I disagree. I think players are ruining the experience.
If players did not want what is offered to them, then devs would be scrambling to find what players DO want. It seems devs have found what most players want. They must have because players flock to the new games and spend loads of cash for them.
Many players complain and moan about today's games. Many players support these new games with their money. Why would devs create something different? The current formula is working great for them.
You couldn't be more correct with that statement.
It's not the devs, it's the players. Us. When we start voting with our wallets and demanding better games and gameplay, then and only then will the MMO landscape truly change.
That thinking also goes with movies, tv shows, books, whatever. If people really think we don't need a Spiderman reboot, or another Jersey Shore, or another lame pulp fiction book, they'll stop buying them and spend their money on the good stuff.
Where the money goes, companies will follow. [mod edit]
Edit: Not sure why there's a mod edit there, but I'll put it in more PC terms: We as players need to stop settling for recycled crap.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
The gaming industry has come a long way and games like Braid, Fallout, Skyrim, Bastion, Amnesia, Left 4 Dead, etc etc are considered great games (not the greatest examples but whatever, they're good games).
Then explain why we like all those games, but all agree that MMOs are stagnating in a puddle of lame?
The statement she quoted doesn't necessarily say that people cannot enjoy things in the present, it just say that certain things that invoke strong positive emotion tend to stick around. Just because you see via some tinted glasses doesn't mean you stop liking things.
The gaming industry has come a long way and games like Braid, Fallout, Skyrim, Bastion, Amnesia, Left 4 Dead, etc etc are considered great games (not the greatest examples but whatever, they're good games).
Then explain why we like all those games, but all agree that MMOs are stagnating in a puddle of lame?
Easy: we don't all agree.
Or, you could just be new to the genre and these craptastic games are *your* rose-tinted nightmare.
Shoe fit?
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I disagree. I think players are ruining the experience.
If players did not want what is offered to them, then devs would be scrambling to find what players DO want. It seems devs have found what most players want. They must have because players flock to the new games and spend loads of cash for them.
Many players complain and moan about today's games. Many players support these new games with their money. Why would devs create something different? The current formula is working great for them.
You couldn't be more correct with that statement.
It's not the devs, it's the players. Us. When we start voting with our wallets and demanding better games and gameplay, then and only then will the MMO landscape truly change.
That thinking also goes with movies, tv shows, books, whatever. If people really think we don't need a Spiderman reboot, or another Jersey Shore, or another lame pulp fiction book, they'll stop buying them and spend their money on the good stuff.
Where the money goes, companies will follow. Stop settling for recycled crap.
Agreement here. While I think the game industry is at a great point, the consumers are still the cause of a lot of its woes. "Hey, guys, let's all buy Diablo 3 because we're so nostalgic about the good old days, even though the developers of the game are screwing us over five different ways!"
The gaming industry has come a long way and games like Braid, Fallout, Skyrim, Bastion, Amnesia, Left 4 Dead, etc etc are considered great games (not the greatest examples but whatever, they're good games).
Then explain why we like all those games, but all agree that MMOs are stagnating in a puddle of lame?
Easy: we don't all agree.
Or, you could just be new to the genre and these craptastic games are *your* rose-tinted nightmare.
Shoe fit?
Shoe does not fit.
The MMO industry is finally getting to a point where it's actually starting to innovate. There's also a lot of WoW clones. I and a lot of other people are really excited and pleased with some of the new MMORPGs (TSW, GW2, ArcheAge, etc).
But the reigning opinion from oldschool gamers seems to be that the people who enjoy these games are just ignorant and inferior. That's bull.
Also, it's not rose colored glasses when you can recall the things you liked and the things that you hated with equal clarity. Yet, for the varied levels of their overall greatness or badness, they still held attentions longer than current stock. Being old or new has no bearing to me on it's worth.
Also, it's not rose colored glasses when you can recall the things you liked and the things that you hated with equal clarity. Yet, for the varied levels of their overall greatness or badness, they still held attentions longer than current stock. Being old or new has no bearing to me on it's worth.
How is it not rose-colored glasses if it's still clear to you?
Memories can be clear as day, but they get changed every time you access them. And as I quoted, changed for the better, and revisiting these games makes us feel good simply by virtue of being things we used to play.
And yes, not MMOs, but I can also list any of the current MMOs as pushing the genre forward. TSW, GW2, ArcheAge, even TOR moved the genre forward with showing us what story could do. Old schoolers can point to DAoC, WAR, etc, as great and innovative games, but they weren't successful in the long run. Dying eventually doesn't mean that these games didn't contribute to the MMO genre, just as the current crop of games are doing.
Also, it's not rose colored glasses when you can recall the things you liked and the things that you hated with equal clarity. Yet, for the varied levels of their overall greatness or badness, they still held attentions longer than current stock. Being old or new has no bearing to me on it's worth.
Whether is an MMO or not doesn't matter. Don't try and act like an MMO is suppose to be special and exempt from the good ole tinted glass syndrome. Your subscious really doesn't care whether its an MMO or a game, all it really know is you liked the thing and now you feel things are worst than they were in the past.
Also another possibility is that you just have to accept that MMORPG are moving to cater to a newer audience and you have only 2 choices:
1. Deal with it, you can whine about it on forums like these but i doubt any developer will really care about such a small amount of opinion.
