What are we the old gamers supposed to do? I don't want to leave the genre. I try my best to see positive aspects of themepark games but I still want more. I guess were doomed to deal with indy devs that release unfinished buggy products with small communities. ... Oh well.
well i have gone back to playing spg's in my free time....
just holding onto the belief that some decent developer out there will produce a decent mmo for us the new "niche" market based on true sandbox kosterian ideas.
However, if we consistantly complain, whine and moan about gaming today and shut ourself out to any and everything new, developers and gamers alike will tune us out and those "good old days' will be gone for good.
This is possibly the most intelligent thing I've read on this site in a while (coming from a user, anyways). I see people shooting down new themeparks ("WoW clones"?) because they want more sandbox games. I've also noticed that most of those people tend to be older gamers who all started with UO or possibly SWG. That's why I've come to think of them as old farts complaining about young whippersnappers and their newfangled ("dumbed down") MMOs. That's fine, they have a right to complain, but I like how you phrased it. I enjoy (some) sandbox games, but I won't attack a good themepark just because it's a themepark. So what if it does things similar to WoW? As long as it has some justification - some new features or a different spin that might be fun - I'll consider it. TOR being the prime example.
i considered puting fallen earth in this catagory but its missing far too many pieced. they dont even have functoning water!,, no costume clothing window or toggles. no vehicle physics,, no grenade physics, no shotgun physics just to name a few of the missing core systems they do have nice scopes and a halfway decent crafting system and resources. but for an after math game its not very aftermathy save for the occasional mutant or zombie keeping my eye on this title wil prob subscribe once some of these issues are addressed.
/agree
Fallen Earth is at least more on the right track than most though.
"You're just not in the demographic the world revolves around anymore." This, I think, pretty much hits the nail on the head for the article. The "original" batch of gamers have hit the 30+ age range and instead of paying for games they like nowadays, they are paying for games their kids like. Unfortunately, our kids don't care for the style of games we played, but I don't see that as a bad thing necessarily. Innovation and new ideas spring up from what they desire. Instead of pining for what was we should encourage and teach the younger, newer gamer generations to what may be about the joys of "oldstyle" gaming. Eventually they will seek it out and gaming companies will respond and bring some of those innovations with it. However, if we consistantly complain, whine and moan about gaming today and shut ourself out to any and everything new, developers and gamers alike will tune us out and those "good old days' will be gone for good.
I just can't help but disagree with most of this.
People buy and play what's available. Short of being an actual part of the business, none of us have control other than to buy and play what we like, but that only goes so far when so little is available that fits that category. For little Johnny, however, there's a plethora of games out there, all of which are "amazing" when you've never had better, so Johnny will continue to buy the crap that's given without knowing better. At the end of the day, the companies still profit, and whether or not we continue to pay, they'll still prosper (WoW ftw!).
At the end of the day, saying that "kids don't care for the style of games we played" accomplishes nothing, because of course they don't. The games we played had crappy graphics (in comparison to today's games) and much more clunky gameplay in many cases. Why would a kid this day in age give Fallout 1 (for example), in all its 640x480 glory, with its turn-based 2D combat a try when instead they can run Fallout 3 in all its HD glory at 1920x1080 widescreen, with full 3D effects, guns that they fire and control, and silky smooth animations and blood flying everywhere? I'd still play Fallout 1 and 2 all day any day over the current option, but that's kinda the point. I'd love to be given the chance to play the games I once (and still) loved in a completely up-to-date form, given the gameplay stayed as near to the original as possible, but they're not making that game. They throw some flashy new graphics around, give it a similar theme, and then funnel you (the player) down a narrow road of crap where all you do is shoot stuff, beat the game, and go "yee-haw, that was fun... gimme the next one!"
If you ask me, the problem IS that games are no longer made by gamers. I always refer back to Counter-Strike. The game started out as a simple mod for Half-Life, made for free, by a team of players of the game. They made whatthey wanted and what was fun for them. Of course it took off, and became one of the biggest franchises in shooter history, all because the people making the game knew how to make a fun game. Anymore, it's entirely too much market research, and a bunch of execs trying to pin down exactly what they think the market wants. Couple that with cheaply made, rushed out the door, under-developed, over-hyped garbage games that live on life support (read: initial box sales) for years and people start to realize how hard it is to actually fail in this industry, much like movies these days. Ever hear of movies that lose money in the cinemas anymore? I don't, and I'd bet the same can be said about most titles these days released for any gaming platform. Given how little there is in the way of consequences for shitty games, it's no wonder they continue to pump out their crap, and then capitalize on their latest crappy release with a "new and improved!" game to follow, that the dissatisfied consumers merrily trudge onto.
Looking at all I just wrote, I think it's time to hit post and end the rant :O Whoooooops!
TL;DR: It's absurd what the entire gaming market has become.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
every concern and little thing that has every old gamer upset, including me and my old online gaming buddies, is due to WoW.
The games that were developed before that curse were to our liking. Blizzard came along and made the easiest game on earth, sucked in the b.net crowd with it being warcraft and completely dominated and destroyed everything i loved about mmo's.
Blizzard has corrupted this entire genre down to the core with its 244 billion trillion subscribers. Go back in time, destroy that game from ever being created. Then return, bet you will find this genre in a much better state.
and yes, i know, i dont like wow. yeah i played it for awhile because all my friends hopped on the bandwagon. and where they go i usually do because playing mmo's alone sucks.
ive been playing mmo's since 98'. ive played every single one of them thats launched, literally. wow is to blame, like it or not.
-------------------------------------- Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The force shall free me. -the Sith code
i completely agree that newer mmos are all about box profit. they hype the crap out of them and fall way short. Aion and STO are good examples.
what really gets my goat is that STO was THE platform for imbeded learning!
get a charting misson,, go to a planet and do scans in different locations and get a display of orbital diameter temperature, length of day, life forms ect depending on which type of scanner you use and where.
