Especially considering that many new "progressive" features of MMORPGs make them more and more like lobby games, which existed well before MMORPGs.
After all, now you can play WoW by just queueing up for groups and never leaving the city. So progressive!
If that is their prefered way to play, it is progress.
Uhh... I don't think you know what progress means. That implies going forward. Not backwards. Making a game more similar to a simpler, older game is not progress.
Especially considering that many new "progressive" features of MMORPGs make them more and more like lobby games, which existed well before MMORPGs.
After all, now you can play WoW by just queueing up for groups and never leaving the city. So progressive!
Well, you're right. MMOs are mostly lobby games now. Somewhere along the way, somehow, virtual worlds were substituted with virtual lobbies and I guess we didn't notice it early enough to call BS. Calling something an MMORPG now could mean pretty much anything at the moment.
No, I noticed and welcomed the change.
WOW is much better after LFD. In fact, I only went back after quiting because of LFR. And i will encourage WOW and other companeis to do so by voting with my wallet.
And what is so special about change of meaning? computer RPGs (which are just called RPGs) are very different than table top ones. Things change.
Especially considering that many new "progressive" features of MMORPGs make them more and more like lobby games, which existed well before MMORPGs.
After all, now you can play WoW by just queueing up for groups and never leaving the city. So progressive!
Well, you're right. MMOs are mostly lobby games now. Somewhere along the way, somehow, virtual worlds were substituted with virtual lobbies and I guess we didn't notice it early enough to call BS. Calling something an MMORPG now could mean pretty much anything at the moment.
No, I noticed and welcomed the change.
You didn't have to wait for the change, that type of stuff already existed in Diablo and its various clones. You could have played them.
But now you're talking about genre blending...
If an FPS tried to transform itself into an RTS... and did so by getting rid of first person view, and taking away your ability to shoot, would you still call it a good FPS? It might be a decent game, the RTS mechanics might be fun, but it'd be a pretty piss poor FPS, no?
MMOs losing their MM features to make them just like other game genres that already exist... makes them bad MMOs.
Especially considering that many new "progressive" features of MMORPGs make them more and more like lobby games, which existed well before MMORPGs.
After all, now you can play WoW by just queueing up for groups and never leaving the city. So progressive!
Well, you're right. MMOs are mostly lobby games now. Somewhere along the way, somehow, virtual worlds were substituted with virtual lobbies and I guess we didn't notice it early enough to call BS. Calling something an MMORPG now could mean pretty much anything at the moment.
No, I noticed and welcomed the change.
You didn't have to wait for the change, that type of stuff already existed in Diablo and its various clones. You could have played them.
I did. But none has an AH, and online server to prevent cheating. Plus, there are fewer classes, and usually less complicated combat mechanics than MMOs. And there is no reason NOT to welcome and play MMOs with similar playstyle.
No one says i only play MMOs .. i play MMOs, action RPGs, and many other types of games.
But now you're talking about genre blending...
Sure. Nothing wrong with that.
If an FPS tried to transform itself into an RTS... and did so by getting rid of first person view, and taking away your ability to shoot, would you still call it a good FPS? It might be a decent game, the RTS mechanics might be fun, but it'd be a pretty piss poor FPS, no?
If the end result is fun, i will play and support it. Case in point, Borderland. Great blend of FPS and RPG .. and also online features like Diablo type matching. Great fun.
In fact, i wouldn't mind a MMO like that .. or add in MMO features in Borderland (such as AH).
MMOs losing their MM features to make them just like other game genres that already exist... makes them bad MMOs.
And better games. I really don't care what you call them if they are fun. So what if MMOs loses their MM features if it make them better games (for me).
It's not just mmo's. People have a tendency to remember the past glowingly in all areas.
Some people lament the 50s as being a golden age of American culture, yet, not so much if you ask African Americans for example.
People glorify the Renaissance and even Middle Ages to a certain extent, yet, those were arguably the worst conditions to live in for the majority of the people in human history.
And with mmo's people have forgotten a lot of the tedium and weirdness of the early years.
First I'm going to make a point to say... you're setting this up as if all old MMOs were identical and all had these problems. This is not the case, they were all vastly different. I'm guessing you're generally referring to EQ. So I'm going to answer all your questions from the frame of mind of the MMO I played the most.
No one remembers going days without a group with no way to progress without one.
You're right, I don't remember this, because it didn't exist. I was able to progress just fine without a group. I didn't enjoy not being able to find groups, because playing by yourself usually isn't that fun in any multiplayer game. That's kind of the whole reason I played them. But, I sure as hell could progress.
