When theme park MMO's started dominating with their shallow gameplay and instant gratification combined with neverending gear grinds? WoW? When it started becoming more about end game than the journey? This genre is fucked up right now.
Agree 100%^^^
So you agree that the old shallow game play and slow gratification combined with never ending gear grinds was better?
Cause I played those games too and that is bullshit.
How on earth did you deduct that I was agreeing that it was better?
Every MMO to date has been shallow in comparison to their single player RPG counterparts. Old or new MMOs, they are essentially the same, with only minor differences in time sinks and general paradigm schemes. Every MMO is still designed with hardcores as the primary target, with added casual content as an after thought. Every MMO is still being designed as a business model first, game second. Hence the incessant focus on mechanisms that waste time rather than entertain.
This genre has a long way to go before it could ever be considered mainstream and once it does, it won't be recognizable and will hardly resemble MMOs made in the last 10 years. As a result, the industry will then have the resources to cater to niche markets and still make enough profit to satisy even the greediest CEO. But then again, if they remain stupid and clueless and unwilling to make real changes, they could end up losing to the console market or just dwindle and die.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
If you can't spend a little bit of time getting what gear you have access to, you obviously care very little for that character, and ultimately for the outcome of our encounter.
Nope. Not an elitist view at all.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Originally posted by rounner No, it's part of teen nature. The requirements of social acceptance and need to model on peers is very much a young persons necessity. I don't need to spread my sperm anymore or copy others to learn how to behave. I tolerate close proximity with others out of economic necessity, which does not require social scrutiny, only a record of proven compentancy in my work.
Competition isn't limited to children. Employees compete for promotions, and companies compete to sell product. Competition is a part of our entire society, not just kids.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It occured on the 24th of April 2000..the release date of Everquest - The Ruins of Kunark. Everquest prior to this had most of its popualtion including casuals hitting the max level cap..many had reached this months before ...there were waiting lists for the very limited endgame content and high level areas you could wait 6 hours just to get into a group in lower GuK and every spawn had to be fought for and had long respawn rates if you didnt kill the dragon this week its because someone else beat you to it.. as Kunark rolled into town it went even further..now you needed access keys to even enter elite areas keys that required week long camps to get person by person..this is where guilds were forced to become super selective on who they invited and the community element in MMOs broke down the most.. People quote Wow so far in this topic as being responsbile but Wow is just a very shrewd version of super elite EQ 1..accessible to the mass market..with a gradual carefully constructed drip feed of achievement... Because the EQ/Wow form of MMOs (and not every MMO was anything like them in those days) became the dominant and popular MMO format..here we are.. ---- Also note there is a kind of cycle in most MMOs.. 1/ initial newbie optimism you dont mind who you spend time with and everything is new and novel..you make mistakes but thats half the fun 2/ you no longer making many mistakes and having to repeat content more than early on to get items you shinies you want..you still group with others but your clique of friends is becoming established now.. 3/ you are now playing regular and getting less drip feed success per hour spent..the dimishing returns mean you want to maximise the time you play getting stuff YOU want ..the game is becoming a chore really and you seen it all before you are a know it all..you dont want to waste time with newbies if possible..the only fun you now get is your next item fix..the getting it part is boring. 4/ you are an addicted elitest..enjoy
Some of it is just human nature but the extremes are created as a side effect of PvE players consuming PvE content faster than it can be created. This results in a glut of people at max level complaining. The company can't just raise the level cap because that takes a lot of planning and balancing so they opt for gear progression instead. Also, the ideal form for this gear progression mechanic would entail soaking up the largest possible combined amount of complaining max level player-hours. Hence raiding was born.
If you have the tank and spank paradigm and a raiding encounter that is on the edge of possible in the context of the available classes, races gear, spells etc then mathematically that requires the min-maxed 'best' tank and 'best' healer. If the encounter is on the edge of possible then you throw time into the mix and that tank-healer combo can only survive for a finite amount of time meaning the DPS must kill the mob before that time runs out. Which, if the encounter is on the edge of possible means the DPS has to be min-maxed too.
So I think the (main) answer to the OP's question is:
1) Anything that leads to server's getting top heavy with max levels including anything which, even though it might be inevitable eventually, speeds the process up thereby making it harder for the game to keep ahead of the players.
2) Anything else that leads to a game not being able to add non-raid content fast enough.
3) The use of raid content as a time filler in between expansions where the difficulty of the encounter is tuned to the tank and spank mechanic and each boss sits on the edge of possible once the gear from the prevous boss is taken into account.
4) Tank and spank paradigm.
Once the elite is established than it flows backwards into the rest of the game e.g once it's established that you need ogre warriors for the "edge of possible" stuff then ogre warriors become the 'best' warriors even if for 99% of the game it doesn't matter.
So it started at the moment EQ1 couldn't keep up with the 'race to max level' folks and has been repeated ever since through games so far not being able to come up with an alternative way of keeping max level people busy apart from raiding and PvP.
No, it's part of teen nature. The requirements of social acceptance and need to model on peers is very much a young persons necessity. I don't need to spread my sperm anymore or copy others to learn how to behave. I tolerate close proximity with others out of economic necessity, which does not require social scrutiny, only a record of proven compentancy in my work.
Competition isn't limited to children. Employees compete for promotions, and companies compete to sell product. Competition is a part of our entire society, not just kids.
You are interchanging terms like competition and elitism which polarises my argument but the point is valid. It is well established that teen psychology is different to an adults however you want to play semantics.
I expect to be evaluated on my competency based on a proven track record. When applying for a new job, employers have to resort to getting as much information as they can in what little time they have to evaluate each potential employee. Ideally they would do a trial period but this is not always possible. The point being a compromise between first impressions and a more indepth knowledge of that person is required.
Getting back to mmo's, in a pick up group, I expect to be initially judged on my gear and titles as that's a first impression. If more scrutiny is required I expect to be quizzed on if I have done the raid before and know my role. After doing a grouping, I expect to then be judged based on how I performed not what gear I am using.
Rather than quibble on definitions of words, think about the practical implications. The OP described over emphasizing the importance of first impressions. An inability to move on from that is not a constructive way to form a raid group. It is a teen behaviour, in the example the person was motivated enough to abuse the OP, and could instead have used equal energy to ask them what experience they had if they needed that information. To abuse and not even require the need to determine someones playing ability is juvenille not only for this but because an adult learns to be polite and tactfull.
