Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
You simply cannot discuss deep old school mmorpg elements with newer mmo players.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I might not have put it as bluntly as that, but the point is we are all different. I certainly would not paint all people or even most of them as having these qualities.
But yes, we are all different and have different likes and dislikes. And there are cultural differences as well. Lots of differences.
So to think, in this day and age, that everyone should be able to get along with everyone else in a game is a bit unrealistic. That's one of the main reasons I think a game that forces people to group together is a bad idea. It would be nice if a game "encouraged" people to do this, but it should never be required.
In fact I think a lot of games do encourage it, but for most people it only takes a few bad experiences, and then they do not wish to even try. I think that's where we have come to in today's MMO's. The hassles and bad experiences outweigh the fun.
I think MMO's can be better than just the old school types. I don't know why people insist that is the only answer to save the MMO genre. They certainly need some more innovation, I think, as the mechanics have become old and stale for the most part. But going backwards is not the best solution IMO.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Only thing that irks me sometimes about MMO is how they implent cash shop. :shrugs:
Remember people: NO HATE, NO GAME
Sway all day, butterfly flaps all the way!
I can appreciate your passion, but you're running with blinders on, it seems. If you can't make the connection between what he's talking about and MMORPGs then that's unfortunate. What he's saying is that records are great and there is a very niche group who loves them. However, to sit there and argue that vinyl records should be the "norm" again is ridiculous. Same can be said here. There may, very well, be design elements that would still work well today and that people could get on board with. However, simply re-introducing something like EQ1 or SWG to the masses would, likely, result in a "failure" overall. That is, it would not be a commercial success. There might be thousands, or even tens of thousands of people who want to play, but there are also a plethora of issues with these older games that would have people leaving, too.
Actually, the logic he presented was actually pretty smart. It's unfortunate you didn't pick up on it.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Comparing old school game mechanics to a rotary phone???? Come'on.... lol....
Camping ... static spawn ... staring at the spellbook ... forced grouping ... training ... ninjaing
... rotary phones sound a lot better.
SWG's combat is still one of my favorite systems I've experienced, due to it's multiple damage/armor types, it's too bad there were few interesting fights to be had outside of PVP in that game (AI was abysmal).
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Zerg play, everyone is DPS, everyone gets flashy awesome looking gear from Level 1, cash shop so I can buy some potions to make it even eaiser, no skill needed at all just follow the yellow brick "?" floating road, More cash shop for stuff you can't earn in game. (I know its just too tuff and players are just too busy to actually put time in a game anymore keep using that credit card)
***PUKE****
I'd rather use that smart phone as an enema.
wait ... everyone is DPS is bad?
flashy good graphics from start of the game is bad?
I agree follow yellow "?" is bad .. just do away with questions, and use random instanced dungeons, and get rid of traveling.
I am glad we are not in the ancient days of MMOs, otherwise, I would not even be here.
This is a double-edged sword. I don't think it's about time as much as it is time versus reward. Systems like the SWG Jedi system are NOT viable today at all. By the time you actually became a Jedi, you probably could have become a Jedi in real life. That's not about dedication, that's only about creating a time sink. This is a major issue in older MMORPGs, too. They weren't what you might call "Purpose-built games". After a while people start to wonder what they're even doing and why.
Now, on the opposite end of the spectrum, we've got plenty of games which suffer the same problem, but their problem is hyper-progression. So we let people speed through so quickly that it sort of loses that sense of accomplishment, which is the whole reason that progression even works.
The end result of both systems is people leave. I think that we're on the cusp of making some dramatic changes in direction of the industry. The WoW clones are clearing out slowly and the focus is now on the game, or so it seems. That can only be a good thing. The only issue I foresee is devs missing the point that they can stuff all the features into a game that they like, but in the end, if I'm ever wondering why I'm bothering to do something, they've got a problem.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
People eventually will leave. The question is not to keep them longer, but whether making enough money. Heck, you don't even need to make money off everyone .. just some.
Look at steam. It is well known that a lot of players never play nor finish many of the games they bought. Is that a problem per se?
Well I suppose it depends heavily on the model. If it's a sub, then longevity does matter. If it's F2P then it's heavy front-end monetization and then they don't really care what you do after that. I mean longevity still matters, but not as much as with P2P.
I'm actually not much of a steam hoarder, but I'd still say 50% of the games I buy on there I never play, lol.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
If everyone has dps, cc, and heals then there is no true uniquness, the difference between mmorpgs now and then as some like everquest had a direct affect on the community those shaman buffs for health regen where truly needed in your group and made group play feel epic especially the person that provided those buffs. When you have lots of classes like that that offer amazing and unique things to group then yea group play will feel like crap compared to now.