No one remembers spending 8+ hours in a raid, finally getting to the boss you need, which you've waited 3 months for your turn in the rotation, and then a competing guild trains you and takes the kill while you start the laborious process of corpse retrieval. "Ok rogues and necros - time to drag each of the 175 people out of the depths of the dungeon while we wait here naked"
You're right, I don't remember this, because there was no rotation or competiting guilds. We all worked together and if you contributed, you got an equal shot at the loot. EQ's raid system was bad, yet it's the same raid system modern MMOs use. Raids were done for fun. I would drop into a raid, do it for an hour or two or three, and leave when it was over, or earlier if I wanted. There were a few epic raids that almost no one ever completed, that lasted a good 8 hours. I only ever did Caer Sidi twice, but they are some of the most amazing and memorable raids in MMO history.
No one remembers how frustrating a corpse run lasting 3 hours past the 8 hour raid you'd been on was
You're right, I don't, because I never did a corpse run. Not all MMOs had them.
No one remembers having to constantly window out to look up quests which literally had no possible way of solving within the game itself. Talk about immersion breaking.
You're right, I don't, because if I ever was stuck on a quest I would ask people in the game, or just think about it a little harder (because all the quests WERE solvable in game).
No one remembers joining a game 3 months after release and finding the lower zones completely empty with no mechanic possible to level yourself.
You're right, I don't remember this. There were always people in the starter zones, until instancing was added an-oh that's a modern design element...
I'm not saying that there weren't benefits from some of the earlier 'lack' of features. But we always forget what the flip side of the coin looked like.
I'm also not saying that the present has it completely right either.
What I am saying is that I hope for the future more than I lament the past.
There you go.
What made you stop playing DAOC?
You're right that I answered mine from an EQ perspective.
But DAOC wasn't a utopia either, surely there is something about the game which you wouldn't want to go back to.
I was just trying to stress the point that people always remember the past with rose colored glasses, and you aren't going to convince me I'm wrong by telling me the past was in fact the color of roses.
There are and have been plenty of watered down mmorpg games available over the past 5 years. It'd be nice to see a well made throw back for a change. Modern mmorpgs seem to have strayed to far from their roots for me and many of my friends as well.
Especially considering that many new "progressive" features of MMORPGs make them more and more like lobby games, which existed well before MMORPGs.
After all, now you can play WoW by just queueing up for groups and never leaving the city. So progressive!
Well, you're right. MMOs are mostly lobby games now. Somewhere along the way, somehow, virtual worlds were substituted with virtual lobbies and I guess we didn't notice it early enough to call BS. Calling something an MMORPG now could mean pretty much anything at the moment.
No, I noticed and welcomed the change.
If an FPS tried to transform itself into an RTS... and did so by getting rid of first person view, and taking away your ability to shoot, would you still call it a good FPS? It might be a decent game, the RTS mechanics might be fun, but it'd be a pretty piss poor FPS, no?
If the end result is fun, i will play and support it. Case in point, Borderland. Borderlands is a really terrible example. It merged RPG and FPS. Both existed together without harming one another. In my example, you LOSE features to the other genre. In MMOs, all the social and virtual world elements, you know the stuff that makes it an MMO to begin wtih, have been removed. If I wanted to play COOP RPGs, I'd be playing COOP RPGs. But I'm playing MMOs, because I don't like COOP RPGs. But now MMOs don't exist.
In fact, i wouldn't mind a MMO like that .. or add in MMO features in Borderland (such as AH). Have we really come to a day and age where when people think MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER features they think.... Auction House? They no longer think, you know, massive amounts of people?
MMOs losing their MM features to make them just like other game genres that already exist... makes them bad MMOs.
And better games If you like the genre that they're transforming into, and if they changed their name. As I already said, an FPS that doesn't let you fire a gun is a bad FPS. Period. A shooter cannot be called a good shooter without shooting. A massively multiplayer game cannot be called a good MM game without... massive multiplayer. If SWTOR had been called a coop RPG it may have been a good game. But its a TERRIBLE MMO. So the games are being made worse, by regular metrics. . I really don't care what you call them if they are fun. So what if MMOs loses their MM features if it make them better games (for me) How about all the people who liked those MM features and now have no access to them, while you glut yourself on features that already existed in other games you could have played. Those people care.
It's not just mmo's. People have a tendency to remember the past glowingly in all areas.
Some people lament the 50s as being a golden age of American culture, yet, not so much if you ask African Americans for example.
People glorify the Renaissance and even Middle Ages to a certain extent, yet, those were arguably the worst conditions to live in for the majority of the people in human history.
And with mmo's people have forgotten a lot of the tedium and weirdness of the early years.
First I'm going to make a point to say... you're setting this up as if all old MMOs were identical and all had these problems. This is not the case, they were all vastly different. I'm guessing you're generally referring to EQ. So I'm going to answer all your questions from the frame of mind of the MMO I played the most.
No one remembers going days without a group with no way to progress without one.
You're right, I don't remember this, because it didn't exist. I was able to progress just fine without a group. I didn't enjoy not being able to find groups, because playing by yourself usually isn't that fun in any multiplayer game. That's kind of the whole reason I played them. But, I sure as hell could progress.