There was a time when people were free to do whatever they wanted, because the MMORPG offered them the tools to do so.
It wasnt focused on combat or evolution. Nowadays its all efficiency.
How much money, xp per time you can get.
Games that doesnt reward people with significant bonuses for party, doesnt convince people to party.
Party has many hassles, nowadays not even 25% xp bonus and drop rate is good enough and its rare to find such bonuses.
Party has more disadvantages then advantages. Normally being in a party means you have to make up for someone weakness, inexperience, or you have to wait longer, wait people to come, wait people to get back from afk, or the game mechanics make stuff harder because you are in a party, or the rewards are shared, etc.
Besides all the dificulties just to get the party started, and then all the difficulties to keep the party going. People get disconnected, people run away, people fail.
When you are alone, it doesnt matter. Other people only weight you down on nowadays game mechanics from most games.
It doesnt take 1 week after a game has launched for people to know exactly when a party is worthy, and when a party isnt worthy. Just because you can, doesnt mean its worth it.
Its simple, easy.
Also, if you are hacker, cheater or exploiter, or if you know a very good way of getting money or xp, or a good spot, the last thing you want is someone to know that precious info, or compete for the same spot or know what you are doing for you money/xp.
You really want to do your thing ALONE. And believe me, if you care about power, about competing, you care about "efficiency".
You might be very hardcore, and you cant find a partner that is as hardcore as you, or you cant find your friends online. Or you are so hardcore that you dont waste your time socializing, because socializing doesnt give xp, so you end up doing stuff alone most of the time.
Also, games nowadays are each day more prone to soloing. Because of all the reasons I mentioned, and because its developers take the cheap route, so creativity and freedom have no place, everywhere people are bound to do what was designed for them to do, threadmills. Games arent being made so people "take their time" and "have fun". Games are being made so people "race", and the "race" itself, is very streamlined, not much you can "race" on, except level/money (Power, really).
The focus is on efficiency. Why would someone go against the game, when the game itself doesnt offer other options?
Things got to this point, it wasnt always like that. There was a time when people stopped to breath, people stopped to chat and do stupid stuff without feeling guilty (nowadays, if they dont get some levels, its like they didnt do anything) because there was no "endgame" (as a widely standartized concept), or the endgame was too impossible to achieve, or because it wasnt needed to compete.
Nowadays its like, everyone is born with the objective of reach maximum level. Back when I played UO people didnt felt the need to "master this skill before starting have fun" "Oh, I have to master magery, and magic resistance then I will start pvping" ... lol.
Nowadays EVERYONE feel the need to race, or else they cant enjoy the game, because they cant compete, or keep up and being usefull to other people, and by racing non stop, noone really stops to enjoy the game..
Hmm, I suppose I did approach the topic backwards. Competition is what the people vying for the group do, and elitism is how picky the leader is about choosing among those competing groupmates.
Put this way it reinforces my impression that the amount of elitism in a game is strongly determined by the game's mechanics: 1. In an easy game, who cares who you bring. 2. In a hard game, you might not get anything accomplished without everyone being rockstars. 3. In a game where grouping is barely better (or perhaps worse) than soloing, you're going to care a lot about who you bring because you need someone to perform for it to be efficient. 4. In a game where grouping is the only way to advance, you might be happy to have any teammate.
And like Whipp555 alluded to, the amount of elitism is also determined by player veterancy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It occured on the 24th of April 2000..the release date of Everquest - The Ruins of Kunark. Everquest prior to this had most of its popualtion including casuals hitting the max level cap..many had reached this months before ...there were waiting lists for the very limited endgame content and high level areas you could wait 6 hours just to get into a group in lower GuK and every spawn had to be fought for and had long respawn rates if you didnt kill the dragon this week its because someone else beat you to it.. as Kunark rolled into town it went even further..now you needed access keys to even enter elite areas keys that required week long camps to get person by person..this is where guilds were forced to become super selective on who they invited and the community element in MMOs broke down the most.. People quote Wow so far in this topic as being responsbile but Wow is just a very shrewd version of super elite EQ 1..accessible to the mass market..with a gradual carefully constructed drip feed of achievement... Because the EQ/Wow form of MMOs (and not every MMO was anything like them in those days) became the dominant and popular MMO format..here we are.. ---- Also note there is a kind of cycle in most MMOs.. 1/ initial newbie optimism you dont mind who you spend time with and everything is new and novel..you make mistakes but thats half the fun 2/ you no longer making many mistakes and having to repeat content more than early on to get items you shinies you want..you still group with others but your clique of friends is becoming established now.. 3/ you are now playing regular and getting less drip feed success per hour spent..the dimishing returns mean you want to maximise the time you play getting stuff YOU want ..the game is becoming a chore really and you seen it all before you are a know it all..you dont want to waste time with newbies if possible..the only fun you now get is your next item fix..the getting it part is boring. 4/ you are an addicted elitest..enjoy
Well alot of it depends on which game we are talking about. FFXI I never had a problem finding groups and people where always cheery and fun. none of that elitest stuff.....
Really? Cause in WoW I could always get groups, but in FFXI I had to farm for weeks to afford the stupidly expensive gear for my level to get into groups.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Bartle used to divide the playerbase of an MMO into four types: explorers, socializers, killers, and achievers. Unfortunately, the way games have developed only cater to one of these four groups.
The first group to go were the explorers. They left due to all the maps, guides, and tricks available on the internet. People would uncover all the secrets of an MMO and make them public knowledge faster than the developers could create new ones, so they eventually stopped making complicated mechanics and worlds. When the games got less complicated, the explorers generally left to go to single player RPGs, which have gotten better.
Then went the socializers. And the reason they left was a combination of voice chat, developer unwillingness to create new emotes or fluff features, and developer unwillingness to create places where people can socialize (player housing, venues, etc.). When the games no longer emphasized being a character and interacting with other characters, the socializers generally left to go to Facebook or Second Life.
Then went the PKers. They left because of the elimination of open-PvP and the restrictions that were placed on PvP in general. They went back to Counterstrike, or more likely, Team Fortress 2.