HUGE HUGE potential for imbeded learning but they made it into a fan fleecing hack and slash !!! cryptc totally missed the boat on this public relations possibility. parents would have loved it but currently its yet one more game on the alter of violence in videogames.
when you goto SOL system there is a prety picture of the earth and the moon but currently no other planets the sun is basicly painted on the wall of the instance (which are really small)
I would have loved to visit the moon and seen apallo? neil armstrong memorial or gont to mars and took the lunar rover tour
they could have hit educational themes for biology geology astronomy physics archelogy just to name a few.
it would have been one of the first fun learning games since oregon trail.
i could have done most of my game play doing nothing but charting and exploring much better than seek out new life and shoot it .
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
We last gen gamers just have vary little chose anymore it come to 4 options. 1. Quit gaming turn to the new gamer take the torch put it out then hand it over 2. Accept the fact todays games are here for a good 10 years+ 3. Go back to the games we called home even tho they have changed somewhat they still have most the core they had 80% of the time. 4. Sit around hoping one day a game we can get behind fully is born like in the golden age of true mmorpg. I for one am a mix bag of 4 and 1 and after I take option one ill smile when the new gamer has to face there next gen gamer. Something tells me there next gen will get the video helmet and gloves.
If you ask me, the problem IS that games are no longer made by gamers. I always refer back to Counter-Strike. The game started out as a simple mod for Half-Life, made for free, by a team of players of the game. They made whatthey wanted and what was fun for them. Of course it took off, and became one of the biggest franchises in shooter history, all because the people making the game knew how to make a fun game. Anymore, it's entirely too much market research, and a bunch of execs trying to pin down exactly what they think the market wants. Couple that with cheaply made, rushed out the door, under-developed, over-hyped garbage games that live on life support (read: initial box sales) for years and people start to realize how hard it is to actually fail in this industry, much like movies these days. Ever hear of movies that lose money in the cinemas anymore? I don't, and I'd bet the same can be said about most titles these days released for any gaming platform. Given how little there is in the way of consequences for shitty games, it's no wonder they continue to pump out their crap, and then capitalize on their latest crappy release with a "new and improved!" game to follow, that the dissatisfied consumers merrily trudge onto.
you left out dodgy business practices such as microtransaction abuse and you are spot on.
in general terms the "execs" don't look at the long term today. the concept of "lets make a good, solid game and we will reap the rewards in the future by our loyal fanbase and their word of mouth" has been replaced by "let's hype the hell out of the game, start working on paid expansions before its rushed out the door and brainstorm new ways of sucking the people's money once they bought the game".
ENDGAME = raid or PVP hell why cant a player at this level be more than just a grunt? why cant a cleric become a pope of a church and get followers and tythes ect? why cant a mage be in charge of their own tower? or a warrior be captin of the guard or even a noble incharge of a village or city?
This might be slightly off topic, but this is a great idea! Endgame that is something to look forward too. EVE somewhat has implemented that, even more indepth in the recent Dominion expansion. It now gives large alliances in zerosec that change to develop their space, not just own it.
The game started out as a simple mod for Half-Life, made for free, by a team of players of the game.
Very true. What about the crew that made DoTA, now they developed League of Legends? Games made by gamers for gamers always seem to hit the nail on the head cleaner. Although they usually lack the big studio marketing power to make any money on it. It usually isn't about the money, it's about fun.
It seems funny that of you people who are less that half my age, including the OP, are developing a nostalgia for the "old days".
Haha, don't I have a case if I say what the heck do you know about the old days? The days when a computer game meant four player PONG!?
Oh, well, good points though. One to add ---- it's not whether a game is making money. It's how much money compared to what the investors put in. Viable means a good return, not just any return. That's just the way it is.
Won't be long since I hit 40... yet below some thought:
- I play MMOs and laugth/cry at this supposedly heroic feeling and based storyline
- I remember how fun it was to have something else to do than just killing mobs in SWG
- I miss all players that never ever lifted a weapon in SWG. They are long gone away from MMO madness.
- I look at MMO and see how ugly they are compared to any single player game, yes AOC and LotRo alike
- I wish Freespace, Privateer 2, and SWG economy systems would someday merge into a MMO
- I'm still looking for MMOs that lets you rebind every key, mouse button, functionalities to your liking
- I'm sad when I see rushed out poorly designed MMO UI, makes me remember Privateer 2 awesome one
Yet I had fun playing Diablo 2.9 (read WoW) but it isn't THE mmo I'm looking for. Funny thing my wallet might be heavyer than more younger audience... like in SWG many of us had multiple accounts.
In a way too many MMO have become Diablo on steroids, and while I like Diablo & Dungeon siege gameplay, they aren't MMORPG
And well: I remember how fun was Pong on a black and white TV.
It was either here or on Digg that they just released the average age of the gamer is 25 to 30. That would suggest that the target audience should fall somewhere in that range. I'm operating under the assumption that 50% of gamers aren't over 45 with the other half under 10.
Let's face it. It IS cheaper to make a simple game. They ARE charging more for those games. They ARE using labels from games that paved new ground in server design, code design, multi-user connection design. They AREN'T living up to those names. They ARE the only games on the market.
To put it in a drug context ... old schools devs gave you the real stuff. Now they give you lawn mower trimmings, charge you more for it, but tell you its the same old stuff. And "we" as a gaming group believe them.
Vote with your money.
Stop pre-ordering. Ever. Even if it is the most awesome looking game ever.
Stop getting life time subscriptions. Yes they save you money if you play more than 18 months. So they don't make a game that's worth playing for 18 months. They don't have to cause you've already paid them for it.
When you leave a game, write a calm, professional letter as to why. Then post it on every game forum you can. If even 1 person reads it and agrees, you've just saved a fellow gamer $50 AND helped talk to the devs.
If you make them ask why their games are failing, It won't take them long to figure it out. You keep buying chocolate covered vomit labeled as truffles and they're going to keep giving it to us.