2. find yourself a new hobby.
all of the things that people loved about the old game eitehr existed as a result of technological limitations or just a simple cash grab. Now that those things are beginning to change MMORPG are starting to change to reflect those significant changes.
all of the things that people loved about the old game eitehr existed as a result of technological limitations or just a simple cash grab. Now that those things are beginning to change MMORPG are starting to change to reflect those significant changes.
No, the things we loved about old games were there because they made games THEY wanted to play.
NOW, we are seeing design via focus group and *really* seeing gameplay limited by tech and total cash grabs.
[mod edit] old games were a total experiment to see if there was even a market for them - there was - so they wheeled back and now try to sell us the bare minimum at full price. It's the key difference between artistic expression/choice and business 101.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
The gaming industry has come a long way and games like Braid, Fallout, Skyrim, Bastion, Amnesia, Left 4 Dead, etc etc are considered great games (not the greatest examples but whatever, they're good games).
[mod edt]
Easy: we don't all agree.
[mod edit}
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
As for how MMOs are innovating in this day and age:
Push towards increeased personal stories (TOR, TSW, to some extent GW2)
Move away from subscription models (GW2)
Move away from holy trinity (GW2)
Move away from tab-targeting (DDO, TERA)
Dynamic events (GW2, to a very small extent RIFT)
Move from focus on gear grind (GW2)
etc etc
Everything's an evolution and the next step from some previous step, so of course these things have been done in lesser degrees before. [mod edit]
Whether is an MMO or not doesn't matter. Don't try and act like an MMO is suppose to be special and exempt from the good ole tinted glass syndrome. Your subscious really doesn't care whether its an MMO or a game, all it really know is you liked the thing and now you feel things are worst than they were in the past.
Also another possibility is that you just have to accept that MMORPG are moving to cater to a newer audience and you have only 2 choices:
1. Deal with it, you can whine about it on forums like these but i doubt any developer will really care about such a small amount of opinion.
2. find yourself a new hobby.
all of the things that people loved about the old game eitehr existed as a result of technological limitations or just a simple cash grab. Now that those things are beginning to change MMORPG are starting to change to reflect those significant changes.
They tried to use examples of how memories of older MMOs are rose colored compared to newer games of another genre completely.
The only newer audience they are moving to cater to is a single all inclusive audience to make the most money possible even if it means faster burn out of the player and more negative feedback of the game post release.
I'm not whining. I'm explaining my position and opinion of the state of current MMO gaming. [mod edit]
If you look at my little text under my name, you'll see that it says that I am currently playing 0 MMOs. I'm not one of the masses who feels forced to pay for or play anything I don't like. If I find something I like, I'll play that.
Also, it's not rose colored glasses when you can recall the things you liked and the things that you hated with equal clarity. Yet, for the varied levels of their overall greatness or badness, they still held attentions longer than current stock. Being old or new has no bearing to me on it's worth.
How is it not rose-colored glasses if it's still clear to you?
Memories can be clear as day, but they get changed every time you access them. And as I quoted, changed for the better, and revisiting these games makes us feel good simply by virtue of being things we used to play.
And yes, not MMOs, but I can also list any of the current MMOs as pushing the genre forward. TSW, GW2, ArcheAge, even TOR moved the genre forward with showing us what story could do. Old schoolers can point to DAoC, WAR, etc, as great and innovative games, but they weren't successful in the long run. Dying eventually doesn't mean that these games didn't contribute to the MMO genre, just as the current crop of games are doing.
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
Because, as I clearly explained, it does not apply to me? You can try to force me into your little box labeled "rose colored glasses" all you want, but I don't belong there and won't go there. I'm sorry you feel you are qualified to judge me as such based on a single article you read and posted.
I don't want the old games back. Many I could easily go back to and still play. I left them for a reason. I want new games. The problem is, the new games we get are not the new games I want. I don't want half ***** production and support. I don't want a single player online game with some co-op tossed in sold as an MMO. I don't want games that are steps backwards in progression of pvp. PvP that's horribly limited in engagement size and location. I don't want games where everything is homogenized for balance and the balance still isn't good and twice as boring.
Also, it's not rose colored glasses when you can recall the things you liked and the things that you hated with equal clarity. Yet, for the varied levels of their overall greatness or badness, they still held attentions longer than current stock. Being old or new has no bearing to me on it's worth.
How is it not rose-colored glasses if it's still clear to you?
Memories can be clear as day, but they get changed every time you access them. And as I quoted, changed for the better, and revisiting these games makes us feel good simply by virtue of being things we used to play.
And yes, not MMOs, but I can also list any of the current MMOs as pushing the genre forward. TSW, GW2, ArcheAge, even TOR moved the genre forward with showing us what story could do. Old schoolers can point to DAoC, WAR, etc, as great and innovative games, but they weren't successful in the long run. Dying eventually doesn't mean that these games didn't contribute to the MMO genre, just as the current crop of games are doing.
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
Because, as I clearly explained, it does not apply to me? You can try to force me into your little box labeled "rose colored glasses" all you want, but I don't belong there and won't go there. I'm sorry you feel you are qualified to judge me as such based on a single article you read and posted.
My apologies, but I never targeted you specifically. My post was targeted towards the discussion at large, and you made it personal. "This doesn't apply to me because", but your reasons were flawed.
I'm not about to say this sort of thing applies to everyone, that's for people to actually sit and consider for themselves rather than providing knee-jerk "not me!" reactions.
How does the move from subscription fees change nothing? The business model for a game absolutely dominates how it is designed. WoW clones with subscription fees force gear grinds, level grinds, time sinks, etc, in order to squeeze every monthly sub they can out. F2P games are designed to make you desire what's in the cash shop so you can actually have fun. B2P games are designed to just be fun, and make you want to spend money on future expansion packs. They lack the gear grinds and instead have "status" grinds that people can opt in to. Huge change.
Where is the challenge in paying for a game and then paying for all the top end things in it? Are you really playing the game?
There is a lot wrong with older and newer MMOs. Cash shops do not solve any of them. Nor do they offer any challenge game play wise.
My apologies, but I never targeted you specifically. My post was targeted towards the discussion at large, and you made it personal. "This doesn't apply to me because", but your reasons were flawed.
I'm not about to say this sort of thing applies to everyone, that's for people to actually sit and consider for themselves rather than providing knee-jerk "not me!" reactions.
I took it personally because you were using the idea of rose colored glasses as a means to dismiss my opinion by itself with no other points/information to prove your side/stance.
How does the move from subscription fees change nothing? The business model for a game absolutely dominates how it is designed. WoW clones with subscription fees force gear grinds, level grinds, time sinks, etc, in order to squeeze every monthly sub they can out. F2P games are designed to make you desire what's in the cash shop so you can actually have fun. B2P games are designed to just be fun, and make you want to spend money on future expansion packs. They lack the gear grinds and instead have "status" grinds that people can opt in to. Huge change.
Where is the challenge in paying for a game and then paying for all the top end things in it? Are you really playing the game?
There is a lot wrong with older and newer MMOs. Cash shops do not solve any of them. Nor do they offer any challenge game play wise.
I'm not sure you've read my post correctly, but perhaps that's my own fault. Let me make clear what I meant:
Traditionally, subscription-based MMOs are designed to be time sinks to get maximum paid months.
B2P games, conversely, can allow you to opt in to a status grind. You're not paying a cash shop for status, you're engaging in challenging content for the top tier gear, but it's not required to compete. People do it because they find it fun or want to show off.
You: "Everyone from the good old days agrees with this statement!"
Me: "I don't."
You: "Well, your opinion isn't valid."
you're obviously new to the party, and it got stale by the time you hit puberty.
As for how MMOs are innovating in this day and age:
Push towards increeased personal stories (TOR, TSW, to some extent GW2) Yum, single-player stuff
Move away from subscription models (GW2) Changes nothing
Move away from holy trinity (GW2) Was like that years ago already, EQ made it popular
Move away from tab-targeting (DDO, TERA) above statement
Dynamic events (GW2, to a very small extent RIFT) Tabula Rasa
Move from focus on gear grind (GW2) EQ statement, again
etc etc No
Everything's an evolution and the next step from some previous step, so of course these things have been done in lesser degrees before. But to act like the MMO industry is just stagnating is, as you all put it, "ignorant".
nothing is evolving, just going back slowly to ideas that were already done in an age where the genre didn't have mass appeal, so there is no relevant data as to how the focus group that makes/breaks a game would take it.
Is your position really so weak that you have to resort to thinly-veiled insults? Really?
Stories that you play with other people hardly strike me as "single-player stuff", and clearly a lot of people are very happy with the stories they can play in TSW, and were happy with the stories in TOR. You lose. Except that TOR is sinking faster than anyone thought possible. Because this IS singleplayer stuff, not MMO stuff. Games like Diablo aren't MMOs.
How does the move from subscription fees change nothing? Because it doesn't impact the game, we're talking about gameplay here.
EverQuest had a holy trinity. And you're acting like I'm not from this era? Get your facts straight. Many MMOs of the past didn't have a holy trinity, it's not an evolution.
Yes, Tabula Rasa had somewhat dynamic events but not in remotely the same way as GW2 is pushing. Actually, almost exactly the same way as GW2. Asheron's Call had them as well. And WAR even had a little.
Whether EQ had a gear grind at all I don't know, but WoW made it standard post-EQ. The move past that is still an improvement, NOT stagnation. It's an improvement by bringing back ideas we ALREADY HAD. It's an improvement over the awful gameplay mechanics that are currently standard, but its not new.
I think that is what the kids call "getting your information wrong".
How does the move from subscription fees change nothing? The business model for a game absolutely dominates how it is designed. WoW clones with subscription fees force gear grinds, level grinds, time sinks, etc, in order to squeeze every monthly sub they can out. F2P games are designed to make you desire what's in the cash shop so you can actually have fun. B2P games are designed to just be fun, and make you want to spend money on future expansion packs. They lack the gear grinds and instead have "status" grinds that people can opt in to. Huge change.
Where is the challenge in paying for a game and then paying for all the top end things in it? Are you really playing the game?
There is a lot wrong with older and newer MMOs. Cash shops do not solve any of them. Nor do they offer any challenge game play wise.
I'm not sure you've read my post correctly, but perhaps that's my own fault. Let me make clear what I meant:
Traditionally, subscription-based MMOs are designed to be time sinks to get maximum paid months.
B2P games, conversely, can allow you to opt in to a status grind. You're not paying a cash shop for status, you're engaging in challenging content for the top tier gear, but it's not required to compete. People do it because they find it fun or want to show off.
That's only true of Cash Shops that don't sell power. Some dance the line. Some play hop scotch jumping from side to side. Some triple jump the line.
I still don't see what is fun about buying things to show off in a game. You're only showing off that you have enough money to click buy and parade around with it.
There is an issue with paying a monthly sub and them expecting you to go above that to buy more regardless of it's impact on the game. It's a moral thing.
I'm not a fan of grinds for the sake of grinds either. That is also a fine line. One I can't easily state the boundaires of, but you know it when you see it.
You: "Everyone from the good old days agrees with this statement!"
Me: "I don't."
You: "Well, your opinion isn't valid."
you're obviously new to the party, and it got stale by the time you hit puberty.
As for how MMOs are innovating in this day and age:
Push towards increeased personal stories (TOR, TSW, to some extent GW2) Yum, single-player stuff
Move away from subscription models (GW2) Changes nothing
Move away from holy trinity (GW2) Was like that years ago already, EQ made it popular
Move away from tab-targeting (DDO, TERA) above statement
Dynamic events (GW2, to a very small extent RIFT) Tabula Rasa
Move from focus on gear grind (GW2) EQ statement, again
etc etc No
Everything's an evolution and the next step from some previous step, so of course these things have been done in lesser degrees before. But to act like the MMO industry is just stagnating is, as you all put it, "ignorant".
nothing is evolving, just going back slowly to ideas that were already done in an age where the genre didn't have mass appeal, so there is no relevant data as to how the focus group that makes/breaks a game would take it.
Is your position really so weak that you have to resort to thinly-veiled insults? Really?
Stories that you play with other people hardly strike me as "single-player stuff", and clearly a lot of people are very happy with the stories they can play in TSW, and were happy with the stories in TOR. You lose. Except that TOR is sinking faster than anyone thought possible. Because this IS singleplayer stuff, not MMO stuff. Games like Diablo aren't MMOs.
How does the move from subscription fees change nothing? Because it doesn't impact the game, we're talking about gameplay here.
EverQuest had a holy trinity. And you're acting like I'm not from this era? Get your facts straight. Many MMOs of the past didn't have a holy trinity, it's not an evolution.
Yes, Tabula Rasa had somewhat dynamic events but not in remotely the same way as GW2 is pushing. Actually, almost exactly the same way as GW2. Asheron's Call had them as well. And WAR even had a little.
Whether EQ had a gear grind at all I don't know, but WoW made it standard post-EQ. The move past that is still an improvement, NOT stagnation. It's an improvement by bringing back ideas we ALREADY HAD. It's an improvement over the awful gameplay mechanics that are currently standard, but its not new.
I think that is what the kids call "getting your information wrong".
Thank you for addressing my points! I appreciate the discussion.
Yes, TOR is doing terribly financially, because it innovated in one area while ignoring issues of longevity. This doesn't discount the fact that, like other financially unsuccessful/dead MMOs of "the good old days", the game still brought something good to the genre and is now likely to be emulated by MMOs that can back up a good story with a good game. It's not singleplayer stuff just because you say so, however. Single-player games are single-player, no one complains about RPG aspects in their MMOs being single-player mechanics because they're not. They're something that peole enjoy and I respect that you don't like them, but many people do.
Post-WoW, yes it is an improvement (as opposed to stagnation) to finally move away from the holy trinity. Would your preference be to continue to have every game with a holy trinity? If the good games of old didn't have holy trinities, wouldn't you feel that it's good that the current generation of MMOs is improving by moving back towards this improvement?
Yes, there were lots of games that didn't have tab-targeting back then. But post-WoW, it's extremely rare, and some improvements have been made in that regard (TERA, for example) that were not present back then.
I didn't play these games so I won't dispute what your experience tells you, except to point out that these are still improvements. If the good old days were so great, how is it not considered an improvement to go back to certain aspects?
I don't know what you consider awful gameplay mechanics, as you've chosen not to give any examples, but improvements are improvements. The position seems awfully inconsistent in this thread:
Games were way better back then.
Games are borrowing ideas from the good old days, but this isn't a good thing.
These are all still improvements, and in many cases they actually are innovations (story, B2P) or are simply done better and on a grander scale. This is hardly stagnation. Everyone hates WoW clones, so why is it stagnation when we're at a point where things are borrowing from the old as well as coming up with new ideas?
Yes, TOR is doing terribly financially, because it innovated in one area while ignoring issues of longevity. This doesn't discount the fact that, like other financially unsuccessful/dead MMOs of "the good old days", the game still brought something good to the genre and is now likely to be emulated by MMOs that can back up a good story with a good game. It's not singleplayer stuff just because you say so, however. Single-player games are single-player, no one complains about RPG aspects in their MMOs being single-player mechanics because they're not. They're something that peole enjoy and I respect that you don't like them, but many people do.
Post-WoW, yes it is an improvement (as opposed to stagnation) to finally move away from the holy trinity. Would your preference be to continue to have every game with a holy trinity? If the good games of old didn't have holy trinities, wouldn't you feel that it's good that the current generation of MMOs is improving by moving back towards this improvement?
Yes, there were lots of games that didn't have tab-targeting back then. But post-WoW, it's extremely rare, and some improvements have been made in that regard (TERA, for example) that were not present back then.
I didn't play these games so I won't dispute what your experience tells you, except to point out that these are still improvements. If the good old days were so great, how is it not considered an improvement to go back to certain aspects?
I don't know what you consider awful gameplay mechanics, as you've chosen not to give any examples, but improvements are improvements. The position seems awfully inconsistent in this thread:
Games were way better back then.
Games are borrowing ideas from the good old days, but this isn't a good thing.
These are all still improvements, and in many cases they actually are innovations (story, B2P) or are simply done better and on a grander scale. This is hardly stagnation. Everyone hates WoW clones, so why is it stagnation when we're at a point where things are borrowing from the old as well as coming up with new ideas?