So all that's left are the achievers, and that's the only demographic that seems to be important to MMO publishers. The games today primarily cater to their needs, and only secondarily appeal to the needs of all the others. So therefore, it isn't any surprise that the games are heavily "elitist," because there's really nothing out there for people who aren't achievers.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Bartle used to divide the playerbase of an MMO into four types: explorers, socializers, killers, and achievers. Unfortunately, the way games have developed only cater to one of these four groups. The first group to go were the explorers. They left due to all the maps, guides, and tricks available on the internet. People would uncover all the secrets of an MMO and make them public knowledge faster than the developers could create new ones, so they eventually stopped making complicated mechanics and worlds. When the games got less complicated, the explorers generally left to go to single player RPGs, which have gotten better. ...
Good point on that, I would like to see more dynamic content for the reasoning on it. The entire scouting/exploring element of mmorpgs today is void due to the accessibility of documented quests.
I love how many generalizations are present in the first two posts of this thread. I've never had trouble finding a group in World of Warcraft. There are so many easy ways to gear up your character for most content without raiding. Most people are turned away from the raids I attend for being undergeared for that very same reason. If you can't spend a little bit of time getting what gear you have access to, you obviously care very little for that character, and ultimately for the outcome of our encounter. The fact that someone said you needed specific macros and gear. Honestly, some content in WoW requires a certain level of experience and ability in order to have a chance at defeating the boss. If you have a problem getting a macro to work (most macros people try to enforce in raids are for targeting, which are really simple), then you might not be suited for a raid. There are plenty of other ways to get gear in that game.
That being said, I think games are doing the opposite of what the OP has suggested. Games like EverQuest and Ultima Online in their prime were much more elitist than the MMORPG market of today. When I played EverQuest years ago it was much more difficult to find groups, kill raid bosses, and get gear. Even the tradeskill items offered in the game required grouping, which made those even more difficult to obtain. Today, World of Warcraft and other current MMORPGs offer a certain amount of gear and accomplishment to come to a player without having to submit to the whims of the "hardcore." Every patch, in WoW at least, brings more and more content to the casual crowd. This is something I personally agree with. I think people, probably more like the OP, benefit from these patches. Now they can reach that gear level for raiding, and in the mean time have things to do that don't require obscene gear or experience. To say that games are more elitist now, in my opinion, comes from players who weren't around when games were far less forgiving and players equally so.
I didn't find UO to be elitist, nor did I find the original Nevewinter Nights ('95).. I was around back then... People grouped more on how they played the game, rather than how fast they could progress, or help you progress...
UO for example.. RPers would typically congregate, as did the PKs, and anti-PKs... You weren't "shunned" because you didn't have the proper gear, or weren't harcore enough.
I guess you could say the same about today, but if you spec the wrong way (min/max) you won't be accepted into some guilds, if you cant raid 5 days a week, between 7-1am, you will be turned away.. amongst many other things..
There was none of that back in the UO days, at least not what i saw...
I agree, UO had a great gaming community and will add Shadowbane to the list as well. I did not run across the "elitest mentality" until WoW came along.
I'm surprised no one here actually bothered to mention the measuring tools provided to players to even be able to gauge who's good and who's not. Ever since the game provided levels and other people, a game has potential to have "elitists". Its everywhere and more prevalent in everyone's beloved WoW more than ever before with the visibility of "Item levels". My question is, will there still be elitist if you took away such concrete visualizations or could the players themselves find feasible ways of sizing up each other?
I personally believe that if you are going to bring players together within a game setting, no matter the game or type of game it is, I think some form of this attitude will persist and rub off onto each other. I think many people's experience even on this thread alone cannot account for the experience of the total general population. We can blame a multitude of things on what can create elitism but its never more than one reason taken directly straight from the MMORPG and we forget to even consider (at least for the most part) human nature and the variety in people's personalities. A couple weeks ago I saw a guy on general chat advertising in WoW for a 25 man Naxx and required 5-6k dps or 32k hp unbuffed for tanks and I absolutely thought it was ridiculous since most likely those people will want to run something that would provide them with much better gear. However, that 1 person isn't the whole community yet alone all the people that do even utilize the General chat systems don't represent the whole community, I believe its even a small fraction. I'm currently part of a guild in WoW that just persists on completing raids and pretty much slots are open on a first-come first serve basis. No, we aren't the best guild, we fail many times over (maybe more than some PUG groups), but we have fun and its a very family oriented guild. Some of them visit each other and known each other for years on end. This appears to be on the opposite of this elitist spectrum and we help each other out, contrary to the popular belief of generalizations within WoW.
In conclusion, there will ALWAYS be elitists in ANY game involving many people. Whether or not is more prevalent in one game than the other is a matter of a person's experience, perceptions, game design and personalities interacting with each other. Its really hard to attribute 1 main reason for elitist attitudes and behavior. Just accept the fact that it wills be there. There's going to be at the very least one person that will push the system to its boundaries and thats perfectly fine and as healthy as a more casual approach to it. To each their own and they have paid their subscription as much as anyone else has.
It all depends on the crowd, the timezone, the game and the culture of the community.
I’m an old Street Fighter II / Killer Instinct tournament player. I used to hang in the chinatown arcades with my buddies and well, no white people or low skilled played were allowed to play our exclusive Street Fightr II or KI machines. Not that it was a rule but let’s just say, our gang was the “elites” and if you’re not asian, you probably suck at street fighter (at least that was mentality back then :P). That was back in earlie 90s… We were young so ease up on calling me names :P
The next time I saw some major attitude was in Quake 2 and Quake 3 leagues where top high end players competed together. Sadly in those games, I was always one rank lower then the best caliber so I didn’t live on a golden platter. Quake 3 community was a lot better then the CS community but still… smack talk was part of the job.
Elites are in everygame. In SWG, you had Rper Elites and PVPer Elites, in other games it’s people with the best gear while in games like EVE, it’s who is in the best corp or alliance with the best killboards. You’ll find some in every single game but in different dozes.In EVE, people tend to shut up for the simple fact that it's ONE server for the world, you're a douche once and the world will know. You can't just change server to escape your enemies.
Heh, I remember back in Mankind Online, there was a group of players that kept terrorising a bunch of carebears and to top it all, they were smack talkers. One night, we declared war on them and in less then two months, half of them were back to Zero Xp, Zero Credits and most of them had seen the game over screen. Months and Years down the drain. Most of them quitted and one joined us. That's the beauty of games with very harsh death penalities or like Mankind online, game over status.