No one remembers spending 8+ hours in a raid, finally getting to the boss you need, which you've waited 3 months for your turn in the rotation, and then a competing guild trains you and takes the kill while you start the laborious process of corpse retrieval. "Ok rogues and necros - time to drag each of the 175 people out of the depths of the dungeon while we wait here naked"
You're right, I don't remember this, because there was no rotation or competiting guilds. We all worked together and if you contributed, you got an equal shot at the loot. EQ's raid system was bad, yet it's the same raid system modern MMOs use. Raids were done for fun. I would drop into a raid, do it for an hour or two or three, and leave when it was over, or earlier if I wanted. There were a few epic raids that almost no one ever completed, that lasted a good 8 hours. I only ever did Caer Sidi twice, but they are some of the most amazing and memorable raids in MMO history.
No one remembers how frustrating a corpse run lasting 3 hours past the 8 hour raid you'd been on was
You're right, I don't, because I never did a corpse run. Not all MMOs had them.
No one remembers having to constantly window out to look up quests which literally had no possible way of solving within the game itself. Talk about immersion breaking.
You're right, I don't, because if I ever was stuck on a quest I would ask people in the game, or just think about it a little harder (because all the quests WERE solvable in game).
No one remembers joining a game 3 months after release and finding the lower zones completely empty with no mechanic possible to level yourself.
You're right, I don't remember this. There were always people in the starter zones, until instancing was added an-oh that's a modern design element...
I'm not saying that there weren't benefits from some of the earlier 'lack' of features. But we always forget what the flip side of the coin looked like.
I'm also not saying that the present has it completely right either.
What I am saying is that I hope for the future more than I lament the past.
It's not just mmo's. People have a tendency to remember the past glowingly in all areas.
Some people lament the 50s as being a golden age of American culture, yet, not so much if you ask African Americans for example.
People glorify the Renaissance and even Middle Ages to a certain extent, yet, those were arguably the worst conditions to live in for the majority of the people in human history.
And with mmo's people have forgotten a lot of the tedium and weirdness of the early years.
First I'm going to make a point to say... you're setting this up as if all old MMOs were identical and all had these problems. This is not the case, they were all vastly different. I'm guessing you're generally referring to EQ. So I'm going to answer all your questions from the frame of mind of the MMO I played the most.
No one remembers going days without a group with no way to progress without one.
You're right, I don't remember this, because it didn't exist. I was able to progress just fine without a group. I didn't enjoy not being able to find groups, because playing by yourself usually isn't that fun in any multiplayer game. That's kind of the whole reason I played them. But, I sure as hell could progress.
No one remembers spending 8+ hours in a raid, finally getting to the boss you need, which you've waited 3 months for your turn in the rotation, and then a competing guild trains you and takes the kill while you start the laborious process of corpse retrieval. "Ok rogues and necros - time to drag each of the 175 people out of the depths of the dungeon while we wait here naked"
You're right, I don't remember this, because there was no rotation or competiting guilds. We all worked together and if you contributed, you got an equal shot at the loot. EQ's raid system was bad, yet it's the same raid system modern MMOs use. Raids were done for fun. I would drop into a raid, do it for an hour or two or three, and leave when it was over, or earlier if I wanted. There were a few epic raids that almost no one ever completed, that lasted a good 8 hours. I only ever did Caer Sidi twice, but they are some of the most amazing and memorable raids in MMO history.
No one remembers how frustrating a corpse run lasting 3 hours past the 8 hour raid you'd been on was
You're right, I don't, because I never did a corpse run. Not all MMOs had them.
No one remembers having to constantly window out to look up quests which literally had no possible way of solving within the game itself. Talk about immersion breaking.
You're right, I don't, because if I ever was stuck on a quest I would ask people in the game, or just think about it a little harder (because all the quests WERE solvable in game).
No one remembers joining a game 3 months after release and finding the lower zones completely empty with no mechanic possible to level yourself.
You're right, I don't remember this. There were always people in the starter zones, until instancing was added an-oh that's a modern design element...
I'm not saying that there weren't benefits from some of the earlier 'lack' of features. But we always forget what the flip side of the coin looked like.
I'm also not saying that the present has it completely right either.
What I am saying is that I hope for the future more than I lament the past.
There you go.
What made you stop playing DAOC?
You're right that I answered mine from an EQ perspective.
But DAOC wasn't a utopia either, surely there is something about the game which you wouldn't want to go back to.
I was just trying to stress the point that people always remember the past with rose colored glasses, and you aren't going to convince me I'm wrong by telling me the past was in fact the color of roses.
Multiple things I disliked about DAoC.
The first, and one of the surprisingly biggest flaws in the game, for how innocent it seemed...
They added /level 20 feature. That meant if you had a level 50 character you could skip straight to level 20 with a new one. This did a few things. First, it made the starter zones empty of vets. In those days, information was so scattered that without a veteran showing you the ropes it was easy to become lost.
