Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
An important aspect to the social component of the game
Amathe
Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
There were many reasons why players in games like EQ banded together, the most obvious being it took groups to complete meaningful content.
But there were other reasons too.
Nowadays, when I log in to play a game, I have in mind some specific objective I want to pursue. Once I'm in, I go after that objective, either alone or with a group I find on group finder. Usually, by the time I log off, the objective is complete. The mob I wanted was found, killed, and I have the item I need.
It wasn't like that in EQ. Mobs didn't just keep respawning like a Whack-a-Mole arcade game. What you want to fight may not be up, and it could be days or weeks before it is up.
Even if the mob is up, someone else may be fighting it already.
If you did find and kill the mob, it may not drop the item you wanted.
If the item did drop, only ONE item drops, which then had to be rolled for.
The point is, when you logged on in EQ, the chances were very small that you could just schedule your evening to fit your needs and everything would work out by night's end. You couldn't control the game like that.
In that world, people were more apt to check around to see what their friends were doing. They were more open to joining in on whatever was available to do. I used to log on with no preconceived plans at all, and the first thing I would do is check in with guild mates and friends to see what was going on at that moment.
I personally think this is a HUGE difference between older games and new ones, and something that motivated people to more interaction with others.
But there were other reasons too.
Nowadays, when I log in to play a game, I have in mind some specific objective I want to pursue. Once I'm in, I go after that objective, either alone or with a group I find on group finder. Usually, by the time I log off, the objective is complete. The mob I wanted was found, killed, and I have the item I need.
It wasn't like that in EQ. Mobs didn't just keep respawning like a Whack-a-Mole arcade game. What you want to fight may not be up, and it could be days or weeks before it is up.
Even if the mob is up, someone else may be fighting it already.
If you did find and kill the mob, it may not drop the item you wanted.
If the item did drop, only ONE item drops, which then had to be rolled for.
The point is, when you logged on in EQ, the chances were very small that you could just schedule your evening to fit your needs and everything would work out by night's end. You couldn't control the game like that.
In that world, people were more apt to check around to see what their friends were doing. They were more open to joining in on whatever was available to do. I used to log on with no preconceived plans at all, and the first thing I would do is check in with guild mates and friends to see what was going on at that moment.
I personally think this is a HUGE difference between older games and new ones, and something that motivated people to more interaction with others.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Comments
Yes, that work should be fun, but nothing should come easy if they're ever to have a game that people continually log into.
Modern games are more like a maze. Turn left twice, turn right once, two more lefts, get a piece of cheese. That solution works for that maze every time, and the maze is always there and available for your use.
By contrast, EQ was a living world. It was never the same when you logged in. Sometimes you port into a zone and you have a clear path to get to a dungeon. And sometimes you do the same thing and find yourself underneath a dragon. With random spawns, random loot, open world dungeons where other players play, things were changing all the time.
So you don't just log on and decide to do maze 101 today. You ask around and see what's actually going on that day in that living world, and go from there with your friends.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Reminds me of this link, have you read it already?
https://slashlfg.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/the-importance-of-mmo-history-and-why-developer-hand-holding-is-killing-it-penny-arcade-com/
If it's all nostalgia, it's mostly because EQ and UO were my first kiss. Later, to test whether I still liked them, I did play Project 1999 and liked it. Over the years I've come to understand I like harsh or survival gameplay. Wurm Online in many ways has the features of EQ and UO. So my intuition is while it's first kiss, I'm also permanently attracted to it. So no matter how long I live, I'll always favor EQ or UO-like gameplay.
If there's preference, how mcuh of it's objective? Can we speak of our preferences objectively, or is it impossible to do so? Over the years I've tried to "rationalize" what I like, but it may be futile without brain scans.
So are we all just victims of our era? Whatever is your first kiss will dominate you the rest of your life? Or is the explanation deeper? Maybe not everybody comes to love their first kiss, for example? Maybe they like their 3rd or 4th kiss? It's worth asking. However, history indicates to me the former is more likely. But perhaps it only seems that way because who's most likely to play old games? Old players! Naturally, if most of the players who like a game are old, you'll assume nostalgia dominates. But young players aren't exposed to old games on an equal basis. It's assumption.
First, nostalgia in the context of video games, is almost always a term thrown about by people that did not actually experience particular games in their time. As such, they do not understand the appeal, find the older graphics and quirks too much to bear to ever give them a fair shake, and never actually learn what set those games apart. With little more than a surface knowledge extracted from stories, videos and wikipedia entries, they determine no one could possibly have enjoyed games that looked like X, or had mechanics like Y; otherwise, "games never would have evolved". This is, of course, a giant fallacy.
There are naturally exceptions. Some did actually play those games in their time and disliked them. Then those few tend to be the frontrunners proclaiming that other people's preferences were really just the product of some "first kiss" mentality, rather than a rational and reasoned opinion. They declare that because they "actually did play X game at launch", their position of authority on the matter somehow lends credence to their conclusion that a game was definitively bad, and anyone who thinks otherwise must have their judgement impaired by nostalgia.
We of course know that most people, upon going back to play those games again in their classic state, still enjoy them immensely, and for very specific reasons. So much so, that for a very long time, the only thing people seemed to want to talk about on mmorpg.com was how much they wanted to see first generation MMOs created anew with modern graphics.
Lastly, a lot of people do not even know what they like. More to the point: they do not know what it really is that compels them to play or stop playing a game. These same folks take to the forums and champion the design decisions that have stripped games of any sense of accomplishment, that otherwise would have kept them playing. After all, an mmorpg was originally designed to be a long-term experience - not just a few months at launch, and a month or two after each expansion.
They surmise, that because Game X did indeed provide some level of enjoyment, and it's design has become widely adopted, it must therefore be necessary to incorporate into future game. This conclusion is reached seemingly without ever considering that had things not been so readily available, they they might still be playing the game they claim to love so much.
One thing you get is mostly convenience designed games. Most players will always want "the path of least" resistance; it's natural. So by taking to the forums they actually influence the games design.
"Listening & catering" on the developers side -- while amazing as it sounds and seems to have a fan democracy type community (inclusiveness).. they need to think of what will happen if they let these fans influence the game.. and were the game will end up: - Simplified, easy, convenient. Does this really match up to the vision of the game? Designers/creators out there need to realize this fact: that how people are today and by proxy how games are influenced today is also a by-product of this "instant gratification" era (aka mobile era). Don't get me wrong; there is a time and a place for these designed games.. and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But the problem is here in the MMORPG sector.. most are ending up being very similar, mostly easy, convenient and nothing more. There's no substance to the game. No art, no passion and no design nuance.. and all lacking in social longevity.
(I could go on in-depth about standardization, but I feel it'll end up de-railing the convo).
Anyway..
Personally I feel it's too late. These people have had mostly convenience designed games for the last decade.. and if you actually confront them about it.. they either don't care or don't understand and think you're stupid. They just simply don't realize that.. Yes, it's hard.. yes it's tougher. But the memories and social fun you gain from that experience will stay with you alot more than just a 20 minute dungeon-finder experience.. with random players you can't even remember after 30 seconds.
At the end of the day.. I think it's futile. why? Because you can't change someone's thinking. I think we should welcome people into Pantheon but not get our hopes up on its success. Success is a bonus and shouldn't be a requirement. All we can do as group/social orientated mmorpgers is support Visionary Realms the best we can.