If you’re a battlefield heroes player, you’ll notice that.
During the day, most national players are snipers and smack talker. Once you’re past 11:00PM GTM -5 east, you’ll start seing more mature players, less smack talk and much better games.
Conclusion, nothing has changed since the dawn of times. ELITES will always exist and with the internet, people tend to just smack talk away, knowing that no one is going to punch them in the face. The worse of human nature is expressed through Virtual Reality.
You think Pkers are all super fit and all in RL? I’ve never met one that was even half in shape as I am… so I’ll say no.
People from early 2000s mmos probably remember when a person could log on at any time of the day and find a group. Today, that rarely happens, and oddly enough, people are MORE selective about who receives an invite. Some people will state that it is simply more "efficient" to solo than to group with a non "elite" person. To which I reply, "when did having fun become about efficiency?" On the very first day I played a mmo I was grouped for a good period of time, and it didn't get much more newbie than I was. I am tempted to conclude that gamers of the early generation of mmos were more patient, and perhaps that is true considering that they didn't have any other option(other than solo if that was a viable choice). I am not immune to the drive toward efficiency, but I am curious why I am incapable of finding a better niche anymore. The one where I don't feel rushed by all the other efficient solo'ers, and intentionally slowed down by game provider employees(worried I might arrive at end-game and stop subscribing). If the game I play wants me to arrive at end-game slower then they had better give me sufficient mechanisms to qualify myself against the "elitest" solo'ers(tradeskill system or dynamic lore).
When efficient means that we don't wipe after wipe on boss, and can actually kill the boss quickly. It is more fun to kill stuff than to be killed.
Bartle used to divide the playerbase of an MMO into four types: explorers, socializers, killers, and achievers. Unfortunately, the way games have developed only cater to one of these four groups. The first group to go were the explorers. They left due to all the maps, guides, and tricks available on the internet. People would uncover all the secrets of an MMO and make them public knowledge faster than the developers could create new ones, so they eventually stopped making complicated mechanics and worlds. When the games got less complicated, the explorers generally left to go to single player RPGs, which have gotten better. Then went the socializers. And the reason they left was a combination of voice chat, developer unwillingness to create new emotes or fluff features, and developer unwillingness to create places where people can socialize (player housing, venues, etc.). When the games no longer emphasized being a character and interacting with other characters, the socializers generally left to go to Facebook or Second Life. Then went the PKers. They left because of the elimination of open-PvP and the restrictions that were placed on PvP in general. They went back to Counterstrike, or more likely, Team Fortress 2. So all that's left are the achievers, and that's the only demographic that seems to be important to MMO publishers. The games today primarily cater to their needs, and only secondarily appeal to the needs of all the others. So therefore, it isn't any surprise that the games are heavily "elitist," because there's really nothing out there for people who aren't achievers.
Bartle used to divide the playerbase of an MMO into four types: explorers, socializers, killers, and achievers. Unfortunately, the way games have developed only cater to one of these four groups. The first group to go were the explorers. They left due to all the maps, guides, and tricks available on the internet. People would uncover all the secrets of an MMO and make them public knowledge faster than the developers could create new ones, so they eventually stopped making complicated mechanics and worlds. When the games got less complicated, the explorers generally left to go to single player RPGs, which have gotten better. Then went the socializers. And the reason they left was a combination of voice chat, developer unwillingness to create new emotes or fluff features, and developer unwillingness to create places where people can socialize (player housing, venues, etc.). When the games no longer emphasized being a character and interacting with other characters, the socializers generally left to go to Facebook or Second Life. Then went the PKers. They left because of the elimination of open-PvP and the restrictions that were placed on PvP in general. They went back to Counterstrike, or more likely, Team Fortress 2. So all that's left are the achievers, and that's the only demographic that seems to be important to MMO publishers. The games today primarily cater to their needs, and only secondarily appeal to the needs of all the others. So therefore, it isn't any surprise that the games are heavily "elitist," because there's really nothing out there for people who aren't achievers.
The Bartle test says I'm 97% explorer and 7% achiever. No wonder I'm having a hard time finding MMOs that appeal to me. EVE is the only recent MMO I've found that has a good balance of content/features for different kinds of players, and while I love the game mechanics, I'm not fond of the setting.
Anyway, great post, and I agree with all your observations. Mortal Online is the only game I see on the horizon that promises something for all kinds of players. No in game map except those you make with cartography and millions of crafting combinations to figure out for explorers. No global chat, so there's a reason for socializers to meet up. Full loot and no restrictions on pvp for the killers, and tons of secondary skills to max out for achievers. And no, I don't believe it will actually launch with every promised feature, and I'm certainly worried that killer type players will drive off all other kinds of player. It's the next great thing for me until I actually get to try it out at least, though.
Bartle used to divide the playerbase of an MMO into four types: explorers, socializers, killers, and achievers. Unfortunately, the way games have developed only cater to one of these four groups. The first group to go were the explorers. They left due to all the maps, guides, and tricks available on the internet. People would uncover all the secrets of an MMO and make them public knowledge faster than the developers could create new ones, so they eventually stopped making complicated mechanics and worlds. When the games got less complicated, the explorers generally left to go to single player RPGs, which have gotten better. Then went the socializers. And the reason they left was a combination of voice chat, developer unwillingness to create new emotes or fluff features, and developer unwillingness to create places where people can socialize (player housing, venues, etc.). When the games no longer emphasized being a character and interacting with other characters, the socializers generally left to go to Facebook or Second Life. Then went the PKers. They left because of the elimination of open-PvP and the restrictions that were placed on PvP in general. They went back to Counterstrike, or more likely, Team Fortress 2. So all that's left are the achievers, and that's the only demographic that seems to be important to MMO publishers. The games today primarily cater to their needs, and only secondarily appeal to the needs of all the others. So therefore, it isn't any surprise that the games are heavily "elitist," because there's really nothing out there for people who aren't achievers.
The Bartle test says I'm 97% explorer and 7% achiever. No wonder I'm having a hard time finding MMOs that appeal to me. EVE is the only recent MMO I've found that has a good balance of content/features for different kinds of players, and while I love the game mechanics, I'm not fond of the setting.
Anyway, great post, and I agree with all your observations. Mortal Online is the only game I see on the horizon that promises something for all kinds of players. No in game map except those you make with cartography and millions of crafting combinations to figure out for explorers. No global chat, so there's a reason for socializers to meet up. Full loot and no restrictions on pvp for the killers, and tons of secondary skills to max out for achievers. And no, I don't believe it will actually launch with every promised feature, and I'm certainly worried that killer type players will drive off all other kinds of player. It's the next great thing for me until I actually get to try it out at least, though.
Thanks, man.
Furthermore, if the industry isn't really careful about all this RMT/item store stuff, they can lose the achievers too. I mean, what's the point of achieving something if you can buy your way there, or worse, achieve things that no amount of in-game achievement can duplicate (like the cool costume everyone wants)?
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Bartle used to divide the playerbase of an MMO into four types: explorers, socializers, killers, and achievers. Unfortunately, the way games have developed only cater to one of these four groups. The first group to go were the explorers. They left due to all the maps, guides, and tricks available on the internet. People would uncover all the secrets of an MMO and make them public knowledge faster than the developers could create new ones, so they eventually stopped making complicated mechanics and worlds. When the games got less complicated, the explorers generally left to go to single player RPGs, which have gotten better. Then went the socializers. And the reason they left was a combination of voice chat, developer unwillingness to create new emotes or fluff features, and developer unwillingness to create places where people can socialize (player housing, venues, etc.). When the games no longer emphasized being a character and interacting with other characters, the socializers generally left to go to Facebook or Second Life. Then went the PKers. They left because of the elimination of open-PvP and the restrictions that were placed on PvP in general. They went back to Counterstrike, or more likely, Team Fortress 2. So all that's left are the achievers, and that's the only demographic that seems to be important to MMO publishers. The games today primarily cater to their needs, and only secondarily appeal to the needs of all the others. So therefore, it isn't any surprise that the games are heavily "elitist," because there's really nothing out there for people who aren't achievers.
Gray shaded part: Sigh...I am one of those explorers. Although I do like a friendly community and group play, so perhaps I'm 50%explorer and 50% socializer.
I think a lot of what people describe as elitism actually stems from the ambiguous nature of character progression in current gear-based end games.
There is nothing particularly elitist about a lvl 40 not wanting to group with a lvl 30...and in most cases the lvl 30 wouldn't even ask. Yet, if a level capped player only wants to play with players at a similar gear level it is considered elitist. The problem is that gear level is not as visible or clear-cut as character level which leads to bad feelings between players that simply don't occur between the aforementioned lvl 40 and lvl 30.
I think a lot of what people describe as elitism actually stems from the ambiguous nature of character progression in current gear-based end games. There is nothing particularly elitist about a lvl 40 not wanting to group with a lvl 30...and in most cases the lvl 30 wouldn't even ask. Yet, if a level capped player only wants to play with players at a similar gear level it is considered elitist. The problem is that gear level is not as visible or clear-cut as character level which leads to bad feelings between players that simply don't occur between the aforementioned lvl 40 and lvl 30.
For me "elitism" mostly occur with games where gear plays a major part. Traditionally it's been with people with higher gear (and thus better stats and DPS and healing power and such) looking down on lesser geared and less experienced players - but it's not just about gear however, but also applies to all other measurable things like achievement points, DPS meter readouts, et cetera.
Using WoW as an example, you would get people refusing to group with other people becasue they are not as geared, or have as many achievements, or do as much DPS on the meters. In their minds they are "better" players than other players because they have a higher gearscore, or becase they can link achivements that others can't. It's not that they set out to alieniate and put down these "lesser" players, but rather they don't want to be dragged down or to have to "carry" these players through their runs and instances. WoW players would know what I'm talking about here.
Unfortunately a lot of games' mechanics nowdays are based around levels, gear, and stats, with very little set up to promote the mixing of players across all spectrems. Right now some games are set up so even if you have enough willing people wanting to do something ingame, some will find themselves unable to join in or be an effective team member simply because they haven't got certain pieces of gear with certain stats, or becuase they are not high enough level and will get one shotted by everything, or they haven't got gear from the higher end instances and thus have lower weaker stats, et cetera.
What we NEED are new mechanics set up for games just so everyone can have the same level of experience, where the gameplay and level designs themselves are fun and enjoyable, and players can play for the experience itself, and not for the gear or any other e-peen booster that might drop. Think of a rollercoaster ride - people don't ride on them becuase they might get sometime afterwards - they ride on them beucase the ride itself is fun and thrilling.
While I understand the OP's premise, I can't believe he is trying to pin the blame on soloers. In my experience, raiders and guilds are elitist central in MMO's, next to the elitist developers who cater to them of course. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with the above posters. I played EQ, DAoC & AO long before the genre became mainstream and the amount of elitist behavior was just as rampant back then as it is now. As a matter of fact, it was Verant and then SOE that allowed guilds to block raid content from other guilds, who allowed kill stealing and so forth and was the first MMO company that had to eventually create a "Play Nice" policy to police it's player base.
Agreed. The funny thing is, if you read through a lot of responses, you find all kinds of elitist groupers who don't want to even look at you if you're not going to serve their elitist needs, is it any reason most people solo when a lot of groupers out there are self-centered douchebags?
While I understand the OP's premise, I can't believe he is trying to pin the blame on soloers. In my experience, raiders and guilds are elitist central in MMO's, next to the elitist developers who cater to them of course.
The blame is on everyone in reality. I've met people who were elitist soloists (on Silkroad Online, a game that was group-oriented, ah the irony).
So, you know, don't pin all the blame on group player. Soloists are just as guilty.
Uh huh, just like in real life, people who are solo tend to behave better than those in groups. It's called Mob Mentality and is a factual phenomena. There are always exception to this rule, but any time you get large numbers of people together in a competitive atmosphere, such as raiding, you will find the lion's share of misbehavior.
True, plus you have to understand that RamenThief is still pissed that some random solo cleric who was walking by didn't automatically resurrect one of his characters because apparently, anyone who can do something for his character somehow owes it to him to do so. There's an awful lot of entitlement nonsense that goes on in these games, where people act like the world owes them a living, people owe it to them to group with them, resurrect them, buff them, etc.