I agree with hoping SWTOR teaches lessons to future devs of what not to do. Which includes more than just the game itself. All the load screens. All the instancing. The poor performance on high end and low end equipment. The saying you have a choice in cut screen replies and then giving non social only equipment(relics) requirements based one line of decisions. Designs to spread out users and prevent hanging out/social interaction. Customer support and denial. I could go on.
To replace the holy trinity, you have to do it better. I haven't seen it yet. I've only seen disguises of it. Kitting up with actions/perks/whatever to do a certain role or using a spec that is designed to fill a certain role is just another version of the holy trinity. Which, I believe, requires changing the encounter first.
I don't care how you target or manually aim attacks if the game is laggy or the engine performs bad on even top end gear. Ground targeted AoE when there is lag or poor FPS is the worst.
I have no problem with new games improving on older games when it's an actual improvement. I think performance has become too much of an after thought though. All the instancing and seperation and then the game still plays poorly when you get a few people on the screen with a couple of particle effects is just sad to me.
Thank you for addressing my points! I appreciate the discussion.
Yes, TOR is doing terribly financially, because it innovated in one area while ignoring issues of longevity. This doesn't discount the fact that, like other financially unsuccessful/dead MMOs of "the good old days", the game still brought something good to the genre and is now likely to be emulated by MMOs that can back up a good story with a good game. It's not singleplayer stuff just because you say so, however. Single-player games are single-player, no one complains about RPG aspects in their MMOs being single-player mechanics because they're not. They're something that peole enjoy and I respect that you don't like them, but many people do.
Post-WoW, yes it is an improvement (as opposed to stagnation) to finally move away from the holy trinity. Would your preference be to continue to have every game with a holy trinity? If the good games of old didn't have holy trinities, wouldn't you feel that it's good that the current generation of MMOs is improving by moving back towards this improvement?
Yes, there were lots of games that didn't have tab-targeting back then. But post-WoW, it's extremely rare, and some improvements have been made in that regard (TERA, for example) that were not present back then.
I didn't play these games so I won't dispute what your experience tells you, except to point out that these are still improvements. If the good old days were so great, how is it not considered an improvement to go back to certain aspects?
I don't know what you consider awful gameplay mechanics, as you've chosen not to give any examples, but improvements are improvements. The position seems awfully inconsistent in this thread:
Games were way better back then.
Games are borrowing ideas from the good old days, but this isn't a good thing.
These are all still improvements, and in many cases they actually are innovations (story, B2P) or are simply done better and on a grander scale. This is hardly stagnation. Everyone hates WoW clones, so why is it stagnation when we're at a point where things are borrowing from the old as well as coming up with new ideas?
As you seem like a Guild Wars 2 fan, I would firstly like to point out that Arena Net is an ENORMOUS outlier in regards to the MMO industry as a whole. Their first title, Guild Wars along with their expansions, were successful. Period. They are currently with the same publisher as they were when Guild Wars released. Because of the success of their first title, they did not have as many boundaries most Game Developers or Indie Devs have. NCSoft, for the most part, trusts in their ability to deliver. Had they not had ~7 years' worth of experience via Guild Wars and their publisher, the chance of having Guild Wars 2 be published would more than likely be nigh impossible. Both Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 are based entirely off of what the development team actually -wants- to play. That is the exact same point that made games past as good as they were. Developers made games that they themselves wanted to play. You seem to be missing or completing ignoring this point.
Anyways, addressing the underlined points. Moving away from trinities is a good thing, you are correct. It frees up a large amount of room for gameplay mechanics and innovative ideas. However, just because it is moving away from something that is set in stone currently, towards something that has already been in the past, does not make it innovative. It's returning to its roots. In my own personal opinion, yes, that is a very good thing. But it has already been done before. And they're not doing very much to improve on anything past 'getting rid of the trinity'. If it's already been done in the past, it certainly is not -new- by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply a breathe of fresh air. But that fresh air will stagnate just as quickly as the Holy trinity will, because the 'oldschool' gamers, or whatever you'd like to call them, have seen this already.
And the second underlined point is where the issue lies. If you haven't played any of these games in the past, you have absolutely no leg to stand on when you try to argue whether A) The current generation of MMO gaming is better than the previous, and The previous generation of MMO gamers are seeing this new generation through rose-tinted glasses. You don't have any information at all to base such an opinion off of. You're essentially pulling it out of your ass and hoping people go along with it, because you were not playing said games at the time of release, and you may or may not fear where the MMO genre is headed.
There is only inconsistency because you're attempting to read between the lines into something that isn't there. Moving from one mechanic to another that is already in play somewhere and has already been done is not innovation. It is new from -your- perspective, but it sure as hell is not new in this genre of gaming. And just because it is new to you, does not make it innovative to the genre itself.
Edited in: To clarify, I do not, by any means, think it is the Game Developers' fault that the MMO genre is currently stagnant. I think it is both the cause of the rampant Publishers buying out once-beloved companies, as well as the playerbase for buying into these absurdly terrible games. Sadly, I do not see this changing until the playerbase as a whole gets out of the state of mind of 'Well, I guess I'll buy the game just to -try- it, even though I'm not expecting it to be good.' Protip: You buying the game is funding them to release more absurdly terrible games. Stop funding the shit and the shit goes away.
Thank you for addressing my points! I appreciate the discussion.