You make a lot of interesting points about generational change, but I am not so sure the sandbox versus themepark dichotomy is causally determined by age. Although age may be one factor, so are these:
1. How serious are you about gaming? Is it a major or minor part of your identity and lifestyle
2. How much time in a week are you prepared to commit to playing an mmorpg
3. Are you a casual player (by casual I mean what most "normal" non-gamers would consider casual btw, as a gamers definition of casual is usually pretty close to "hardcore" lol) or a hardcore player
I am 37 and started out on old paper & dice games, then onto the good ol ZX Spectrum etc. Played my share of both sandbox and themepark mmorpgs and these days I prefer so-called "themepark". Actually, I don't even like the defintions "themepark"/ "sandbox" as those terms are extremely loaded against themepark and tend to butter up sandboxers with a rosy self-congratulating confetti of adjectives like "intelligent", "skillful" etc ; but I will avoid the semantics for this post and move on.
I prefer so-called themepark because I am simply too busy for what "sandbox" stands for or usually entails. In terms of gaming I play one "themepark" mmorpg (used to play two) and always have a single-player game or two on the go. Now I have played sandbox in the past but I have gone more themepark as I got older because my job, family and a renewed commitment to exercise/the outdoors means I simply don't have the time/energy to play it old-school as with earlier mmorpgs.
If it is a game that is going to demand hours and hours of my time and thinking every day or at weekends, or if it is a game where casuals get raped because only hardcore players can excel, or if it is a game that is so group orientated that I have to schedule 2 evenings of my week to satisfy some guild requirements etc and so on, then these are the factors that put me off games. My current game of choice doesn't fall into any of those traps and that's why I play it, even though it is criticised as a "themepark" by many posters on this site.
To sum up: nothing to do with my age and everything to do with the extent that "gaming" impacts my current identity and lifestyle.
I think there is more then one dynamic at play....however I think there is an important one that often gets over-looked.
"Back in the day", so to speak.... when MMO's were fairly new to the scene... it's not that companies didn't have a desire to make money of them. It's that they didn't know HOW to make money of them.... or I should say that they didn't enter into building them with preconcieved notions of what they needed to do to make them financialy successfull. Today's games have become much more "formulaic" because the companies that are building them... basicaly are trying to follow the "magic success formula" that they believe is common knowledge for how to make money with MMO's.
Problem is that formula's are great for mixing chemical compounds....not so great for truely high quality creative works/entertainment..... the best you are likely to get by following a set formula in that venue is "medicore".... Which is exactly why we see such a plethora of mediocre games coming out.
This dynamic happens with many products...not just games, btw.... but essentialy there are some REAL advantages that come with companies not already "knowing" how to make money off of something.
- Investment capital that is willing to tolerate higher risks. This is a big one. If you're doing something that doesn't have any track record as to whether it will be successfull then the investment capital that you get will naturaly be of a type that is tolerant of risk. That means that they are going to be willing to let you have free-er reign over how you make the product. It also means that they are going to be looking for an outstanding success rather then just a minimal success... you don't put capital into high risk investments if you aren't looking for the chance of really high returns. That means that the investor is also going to support you as much as possible to really put together a very high quality product...rather then just a mediocre product.
- The Engineers are the ones designing the product....not the suits. I can't stress this one enough. When you have a product type that hasn't been built before.... the people in charge of making the important design decisions are likely to be the game designers/developers/engineers.... people with real expertiese in the nuts and bolts of designing things. The "suits" are likely to be pretty hands off....because they have nothing to go on when making design mandates..... essentialy they are likely to "know they don't know how something should work" ...... as opposed to "thinking they have a clue" about how something should work because "everyone knows that Company X does it this way and they're successfull". Problem with that is, that things that there tend to be very subtle differences in products....and things that work well in one will often fail very horribly in another for reasons that only some-one who really understands the nuts and bolts of how something is put together. "Suits" don't really understand or want to understand those nuts and bolts....but they do understand how to exert thier authority to make Dictates & Mandates.... often disasterous ones.
- There is alot of variety in the Product offerings. Again...no one knows how something is "supposed" to work....so everyone is willing to experiment with thier own methods to see if they work.
- Designers/Developers/Companies are willing to pay alot more attention to detail. This is something pretty much every Engineer or Technical person can understand. If you've absolutely never done something before...and have absolutely no clue as to what you are "supposed" to be doing.... You are going to actualy pay alot more attention to what you are doing..... You are going to spend alot more time thinking about the rationale behind why you are doing something a certain way....and you are likely to put some effort into thinking about ways you can test to see if something "works". In short you're putting a higher quality effort into your product.
If you are doing something very similar to something you've done a million times before (or that there is an industry SOP for).... you're likely to fly through those things without paying alot of attention to what you are doing.... you may not spend ANY effort what-so-ever thinking about WHY you are doing things the way you are...it's simply "That's How Things are Done.".... and you may not even bother really testing to see how it works....because you already "KNOW it's going to work." In short, you get sloppy....it's just human nature.
This article has sparked the best discussion I have seen on these boards in I dare say years. So far troll free, people engaging with each other in a nice calm civil and generally well written manner.
Is it because the article is attracting a older breed of gamer ?
Wizards first rule: People are stupid So sadly you are correct they will cater to the lowest common denominator. Someone pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease make a new MMO using the old SWG system. Then make that system 1000x more difficult and we'll be good to go.
This is typical of a geat deal of the arguments I see in these forums. I hardly think anyone would enjoy a game that was 1000x harder...it would be impossible!! This and a demand for more/open bla bla bla pvp/ harder content. The best tactic is to race to max level and rule. Sounds more like a job than a game.
As many folks have already said here, games lack depth....rofl, some aren't evem as deep as a puddle. There is nothing to compel one to continue.
It is getting near impossible to find a game with a good storyline today. I've gotten to a point in several games where going on just didn't make sense. There were a number of embarasingly weak storylines, a problem we see more as a result of people puffing up thier chests cause they are soooo leet.
Ever consider that we as a community have gotten better? I can remember starting in one of the earlier games and thinking wow, this is hard, only to go back some time later and finding it was actually quite easy. The game didn't get easy...the players just got better.
Things are indeed different today and they will be different 30 years from now. Been thru both and the more things change the more they stay the same
My rules:
1 be real. don't ask for something because it makes you look good on a forum. ( Developers read forums.)
I just can't help but disagree with most of this. People buy and play what's available. Short of being an actual part of the business, none of us have control other than to buy and play what we like, but that only goes so far when so little is available that fits that category. For little Johnny, however, there's a plethora of games out there, all of which are "amazing" when you've never had better, so Johnny will continue to buy the crap that's given without knowing better. At the end of the day, the companies still profit, and whether or not we continue to pay, they'll still prosper (WoW ftw!). At the end of the day, saying that "kids don't care for the style of games we played" accomplishes nothing, because of course they don't. The games we played had crappy graphics (in comparison to today's games) and much more clunky gameplay in many cases. Why would a kid this day in age give Fallout 1 (for example), in all its 640x480 glory, with its turn-based 2D combat a try when instead they can run Fallout 3 in all its HD glory at 1920x1080 widescreen, with full 3D effects, guns that they fire and control, and silky smooth animations and blood flying everywhere? I'd still play Fallout 1 and 2 all day any day over the current option, but that's kinda the point. I'd love to be given the chance to play the games I once (and still) loved in a completely up-to-date form, given the gameplay stayed as near to the original as possible, but they're not making that game. They throw some flashy new graphics around, give it a similar theme, and then funnel you (the player) down a narrow road of crap where all you do is shoot stuff, beat the game, and go "yee-haw, that was fun... gimme the next one!" If you ask me, the problem IS that games are no longer made by gamers. I always refer back to Counter-Strike. The game started out as a simple mod for Half-Life, made for free, by a team of players of the game. They made whatthey wanted and what was fun for them. Of course it took off, and became one of the biggest franchises in shooter history, all because the people making the game knew how to make a fun game. Anymore, it's entirely too much market research, and a bunch of execs trying to pin down exactly what they think the market wants. Couple that with cheaply made, rushed out the door, under-developed, over-hyped garbage games that live on life support (read: initial box sales) for years and people start to realize how hard it is to actually fail in this industry, much like movies these days. Ever hear of movies that lose money in the cinemas anymore? I don't, and I'd bet the same can be said about most titles these days released for any gaming platform. Given how little there is in the way of consequences for shitty games, it's no wonder they continue to pump out their crap, and then capitalize on their latest crappy release with a "new and improved!" game to follow, that the dissatisfied consumers merrily trudge onto. Looking at all I just wrote, I think it's time to hit post and end the rant :O Whoooooops! TL;DR: It's absurd what the entire gaming market has become.
Wow, great reply. Color coded per section:
People still buy what they like to play, its just the games today are not what most of us like. As its been said several times already, the older gamers are not the market anymore. There are more titles, genres and selections of games out there now then there ever was when we were gaming. Stores completely devoting to gaming were unheard of and most of it was confined to a rack or two in the electronics section of a general store. Also, what you define as "crap" is what Little Johnny is acutally looking for. Where we any different? Did we "know better? Hardly. Video gaming was in it's infancy and we had no other option than to take what was handed to us. We didn't have the luxury of 3-5 different consoles, PC's, MMO's, etc.
Maybe its me, but I don't remember Fallout 3 funneling us down anywhere. Sure you could play the storyline, then again you had the choice not to, it is completely up to your playstyle. How many older games gave us the freedom to do whatever the heck we wanted compared to games today? You did bring up an interesting point though and one I was trying to reinforce earlier, kids today don't know what Fallout 1 or 2 was like. Maybe they've never heard of Elder Scrolls: Morrowind or others but thats where we should step in show them what it was like. Sites like GOG.com are great tools to get them involved in older styles of games and gameplay and let them see and experience what they may be missing.Could it spark an interest in some older styles of game play and a desire for more similar to it with today's technology? I think it could.
I have to disagree with part of your last paragraph. I would argue that we have more gamers developing games today than we ever had before. These are the guys and gals that grew up on gaming and were inspired by the original games designers of the past and want to put their unique spin on the genre. There are a ton of fun and unqiue games ot there today. Yes there is crap but that has been around since video gaming started.
I do agree that there appears to be too much research to try and find that "end all be all game " and the tweaking of games after the fact. For some reason I still don't understand, gamers and gaming developers have this utopian idea that if this one game launched with all of the features THEY liked and thinks everyone else likes then everyone would play it alone and we would all be a happier community. Thats just nuts. Look out there today in anything we have or do. How much variety do we see in the food we like, the clothes we wear, the music we listen to or the movies we see. If there is all of that out there, why dosome gamers insist that we have to be universally set in one style of gaming. Look on this site, how many new posts do we see about the right wrong way a game is, PVP vs PVE, level vs skills, no death vs corpse run or the countless "if only they would do <X> it would save gaming"? Why can't we accept that everyone has different tastes, styles and desires in gaming? Whats crap to me might be great to you and vice versa. Different strokes for different folks.
As much as I would love our attitudes to change, I think it won't and many 30 something gamers will become so frustrated that they drift away from gaming all together, taking all of that gaming knowledge, passion and desire with them.
Give it ten years and those 20 somethings will be right here writing similar articles about how their gaming has "changed" from "when they played" and they don't understand or like it.
"If we don't attack them, they will attack us first. So we'd better retaliate before they have a chance to strike"
Very interesting article. I'd have to say that what many of us older gamers (i.e. those that have "been around the block") are looking for is NOT what the "WoW generation" has turned most of this genre into, which to me, is repetitive, cookie-cutter themepark games that only vary by look, classes, game world, and races, with very, very few differences between them all.
We're looking for a working sandbox.
We're looking for a challenging game with risk vs. reward.
We're looking for player freedom.
We're NOT looking to ride the same damn roller coaster ride that is found in themepark games, that only varies by, again, graphical design, class system, the game world itself, the races that inhabit the game world, and a few usually non-important game mechanics that the developers claim are "new" and "exciting".
THANK GOD for games like EvE, Darkfall, soon to be Mortal Online, Earthrise, Fallen Earth. These are the game that will hopefully revitalize this genre for us "old schoolers", and hopefully will provide the fix that many of us have been missing for quite some time now.
An excellent, honest, no-nonsense article that clearly sees the history of MMORPGs and admits the truth about where they are going and the real reasons for it.
No wonder there are many posts disagreeing with the article.
Denial won't change the truth of the article anymore than complaining will induce large developers with substantial budgets to go back to old-school mechanics. It is, however, amusing to see people trying to re-write history in their attempts to disprove the article's points, like the protests over this part:
Did they develop pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies out of some kind of dedication to the art while the NGE was brought in to make money? No. Pre-NGE was designed to make money. It didn't so they tried the NGE (with limited success).
Stars Wars Galaxies was a financial failure. It sold over a million boxes but never kept more than 1/3 of those customers (300k estimated at BEST). Here are reminders for all those Abe Simpson types whose memories seem to be failing.
The article rightly points out that people always view the good old days of the past as being better even when they weren't. That is not an excuse to try to change the past. That's how the mistakes of the history get repeated.
Stop getting life time subscriptions. Yes they save you money if you play more than 18 months. So they don't make a game that's worth playing for 18 months. They don't have to cause you've already paid them for it. When you leave a game, write a calm, professional letter as to why. Then post it on every game forum you can. If even 1 person reads it and agrees, you've just saved a fellow gamer $50 AND helped talk to the devs. If you make them ask why their games are failing, It won't take them long to figure it out. You keep buying chocolate covered vomit labeled as truffles and they're going to keep giving it to us.
I'm seeing a thinly veiled reference to STO here...
I like STO. A lot of people seem to be complaining that STO isn't more like EVE, but if you like EVE so much GO PLAY EVE. I think the recent article by Jon Wood was correct: maybe it shouldn't call itself an MMO, but it's still a good game.
Poor article. Waving assumptions with no backing facts other than claims.
Has the demographic changed? Absolutely. What was small and nerdy and good ol' boy is now commonplace homogenized and universal in nature.
But this in no way indicates the need to regress into less creativity, much less the desire to.
It's a question of the devs knowing what the lowest amount of effort on their part that yields the best results is. Why does this work? The MMORPG genre has been inundated with people who don't know any better. They don't know the history, the roots, the non-AAA titles that originally influenced the AAA titles. So they don't know what the genre is capable of, not that they don't want it.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Comments
Wizards first rule: People are stupid
So sadly you are correct they will cater to the lowest common denominator.
Someone pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease make a new MMO using the old SWG system. Then make that system 1000x more difficult and we'll be good to go.
well i have gone back to playing spg's in my free time....
just holding onto the belief that some decent developer out there will produce a decent mmo for us the new "niche" market based on true sandbox kosterian ideas.
i considered puting fallen earth in this catagory but its missing far too many pieced.
they dont even have functoning water!,, no costume clothing window or toggles.
no vehicle physics,, no grenade physics, no shotgun physics just to name a few of the missing core systems
they do have nice scopes and a halfway decent crafting system and resources.
but for an after math game its not very aftermathy save for the occasional mutant or zombie
keeping my eye on this title wil prob subscribe once some of these issues are addressed.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
This is possibly the most intelligent thing I've read on this site in a while (coming from a user, anyways). I see people shooting down new themeparks ("WoW clones"?) because they want more sandbox games. I've also noticed that most of those people tend to be older gamers who all started with UO or possibly SWG. That's why I've come to think of them as old farts complaining about young whippersnappers and their newfangled ("dumbed down") MMOs. That's fine, they have a right to complain, but I like how you phrased it. I enjoy (some) sandbox games, but I won't attack a good themepark just because it's a themepark. So what if it does things similar to WoW? As long as it has some justification - some new features or a different spin that might be fun - I'll consider it. TOR being the prime example.
/agree
Fallen Earth is at least more on the right track than most though.
I am starting to think that a lot of us are all looking for the same thing - the first mmo we ever fell in love with, just with better graphics.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I just can't help but disagree with most of this.
People buy and play what's available. Short of being an actual part of the business, none of us have control other than to buy and play what we like, but that only goes so far when so little is available that fits that category. For little Johnny, however, there's a plethora of games out there, all of which are "amazing" when you've never had better, so Johnny will continue to buy the crap that's given without knowing better. At the end of the day, the companies still profit, and whether or not we continue to pay, they'll still prosper (WoW ftw!).
At the end of the day, saying that "kids don't care for the style of games we played" accomplishes nothing, because of course they don't. The games we played had crappy graphics (in comparison to today's games) and much more clunky gameplay in many cases. Why would a kid this day in age give Fallout 1 (for example), in all its 640x480 glory, with its turn-based 2D combat a try when instead they can run Fallout 3 in all its HD glory at 1920x1080 widescreen, with full 3D effects, guns that they fire and control, and silky smooth animations and blood flying everywhere? I'd still play Fallout 1 and 2 all day any day over the current option, but that's kinda the point. I'd love to be given the chance to play the games I once (and still) loved in a completely up-to-date form, given the gameplay stayed as near to the original as possible, but they're not making that game. They throw some flashy new graphics around, give it a similar theme, and then funnel you (the player) down a narrow road of crap where all you do is shoot stuff, beat the game, and go "yee-haw, that was fun... gimme the next one!"
If you ask me, the problem IS that games are no longer made by gamers. I always refer back to Counter-Strike. The game started out as a simple mod for Half-Life, made for free, by a team of players of the game. They made what they wanted and what was fun for them. Of course it took off, and became one of the biggest franchises in shooter history, all because the people making the game knew how to make a fun game. Anymore, it's entirely too much market research, and a bunch of execs trying to pin down exactly what they think the market wants. Couple that with cheaply made, rushed out the door, under-developed, over-hyped garbage games that live on life support (read: initial box sales) for years and people start to realize how hard it is to actually fail in this industry, much like movies these days. Ever hear of movies that lose money in the cinemas anymore? I don't, and I'd bet the same can be said about most titles these days released for any gaming platform. Given how little there is in the way of consequences for shitty games, it's no wonder they continue to pump out their crap, and then capitalize on their latest crappy release with a "new and improved!" game to follow, that the dissatisfied consumers merrily trudge onto.
Looking at all I just wrote, I think it's time to hit post and end the rant :O Whoooooops!
TL;DR: It's absurd what the entire gaming market has become.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
every concern and little thing that has every old gamer upset, including me and my old online gaming buddies, is due to WoW.
The games that were developed before that curse were to our liking. Blizzard came along and made the easiest game on earth, sucked in the b.net crowd with it being warcraft and completely dominated and destroyed everything i loved about mmo's.
Blizzard has corrupted this entire genre down to the core with its 244 billion trillion subscribers. Go back in time, destroy that game from ever being created. Then return, bet you will find this genre in a much better state.
and yes, i know, i dont like wow. yeah i played it for awhile because all my friends hopped on the bandwagon. and where they go i usually do because playing mmo's alone sucks.
ive been playing mmo's since 98'. ive played every single one of them thats launched, literally. wow is to blame, like it or not.
--------------------------------------
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The force shall free me.
-the Sith code
what really gets my goat is that STO was THE platform for imbeded learning!
get a charting misson,, go to a planet and do scans in different locations and get a display of orbital diameter temperature, length of day, life forms ect depending on which type of scanner you use and where.
HUGE HUGE potential for imbeded learning but they made it into a fan fleecing hack and slash !!! cryptc totally missed the boat on this public relations possibility. parents would have loved it but currently its yet one more game on the alter of violence in videogames.
when you goto SOL system there is a prety picture of the earth and the moon but currently no other planets the sun is basicly painted on the wall of the instance (which are really small)
I would have loved to visit the moon and seen apallo? neil armstrong memorial or gont to mars and took the lunar rover tour
they could have hit educational themes for biology geology astronomy physics archelogy just to name a few.
it would have been one of the first fun learning games since oregon trail.
i could have done most of my game play doing nothing but charting and exploring much better than seek out new life and shoot it .
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
We last gen gamers just have vary little chose anymore it come to 4 options. 1. Quit gaming turn to the new gamer take the torch put it out then hand it over 2. Accept the fact todays games are here for a good 10 years+ 3. Go back to the games we called home even tho they have changed somewhat they still have most the core they had 80% of the time. 4. Sit around hoping one day a game we can get behind fully is born like in the golden age of true mmorpg. I for one am a mix bag of 4 and 1 and after I take option one ill smile when the new gamer has to face there next gen gamer. Something tells me there next gen will get the video helmet and gloves.
you left out dodgy business practices such as microtransaction abuse and you are spot on.
in general terms the "execs" don't look at the long term today. the concept of "lets make a good, solid game and we will reap the rewards in the future by our loyal fanbase and their word of mouth" has been replaced by "let's hype the hell out of the game, start working on paid expansions before its rushed out the door and brainstorm new ways of sucking the people's money once they bought the game".
This might be slightly off topic, but this is a great idea! Endgame that is something to look forward too. EVE somewhat has implemented that, even more indepth in the recent Dominion expansion. It now gives large alliances in zerosec that change to develop their space, not just own it.
The game started out as a simple mod for Half-Life, made for free, by a team of players of the game.
Very true. What about the crew that made DoTA, now they developed League of Legends? Games made by gamers for gamers always seem to hit the nail on the head cleaner. Although they usually lack the big studio marketing power to make any money on it. It usually isn't about the money, it's about fun.
LOL!!
It seems funny that of you people who are less that half my age, including the OP, are developing a nostalgia for the "old days".
Haha, don't I have a case if I say what the heck do you know about the old days? The days when a computer game meant four player PONG!?
Oh, well, good points though. One to add ---- it's not whether a game is making money. It's how much money compared to what the investors put in. Viable means a good return, not just any return. That's just the way it is.
Cheers, I DONT have a good knee!
---------------------------
Rose-lipped maidens,
Light-foot lads...
Won't be long since I hit 40... yet below some thought:
- I play MMOs and laugth/cry at this supposedly heroic feeling and based storyline
- I remember how fun it was to have something else to do than just killing mobs in SWG
- I miss all players that never ever lifted a weapon in SWG. They are long gone away from MMO madness.
- I look at MMO and see how ugly they are compared to any single player game, yes AOC and LotRo alike
- I wish Freespace, Privateer 2, and SWG economy systems would someday merge into a MMO
- I'm still looking for MMOs that lets you rebind every key, mouse button, functionalities to your liking
- I'm sad when I see rushed out poorly designed MMO UI, makes me remember Privateer 2 awesome one
Yet I had fun playing Diablo 2.9 (read WoW) but it isn't THE mmo I'm looking for. Funny thing my wallet might be heavyer than more younger audience... like in SWG many of us had multiple accounts.
In a way too many MMO have become Diablo on steroids, and while I like Diablo & Dungeon siege gameplay, they aren't MMORPG
And well: I remember how fun was Pong on a black and white TV.
I have to disagree too ...
It was either here or on Digg that they just released the average age of the gamer is 25 to 30. That would suggest that the target audience should fall somewhere in that range. I'm operating under the assumption that 50% of gamers aren't over 45 with the other half under 10.
Let's face it. It IS cheaper to make a simple game. They ARE charging more for those games. They ARE using labels from games that paved new ground in server design, code design, multi-user connection design. They AREN'T living up to those names. They ARE the only games on the market.
To put it in a drug context ... old schools devs gave you the real stuff. Now they give you lawn mower trimmings, charge you more for it, but tell you its the same old stuff. And "we" as a gaming group believe them.
Vote with your money.
Stop pre-ordering. Ever. Even if it is the most awesome looking game ever.
Stop getting life time subscriptions. Yes they save you money if you play more than 18 months. So they don't make a game that's worth playing for 18 months. They don't have to cause you've already paid them for it.
When you leave a game, write a calm, professional letter as to why. Then post it on every game forum you can. If even 1 person reads it and agrees, you've just saved a fellow gamer $50 AND helped talk to the devs.
If you make them ask why their games are failing, It won't take them long to figure it out. You keep buying chocolate covered vomit labeled as truffles and they're going to keep giving it to us.
I think your right but along with my reskinned Pre-CU can I have the 2003-05 SWG Eclipse server community as well pwetty pwease
You make a lot of interesting points about generational change, but I am not so sure the sandbox versus themepark dichotomy is causally determined by age. Although age may be one factor, so are these:
1. How serious are you about gaming? Is it a major or minor part of your identity and lifestyle
2. How much time in a week are you prepared to commit to playing an mmorpg
3. Are you a casual player (by casual I mean what most "normal" non-gamers would consider casual btw, as a gamers definition of casual is usually pretty close to "hardcore" lol) or a hardcore player
I am 37 and started out on old paper & dice games, then onto the good ol ZX Spectrum etc. Played my share of both sandbox and themepark mmorpgs and these days I prefer so-called "themepark". Actually, I don't even like the defintions "themepark"/ "sandbox" as those terms are extremely loaded against themepark and tend to butter up sandboxers with a rosy self-congratulating confetti of adjectives like "intelligent", "skillful" etc ; but I will avoid the semantics for this post and move on.
I prefer so-called themepark because I am simply too busy for what "sandbox" stands for or usually entails. In terms of gaming I play one "themepark" mmorpg (used to play two) and always have a single-player game or two on the go. Now I have played sandbox in the past but I have gone more themepark as I got older because my job, family and a renewed commitment to exercise/the outdoors means I simply don't have the time/energy to play it old-school as with earlier mmorpgs.
If it is a game that is going to demand hours and hours of my time and thinking every day or at weekends, or if it is a game where casuals get raped because only hardcore players can excel, or if it is a game that is so group orientated that I have to schedule 2 evenings of my week to satisfy some guild requirements etc and so on, then these are the factors that put me off games. My current game of choice doesn't fall into any of those traps and that's why I play it, even though it is criticised as a "themepark" by many posters on this site.
To sum up: nothing to do with my age and everything to do with the extent that "gaming" impacts my current identity and lifestyle.
Regards
Melmoth
ed for typos
I think there is more then one dynamic at play....however I think there is an important one that often gets over-looked.
"Back in the day", so to speak.... when MMO's were fairly new to the scene... it's not that companies didn't have a desire to make money of them. It's that they didn't know HOW to make money of them.... or I should say that they didn't enter into building them with preconcieved notions of what they needed to do to make them financialy successfull. Today's games have become much more "formulaic" because the companies that are building them... basicaly are trying to follow the "magic success formula" that they believe is common knowledge for how to make money with MMO's.
Problem is that formula's are great for mixing chemical compounds....not so great for truely high quality creative works/entertainment..... the best you are likely to get by following a set formula in that venue is "medicore".... Which is exactly why we see such a plethora of mediocre games coming out.
This dynamic happens with many products...not just games, btw.... but essentialy there are some REAL advantages that come with companies not already "knowing" how to make money off of something.
- Investment capital that is willing to tolerate higher risks. This is a big one. If you're doing something that doesn't have any track record as to whether it will be successfull then the investment capital that you get will naturaly be of a type that is tolerant of risk. That means that they are going to be willing to let you have free-er reign over how you make the product. It also means that they are going to be looking for an outstanding success rather then just a minimal success... you don't put capital into high risk investments if you aren't looking for the chance of really high returns. That means that the investor is also going to support you as much as possible to really put together a very high quality product...rather then just a mediocre product.
- The Engineers are the ones designing the product....not the suits. I can't stress this one enough. When you have a product type that hasn't been built before.... the people in charge of making the important design decisions are likely to be the game designers/developers/engineers.... people with real expertiese in the nuts and bolts of designing things. The "suits" are likely to be pretty hands off....because they have nothing to go on when making design mandates..... essentialy they are likely to "know they don't know how something should work" ...... as opposed to "thinking they have a clue" about how something should work because "everyone knows that Company X does it this way and they're successfull". Problem with that is, that things that there tend to be very subtle differences in products....and things that work well in one will often fail very horribly in another for reasons that only some-one who really understands the nuts and bolts of how something is put together. "Suits" don't really understand or want to understand those nuts and bolts....but they do understand how to exert thier authority to make Dictates & Mandates.... often disasterous ones.
- There is alot of variety in the Product offerings. Again...no one knows how something is "supposed" to work....so everyone is willing to experiment with thier own methods to see if they work.
- Designers/Developers/Companies are willing to pay alot more attention to detail. This is something pretty much every Engineer or Technical person can understand. If you've absolutely never done something before...and have absolutely no clue as to what you are "supposed" to be doing.... You are going to actualy pay alot more attention to what you are doing..... You are going to spend alot more time thinking about the rationale behind why you are doing something a certain way....and you are likely to put some effort into thinking about ways you can test to see if something "works". In short you're putting a higher quality effort into your product.
If you are doing something very similar to something you've done a million times before (or that there is an industry SOP for).... you're likely to fly through those things without paying alot of attention to what you are doing.... you may not spend ANY effort what-so-ever thinking about WHY you are doing things the way you are...it's simply "That's How Things are Done.".... and you may not even bother really testing to see how it works....because you already "KNOW it's going to work." In short, you get sloppy....it's just human nature.
Something else of note
This article has sparked the best discussion I have seen on these boards in I dare say years. So far troll free, people engaging with each other in a nice calm civil and generally well written manner.
Is it because the article is attracting a older breed of gamer ?
This is typical of a geat deal of the arguments I see in these forums. I hardly think anyone would enjoy a game that was 1000x harder...it would be impossible!! This and a demand for more/open bla bla bla pvp/ harder content. The best tactic is to race to max level and rule. Sounds more like a job than a game.
As many folks have already said here, games lack depth....rofl, some aren't evem as deep as a puddle. There is nothing to compel one to continue.
It is getting near impossible to find a game with a good storyline today. I've gotten to a point in several games where going on just didn't make sense. There were a number of embarasingly weak storylines, a problem we see more as a result of people puffing up thier chests cause they are soooo leet.