Comments
Agree 100%^^^
So you agree that the old shallow game play and slow gratification combined with never ending gear grinds was better?
Cause I played those games too and that is bullshit.
How on earth did you deduct that I was agreeing that it was better?
Every MMO to date has been shallow in comparison to their single player RPG counterparts. Old or new MMOs, they are essentially the same, with only minor differences in time sinks and general paradigm schemes. Every MMO is still designed with hardcores as the primary target, with added casual content as an after thought. Every MMO is still being designed as a business model first, game second. Hence the incessant focus on mechanisms that waste time rather than entertain.
This genre has a long way to go before it could ever be considered mainstream and once it does, it won't be recognizable and will hardly resemble MMOs made in the last 10 years. As a result, the industry will then have the resources to cater to niche markets and still make enough profit to satisy even the greediest CEO. But then again, if they remain stupid and clueless and unwilling to make real changes, they could end up losing to the console market or just dwindle and die.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Nope. Not an elitist view at all.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Exactly, when mmos became about greed instead of character development.
Competition isn't limited to children. Employees compete for promotions, and companies compete to sell product. Competition is a part of our entire society, not just kids.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wow so very insightful.
Some of it is just human nature but the extremes are created as a side effect of PvE players consuming PvE content faster than it can be created. This results in a glut of people at max level complaining. The company can't just raise the level cap because that takes a lot of planning and balancing so they opt for gear progression instead. Also, the ideal form for this gear progression mechanic would entail soaking up the largest possible combined amount of complaining max level player-hours. Hence raiding was born.
If you have the tank and spank paradigm and a raiding encounter that is on the edge of possible in the context of the available classes, races gear, spells etc then mathematically that requires the min-maxed 'best' tank and 'best' healer. If the encounter is on the edge of possible then you throw time into the mix and that tank-healer combo can only survive for a finite amount of time meaning the DPS must kill the mob before that time runs out. Which, if the encounter is on the edge of possible means the DPS has to be min-maxed too.
So I think the (main) answer to the OP's question is:
1) Anything that leads to server's getting top heavy with max levels including anything which, even though it might be inevitable eventually, speeds the process up thereby making it harder for the game to keep ahead of the players.
2) Anything else that leads to a game not being able to add non-raid content fast enough.
3) The use of raid content as a time filler in between expansions where the difficulty of the encounter is tuned to the tank and spank mechanic and each boss sits on the edge of possible once the gear from the prevous boss is taken into account.
4) Tank and spank paradigm.
Once the elite is established than it flows backwards into the rest of the game e.g once it's established that you need ogre warriors for the "edge of possible" stuff then ogre warriors become the 'best' warriors even if for 99% of the game it doesn't matter.
So it started at the moment EQ1 couldn't keep up with the 'race to max level' folks and has been repeated ever since through games so far not being able to come up with an alternative way of keeping max level people busy apart from raiding and PvP.
Competition isn't limited to children. Employees compete for promotions, and companies compete to sell product. Competition is a part of our entire society, not just kids.
You are interchanging terms like competition and elitism which polarises my argument but the point is valid. It is well established that teen psychology is different to an adults however you want to play semantics.
I expect to be evaluated on my competency based on a proven track record. When applying for a new job, employers have to resort to getting as much information as they can in what little time they have to evaluate each potential employee. Ideally they would do a trial period but this is not always possible. The point being a compromise between first impressions and a more indepth knowledge of that person is required.
Getting back to mmo's, in a pick up group, I expect to be initially judged on my gear and titles as that's a first impression. If more scrutiny is required I expect to be quizzed on if I have done the raid before and know my role. After doing a grouping, I expect to then be judged based on how I performed not what gear I am using.
Rather than quibble on definitions of words, think about the practical implications. The OP described over emphasizing the importance of first impressions. An inability to move on from that is not a constructive way to form a raid group. It is a teen behaviour, in the example the person was motivated enough to abuse the OP, and could instead have used equal energy to ask them what experience they had if they needed that information. To abuse and not even require the need to determine someones playing ability is juvenille not only for this but because an adult learns to be polite and tactfull.
There was a time when people were free to do whatever they wanted, because the MMORPG offered them the tools to do so.
It wasnt focused on combat or evolution. Nowadays its all efficiency.
How much money, xp per time you can get.
Games that doesnt reward people with significant bonuses for party, doesnt convince people to party.
Party has many hassles, nowadays not even 25% xp bonus and drop rate is good enough and its rare to find such bonuses.
Party has more disadvantages then advantages. Normally being in a party means you have to make up for someone weakness, inexperience, or you have to wait longer, wait people to come, wait people to get back from afk, or the game mechanics make stuff harder because you are in a party, or the rewards are shared, etc.
Besides all the dificulties just to get the party started, and then all the difficulties to keep the party going. People get disconnected, people run away, people fail.
When you are alone, it doesnt matter. Other people only weight you down on nowadays game mechanics from most games.
It doesnt take 1 week after a game has launched for people to know exactly when a party is worthy, and when a party isnt worthy. Just because you can, doesnt mean its worth it.
Its simple, easy.
Also, if you are hacker, cheater or exploiter, or if you know a very good way of getting money or xp, or a good spot, the last thing you want is someone to know that precious info, or compete for the same spot or know what you are doing for you money/xp.
You really want to do your thing ALONE. And believe me, if you care about power, about competing, you care about "efficiency".
You might be very hardcore, and you cant find a partner that is as hardcore as you, or you cant find your friends online. Or you are so hardcore that you dont waste your time socializing, because socializing doesnt give xp, so you end up doing stuff alone most of the time.
Also, games nowadays are each day more prone to soloing. Because of all the reasons I mentioned, and because its developers take the cheap route, so creativity and freedom have no place, everywhere people are bound to do what was designed for them to do, threadmills. Games arent being made so people "take their time" and "have fun". Games are being made so people "race", and the "race" itself, is very streamlined, not much you can "race" on, except level/money (Power, really).
The focus is on efficiency. Why would someone go against the game, when the game itself doesnt offer other options?
Things got to this point, it wasnt always like that. There was a time when people stopped to breath, people stopped to chat and do stupid stuff without feeling guilty (nowadays, if they dont get some levels, its like they didnt do anything) because there was no "endgame" (as a widely standartized concept), or the endgame was too impossible to achieve, or because it wasnt needed to compete.
Nowadays its like, everyone is born with the objective of reach maximum level. Back when I played UO people didnt felt the need to "master this skill before starting have fun" "Oh, I have to master magery, and magic resistance then I will start pvping" ... lol.
Nowadays EVERYONE feel the need to race, or else they cant enjoy the game, because they cant compete, or keep up and being usefull to other people, and by racing non stop, noone really stops to enjoy the game..
Thats what Diablo 3 will be.
Hmm, I suppose I did approach the topic backwards. Competition is what the people vying for the group do, and elitism is how picky the leader is about choosing among those competing groupmates.
Put this way it reinforces my impression that the amount of elitism in a game is strongly determined by the game's mechanics:
1. In an easy game, who cares who you bring.
2. In a hard game, you might not get anything accomplished without everyone being rockstars.
3. In a game where grouping is barely better (or perhaps worse) than soloing, you're going to care a lot about who you bring because you need someone to perform for it to be efficient.
4. In a game where grouping is the only way to advance, you might be happy to have any teammate.
And like Whipp555 alluded to, the amount of elitism is also determined by player veterancy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is a very good post.
Really? Cause in WoW I could always get groups, but in FFXI I had to farm for weeks to afford the stupidly expensive gear for my level to get into groups.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Bartle used to divide the playerbase of an MMO into four types: explorers, socializers, killers, and achievers. Unfortunately, the way games have developed only cater to one of these four groups.
The first group to go were the explorers. They left due to all the maps, guides, and tricks available on the internet. People would uncover all the secrets of an MMO and make them public knowledge faster than the developers could create new ones, so they eventually stopped making complicated mechanics and worlds. When the games got less complicated, the explorers generally left to go to single player RPGs, which have gotten better.
Then went the socializers. And the reason they left was a combination of voice chat, developer unwillingness to create new emotes or fluff features, and developer unwillingness to create places where people can socialize (player housing, venues, etc.). When the games no longer emphasized being a character and interacting with other characters, the socializers generally left to go to Facebook or Second Life.
Then went the PKers. They left because of the elimination of open-PvP and the restrictions that were placed on PvP in general. They went back to Counterstrike, or more likely, Team Fortress 2.
So all that's left are the achievers, and that's the only demographic that seems to be important to MMO publishers. The games today primarily cater to their needs, and only secondarily appeal to the needs of all the others. So therefore, it isn't any surprise that the games are heavily "elitist," because there's really nothing out there for people who aren't achievers.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Good point on that, I would like to see more dynamic content for the reasoning on it. The entire scouting/exploring element of mmorpgs today is void due to the accessibility of documented quests.
I didn't find UO to be elitist, nor did I find the original Nevewinter Nights ('95).. I was around back then... People grouped more on how they played the game, rather than how fast they could progress, or help you progress...
UO for example.. RPers would typically congregate, as did the PKs, and anti-PKs... You weren't "shunned" because you didn't have the proper gear, or weren't harcore enough.
I guess you could say the same about today, but if you spec the wrong way (min/max) you won't be accepted into some guilds, if you cant raid 5 days a week, between 7-1am, you will be turned away.. amongst many other things..
There was none of that back in the UO days, at least not what i saw...
I agree, UO had a great gaming community and will add Shadowbane to the list as well. I did not run across the "elitest mentality" until WoW came along.
I'm surprised no one here actually bothered to mention the measuring tools provided to players to even be able to gauge who's good and who's not. Ever since the game provided levels and other people, a game has potential to have "elitists". Its everywhere and more prevalent in everyone's beloved WoW more than ever before with the visibility of "Item levels". My question is, will there still be elitist if you took away such concrete visualizations or could the players themselves find feasible ways of sizing up each other?
I personally believe that if you are going to bring players together within a game setting, no matter the game or type of game it is, I think some form of this attitude will persist and rub off onto each other. I think many people's experience even on this thread alone cannot account for the experience of the total general population. We can blame a multitude of things on what can create elitism but its never more than one reason taken directly straight from the MMORPG and we forget to even consider (at least for the most part) human nature and the variety in people's personalities. A couple weeks ago I saw a guy on general chat advertising in WoW for a 25 man Naxx and required 5-6k dps or 32k hp unbuffed for tanks and I absolutely thought it was ridiculous since most likely those people will want to run something that would provide them with much better gear. However, that 1 person isn't the whole community yet alone all the people that do even utilize the General chat systems don't represent the whole community, I believe its even a small fraction. I'm currently part of a guild in WoW that just persists on completing raids and pretty much slots are open on a first-come first serve basis. No, we aren't the best guild, we fail many times over (maybe more than some PUG groups), but we have fun and its a very family oriented guild. Some of them visit each other and known each other for years on end. This appears to be on the opposite of this elitist spectrum and we help each other out, contrary to the popular belief of generalizations within WoW.
In conclusion, there will ALWAYS be elitists in ANY game involving many people. Whether or not is more prevalent in one game than the other is a matter of a person's experience, perceptions, game design and personalities interacting with each other. Its really hard to attribute 1 main reason for elitist attitudes and behavior. Just accept the fact that it wills be there. There's going to be at the very least one person that will push the system to its boundaries and thats perfectly fine and as healthy as a more casual approach to it. To each their own and they have paid their subscription as much as anyone else has.
Elites…
It all depends on the crowd, the timezone, the game and the culture of the community.
I’m an old Street Fighter II / Killer Instinct tournament player. I used to hang in the chinatown arcades with my buddies and well, no white people or low skilled played were allowed to play our exclusive Street Fightr II or KI machines. Not that it was a rule but let’s just say, our gang was the “elites” and if you’re not asian, you probably suck at street fighter (at least that was mentality back then :P). That was back in earlie 90s… We were young so ease up on calling me names :P
The next time I saw some major attitude was in Quake 2 and Quake 3 leagues where top high end players competed together. Sadly in those games, I was always one rank lower then the best caliber so I didn’t live on a golden platter. Quake 3 community was a lot better then the CS community but still… smack talk was part of the job.
Elites are in everygame. In SWG, you had Rper Elites and PVPer Elites, in other games it’s people with the best gear while in games like EVE, it’s who is in the best corp or alliance with the best killboards. You’ll find some in every single game but in different dozes.In EVE, people tend to shut up for the simple fact that it's ONE server for the world, you're a douche once and the world will know. You can't just change server to escape your enemies.
Heh, I remember back in Mankind Online, there was a group of players that kept terrorising a bunch of carebears and to top it all, they were smack talkers. One night, we declared war on them and in less then two months, half of them were back to Zero Xp, Zero Credits and most of them had seen the game over screen. Months and Years down the drain. Most of them quitted and one joined us. That's the beauty of games with very harsh death penalities or like Mankind online, game over status.
If you’re a battlefield heroes player, you’ll notice that.
During the day, most national players are snipers and smack talker. Once you’re past 11:00PM GTM -5 east, you’ll start seing more mature players, less smack talk and much better games.
Conclusion, nothing has changed since the dawn of times. ELITES will always exist and with the internet, people tend to just smack talk away, knowing that no one is going to punch them in the face. The worse of human nature is expressed through Virtual Reality.
You think Pkers are all super fit and all in RL? I’ve never met one that was even half in shape as I am… so I’ll say no.
When efficient means that we don't wipe after wipe on boss, and can actually kill the boss quickly. It is more fun to kill stuff than to be killed.
BINGO
The Bartle test says I'm 97% explorer and 7% achiever. No wonder I'm having a hard time finding MMOs that appeal to me. EVE is the only recent MMO I've found that has a good balance of content/features for different kinds of players, and while I love the game mechanics, I'm not fond of the setting.
Anyway, great post, and I agree with all your observations. Mortal Online is the only game I see on the horizon that promises something for all kinds of players. No in game map except those you make with cartography and millions of crafting combinations to figure out for explorers. No global chat, so there's a reason for socializers to meet up. Full loot and no restrictions on pvp for the killers, and tons of secondary skills to max out for achievers. And no, I don't believe it will actually launch with every promised feature, and I'm certainly worried that killer type players will drive off all other kinds of player. It's the next great thing for me until I actually get to try it out at least, though.
The Bartle test says I'm 97% explorer and 7% achiever. No wonder I'm having a hard time finding MMOs that appeal to me. EVE is the only recent MMO I've found that has a good balance of content/features for different kinds of players, and while I love the game mechanics, I'm not fond of the setting.
Anyway, great post, and I agree with all your observations. Mortal Online is the only game I see on the horizon that promises something for all kinds of players. No in game map except those you make with cartography and millions of crafting combinations to figure out for explorers. No global chat, so there's a reason for socializers to meet up. Full loot and no restrictions on pvp for the killers, and tons of secondary skills to max out for achievers. And no, I don't believe it will actually launch with every promised feature, and I'm certainly worried that killer type players will drive off all other kinds of player. It's the next great thing for me until I actually get to try it out at least, though.
Thanks, man.
Furthermore, if the industry isn't really careful about all this RMT/item store stuff, they can lose the achievers too. I mean, what's the point of achieving something if you can buy your way there, or worse, achieve things that no amount of in-game achievement can duplicate (like the cool costume everyone wants)?
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Gray shaded part: Sigh...I am one of those explorers. Although I do like a friendly community and group play, so perhaps I'm 50%explorer and 50% socializer.
I think a lot of what people describe as elitism actually stems from the ambiguous nature of character progression in current gear-based end games.
There is nothing particularly elitist about a lvl 40 not wanting to group with a lvl 30...and in most cases the lvl 30 wouldn't even ask. Yet, if a level capped player only wants to play with players at a similar gear level it is considered elitist. The problem is that gear level is not as visible or clear-cut as character level which leads to bad feelings between players that simply don't occur between the aforementioned lvl 40 and lvl 30.
For me "elitism" mostly occur with games where gear plays a major part. Traditionally it's been with people with higher gear (and thus better stats and DPS and healing power and such) looking down on lesser geared and less experienced players - but it's not just about gear however, but also applies to all other measurable things like achievement points, DPS meter readouts, et cetera.
Using WoW as an example, you would get people refusing to group with other people becasue they are not as geared, or have as many achievements, or do as much DPS on the meters. In their minds they are "better" players than other players because they have a higher gearscore, or becase they can link achivements that others can't. It's not that they set out to alieniate and put down these "lesser" players, but rather they don't want to be dragged down or to have to "carry" these players through their runs and instances. WoW players would know what I'm talking about here.
Unfortunately a lot of games' mechanics nowdays are based around levels, gear, and stats, with very little set up to promote the mixing of players across all spectrems. Right now some games are set up so even if you have enough willing people wanting to do something ingame, some will find themselves unable to join in or be an effective team member simply because they haven't got certain pieces of gear with certain stats, or becuase they are not high enough level and will get one shotted by everything, or they haven't got gear from the higher end instances and thus have lower weaker stats, et cetera.
What we NEED are new mechanics set up for games just so everyone can have the same level of experience, where the gameplay and level designs themselves are fun and enjoyable, and players can play for the experience itself, and not for the gear or any other e-peen booster that might drop. Think of a rollercoaster ride - people don't ride on them becuase they might get sometime afterwards - they ride on them beucase the ride itself is fun and thrilling.
Agreed. The funny thing is, if you read through a lot of responses, you find all kinds of elitist groupers who don't want to even look at you if you're not going to serve their elitist needs, is it any reason most people solo when a lot of groupers out there are self-centered douchebags?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
The blame is on everyone in reality. I've met people who were elitist soloists (on Silkroad Online, a game that was group-oriented, ah the irony).
So, you know, don't pin all the blame on group player. Soloists are just as guilty.
Uh huh, just like in real life, people who are solo tend to behave better than those in groups. It's called Mob Mentality and is a factual phenomena. There are always exception to this rule, but any time you get large numbers of people together in a competitive atmosphere, such as raiding, you will find the lion's share of misbehavior.
True, plus you have to understand that RamenThief is still pissed that some random solo cleric who was walking by didn't automatically resurrect one of his characters because apparently, anyone who can do something for his character somehow owes it to him to do so. There's an awful lot of entitlement nonsense that goes on in these games, where people act like the world owes them a living, people owe it to them to group with them, resurrect them, buff them, etc.
It ain't necessarily so.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None