This eventually led to new players not coming into the game at all. Population stagnated. Without new players around, grouping became nearly impossible, so it just stopped happening, and everyone started soloing.
Then they added the Trials of Atlantis expansion, which made raiding mandatory. The raids themselves were actually pretty good. But up until that point there was a careful balance across all spheres of play. The gear you got from the highest end raids were comparable in stats to the highest end crafted gear. So, if you just wanted to hit level 50 and go straight into PvP, you could buy armor and dive in. Now and then people would do these high end raids for fun and people would often jump in to give it a go. Sometimes you got awesome items out of it, but the stats weren't much better, or at all. They looked prettier though, and some had particle effects. It was a nice trophy.
ToA added in a series of long LOOONG trials that gave you powers (that they promised would not impact PvP) as well as artifacts that were nearly impossible to get (you had to complete the encounter for the weapon, raids in themselves, and only one dropped) then find scrolls to unlock their potential, which took weeks, and then level up said weapon.
PvE became mandatory to PvP. veterans left in droves.
So, no new players in, no old players staying.
On top of that, PvP balance was always an issue, as well as people running buff bots.
The final straw(s), they added instancing, and quest based progression, which killed the feel of the game world. Then they changed all my favorite martial classes to be more like casters.
Well kudos to DAOC then I guess. If you're here to pump the title, then go speak with the hardcore players still running multiple accounts for buffbots....and if its so casual friendly, why do you have such an issue with wow, or any of the newer games for that matter?
Uh, because they're poorly made, have very few features, have no game balance, and offer no options, and bring absolutely nothing new to the genre?
DAoC gave you the OPTION to play casually. It didn't design its entire game on it. You could solo in DAoC, but grouping was better. Makes sense, because grouping is harder to do, and you can do harder things with more people.
You had the option to level via PvP.
You had the option to level via kill tasks and grinding.
You had the option to level via exploration and bounties.
In LotRO...you can only level by questing. Period. The entire game is designed around that one casual concept, at the expense of everything else.
This post is a huge load of crap. Saying you had the option to level via PVP was like saying you have the option of cleaning your bathtub with a toothbrush. Ya, sure, you CAN do it, but why use a toothbrush when you can use a full size brush and get it done in 1/10th the time and do a better job of it? Actually PvP was the fastest way to level for a while. So much so that they added a /xp off function so that you didn't outlevel the battlegrounds.
DAOC was a PVE game until you got to 50 at which point it became a RVR based PVP game, yes, there were battleground type instanced PVP you could do prior to that it wasn't instanced, but almost noone did it because it was ABSURDLY quicker to just go do the quests and dungeons and such to get the XP to get to 50 where the real game started. Quests didn't give a lot of XP, and the battlegrounds were one of the most popular features in DAoC. Thidranki always had about 100 people in it on my very low pop server.
This guy is painting a far rosier picture of the game, don't get me wrong, i loved it, played it from release and for close to 2 years after, but it had plenty of huge ass problems too. Sure, it had problems. Which is why I stopped playing.
And as far as EQ being poorly designed, total load of crap. TOTAL load of crap. The only people who think EQ was poorly designed are either early UO vets who like to gank/grief people, or total dyed in the wool PVP'ers. Basically people who don't like PVE games. If you watch the latest video about the 10 year anniversary, the main devs of EQ actually specifically removed any plans for PVP from EQ specifically because they played UO and didnt want the negative player feeling from gankers and griefers. Uh, it was extremely poorly designed, that's why the game essentially broke down without instances, and there was tons of camping/griefing over spawns. WoW uses the same poor design.
Glad to see you don't really remember anything about DAoC, while claiming the rest of us are making it rosey.
You and i had a very different experience then, because prior to about level 40 you could never get into battlegrounds on my server (and this was again shortly after release), and when you did the xp was horrible. Now, i definitely could be wrong on the instancing bit, but you definitely did zone into a seperate area. It wasnt like the RVR areas where you just walked into them, i.e. they were part of the world.
I also just did a little search and found out they later added a lot of benefits to XP gained as well as allowing you to gain realm points and bounty points in a later patch... i also confirmed you did in fact get ported to a specific, closed in area. So, whether it was instanced or not is inconsequential because it was functionally the same difference. Looks like my memory was a little clearer then you thought...
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
If an FPS tried to transform itself into an RTS... and did so by getting rid of first person view, and taking away your ability to shoot, would you still call it a good FPS? It might be a decent game, the RTS mechanics might be fun, but it'd be a pretty piss poor FPS, no?
If the end result is fun, i will play and support it. Case in point, Borderland. Borderlands is a really terrible example. It merged RPG and FPS. Both existed together without harming one another. In my example, you LOSE features to the other genre. In MMOs, all the social and virtual world elements, you know the stuff that makes it an MMO to begin wtih, have been removed. If I wanted to play COOP RPGs, I'd be playing COOP RPGs. But I'm playing MMOs, because I don't like COOP RPGs. But now MMOs don't exist.
Hmm .. you do lose the faster run & gun gameplay. You do lose the more tactical RPG combat. You are too obsessed with social & virtual world elements. So what if you lose those elements? Not everyone thinks they are important.
In fact, i wouldn't mind a MMO like that .. or add in MMO features in Borderland (such as AH). Have we really come to a day and age where when people think MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER features they think.... Auction House? They no longer think, you know, massive amounts of people?
Yes, auction house. That is fun for me. Massive amount of people? Why do you need that? A big battleground type battle with 50 vs 50 have more people you can see on screen. You won't be able to do thousands vs thousands anyway (not even Eve).
There is really not a lot of value in "doing stuff" with thousand of people. The REASON why MMORPG is losing the MM .. is because "massive" is not that important to gameplay experience.
MMOs losing their MM features to make them just like other game genres that already exist... makes them bad MMOs.
And better games If you like the genre that they're transforming into, and if they changed their name. As I already said, an FPS that doesn't let you fire a gun is a bad FPS. Period. A shooter cannot be called a good shooter without shooting. A massively multiplayer game cannot be called a good MM game without... massive multiplayer. If SWTOR had been called a coop RPG it may have been a good game. But its a TERRIBLE MMO. So the games are being made worse, by regular metrics.
Once again, so what? I play fun games. If it does not fit into some arbitrary definition of MMORPG .. well i surely don't care.
. I really don't care what you call them if they are fun. So what if MMOs loses their MM features if it make them better games (for me) How about all the people who liked those MM features and now have no access to them, while you glut yourself on features that already existed in other games you could have played. Those people care.
What about them? It is not like i care whether they get their games. If they do, more power to them. if they don't, it is their problem.
I am here to write about MY preferences and opinions. They are big boys and they can support their own agenda. They don't need my help.
Well kudos to DAOC then I guess. If you're here to pump the title, then go speak with the hardcore players still running multiple accounts for buffbots....and if its so casual friendly, why do you have such an issue with wow, or any of the newer games for that matter?
Uh, because they're poorly made, have very few features, have no game balance, and offer no options, and bring absolutely nothing new to the genre?
DAoC gave you the OPTION to play casually. It didn't design its entire game on it. You could solo in DAoC, but grouping was better. Makes sense, because grouping is harder to do, and you can do harder things with more people.
You had the option to level via PvP.
You had the option to level via kill tasks and grinding.
You had the option to level via exploration and bounties.
In LotRO...you can only level by questing. Period. The entire game is designed around that one casual concept, at the expense of everything else.
This post is a huge load of crap. Saying you had the option to level via PVP was like saying you have the option of cleaning your bathtub with a toothbrush. Ya, sure, you CAN do it, but why use a toothbrush when you can use a full size brush and get it done in 1/10th the time and do a better job of it? Actually PvP was the fastest way to level for a while. So much so that they added a /xp off function so that you didn't outlevel the battlegrounds.
DAOC was a PVE game until you got to 50 at which point it became a RVR based PVP game, yes, there were battleground type instanced PVP you could do prior to that it wasn't instanced, but almost noone did it because it was ABSURDLY quicker to just go do the quests and dungeons and such to get the XP to get to 50 where the real game started. Quests didn't give a lot of XP, and the battlegrounds were one of the most popular features in DAoC. Thidranki always had about 100 people in it on my very low pop server.
This guy is painting a far rosier picture of the game, don't get me wrong, i loved it, played it from release and for close to 2 years after, but it had plenty of huge ass problems too. Sure, it had problems. Which is why I stopped playing.
And as far as EQ being poorly designed, total load of crap. TOTAL load of crap. The only people who think EQ was poorly designed are either early UO vets who like to gank/grief people, or total dyed in the wool PVP'ers. Basically people who don't like PVE games. If you watch the latest video about the 10 year anniversary, the main devs of EQ actually specifically removed any plans for PVP from EQ specifically because they played UO and didnt want the negative player feeling from gankers and griefers. Uh, it was extremely poorly designed, that's why the game essentially broke down without instances, and there was tons of camping/griefing over spawns. WoW uses the same poor design.
Glad to see you don't really remember anything about DAoC, while claiming the rest of us are making it rosey.
You and i had a very different experience then, because prior to about level 40 you could never get into battlegrounds on my server (and this was again shortly after release), and when you did the xp was horrible. Now, i definitely could be wrong on the instancing bit, but you definitely did zone into a seperate area. It wasnt like the RVR areas where you just walked into them, i.e. they were part of the world.
I also just did a little search and found out they later added a lot of benefits to XP gained as well as allowing you to gain realm points and bounty points in a later patch... i also confirmed you did in fact get ported to a specific, closed in area. So, whether it was instanced or not is inconsequential because it was functionally the same difference. Looks like my memory was a little clearer then you thought...
We played at different times then. And yes it is a big distinction between something being zoned vs instanced. THe battlegrounds were persistent. The keeps could be taken at any time, and they stayed that way. It wasn't an e-sport, it was a battleground. Anyone could be there at any time doing anything.
You are too obsessed with social & virtual world elements. So what if you lose those elements?
"You are too obsessed with guns in an FPS. So what if you don't have a gun and the camera isn't first person?"
You see how silly you sound? They're the entire point of the entire genre.
Genre changes. I play FP puzzle games like Quantum Conundrum. So it lost the gun, i still like it. I play FP RPG too. So there is no gun in Skyrim, still good.
The point of the genre changes. If you think a game like WOW is still focus on social & virtual world, you are delusional. Feel free to obsess with it. It is not coming back, at laest not in WOW, and many other MMOs.
You will never replicate the feeling of your first mmo.
Yes you can. It's happened to me more than once.
You don't have to. Nothing wrong with new feelings, as long as they are good.
I agree, but that's kind of the point of the thread. It seems like many people are having a hard time finding that good feeling when playing MMOs these days. Perhaps because there are so many to choose from. But I am here to tell you it is possible.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
You are too obsessed with social & virtual world elements. So what if you lose those elements?
"You are too obsessed with guns in an FPS. So what if you don't have a gun and the camera isn't first person?"
You see how silly you sound? They're the entire point of the entire genre.
Genre changes. I play FP puzzle games like Quantum Conundrum. So it lost the gun, i still like it. I play FP RPG too. So there is no gun in Skyrim, still good.
The point of the genre changes. If you think a game like WOW is still focus on social & virtual world, you are delusional. Feel free to obsess with it. It is not coming back, at laest not in WOW, and many other MMOs.
It's true, most modern titles are designed for MMORPG tourists such as yourself, and not the purists they first catered to.
The genre is not better for the change, only bigger.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You are too obsessed with social & virtual world elements. So what if you lose those elements?
"You are too obsessed with guns in an FPS. So what if you don't have a gun and the camera isn't first person?"
You see how silly you sound? They're the entire point of the entire genre.
Genre changes. I play FP puzzle games like Quantum Conundrum. So it lost the gun, i still like it.
I didn't say anything about FP Puzzle Games. I specifically said First Person Shooter.
If you call something a First Person Shooter, you imply that you can shoot things.
If you call something massively multiplayer, you imply that you can play with thousands of people in a persistent virtual world. Thats what the term refers to.
You are too obsessed with social & virtual world elements. So what if you lose those elements?
"You are too obsessed with guns in an FPS. So what if you don't have a gun and the camera isn't first person?"
You see how silly you sound? They're the entire point of the entire genre.
Genre changes. I play FP puzzle games like Quantum Conundrum. So it lost the gun, i still like it. I play FP RPG too. So there is no gun in Skyrim, still good.
The point of the genre changes. If you think a game like WOW is still focus on social & virtual world, you are delusional. Feel free to obsess with it. It is not coming back, at laest not in WOW, and many other MMOs.
It's true, most modern titles are designed for MMORPG tourists such as yourself, and not the purists they first catered to.
The genre is not better for the change, only bigger.
There is no better or worse in general. Just difference since gaming preference is personal.
But still fun to talk about. Why don't you think we all repeat our points again and again?
Yeah. I won't adress all poins, cause most what you consider 'better' I conisder 'worse' and funniest is, frequently for same reasons
Anyway for me playing mmorpg never was about dugneoning & raiding. Oh I did those as well, but they were just a small piece of big puzzle / system.
For me mmorpg's were and are mostly about people, economy, interdependability, politics and immersion.
Combat is important part, but well just a part.
Dunegons, isntances and raids are even less important. Fun to do once in a while, but just an element and not more important than others.
So yeah for your 'expectations' most of things / mechanics got better. Sure.
For me it went into worse direction and just whole parts of mmropg experience were cut out or ridiculosely simplified.
Thus they became boring, because modern mmorpg's are diffrent KIND of game.
Playing just to make dugneons and arenas as a obejctive itself is boring.
Mmorpg's were interesting cause they were various elements thrown together and creating system in which they all impacted each other + immersion from virtual world.
With that gone, it is not much diffrent than hack & slash game, just with bit more people than in co-op.
Boring.
Ehh but we talked about it already in some other topic nariusseldon haven't we?
Still you're right it is sort of fun to repeat out stances / arguments once in a while ;p
You are too obsessed with social & virtual world elements. So what if you lose those elements?
"You are too obsessed with guns in an FPS. So what if you don't have a gun and the camera isn't first person?"
You see how silly you sound? They're the entire point of the entire genre.
Genre changes. I play FP puzzle games like Quantum Conundrum. So it lost the gun, i still like it.
I didn't say anything about FP Puzzle Games. I specifically said First Person Shooter.
If you call something a First Person Shooter, you imply that you can shoot things.
If you call something massively multiplayer, you imply that you can play with thousands of people in a persistent virtual world. Thats what the term refers to.
I'm done trying to explain things to you I guess.
You are just obsessed with labels.
So let's call the new genre "new MMOs" or "lobby MMOs". So what?
BTW, MM does NOT mean virtual world. It says massively multiplayer .. it did not say all has to be in the SAME world. may be you should call you thing the "VWRPG" instead.
Personally i will just focus on specific games and see if they are fun to play and the specific gameplay elements. I found that lobby-based matching in dungeons fun .. and i will continue to play those games, no matter what they are called.
You are too obsessed with social & virtual world elements. So what if you lose those elements?
"You are too obsessed with guns in an FPS. So what if you don't have a gun and the camera isn't first person?"
You see how silly you sound? They're the entire point of the entire genre.
Genre changes. I play FP puzzle games like Quantum Conundrum. So it lost the gun, i still like it. I play FP RPG too. So there is no gun in Skyrim, still good.
The point of the genre changes. If you think a game like WOW is still focus on social & virtual world, you are delusional. Feel free to obsess with it. It is not coming back, at laest not in WOW, and many other MMOs.
I think you're oversimplfying everything with your "as long as its fun" argument.
If I am in the mood for a comedy movie, and I see an Adam Sandler movie that turns out to be a heart wrenching tragedy...then I would probably be disappointed. People like different things, and even a person craves different things at different times.
People come to this board because they like MMORPGs. And you really have to admit that new school MMORPGs are greatly different from old school MMORPGs in terms of flavor, direction, and gameplay.
If you were a fan of old school MMORPGs, then you may want an experience that simply isn't really offered anymore. What is wrong with this? You may even like new school MMORPGs, but still crave the old school experience.
In the end, I don't think most gamers are so eclectic that they will just enjoy whatever game is thrown at them if it can be considered fun. I love lobby RPGs like Diablo, Torchlight or Borderlands, but when I play an MMORPG...I want to play an MMORPG. I don't want to play an MMORPG that seems like it's trying to do everything it can to hide its persistent world and turn into Diablo.
Comments
Uhh... I don't think you know what progress means. That implies going forward. Not backwards. Making a game more similar to a simpler, older game is not progress.
No, I noticed and welcomed the change.
WOW is much better after LFD. In fact, I only went back after quiting because of LFR. And i will encourage WOW and other companeis to do so by voting with my wallet.
And what is so special about change of meaning? computer RPGs (which are just called RPGs) are very different than table top ones. Things change.
You didn't have to wait for the change, that type of stuff already existed in Diablo and its various clones. You could have played them.
But now you're talking about genre blending...
If an FPS tried to transform itself into an RTS... and did so by getting rid of first person view, and taking away your ability to shoot, would you still call it a good FPS? It might be a decent game, the RTS mechanics might be fun, but it'd be a pretty piss poor FPS, no?
MMOs losing their MM features to make them just like other game genres that already exist... makes them bad MMOs.
One reason is because what they liked in the past is not available anymore.
What made you stop playing DAOC?
You're right that I answered mine from an EQ perspective.
But DAOC wasn't a utopia either, surely there is something about the game which you wouldn't want to go back to.
I was just trying to stress the point that people always remember the past with rose colored glasses, and you aren't going to convince me I'm wrong by telling me the past was in fact the color of roses.
There are and have been plenty of watered down mmorpg games available over the past 5 years. It'd be nice to see a well made throw back for a change. Modern mmorpgs seem to have strayed to far from their roots for me and many of my friends as well.
Dark Age of Camelot.
I figured it out and was editing for more spirited discussion ).
Multiple things I disliked about DAoC.
The first, and one of the surprisingly biggest flaws in the game, for how innocent it seemed...
They added /level 20 feature. That meant if you had a level 50 character you could skip straight to level 20 with a new one. This did a few things. First, it made the starter zones empty of vets. In those days, information was so scattered that without a veteran showing you the ropes it was easy to become lost.
This eventually led to new players not coming into the game at all. Population stagnated. Without new players around, grouping became nearly impossible, so it just stopped happening, and everyone started soloing.
Then they added the Trials of Atlantis expansion, which made raiding mandatory. The raids themselves were actually pretty good. But up until that point there was a careful balance across all spheres of play. The gear you got from the highest end raids were comparable in stats to the highest end crafted gear. So, if you just wanted to hit level 50 and go straight into PvP, you could buy armor and dive in. Now and then people would do these high end raids for fun and people would often jump in to give it a go. Sometimes you got awesome items out of it, but the stats weren't much better, or at all. They looked prettier though, and some had particle effects. It was a nice trophy.
ToA added in a series of long LOOONG trials that gave you powers (that they promised would not impact PvP) as well as artifacts that were nearly impossible to get (you had to complete the encounter for the weapon, raids in themselves, and only one dropped) then find scrolls to unlock their potential, which took weeks, and then level up said weapon.
PvE became mandatory to PvP. veterans left in droves.