Ever consider that we as a community have gotten better? I can remember starting in one of the earlier games and thinking wow, this is hard, only to go back some time later and finding it was actually quite easy. The game didn't get easy...the players just got better.
Things are indeed different today and they will be different 30 years from now. Been thru both and the more things change the more they stay the same
My rules:
1 be real. don't ask for something because it makes you look good on a forum. ( Developers read forums.)
2 remember rule 1
Wow, great reply. Color coded per section:
People still buy what they like to play, its just the games today are not what most of us like. As its been said several times already, the older gamers are not the market anymore. There are more titles, genres and selections of games out there now then there ever was when we were gaming. Stores completely devoting to gaming were unheard of and most of it was confined to a rack or two in the electronics section of a general store. Also, what you define as "crap" is what Little Johnny is acutally looking for. Where we any different? Did we "know better? Hardly. Video gaming was in it's infancy and we had no other option than to take what was handed to us. We didn't have the luxury of 3-5 different consoles, PC's, MMO's, etc.
Maybe its me, but I don't remember Fallout 3 funneling us down anywhere. Sure you could play the storyline, then again you had the choice not to, it is completely up to your playstyle. How many older games gave us the freedom to do whatever the heck we wanted compared to games today? You did bring up an interesting point though and one I was trying to reinforce earlier, kids today don't know what Fallout 1 or 2 was like. Maybe they've never heard of Elder Scrolls: Morrowind or others but thats where we should step in show them what it was like. Sites like GOG.com are great tools to get them involved in older styles of games and gameplay and let them see and experience what they may be missing.Could it spark an interest in some older styles of game play and a desire for more similar to it with today's technology? I think it could.
I have to disagree with part of your last paragraph. I would argue that we have more gamers developing games today than we ever had before. These are the guys and gals that grew up on gaming and were inspired by the original games designers of the past and want to put their unique spin on the genre. There are a ton of fun and unqiue games ot there today. Yes there is crap but that has been around since video gaming started.
I do agree that there appears to be too much research to try and find that "end all be all game " and the tweaking of games after the fact. For some reason I still don't understand, gamers and gaming developers have this utopian idea that if this one game launched with all of the features THEY liked and thinks everyone else likes then everyone would play it alone and we would all be a happier community. Thats just nuts. Look out there today in anything we have or do. How much variety do we see in the food we like, the clothes we wear, the music we listen to or the movies we see. If there is all of that out there, why dosome gamers insist that we have to be universally set in one style of gaming. Look on this site, how many new posts do we see about the right wrong way a game is, PVP vs PVE, level vs skills, no death vs corpse run or the countless "if only they would do <X> it would save gaming"? Why can't we accept that everyone has different tastes, styles and desires in gaming? Whats crap to me might be great to you and vice versa. Different strokes for different folks.
As much as I would love our attitudes to change, I think it won't and many 30 something gamers will become so frustrated that they drift away from gaming all together, taking all of that gaming knowledge, passion and desire with them.
Give it ten years and those 20 somethings will be right here writing similar articles about how their gaming has "changed" from "when they played" and they don't understand or like it.
"If we don't attack them, they will attack us first. So we'd better retaliate before they have a chance to strike"
Very interesting article. I'd have to say that what many of us older gamers (i.e. those that have "been around the block") are looking for is NOT what the "WoW generation" has turned most of this genre into, which to me, is repetitive, cookie-cutter themepark games that only vary by look, classes, game world, and races, with very, very few differences between them all.
We're looking for a working sandbox.
We're looking for a challenging game with risk vs. reward.
We're looking for player freedom.
We're NOT looking to ride the same damn roller coaster ride that is found in themepark games, that only varies by, again, graphical design, class system, the game world itself, the races that inhabit the game world, and a few usually non-important game mechanics that the developers claim are "new" and "exciting".
THANK GOD for games like EvE, Darkfall, soon to be Mortal Online, Earthrise, Fallen Earth. These are the game that will hopefully revitalize this genre for us "old schoolers", and hopefully will provide the fix that many of us have been missing for quite some time now.
An excellent, honest, no-nonsense article that clearly sees the history of MMORPGs and admits the truth about where they are going and the real reasons for it.
No wonder there are many posts disagreeing with the article.
Denial won't change the truth of the article anymore than complaining will induce large developers with substantial budgets to go back to old-school mechanics. It is, however, amusing to see people trying to re-write history in their attempts to disprove the article's points, like the protests over this part:
Did they develop pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies out of some kind of dedication to the art while the NGE was brought in to make money? No. Pre-NGE was designed to make money. It didn't so they tried the NGE (with limited success).
Stars Wars Galaxies was a financial failure. It sold over a million boxes but never kept more than 1/3 of those customers (300k estimated at BEST). Here are reminders for all those Abe Simpson types whose memories seem to be failing.
www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/star-wars-galaxies-sales-top-a-million-units
www.lucasarts.net/company/release/news20050819.html
Then you have a blog by a SWG developer who worked on the game for 5 years STATING the game was bleeding subscribers before NGE ever came out.
rubenfield.com/
The article rightly points out that people always view the good old days of the past as being better even when they weren't. That is not an excuse to try to change the past. That's how the mistakes of the history get repeated.
I'm seeing a thinly veiled reference to STO here...
I like STO. A lot of people seem to be complaining that STO isn't more like EVE, but if you like EVE so much GO PLAY EVE. I think the recent article by Jon Wood was correct: maybe it shouldn't call itself an MMO, but it's still a good game.
Poor article. Waving assumptions with no backing facts other than claims.
Has the demographic changed? Absolutely. What was small and nerdy and good ol' boy is now commonplace homogenized and universal in nature.
But this in no way indicates the need to regress into less creativity, much less the desire to.
It's a question of the devs knowing what the lowest amount of effort on their part that yields the best results is. Why does this work? The MMORPG genre has been inundated with people who don't know any better. They don't know the history, the roots, the non-AAA titles that originally influenced the AAA titles. So they don't know what the genre is capable of, not that they don't want it.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter