of significant community events, such as the rifts in Rift or events in GW2 for example, being a large part of the game play. And I say "flirted" because none of them yet have made it THE core PVE mechanic and let the game live or die based on that. They are all still relying on the traditional crutch of letting you play a single player game that is virtually the same for everyone, with quest NPC re-spawning etc., in an MMORPG ignoring the MM. And even GW2 only does their community events half-assed with most of them being a predictably repeatable loop that only works as a story element if you do it once and then move away from that area.
The technology and design ideas are there to be used by anyone willing to do so.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
To me the developers have laid down the foundation for the rpg portion of all titles currently out. imho a huge portion of the responsibilities lies with the players making games feel immersive.
Things as simple as choosing a name that reflects the games history and lore can make a difference, but there are so many who choose names like Chexmix or Poptarman. So, I believe we as the players have removed the RPG from MMORPGs and it's our responsibility to put it back.
Good point and I agree!
However, MMOs today attract those kinds of players by the millions. If they instigated some of the features the OP mentioned, would these "iPWNu" players even show up? It takes multiple players of the same mind to role play. When 75% of the player base does not care for RP, it makes it overly hard for the 25% looking for that to find it.
Yes, we players carry some (a lot?) of the blame. But don't you think that the MMOs created today also carry some of the blame by their very design choices? Choices that attract non-RP players?
I just don't think that there is a good enough definition of role-playing game to be able to support the OPs statement.
For me, personally, I hate storyline driven RPGs, especially if you are the hero in the storylines. Those types of RPGs aren't roleplaying for me, they are more like interactive movies / books where you are forced to do things in a certain order or a certain way.
I much prefer open-ended / open-world sandboxes where I can actually roleplay. By this, I mean I can decide my characters direction and then play that role. The more freedom I have with my character, the more attached to it I become. I will end up falling in love with a particular look and spec, resulting in far greater enjoyment.
When I compare that to playing something like SW:TOR, I'll never understand how I stayed with that game for over a year. You weren't "playing" a role, you were being forced down a linear storyline with no customisation, ownership or anything to really put you into a role. SW:TOR removed player choice from the equation in too many areas of the game, they made you (and everyone else) the hero etc.
Its hard to explain.
I guess the core principle for me is "Am I playing a role, or am I playing a person?"
This probably isn't an idea that many people agree with and probably doesn't really make sense either. Ultimately, it comes down to player choice. The more forced and linear a game is, the less I view it as an RPG. Its why I just can't get on with games like the Witcher series. You aren't playing a role, you're playing Geralt. You have minimal choice. You can't play the role, you can only follow the person.
I just don't think that there is a good enough definition of role-playing game to be able to support the OPs statement.
For me, personally, I hate storyline driven RPGs, especially if you are the hero in the storylines. Those types of RPGs aren't roleplaying for me, they are more like interactive movies / books where you are forced to do things in a certain order or a certain way.
I much prefer open-ended / open-world sandboxes where I can actually roleplay. By this, I mean I can decide my characters direction and then play that role. The more freedom I have with my character, the more attached to it I become. I will end up falling in love with a particular look and spec, resulting in far greater enjoyment.
When I compare that to playing something like SW:TOR, I'll never understand how I stayed with that game for over a year. You weren't "playing" a role, you were being forced down a linear storyline with no customisation, ownership or anything to really put you into a role. SW:TOR removed player choice from the equation in too many areas of the game, they made you (and everyone else) the hero etc.
Its hard to explain.
I guess the core principle for me is "Am I playing a role, or am I playing a person?"
This probably isn't an idea that many people agree with and probably doesn't really make sense either. Ultimately, it comes down to player choice. The more forced and linear a game is, the less I view it as an RPG. Its why I just can't get on with games like the Witcher series. You aren't playing a role, you're playing Geralt. You have minimal choice. You can't play the role, you can only follow the person.
Videogame RPGs and tabletop RPGs are different things.
Videogame RPGs have a ~35 year history establishing their story/progression/combat focus. Modern MMORPGs have the exact same focus. So they're very much RPGs, and story has long been a part of that from Ultima to Wizardry to Final Fantasy to Eye of the Beholder to Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect to most MMORPGs. Nearly every game you'll find in the entire list of videogame RPGs is story-driven.
So there is literally no question of whether modern MMORPGs are RPGs. It's definite, and supported by 35 years of videogame RPGs.
Tabletop RPGs have a different focus, including improv and storytelling. This doesn't mean videogame RPGs aren't RPGs for lacking those elements. That'd be like saying tabletop RPGs aren't RPGs because they lack real-time visuals.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
That's only true if the mechanics in the game are developed that way... in a way that makes asshattery possible. Well designed modern MMOs are not designed in a vacuum that ignores anti-social behavior: individual RNG loot drops are now common and do away with the FFA or need/greed roll of olden days, exclusive mob tagging has largely gone the way of the dodo, non-competitive instanced resource nodes are now common...
And beyond that, for several years now different developers have flirted with the idea of significant community events, such as the rifts in Rift or events in GW2 for example, being a large part of the game play. And I say "flirted" because none of them yet have made it THE core PVE mechanic and let the game live or die based on that. They are all still relying on the traditional crutch of letting you play a single player game that is virtually the same for everyone, with quest NPC re-spawning etc., in an MMORPG ignoring the MM. And even GW2 only does their community events half-assed with most of them being a predictably repeatable loop that only works as a story element if you do it once and then move away from that area.
The technology and design ideas are there to be used by anyone willing to do so.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Good point and I agree!
However, MMOs today attract those kinds of players by the millions. If they instigated some of the features the OP mentioned, would these "iPWNu" players even show up? It takes multiple players of the same mind to role play. When 75% of the player base does not care for RP, it makes it overly hard for the 25% looking for that to find it.
Yes, we players carry some (a lot?) of the blame. But don't you think that the MMOs created today also carry some of the blame by their very design choices? Choices that attract non-RP players?
VG
I just don't think that there is a good enough definition of role-playing game to be able to support the OPs statement.
For me, personally, I hate storyline driven RPGs, especially if you are the hero in the storylines. Those types of RPGs aren't roleplaying for me, they are more like interactive movies / books where you are forced to do things in a certain order or a certain way.
I much prefer open-ended / open-world sandboxes where I can actually roleplay. By this, I mean I can decide my characters direction and then play that role. The more freedom I have with my character, the more attached to it I become. I will end up falling in love with a particular look and spec, resulting in far greater enjoyment.
When I compare that to playing something like SW:TOR, I'll never understand how I stayed with that game for over a year. You weren't "playing" a role, you were being forced down a linear storyline with no customisation, ownership or anything to really put you into a role. SW:TOR removed player choice from the equation in too many areas of the game, they made you (and everyone else) the hero etc.
Its hard to explain.
I guess the core principle for me is "Am I playing a role, or am I playing a person?"
This probably isn't an idea that many people agree with and probably doesn't really make sense either. Ultimately, it comes down to player choice. The more forced and linear a game is, the less I view it as an RPG. Its why I just can't get on with games like the Witcher series. You aren't playing a role, you're playing Geralt. You have minimal choice. You can't play the role, you can only follow the person.
Videogame RPGs and tabletop RPGs are different things.
Videogame RPGs have a ~35 year history establishing their story/progression/combat focus. Modern MMORPGs have the exact same focus. So they're very much RPGs, and story has long been a part of that from Ultima to Wizardry to Final Fantasy to Eye of the Beholder to Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect to most MMORPGs. Nearly every game you'll find in the entire list of videogame RPGs is story-driven.
So there is literally no question of whether modern MMORPGs are RPGs. It's definite, and supported by 35 years of videogame RPGs.
Tabletop RPGs have a different focus, including improv and storytelling. This doesn't mean videogame RPGs aren't RPGs for lacking those elements. That'd be like saying tabletop RPGs aren't RPGs because they lack real-time visuals.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver