I miss how so many people can't remember how a game REALLY was and instead seem to see the "original MMOs" through the rose colored glasses. For instance, the original WoW . . . sucked.
Agreed. Good thing WoW wasn't an original MMO.
But the MMOs that came before that, I remember everything about them, the good and the bad. I also remember everything about the modern MMOs I've played. I liked the old ones much better. But sure, you can use nostalgia as a scape goat all you want, that seems to be the only card you can play.
2. GM run events, the spirit of the wolf races, the occasional super badass stading at the gates of their enemy's racial city.
3. Dragging others into my rp because I starting using rp as a way to solo, even back then
4. Languages and being able to be taught them by someone of that race
5. Real faction- being chased out of town or having to build of faction with seperate towns or cities
6, Unique races more than one type of human race!- The Erudites were the badasses of magic not the high elves, and everyone hated them in the world, you would often get ripped off on prices in shops because of this. And you know what? I absolutely loved every minute of that. (and I'm black so go figure)
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
I loved how my spells would gradually change and look better as I got higher level. (Ex. My heals looked like water at level 10 and they would get thicker like ice then snow at higher levels)
I love how mobs around the world could actually kill me and I couldn't solo everything.
Being in the presence of a boss would kill me from aoe so I had to LoS myself by a rock so I wouldn't die instantly. I could barely get a good look at the bosses face without dying.
How instead of having a map to find everything all I had was a compass so I learned landmarks and could actually explore.
Raids weren't so organized and everyone in the zone could join in and fight.
At endgame I could keep xping and use my xp to buy class mastery which added stats to my character permenently.
I miss solo class quests that were challenging and more about finding where things were.
I miss how instead of casted direct heals it was mostly dot heals that if they came off your tank would die quickly.
I liked having a good idea of knowing when your cast would hit not knowing the exact amount of time it is going to take before I cast it.
EQOA FTW! I would have played this game forever if they updated it. RIP EQOA!
This is not just my perspective. It's what gamers as a whole want. Are there a few differing opinions? Sure...but not many.
What people consider varied, interesting, excessive, and tedius differs on an individual basis. Just because devs make only one kind of game doesnt mean people only want one kind of game.
You have no idea what "gamers as a whole" want because they dont want the same thing.
"Gamers as a whole" will buy whatever is marketed well, and market research will see it as a success because market research only sees blind sales figures, not satisfaction, or lack thereof, of the product purchased.
Nowadays buffs are just tied to the group because heaven forbid you buff some low level character and make them more powerful for an hour. I think buffing was part of community building back in EQ. It was something to do when you didn't feel like killing stuff. Run to the new player zones and make people happy with buffs. And the buff actually meant something...not just an extra 10+ to this that you don't notice when fighting anyway. People would exchange tells and thank you's. There are players that get genuine enjoyment out of helping others and there are very few ways to do this anymore.
Yeah I miss giving and receiving those drive-by buffs.
This is not just my perspective. It's what gamers as a whole want. Are there a few differing opinions? Sure...but not many.
What people consider varied, interesting, excessive, and tedius differs on an individual basis. Just because devs make only one kind of game doesnt mean people only want one kind of game.
You have no idea what "gamers as a whole" dont want the same thing.
"Gamers as a whole" will buy whatever is marketed well, and market research will see it as a success because market research only sees blind sales figures, not satisfaction, or lack thereof, of the product purchased.
Yeah, I take issue with the "gamers as a whole" phrase. Leave over-generalizing to ignorant racists and marketteers who continually fail at exploiting their markets. I barely consider myself a "gamer", much less a "whole". Yet I have spent some major money on and in some MMOs.
Lots of great suggestions here so I won't repeat, (unless I missed it), so I have just one to add:
1) Darkness, real darkness. Having to equip a lantern or torch to see as you walk (or a special ability). Running into enemies because you could not see them at night. Made for much more intense gameplay.
I have so many, I could fill up this page....but I'll start with one...and I know there will be MANY people who disagree with me on this, but thats the difference between what I'm looking for and what most of the "enjoyer's" of the current crop of MMOs are looking for....I like there to be consequences for your actions...to fear death.... to give people choices in games etc. Anyway...I digress...
In Ultima Online there were people who primarily (along with other things) played what we nowadays would call crafters. I remember standing around a Forge, waiting my turn to pay exorbitant amounts of money to the Master Blacksmith to repair my gear. There was always a crowd around him....he was a MASTER blacksmith and he was coveted! If you didn't get your gear repaired by a Master, then it would degrade...a LOT. If you let your gear break and didn't have another set (usually inferior), you had to either repair it yourself (unwise), get someone who was NOT a Master Blacksmith to repair your gear (degradation), or you did without.....DANG...I miss those days....It is situations like that that created impromptu quests....Not quests created by the game, but created because of the circumstances of the game! I LOVE that stuff!
What are some of the things YOU miss?
I also remember the good ole' days of UO! There'd always be a mob of people around the forge in the NW corner of Britain clammoring for services and hoping to not get ripped off heh. Funnily enough I still remember 'Iceman' was the name of the most sought after blacksmith on my shard. This was during the very early era you speak of (1997-98) when being a Master Blacksmith truely meant something. There was so much more meaningful interaction between players back then...
I guess that's what I miss the most; meaningful interaction. Difficulty. Consequences. Things mattering. This is what has been lost in modern MMO's. Your character and the world it's in feel completely inconsequential.
What people consider varied, interesting, excessive, and tedius differs on an individual basis. Just because devs make only one kind of game doesnt mean people only want one kind of game.
You have no idea what "gamers as a whole" want because they dont want the same thing.
"Gamers as a whole" will buy whatever is marketed well, and market research will see it as a success because market research only sees blind sales figures, not satisfaction, or lack thereof, of the product purchased.
Gamers as a whole want the same thing. Some gamers want different things, but not many. At least not to the magnitude where one game can't service a huge majority of them.
Gamers quite obviously prefer variety because variety is at the core of what keeps games interesting. If game A has no task variety, little monster variety, and no combat variety (Lineage 2) then it's going to widely be considered less interesting than game B with large task variety (quests), large monster variety, and some combat variety (WOW.) The quality of combat (in addition to a hundred other factors) also matters, but variety is one of the many ways games succeed -- a lack of variety kills games unless their systems are incredibly dynamic.
You can keep pretending that the loads of observable successes and failures don't indicate a desire for variety, but you're just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring an obvious factor behind how players enjoy games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What people consider varied, interesting, excessive, and tedius differs on an individual basis. Just because devs make only one kind of game doesnt mean people only want one kind of game.
You have no idea what "gamers as a whole" want because they dont want the same thing.
"Gamers as a whole" will buy whatever is marketed well, and market research will see it as a success because market research only sees blind sales figures, not satisfaction, or lack thereof, of the product purchased.
Gamers as a whole want the same thing. Some gamers want different things, but not many. At least not to the magnitude where one game can't service a huge majority of them.
Gamers quite obviously prefer variety because variety is at the core of what keeps games interesting. If game A has no task variety, little monster variety, and no combat variety (Lineage 2) then it's going to widely be considered less interesting than game B with large task variety (quests), large monster variety, and some combat variety (WOW.) The quality of combat (in addition to a hundred other factors) also matters, but variety is one of the many ways games succeed -- a lack of variety kills games unless their systems are incredibly dynamic.
You can keep pretending that the loads of observable successes and failures don't indicate a desire for variety, but you're just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring an obvious factor behind how players enjoy games.
Variety is fine. But quests don't offer gameplay variety. "Quests" or as I like to more accurately describe them, chores, ie kill ten rats, or fetch such and such object, seriously, how is that not chores?, are only the same chores over and over with slightly varying flavor.
As someone who advocates gameplay over immersion it should bug you that quests are the same recycled game play over and over with some slight flavor variance.
Variety is fine. But quests don't offer gameplay variety. "Quests" or as I like to more accurately describe them, chores, ie kill ten rats, or fetch such and such object, seriously, how is that not chores?, are only the same chores over and over with slightly varying flavor.
Of course they do.
Quests are set up for you to kill DIFFERNET mobs with DIFFERENT abilities. So that is varity in GRAPHICS, and varity in combat MECHANICS. And that is JUST kill quests. Don't tell me it is not different between quest a) that requires you to kill a raid boss, and b) a quest that ask you to kill 10 rats.
You do different things in escort quests, gather quest (for example, you can sneak in gather quest but not kill quest), vehicle-based quests, .....
Saying quests don't offer gamplay variety is like saying all dim sum are the same, and there is no variety in them.
Variety is fine. But quests don't offer gameplay variety. "Quests" or as I like to more accurately describe them, chores, ie kill ten rats, or fetch such and such object, seriously, how is that not chores?, are only the same chores over and over with slightly varying flavor.
Of course they do.
Quests are set up for you to kill DIFFERNET mobs with DIFFERENT abilities. So that is varity in GRAPHICS, and varity in combat MECHANICS. And that is JUST kill quests. Don't tell me it is not different between quest a) that requires you to kill a raid boss, and b) a quest that ask you to kill 10 rats.
You do different things in escort quests, gather quest (for example, you can sneak in gather quest but not kill quest), vehicle-based quests, .....
Saying quests don't offer gamplay variety is like saying all dim sum are the same, and there is no variety in them.
The standard quest has variance in monsters but their variance is meaningless. There is no difference between my actions vs generic monster number 10 and generic monster number 37. When I was doing kill quests in WoW I was at the correct level and I never once changed my strategy. I followed an identical move rotation regardless of my target.
Don't you know that it doesn't matter how different the "mehcanics" are if I am not responding any differently to them? If my response is always identical then the difference in the creatures is effectively irrelevant assuming I am as obsessed with "gameplay" as you.
And as for graphics, aka flavor, variance, that is meaningless unless you are not smart enough to see beneath the surface.
Just because you change a skin and alter the mechanics doesn't make the quest any different, assuming as we can with WoW mechanics that your response to kill quest monsters is the same regardless of cosmetic changes.
What people consider varied, interesting, excessive, and tedius differs on an individual basis. Just because devs make only one kind of game doesnt mean people only want one kind of game.
You have no idea what "gamers as a whole" want because they dont want the same thing.
"Gamers as a whole" will buy whatever is marketed well, and market research will see it as a success because market research only sees blind sales figures, not satisfaction, or lack thereof, of the product purchased.
Gamers as a whole want the same thing. Some gamers want different things, but not many. At least not to the magnitude where one game can't service a huge majority of them.
Gamers quite obviously prefer variety because variety is at the core of what keeps games interesting. If game A has no task variety, little monster variety, and no combat variety (Lineage 2) then it's going to widely be considered less interesting than game B with large task variety (quests), large monster variety, and some combat variety (WOW.) The quality of combat (in addition to a hundred other factors) also matters, but variety is one of the many ways games succeed -- a lack of variety kills games unless their systems are incredibly dynamic.
You can keep pretending that the loads of observable successes and failures don't indicate a desire for variety, but you're just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring an obvious factor behind how players enjoy games.
There is little to no real variety in most games, only those with a great deal of social interaction as a driving mechanic can provide as such. And yet plenty of people play games with next to fuck all variety.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The standard quest has variance in monsters but their variance is meaningless. There is no difference between my actions vs generic monster number 10 and generic monster number 37. When I was doing kill quests in WoW I was at the correct level and I never once changed my strategy. I followed an identical move rotation regardless of my target.
Don't you know that it doesn't matter how different the "mehcanics" are if I am not responding any differently to them? If my response is always identical then the difference in the creatures is effectively irrelevant assuming I am as obsessed with "gameplay" as you.
And as for graphics, aka flavor, variance, that is meaningless unless you are not smart enough to see beneath the surface.
Just because you change a skin and alter the mechanics doesn't make the quest any different, assuming as we can with WoW mechanics that your response to kill quest monsters is the same regardless of cosmetic changes.