Yes, TOR is doing terribly financially, because it innovated in one area while ignoring issues of longevity. This doesn't discount the fact that, like other financially unsuccessful/dead MMOs of "the good old days", the game still brought something good to the genre and is now likely to be emulated by MMOs that can back up a good story with a good game. It's not singleplayer stuff just because you say so, however. Single-player games are single-player, no one complains about RPG aspects in their MMOs being single-player mechanics because they're not. They're something that peole enjoy and I respect that you don't like them, but many people do.
Post-WoW, yes it is an improvement (as opposed to stagnation) to finally move away from the holy trinity. Would your preference be to continue to have every game with a holy trinity? If the good games of old didn't have holy trinities, wouldn't you feel that it's good that the current generation of MMOs is improving by moving back towards this improvement?
Yes, there were lots of games that didn't have tab-targeting back then. But post-WoW, it's extremely rare, and some improvements have been made in that regard (TERA, for example) that were not present back then.
I didn't play these games so I won't dispute what your experience tells you, except to point out that these are still improvements. If the good old days were so great, how is it not considered an improvement to go back to certain aspects?
I don't know what you consider awful gameplay mechanics, as you've chosen not to give any examples, but improvements are improvements. The position seems awfully inconsistent in this thread:
Games were way better back then.
Games are borrowing ideas from the good old days, but this isn't a good thing.
These are all still improvements, and in many cases they actually are innovations (story, B2P) or are simply done better and on a grander scale. This is hardly stagnation. Everyone hates WoW clones, so why is it stagnation when we're at a point where things are borrowing from the old as well as coming up with new ideas?
As you seem like a Guild Wars 2 fan, I would firstly like to point out that Arena Net is an ENORMOUS outlier in regards to the MMO industry as a whole. Their first title, Guild Wars along with their expansions, were successful. Period. They are currently with the same publisher as they were when Guild Wars released. Because of the success of their first title, they did not have as many boundaries most Game Developers or Indie Devs have. NCSoft, for the most part, trusts in their ability to deliver. Had they not had ~7 years' worth of experience via Guild Wars and their publisher, the chance of having Guild Wars 2 be published would more than likely be nigh impossible. Both Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 are based entirely off of what the development team actually -wants- to play. That is the exact same point that made games past as good as they were. Developers made games that they themselves wanted to play. You seem to be missing or completing ignoring this point.
Anyways, addressing the underlined points. Moving away from trinities is a good thing, you are correct. It frees up a large amount of room for gameplay mechanics and innovative ideas. However, just because it is moving away from something that is set in stone currently, towards something that has already been in the past, does not make it innovative. It's returning to its roots. In my own personal opinion, yes, that is a very good thing. But it has already been done before. And they're not doing very much to improve on anything past 'getting rid of the trinity'. If it's already been done in the past, it certainly is not -new- by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply a breathe of fresh air. But that fresh air will stagnate just as quickly as the Holy trinity will, because the 'oldschool' gamers, or whatever you'd like to call them, have seen this already.
And the second underlined point is where the issue lies. If you haven't played any of these games in the past, you have absolutely no leg to stand on when you try to argue whether A) The current generation of MMO gaming is better than the previous, and The previous generation of MMO gamers are seeing this new generation through rose-tinted glasses. You don't have any information at all to base such an opinion off of. You're essentially pulling it out of your ass and hoping people go along with it, because you were not playing said games at the time of release, and you may or may not fear where the MMO genre is headed.
There is only inconsistency because you're attempting to read between the lines into something that isn't there. Moving from one mechanic to another that is already in play somewhere and has already been done is not innovation. It is new from -your- perspective, but it sure as hell is not new in this genre of gaming. And just because it is new to you, does not make it innovative to the genre itself.
Marry me.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
As you seem like a Guild Wars 2 fan, I would firstly like to point out that Arena Net is an ENORMOUS outlier in regards to the MMO industry as a whole. Their first title, Guild Wars along with their expansions, were successful. Period. They are currently with the same publisher as they were when Guild Wars released. Because of the success of their first title, they did not have as many boundaries most Game Developers or Indie Devs have. NCSoft, for the most part, trusts in their ability to deliver. Had they not had ~7 years' worth of experience via Guild Wars and their publisher, the chance of having Guild Wars 2 be published would more than likely be nigh impossible. Both Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 are based entirely off of what the development team actually -wants- to play. That is the exact same point that made games past as good as they were. Developers made games that they themselves wanted to play. You seem to be missing or completing ignoring this point.
Anyways, addressing the underlined points. Moving away from trinities is a good thing, you are correct. It frees up a large amount of room for gameplay mechanics and innovative ideas. However, just because it is moving away from something that is set in stone currently, towards something that has already been in the past, does not make it innovative. It's returning to its roots. In my own personal opinion, yes, that is a very good thing. But it has already been done before. And they're not doing very much to improve on anything past 'getting rid of the trinity'. If it's already been done in the past, it certainly is not -new- by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply a breathe of fresh air. But that fresh air will stagnate just as quickly as the Holy trinity will, because the 'oldschool' gamers, or whatever you'd like to call them, have seen this already.
And the second underlined point is where the issue lies. If you haven't played any of these games in the past, you have absolutely no leg to stand on when you try to argue whether A) The current generation of MMO gaming is better than the previous, and The previous generation of MMO gamers are seeing this new generation through rose-tinted glasses. You don't have any information at all to base such an opinion off of. You're essentially pulling it out of your ass and hoping people go along with it, because you were not playing said games at the time of release, and you may or may not fear where the MMO genre is headed.
There is only inconsistency because you're attempting to read between the lines into something that isn't there. Moving from one mechanic to another that is already in play somewhere and has already been done is not innovation. It is new from -your- perspective, but it sure as hell is not new in this genre of gaming. And just because it is new to you, does not make it innovative to the genre itself.
Moving away from trinity is not innovation because it trinity didn't exist before trinity? So not doing something is not innovation because it hasn't been done forever? What?!
Isn't innovation defined by what you are doing rather than what you are not doing?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Moving away from trinity is not innovation because it trinity didn't exist before trinity? So not doing something is not innovation because it hasn't been done forever? What?!
Isn't innovation defined by what you are doing rather than what you are not doing?
something new or different introduced: numerous innovations in the high-school curriculum.
2.
the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.
Trinities have been here in the past. -Not- having a trinity in a game has -also- been here. Moving away from something that we currently have, to something we have already had, is not innovative. It is recycling ideas.
Is it -bad-? Right now? Absolutely not in my opinion. But that still doesn't make it innovative. It's just freshly recycled.
Comments
You couldn't be more correct with that statement.
It's not the devs, it's the players. Us. When we start voting with our wallets and demanding better games and gameplay, then and only then will the MMO landscape truly change.
That thinking also goes with movies, tv shows, books, whatever. If people really think we don't need a Spiderman reboot, or another Jersey Shore, or another lame pulp fiction book, they'll stop buying them and spend their money on the good stuff.
Where the money goes, companies will follow. [mod edit]
Edit: Not sure why there's a mod edit there, but I'll put it in more PC terms: We as players need to stop settling for recycled crap.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
The statement she quoted doesn't necessarily say that people cannot enjoy things in the present, it just say that certain things that invoke strong positive emotion tend to stick around. Just because you see via some tinted glasses doesn't mean you stop liking things.
Or, you could just be new to the genre and these craptastic games are *your* rose-tinted nightmare.
Shoe fit?
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Agreement here. While I think the game industry is at a great point, the consumers are still the cause of a lot of its woes. "Hey, guys, let's all buy Diablo 3 because we're so nostalgic about the good old days, even though the developers of the game are screwing us over five different ways!"
Shoe does not fit.
The MMO industry is finally getting to a point where it's actually starting to innovate. There's also a lot of WoW clones. I and a lot of other people are really excited and pleased with some of the new MMORPGs (TSW, GW2, ArcheAge, etc).
But the reigning opinion from oldschool gamers seems to be that the people who enjoy these games are just ignorant and inferior. That's bull.
None of the games you listed are MMOs.
Also, it's not rose colored glasses when you can recall the things you liked and the things that you hated with equal clarity. Yet, for the varied levels of their overall greatness or badness, they still held attentions longer than current stock. Being old or new has no bearing to me on it's worth.
How is it not rose-colored glasses if it's still clear to you?
Memories can be clear as day, but they get changed every time you access them. And as I quoted, changed for the better, and revisiting these games makes us feel good simply by virtue of being things we used to play.
And yes, not MMOs, but I can also list any of the current MMOs as pushing the genre forward. TSW, GW2, ArcheAge, even TOR moved the genre forward with showing us what story could do. Old schoolers can point to DAoC, WAR, etc, as great and innovative games, but they weren't successful in the long run. Dying eventually doesn't mean that these games didn't contribute to the MMO genre, just as the current crop of games are doing.
Whether is an MMO or not doesn't matter. Don't try and act like an MMO is suppose to be special and exempt from the good ole tinted glass syndrome. Your subscious really doesn't care whether its an MMO or a game, all it really know is you liked the thing and now you feel things are worst than they were in the past.
Also another possibility is that you just have to accept that MMORPG are moving to cater to a newer audience and you have only 2 choices:
1. Deal with it, you can whine about it on forums like these but i doubt any developer will really care about such a small amount of opinion.
2. find yourself a new hobby.
all of the things that people loved about the old game eitehr existed as a result of technological limitations or just a simple cash grab. Now that those things are beginning to change MMORPG are starting to change to reflect those significant changes.
No, the things we loved about old games were there because they made games THEY wanted to play.
NOW, we are seeing design via focus group and *really* seeing gameplay limited by tech and total cash grabs.
[mod edit] old games were a total experiment to see if there was even a market for them - there was - so they wheeled back and now try to sell us the bare minimum at full price. It's the key difference between artistic expression/choice and business 101.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
[mod edit]
As for how MMOs are innovating in this day and age:
They tried to use examples of how memories of older MMOs are rose colored compared to newer games of another genre completely.
The only newer audience they are moving to cater to is a single all inclusive audience to make the most money possible even if it means faster burn out of the player and more negative feedback of the game post release.
I'm not whining. I'm explaining my position and opinion of the state of current MMO gaming. [mod edit]
If you look at my little text under my name, you'll see that it says that I am currently playing 0 MMOs. I'm not one of the masses who feels forced to pay for or play anything I don't like. If I find something I like, I'll play that.
Because, as I clearly explained, it does not apply to me? You can try to force me into your little box labeled "rose colored glasses" all you want, but I don't belong there and won't go there. I'm sorry you feel you are qualified to judge me as such based on a single article you read and posted.
I don't want the old games back. Many I could easily go back to and still play. I left them for a reason. I want new games. The problem is, the new games we get are not the new games I want. I don't want half ***** production and support. I don't want a single player online game with some co-op tossed in sold as an MMO. I don't want games that are steps backwards in progression of pvp. PvP that's horribly limited in engagement size and location. I don't want games where everything is homogenized for balance and the balance still isn't good and twice as boring.
I want the next evolution.
My apologies, but I never targeted you specifically. My post was targeted towards the discussion at large, and you made it personal. "This doesn't apply to me because", but your reasons were flawed.
I'm not about to say this sort of thing applies to everyone, that's for people to actually sit and consider for themselves rather than providing knee-jerk "not me!" reactions.
Where is the challenge in paying for a game and then paying for all the top end things in it? Are you really playing the game?
There is a lot wrong with older and newer MMOs. Cash shops do not solve any of them. Nor do they offer any challenge game play wise.
I took it personally because you were using the idea of rose colored glasses as a means to dismiss my opinion by itself with no other points/information to prove your side/stance.
I'm not sure you've read my post correctly, but perhaps that's my own fault. Let me make clear what I meant:
That's only true of Cash Shops that don't sell power. Some dance the line. Some play hop scotch jumping from side to side. Some triple jump the line.
I still don't see what is fun about buying things to show off in a game. You're only showing off that you have enough money to click buy and parade around with it.
There is an issue with paying a monthly sub and them expecting you to go above that to buy more regardless of it's impact on the game. It's a moral thing.
I'm not a fan of grinds for the sake of grinds either. That is also a fine line. One I can't easily state the boundaires of, but you know it when you see it.
Thank you for addressing my points! I appreciate the discussion.
I agree with hoping SWTOR teaches lessons to future devs of what not to do. Which includes more than just the game itself. All the load screens. All the instancing. The poor performance on high end and low end equipment. The saying you have a choice in cut screen replies and then giving non social only equipment(relics) requirements based one line of decisions. Designs to spread out users and prevent hanging out/social interaction. Customer support and denial. I could go on.
To replace the holy trinity, you have to do it better. I haven't seen it yet. I've only seen disguises of it. Kitting up with actions/perks/whatever to do a certain role or using a spec that is designed to fill a certain role is just another version of the holy trinity. Which, I believe, requires changing the encounter first.
I don't care how you target or manually aim attacks if the game is laggy or the engine performs bad on even top end gear. Ground targeted AoE when there is lag or poor FPS is the worst.
I have no problem with new games improving on older games when it's an actual improvement. I think performance has become too much of an after thought though. All the instancing and seperation and then the game still plays poorly when you get a few people on the screen with a couple of particle effects is just sad to me.
As you seem like a Guild Wars 2 fan, I would firstly like to point out that Arena Net is an ENORMOUS outlier in regards to the MMO industry as a whole. Their first title, Guild Wars along with their expansions, were successful. Period. They are currently with the same publisher as they were when Guild Wars released. Because of the success of their first title, they did not have as many boundaries most Game Developers or Indie Devs have. NCSoft, for the most part, trusts in their ability to deliver. Had they not had ~7 years' worth of experience via Guild Wars and their publisher, the chance of having Guild Wars 2 be published would more than likely be nigh impossible. Both Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 are based entirely off of what the development team actually -wants- to play. That is the exact same point that made games past as good as they were. Developers made games that they themselves wanted to play. You seem to be missing or completing ignoring this point.
Anyways, addressing the underlined points. Moving away from trinities is a good thing, you are correct. It frees up a large amount of room for gameplay mechanics and innovative ideas. However, just because it is moving away from something that is set in stone currently, towards something that has already been in the past, does not make it innovative. It's returning to its roots. In my own personal opinion, yes, that is a very good thing. But it has already been done before. And they're not doing very much to improve on anything past 'getting rid of the trinity'. If it's already been done in the past, it certainly is not -new- by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply a breathe of fresh air. But that fresh air will stagnate just as quickly as the Holy trinity will, because the 'oldschool' gamers, or whatever you'd like to call them, have seen this already.
And the second underlined point is where the issue lies. If you haven't played any of these games in the past, you have absolutely no leg to stand on when you try to argue whether A) The current generation of MMO gaming is better than the previous, and
The previous generation of MMO gamers are seeing this new generation through rose-tinted glasses. You don't have any information at all to base such an opinion off of. You're essentially pulling it out of your ass and hoping people go along with it, because you were not playing said games at the time of release, and you may or may not fear where the MMO genre is headed.
There is only inconsistency because you're attempting to read between the lines into something that isn't there. Moving from one mechanic to another that is already in play somewhere and has already been done is not innovation. It is new from -your- perspective, but it sure as hell is not new in this genre of gaming. And just because it is new to you, does not make it innovative to the genre itself.
Edited in: To clarify, I do not, by any means, think it is the Game Developers' fault that the MMO genre is currently stagnant. I think it is both the cause of the rampant Publishers buying out once-beloved companies, as well as the playerbase for buying into these absurdly terrible games. Sadly, I do not see this changing until the playerbase as a whole gets out of the state of mind of 'Well, I guess I'll buy the game just to -try- it, even though I'm not expecting it to be good.' Protip: You buying the game is funding them to release more absurdly terrible games. Stop funding the shit and the shit goes away.
Marry me.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Moving away from trinity is not innovation because it trinity didn't exist before trinity? So not doing something is not innovation because it hasn't been done forever? What?!
Isn't innovation defined by what you are doing rather than what you are not doing?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
in·no·va·tion