Also comparing the vinly records makes no sense at all, the mmorpg design isnt perfect in older mmos but the issue is none of it is adapted today this has nothing to do with old vs new, some of the design stands out for a reason, that is why people still play the original everquest that is why so many stated in swg that is why so many are still playing anarchy online or ashrons call, hell even dark ages of camelot, these games would not still exist today if there was bad design.
I think the problem isn't that you can't discuss old school elements with newer players. I think the problem is that the newer players don't share the same reverence or nostalgic awe for these elements because they've never known them. If you ask me, there's a stark difference.
8 years and counting addicted to
Avalon: The Legend Lives - the longest running online RPG in history
I think it is just the way the games are designed. If it is heavily quest based, you're going to have a lot of solo play, until raiding, then you have people grouping, who don't know group dynamics.
Also there needs to be incentive to group. Faster exp, better loot, to offset the time it takes to group and dealing with possible idiots.
In EQ, people could solo, most classes could until later expansions then everyone could for the most part. It was still faster to group because of ease and exp bonuses. DAOC was same way, group and camp bonuses. My classes soloed just fine, and I did sometimes, but often I grouped.
WoW, everyone quested, then did dungeons later on. Now, many do dungeons instead of questing because exp was bumped up and with LFD, its easier to get a group (although can be longer).
In FFXIV, I almost always grouped except for the storyline quests and HL. I leveled by dungeons, either dungeon finder or group finder. It was nice with the group finder because we would often do several runs and if someone left, just find another, instead of having to queue every time and wait a while.
Basically, games just need to be designed so people can solo or group and neither far superior to the point that no one wants to do the other. Grouping should be a slightly better way since it does take teamwork, cooperation, and time, yet solo be viable since it is instant.
When discussing other elements of games, people can't be so extreme to one side. Don't talk about forced grouping, or solo only. Even the "forced" grouping games had plenty of solo, and the solo games, end up having forced grouping lol.
I have to agree with you for the most part, CrazKanuk.
I just started messing around with Assassins Creed Black Flag, since I got it free with my gold membership. I got through the opening battle and made it to the first mission where you have to kill another assassin.
So the game leads me to an area where I have to chase the assassin and kill him. Fine.
But doesn't he take off like a bolt of lightning and jumping and climbing this and that. Well I give it about 10 or 15 tries and it starts to dawn on me, why am I doing this? Just to prove how skilled I am to myself? Honestly, I would just enjoy a nice relaxed chase, with a kill at the end. Not, execute a perfectly timed run, with multiple jumps, and a time limit to catch the guy.
I did this type of skill based repetitive gameplay back in my youth. I played the original Gran Turismo and got the A license, which if no one thinks is an achievement: I beg to differ. I spent days and months repeating races until I got them perfect and I was quite proud of the achievement. Do I want to do it again today? No way!!
Its really a shame because I felt like I was going to have some fun with this game. But unfortunately it comes down to a twitch fest. I might have expected something like this near the end of the game but near the beginning?
I can't remember if the game had a difficulty setting, if it does I am sure I set it low. So you are right. If a game is too easy, the hardcores give up on it. Too hard, and the casuals give up. Its a tough balancing act, and most games seem to choose one or the other.
Its starting to look like I will have to retire from gaming on Lego games and Hello Kitty!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I don't share the same reverence or nostalgic awe for these elements .. and i know them. I just think that they are bad (to me, subjectively) game designs.
I don't think it is an achievement. I think it is a waste of time learning totally artificial patterns that have little impact on your life.
I'm a veteran gamer. Old MMORPGs were simply bad games.
In 1999 AC1 was released. The same year as System Shock 2, UT, Q3, AOE2, Counterstrike, Medal of Honor, Planescape Torment, Alpha Centauri, and Street Fighter 3 Third Strike, among others. Purely in terms of fun/hour, those other games each delivered extremely rich experiences. Whereas in AC1 you would dump a ton of time into the game with very little gameplay in return because it was designed timesink-heavy (to sell subscriptions longer.) Everything I've heard about EQ1 (also 1999) makes it sound basically the same (timesink-heavy, gameplay-light.)
Gamers have always been able to discern which games are wasting their time vs. those which provided more fun/hour. Plenty of us were already experienced gamers in 1999 (all the adult gamers raised on Atari, C64, NES, SNES, etc) and quickly figured out which early MMORPGs were wasting our time (most of them, it turned out.) Still, a lot of us kept giving them a try at least, since we could tell there was a glimmer of a fun idea in there -- eventually WOW proved that theory true.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
FORCED grouping does not make an MMO deep, its just you trying to be an elitist over the new solo oriented MMORPGs. I was there in EQ1 and i probably got farther in it than most of you. guess what it sucked when i didnt have a group. see i wasn't a class that could solo easily, so most of my time spent LFG.
shouting "LFG" over and over and over hoping a group was looking for my class does not make it deep, it did not make it meaningful and it definitely did NOT make it "harder", it made it more tedious. it made it so if i could not find a group i either had to kill mobs way below my level and thus get garbage XP OR TRY to kill stuff that would net me decent exp .... and the keyword there is "try". as one wandering mob or one bad RNG roll and i would have to run to the Zone.
the way MMOs have evolved in terms of Solo/Grouping is fine. you can group if you want but its very viable to solo. for example In the evil satan spawn known as WoW i have grouped all the way to level 73 on my Shaman. While being able to solo all the way to 100 on my hunter.
thats how it should be.
Well said all around, though I think people put way too much emphasis on the games themselves when it comes to statements like this. People are going to leave regardless, it's the state of the market, and not so much any 1 particular genre of games.
The simple truth is we have way more options for games now than we did 20 years ago. We also as a society have way more things competing for our attention. Games, movies, television, toys / gadjets, work, women, kids, bills, events, etc. etc. etc. etc. the list just keeps growing. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the result is that we have less time to stick around playing the same game for years on end. We have certain games (like MOBAs, FPS, and Minecraft) which allow people to play as much or as little as they want w/ minimal penalty.
MMOs, on the other hand, tend to be built solely around vertical progression, which doesn't work in such an environment. Content gating means that with every expansion / addition / gear tier, there are less players able to experience and appreciate that content. Whereas, in other genres, they go 'okay, we know most players won't stick around, we'll keep making optional "cool" stuff for them to want to come back to'. They accept that their game isn't permanent, and work with it instead of trying to fight it.
This is the main reason why we don't see many MMOs using the 'oldschool' design model. They are just too punishing to most players' current play habits.
There are numerous examples that counter your first paragraph. Namely MOBAs, RTS, FPS, and nearly every single player RPG ever made. Heck, look at the final fantasy series for example. You could mould your party into the traditional trinity setup, give them specialized setups, but that was often not the best way of doing things. Furthermore, all characters could DPS, heal, and CC / Utility / Buff / Tank. Did this make them any less unique? Heck no. Even the MMOs tried to keep some of this in their games by allowing players to switch jobs and mix their own skills (to varying degrees of success).
Skills are tools, and plenty of games have found ways to make DPS skills different. Even some of the older MMOs did this by having different damage types & resistances. Fire dmg worked better for certain situaitons, whereas piercing dmg worked best for others. There's also sustain vs. burst, etc.
How interesting / unique the combat is, has nothing to do with how the roles are labelled, whether or not there's a trinity, or whether or not everyone deals damage. It comes down entirely to the mechanics, and how well designed the individual skills are (to hopefully have multiple uses) for versatility.
- The main things that set apart the older games from the new, is the lack of "?" driven quests (which some newer games have tried to do, but newer gamers just aren't receptive to that unfortunately), as well as some of the more sandboxy features older games had (which newer games have also / are also trying to do, with mixed success).
And this here folks is all ive been trying to say where did I say it should be forced? I said there should be better and more challenging group content with a more emphasis on the class systems. and people theres no need to be insulting if I have an opinion even if I did think that way what makes your opinion even better then mine? Sounds like some of you just have an ego issue on forums.
Anyways for the millionth time solo and group content people, like in eq you could solo but it was better to group maybe not to the same extent however. And please keep an open mind here the game was not about instant gratification the issue these days and this goes for single player games is there is no patience and reward, its all about now now now, no real consequence to death, not challenging enough content to help you learn to play as you level. A big world to immerse you as you learn you cant play there yet, im not saying it is perfect but these are part of the hooks, and should atleast be an option in an mmorpg. And really people stop jumping to assumptions about games you hardly or ever played and the fact that so many of you had so many issues getting groups when these games did incooperate lfg systems and travel much easier later on tells me allot. That you did not play it long or at all.
I never had issues soloing, except on my bard because he was a true group support class but even then he could solo it was just slow. and even on my mage I never had issues getting groups, you go to the zone and shout lfg would happen within minuites for me, now raiding yea that was to time consuming I agree.
1) Never make a post where you try and talk for an entire community or certain group.
There is not a single post on the entire internet that this worked. Your OP is another shining example of how to fail when making a thread.