So, no new players in, no old players staying.
On top of that, PvP balance was always an issue, as well as people running buff bots.
The final straw(s), they added instancing, and quest based progression, which killed the feel of the game world. Then they changed all my favorite martial classes to be more like casters.
Yes you can. It's happened to me more than once.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
You and i had a very different experience then, because prior to about level 40 you could never get into battlegrounds on my server (and this was again shortly after release), and when you did the xp was horrible. Now, i definitely could be wrong on the instancing bit, but you definitely did zone into a seperate area. It wasnt like the RVR areas where you just walked into them, i.e. they were part of the world.
I also just did a little search and found out they later added a lot of benefits to XP gained as well as allowing you to gain realm points and bounty points in a later patch... i also confirmed you did in fact get ported to a specific, closed in area. So, whether it was instanced or not is inconsequential because it was functionally the same difference. Looks like my memory was a little clearer then you thought...
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
We played at different times then. And yes it is a big distinction between something being zoned vs instanced. THe battlegrounds were persistent. The keeps could be taken at any time, and they stayed that way. It wasn't an e-sport, it was a battleground. Anyone could be there at any time doing anything.
You don't have to. Nothing wrong with new feelings, as long as they are good.
"You are too obsessed with guns in an FPS. So what if you don't have a gun and the camera isn't first person?"
You see how silly you sound? They're the entire point of the entire genre.
Genre changes. I play FP puzzle games like Quantum Conundrum. So it lost the gun, i still like it. I play FP RPG too. So there is no gun in Skyrim, still good.
The point of the genre changes. If you think a game like WOW is still focus on social & virtual world, you are delusional. Feel free to obsess with it. It is not coming back, at laest not in WOW, and many other MMOs.
I agree, but that's kind of the point of the thread. It seems like many people are having a hard time finding that good feeling when playing MMOs these days. Perhaps because there are so many to choose from. But I am here to tell you it is possible.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
It's true, most modern titles are designed for MMORPG tourists such as yourself, and not the purists they first catered to.
The genre is not better for the change, only bigger.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I didn't say anything about FP Puzzle Games. I specifically said First Person Shooter.
If you call something a First Person Shooter, you imply that you can shoot things.
If you call something massively multiplayer, you imply that you can play with thousands of people in a persistent virtual world. Thats what the term refers to.
I'm done trying to explain things to you I guess.
There is no better or worse in general. Just difference since gaming preference is personal.
Yeah. I won't adress all poins, cause most what you consider 'better' I conisder 'worse' and funniest is, frequently for same reasons
Anyway for me playing mmorpg never was about dugneoning & raiding. Oh I did those as well, but they were just a small piece of big puzzle / system.
For me mmorpg's were and are mostly about people, economy, interdependability, politics and immersion.
Combat is important part, but well just a part.
Dunegons, isntances and raids are even less important. Fun to do once in a while, but just an element and not more important than others.
So yeah for your 'expectations' most of things / mechanics got better. Sure.
For me it went into worse direction and just whole parts of mmropg experience were cut out or ridiculosely simplified.
Thus they became boring, because modern mmorpg's are diffrent KIND of game.
Playing just to make dugneons and arenas as a obejctive itself is boring.
Mmorpg's were interesting cause they were various elements thrown together and creating system in which they all impacted each other + immersion from virtual world.
With that gone, it is not much diffrent than hack & slash game, just with bit more people than in co-op.
Boring.
Ehh but we talked about it already in some other topic nariusseldon haven't we?
Still you're right it is sort of fun to repeat out stances / arguments once in a while ;p
You are just obsessed with labels.
So let's call the new genre "new MMOs" or "lobby MMOs". So what?
BTW, MM does NOT mean virtual world. It says massively multiplayer .. it did not say all has to be in the SAME world. may be you should call you thing the "VWRPG" instead.
Personally i will just focus on specific games and see if they are fun to play and the specific gameplay elements. I found that lobby-based matching in dungeons fun .. and i will continue to play those games, no matter what they are called.
I think you're oversimplfying everything with your "as long as its fun" argument.
If I am in the mood for a comedy movie, and I see an Adam Sandler movie that turns out to be a heart wrenching tragedy...then I would probably be disappointed. People like different things, and even a person craves different things at different times.
People come to this board because they like MMORPGs. And you really have to admit that new school MMORPGs are greatly different from old school MMORPGs in terms of flavor, direction, and gameplay.
If you were a fan of old school MMORPGs, then you may want an experience that simply isn't really offered anymore. What is wrong with this? You may even like new school MMORPGs, but still crave the old school experience.
In the end, I don't think most gamers are so eclectic that they will just enjoy whatever game is thrown at them if it can be considered fun. I love lobby RPGs like Diablo, Torchlight or Borderlands, but when I play an MMORPG...I want to play an MMORPG. I don't want to play an MMORPG that seems like it's trying to do everything it can to hide its persistent world and turn into Diablo.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?