Now you are saying there are differences but they don't matter to YOU. Well, that is just disingenous.
Plus, i don't recall doing the SAME thing to response to different mechanics. May be you are just not that good of a player to do it efficiently.
I certainly responded .. i use CC when fighting a group instead of just single pull. I use interrupt on spell casters. I use CDs on named mobs with more health.
Variety is fine. But quests don't offer gameplay variety. "Quests" or as I like to more accurately describe them, chores, ie kill ten rats, or fetch such and such object, seriously, how is that not chores?, are only the same chores over and over with slightly varying flavor.
Non-quest game: Grind mobs endlessly (LIneage 2)
Quest game: Do this, then that, then another thing, then a different thing (WOW)
Why isn't it obvious that quest-based gaming results in greater gameplay variety?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Variety is fine. But quests don't offer gameplay variety. "Quests" or as I like to more accurately describe them, chores, ie kill ten rats, or fetch such and such object, seriously, how is that not chores?, are only the same chores over and over with slightly varying flavor.
Of course they do.
Quests are set up for you to kill DIFFERNET mobs with DIFFERENT abilities. So that is varity in GRAPHICS, and varity in combat MECHANICS. And that is JUST kill quests. Don't tell me it is not different between quest a) that requires you to kill a raid boss, and b) a quest that ask you to kill 10 rats.
You do different things in escort quests, gather quest (for example, you can sneak in gather quest but not kill quest), vehicle-based quests, .....
Saying quests don't offer gamplay variety is like saying all dim sum are the same, and there is no variety in them.
The standard quest has variance in monsters but their variance is meaningless. There is no difference between my actions vs generic monster number 10 and generic monster number 37. When I was doing kill quests in WoW I was at the correct level and I never once changed my strategy. I followed an identical move rotation regardless of my target.
Don't you know that it doesn't matter how different the "mehcanics" are if I am not responding any differently to them? If my response is always identical then the difference in the creatures is effectively irrelevant assuming I am as obsessed with "gameplay" as you.
And as for graphics, aka flavor, variance, that is meaningless unless you are not smart enough to see beneath the surface.
Just because you change a skin and alter the mechanics doesn't make the quest any different, assuming as we can with WoW mechanics that your response to kill quest monsters is the same regardless of cosmetic changes.
Truth. The only times quests have ever been interesting were in the older MMOs. Quests had a great deal of variety to them because some were vague and it was not necessary to complete them to level up. This game the devs a lot of freedom to try experimentin with different kinds of quests. Once quests because "systemized" so that it was the ONLY way to get from 1-50, they put in game maps, glowing markers, waypoints, glowing objectives, kill counts on the screen. The story became secondary to the funneling. I always laugh, then cry, when devs talk about adding new "content" to a game, but what they mean is, more quests. And since all quests are pretty much identical, I'd hardly call that content. More like busy work.
There is little to no real variety in most games, only those with a great deal of social interaction as a driving mechanic can provide as such. And yet plenty of people play games with next to fuck all variety.
This is extremist drivel.
And what's important is that we're comparing games you call "little to no variety" with games that have even less variety.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Variety is fine. But quests don't offer gameplay variety. "Quests" or as I like to more accurately describe them, chores, ie kill ten rats, or fetch such and such object, seriously, how is that not chores?, are only the same chores over and over with slightly varying flavor.
Non-quest game: Grind mobs endlessly (LIneage 2)
Quest game: Do this, then that, then another thing, then a different thing (WOW)
Why isn't it obvious that quest-based gaming results in greater gameplay variety?
Because you have a warped view of how a nonquest game functions.
In quest based games, there is only one way to level up. Do quests. All quests are exactly the same. If you choose to go somewhere the quests don't tell you to go, you get penalized.
Non quest based games you can go absolutely anywhere you want to hunt, you can group up with friends and strangers to make the experience dynamic and sociable. If you get tired of grinding, in DAoC there was also a kill task system, a quest system, and a bounty system you could do. Grouping with people was the fastest way to level but it wasn't the only way. Quest based games don't allow for options or freedom. They don't encourage grouping. This is why its not clear that quests are better. ESPECIALLY for variety.
Play LotRO from level 1-25 and tell me that all the quests are different? (hint, they're not, I grabbed every quest in a zone once and all the quests just had me killing random monsters in that zone).
What people consider varied, interesting, excessive, and tedius differs on an individual basis. Just because devs make only one kind of game doesnt mean people only want one kind of game.
You have no idea what "gamers as a whole" want because they dont want the same thing.
"Gamers as a whole" will buy whatever is marketed well, and market research will see it as a success because market research only sees blind sales figures, not satisfaction, or lack thereof, of the product purchased.
Gamers as a whole want the same thing. Some gamers want different things, but not many. At least not to the magnitude where one game can't service a huge majority of them.
Gamers quite obviously prefer variety because variety is at the core of what keeps games interesting. If game A has no task variety, little monster variety, and no combat variety (Lineage 2) then it's going to widely be considered less interesting than game B with large task variety (quests), large monster variety, and some combat variety (WOW.) The quality of combat (in addition to a hundred other factors) also matters, but variety is one of the many ways games succeed -- a lack of variety kills games unless their systems are incredibly dynamic.
You can keep pretending that the loads of observable successes and failures don't indicate a desire for variety, but you're just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring an obvious factor behind how players enjoy games.
Variety...I agree variety is good. It seems pretty hypocritical that you spout off about variety, but continue to think everyone wants the same thing. Where's the variety in there being only one style of gameplay? Truth of the matter is, the genre lacks variaty as a whole, and this is exactly why threads like this one get made.
We say "give us variety". You say "make every game WoW". Suddenly you say WoW IS variety? Do you realize how absolutely insane you sound?
If you see me as having my head in the sand, its because you cant see beyond the surface while I see what lies beneath.
Comments
Group leveling from lvl 1 to max, like in DAoC and SWG.
Agreed. Good thing WoW wasn't an original MMO.
But the MMOs that came before that, I remember everything about them, the good and the bad. I also remember everything about the modern MMOs I've played. I liked the old ones much better. But sure, you can use nostalgia as a scape goat all you want, that seems to be the only card you can play.
I miss the type of people that played MMORPGs during that era more than anything else.
Respect, Courtesy and not to mention Common Sense was the norm. There were little to no Raging/Emo/Epeen/ToughBehindAMonitor types.
Back then it was rare to run into a jerk.
Now it's rare to run into a good person.
Sure, the games were great.. But I think it was the people, the community that made it so amazing.
Having to wade through the new generation and their lack of manners just to play my chosen MMO is tiring sometimes.
So what I miss the most, is the good people.
Oh.. EQ1 and DAoC Rule Forever!
1. Real Nightime
2. GM run events, the spirit of the wolf races, the occasional super badass stading at the gates of their enemy's racial city.
3. Dragging others into my rp because I starting using rp as a way to solo, even back then
4. Languages and being able to be taught them by someone of that race
5. Real faction- being chased out of town or having to build of faction with seperate towns or cities
6, Unique races more than one type of human race!- The Erudites were the badasses of magic not the high elves, and everyone hated them in the world, you would often get ripped off on prices in shops because of this. And you know what? I absolutely loved every minute of that. (and I'm black so go figure)
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
I loved how my spells would gradually change and look better as I got higher level. (Ex. My heals looked like water at level 10 and they would get thicker like ice then snow at higher levels)
I love how mobs around the world could actually kill me and I couldn't solo everything.
Being in the presence of a boss would kill me from aoe so I had to LoS myself by a rock so I wouldn't die instantly. I could barely get a good look at the bosses face without dying.
How instead of having a map to find everything all I had was a compass so I learned landmarks and could actually explore.
Raids weren't so organized and everyone in the zone could join in and fight.
At endgame I could keep xping and use my xp to buy class mastery which added stats to my character permenently.
I miss solo class quests that were challenging and more about finding where things were.
I miss how instead of casted direct heals it was mostly dot heals that if they came off your tank would die quickly.
I liked having a good idea of knowing when your cast would hit not knowing the exact amount of time it is going to take before I cast it.
EQOA FTW! I would have played this game forever if they updated it. RIP EQOA!
What people consider varied, interesting, excessive, and tedius differs on an individual basis. Just because devs make only one kind of game doesnt mean people only want one kind of game.
You have no idea what "gamers as a whole" want because they dont want the same thing.
"Gamers as a whole" will buy whatever is marketed well, and market research will see it as a success because market research only sees blind sales figures, not satisfaction, or lack thereof, of the product purchased.
The one thing I miss most? Buffing
Nowadays buffs are just tied to the group because heaven forbid you buff some low level character and make them more powerful for an hour. I think buffing was part of community building back in EQ. It was something to do when you didn't feel like killing stuff. Run to the new player zones and make people happy with buffs. And the buff actually meant something...not just an extra 10+ to this that you don't notice when fighting anyway. People would exchange tells and thank you's. There are players that get genuine enjoyment out of helping others and there are very few ways to do this anymore.
Yeah I miss giving and receiving those drive-by buffs.
Making friends. The game required players to communicate.
TSW, LotRO, EQ2, SWTOR, GW2, V:SoH, Neverwinter, ArchAge, EQ, UO, DAoC, WAR, DDO, AoC, MO, BDO, SotA, B&S, ESO,
Yeah, I take issue with the "gamers as a whole" phrase. Leave over-generalizing to ignorant racists and marketteers who continually fail at exploiting their markets. I barely consider myself a "gamer", much less a "whole". Yet I have spent some major money on and in some MMOs.
TSW, LotRO, EQ2, SWTOR, GW2, V:SoH, Neverwinter, ArchAge, EQ, UO, DAoC, WAR, DDO, AoC, MO, BDO, SotA, B&S, ESO,
Lots of great suggestions here so I won't repeat, (unless I missed it), so I have just one to add:
1) Darkness, real darkness. Having to equip a lantern or torch to see as you walk (or a special ability). Running into enemies because you could not see them at night. Made for much more intense gameplay.
AKA - Bruxail
For me its mainly SWG stuff.
-Non combat skills/class, like a character that is just about crafting (both with skillsystem and postNGE).
-Player made cities. Newer games have cheap knock offs of this system.
-Every single item ingame that you can hold in your inventory, is actually a 3d object once dropped on the ground in a house.
I also remember the good ole' days of UO! There'd always be a mob of people around the forge in the NW corner of Britain clammoring for services and hoping to not get ripped off heh. Funnily enough I still remember 'Iceman' was the name of the most sought after blacksmith on my shard. This was during the very early era you speak of (1997-98) when being a Master Blacksmith truely meant something. There was so much more meaningful interaction between players back then...
I guess that's what I miss the most; meaningful interaction. Difficulty. Consequences. Things mattering. This is what has been lost in modern MMO's. Your character and the world it's in feel completely inconsequential.
This Thread should have been closed with the above answer as it is the ONLY correct one.
DAoC: mob hate lists.
eg, you kill a thousand mobs of a certain kind, and BAM, they turn from peaceful to agro mode on you, all over the world.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Gamers as a whole want the same thing. Some gamers want different things, but not many. At least not to the magnitude where one game can't service a huge majority of them.
Gamers quite obviously prefer variety because variety is at the core of what keeps games interesting. If game A has no task variety, little monster variety, and no combat variety (Lineage 2) then it's going to widely be considered less interesting than game B with large task variety (quests), large monster variety, and some combat variety (WOW.) The quality of combat (in addition to a hundred other factors) also matters, but variety is one of the many ways games succeed -- a lack of variety kills games unless their systems are incredibly dynamic.
You can keep pretending that the loads of observable successes and failures don't indicate a desire for variety, but you're just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring an obvious factor behind how players enjoy games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Variety is fine. But quests don't offer gameplay variety. "Quests" or as I like to more accurately describe them, chores, ie kill ten rats, or fetch such and such object, seriously, how is that not chores?, are only the same chores over and over with slightly varying flavor.
As someone who advocates gameplay over immersion it should bug you that quests are the same recycled game play over and over with some slight flavor variance.
Of course they do.
Quests are set up for you to kill DIFFERNET mobs with DIFFERENT abilities. So that is varity in GRAPHICS, and varity in combat MECHANICS. And that is JUST kill quests. Don't tell me it is not different between quest a) that requires you to kill a raid boss, and b) a quest that ask you to kill 10 rats.
You do different things in escort quests, gather quest (for example, you can sneak in gather quest but not kill quest), vehicle-based quests, .....
Saying quests don't offer gamplay variety is like saying all dim sum are the same, and there is no variety in them.
The standard quest has variance in monsters but their variance is meaningless. There is no difference between my actions vs generic monster number 10 and generic monster number 37. When I was doing kill quests in WoW I was at the correct level and I never once changed my strategy. I followed an identical move rotation regardless of my target.
Don't you know that it doesn't matter how different the "mehcanics" are if I am not responding any differently to them? If my response is always identical then the difference in the creatures is effectively irrelevant assuming I am as obsessed with "gameplay" as you.
And as for graphics, aka flavor, variance, that is meaningless unless you are not smart enough to see beneath the surface.
Just because you change a skin and alter the mechanics doesn't make the quest any different, assuming as we can with WoW mechanics that your response to kill quest monsters is the same regardless of cosmetic changes.
There is little to no real variety in most games, only those with a great deal of social interaction as a driving mechanic can provide as such. And yet plenty of people play games with next to fuck all variety.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Now you are saying there are differences but they don't matter to YOU. Well, that is just disingenous.
Plus, i don't recall doing the SAME thing to response to different mechanics. May be you are just not that good of a player to do it efficiently.
I certainly responded .. i use CC when fighting a group instead of just single pull. I use interrupt on spell casters. I use CDs on named mobs with more health.
Non-quest game: Grind mobs endlessly (LIneage 2)
Quest game: Do this, then that, then another thing, then a different thing (WOW)
Why isn't it obvious that quest-based gaming results in greater gameplay variety?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Truth. The only times quests have ever been interesting were in the older MMOs. Quests had a great deal of variety to them because some were vague and it was not necessary to complete them to level up. This game the devs a lot of freedom to try experimentin with different kinds of quests. Once quests because "systemized" so that it was the ONLY way to get from 1-50, they put in game maps, glowing markers, waypoints, glowing objectives, kill counts on the screen. The story became secondary to the funneling. I always laugh, then cry, when devs talk about adding new "content" to a game, but what they mean is, more quests. And since all quests are pretty much identical, I'd hardly call that content. More like busy work.
This is extremist drivel.
And what's important is that we're comparing games you call "little to no variety" with games that have even less variety.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Because you have a warped view of how a nonquest game functions.
In quest based games, there is only one way to level up. Do quests. All quests are exactly the same. If you choose to go somewhere the quests don't tell you to go, you get penalized.
Non quest based games you can go absolutely anywhere you want to hunt, you can group up with friends and strangers to make the experience dynamic and sociable. If you get tired of grinding, in DAoC there was also a kill task system, a quest system, and a bounty system you could do. Grouping with people was the fastest way to level but it wasn't the only way. Quest based games don't allow for options or freedom. They don't encourage grouping. This is why its not clear that quests are better. ESPECIALLY for variety.
Play LotRO from level 1-25 and tell me that all the quests are different? (hint, they're not, I grabbed every quest in a zone once and all the quests just had me killing random monsters in that zone).
Variety...I agree variety is good. It seems pretty hypocritical that you spout off about variety, but continue to think everyone wants the same thing. Where's the variety in there being only one style of gameplay? Truth of the matter is, the genre lacks variaty as a whole, and this is exactly why threads like this one get made.
We say "give us variety". You say "make every game WoW". Suddenly you say WoW IS variety? Do you realize how absolutely insane you sound?
If you see me as having my head in the sand, its because you cant see beyond the surface while I see what lies beneath.