"Forced grouping" is one of those passive-aggressive labels used by people to communicate some perceived injustice, as if they are lobbying for MMORPG social reform. The truth is, massively multiplayer games just aren't meant for those individuals. They should stick to the online solo rpgs.
Moreover, no one is forcing anyone to do anything, because no one is forcing them to play those games. When you go out to a restaurant, do you call their policies "forced seating?" When you play a sport, does it involve "forced running?" Those things are almost as ridiculous as calling interdependence in a massively multiplayer game "forced grouping."
I don't think that's it, I think it's more people who also want a certain type of game (based on mechanics), yet see these types of things bringing it down. As these wants are usually followed with a "why, what happened...etc.?"
There's a difference between interdependence and forced grouping, forced grouping is a game that essentially offers a one way route, grouping. Interdependence is formed through mechanics that bring players together to create a certain type of ebb and flow between players (Player towns, community crafting mechanics, entertainers. etc).
Forced grouping is essentially factors coming together that make grouping the only real efficient way of playing (severe penalty, overpowered mobs> balanced to groups, etc..). In other words interdependence = SWG, Forced grouping EQ or L2..
Right, some people don't want to play massively multiplayer games with a focus on massively multiplayer gameplay. Its irrelevant how other games implement interdependence; if a game is designed around a dangerous world, you either accept the risk and solo, group with other players, or don't play the game. Whining about the design philosophy is pointless, especially today when we can see how poorly online solo rpgs are doing and the long term success of games based around community and grouping.
It's not the solo aspects that are doing bad, it's the lack of content and the quick rise to the top. Solo content can VERY much co-exist in an MMORPG, it just needs to be very challenging and revolve around a balance of all players where they can assist and help each other without the "need" to group. Everquest is a great example of this, as long as there are people around to clear mobs and assist there is no real reason to "group" per say.
It's important that the worlds lend themselves to this type of environment where it is beneficial for all players or just plain fun and I do not agree that the core aspect or feature of an MMORPG should be solely about grouping or as stated forced grouping, it ruins the immersion, fun and the feeling of exploration and turns it into a hamster wheel without much variation.
Solo players are very important to MMORPG's, just their struggle needs to be real and they need to quit being pandered to by making the journey so easy that everything just falls apart. It needs to be a challenge and everything needs to work together. "Just" focusing on group centric MMORPG's is actually against the grain of old school architecture.
People play what they have to play.... my question is why does it have to be such an absolute? A game can't offer both? It's just weird to focus so much on exclusion when talking massively multiplayer.
Its not an absolute, because plenty of games give you plenty of solo gameplay. Most games give you a bit of both, but unfortunately in doing so they find they have the opportunity to also make more money if they introduce more convenience and make the game easier at the same time. Apparently its some sort of catch 22. You either want to create a virtual world, and you design it around massively multiplayer content, or you go casual and sacrifice challenge and realism in favor of a wider audience and convenience.
Hypothetically both solo and group content should be able to co-exist; unfortunately every time its done people start bitching and making up trigger words like "forced grouping" and all of a sudden your virtual world is played using menus and lobbys.
Is it not possible for an MMORPG to meet the "massively multiplayer" critieria without gating content behind a grouping requirement? Is not a game "massively" and "multiplayer" if a "massively mulitplayer" amount of players are simply engaging with each other in "non-grouping" activities such as RPing in cantinas, trading in crafting materials, selling and buying other players crafted items in the AH, engaging and formulating the very critical element of supply and demand in a game's economy, and just generally filling the world with living players?
Does one really need to "group" and fight mobs in order for an MMORPG to meet the criteria for an MMORPG. Some players play MMORPGs strictly to become crafters and/or play the economy game. Long story short, many players enjoy MMORPG's because they may simply enjoy being in a living world with other RL players and doing the "non-fighting" activities offered in the game that contribute to the massively multiplayer aspect of the game.
There is nothing in the definition of an MMORPG that a player must group up for it to be considered either "massively" and/or "multiplayer?" It is just a popular excuse adopted by the pro-"forced grouping" to push their agenda.
I see how you are trying to redefine massively multiplayer, but its just not enough. Just because various forms of other multiplayer forms of gameplay exists outside of combat, doesn't really make it OK to go ahead and make the primary form of progression in an MMORPG based around solo gameplay. I realize games do it, and will continue to do it, because it makes money, but lets not try to justify it by creating some bridge between solo progression and massively multiplayer simply because "lot of people are playing at the same time."
The point being made, and one that is clearly illustrated by both of our posts, is that neither one of us get to define the term MMORPG. It means something different to all of us. People's definition of what an MMORPG should be differ. And that is ok. We should all have the option to play the game the way we want and not be "forced" into any particular way to play it. No one is denying those that want to group up and fight to do so. We are just asking to be given the option to play solo if we so chose.
I see how you are trying to redefine massively multiplayer, but its just not enough. Just because various forms of other multiplayer forms of gameplay exists outside of combat, doesn't really make it OK to go ahead and make the primary form of progression in an MMORPG based around solo gameplay. I realize games do it, and will continue to do it, because it makes money, but lets not try to justify it by creating some bridge between solo progression and massively multiplayer simply because "lot of people are playing at the same time."
Everyone's idea of what is okay in a MMORPG is going to be based on what they were brought up on. That's the problem with thinking one knows what's "okay" or not for an MMORPG , .. A person brought up on DAOC is going to have a totally different outlook than one brought up in SWG, or EQ. that's problem number one no one starting these threads seems to consider. Old-schooler's don't all want one thing, we're not all hung up on group content, we're not all hung up on how hard it is, etc.. It's a misnomer to assume an oldchooler wants (insert).
There are many different aspects an MMORPG can bring to the table in a community sense that have nothing at all to do with "grouping"... Building cities, selling wares, building guilds, entertainment/parties... etc.etc.etc.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"Forced grouping" is one of those passive-aggressive labels used by people to communicate some perceived injustice, as if they are lobbying for MMORPG social reform. The truth is, massively multiplayer games just aren't meant for those individuals. They should stick to the online solo rpgs.
Moreover, no one is forcing anyone to do anything, because no one is forcing them to play those games. When you go out to a restaurant, do you call their policies "forced seating?" When you play a sport, does it involve "forced running?" Those things are almost as ridiculous as calling interdependence in a massively multiplayer game "forced grouping."
I don't think that's it, I think it's more people who also want a certain type of game (based on mechanics), yet see these types of things bringing it down. As these wants are usually followed with a "why, what happened...etc.?"
There's a difference between interdependence and forced grouping, forced grouping is a game that essentially offers a one way route, grouping. Interdependence is formed through mechanics that bring players together to create a certain type of ebb and flow between players (Player towns, community crafting mechanics, entertainers. etc).
Forced grouping is essentially factors coming together that make grouping the only real efficient way of playing (severe penalty, overpowered mobs> balanced to groups, etc..). In other words interdependence = SWG, Forced grouping EQ or L2..
Right, some people don't want to play massively multiplayer games with a focus on massively multiplayer gameplay. Its irrelevant how other games implement interdependence; if a game is designed around a dangerous world, you either accept the risk and solo, group with other players, or don't play the game. Whining about the design philosophy is pointless, especially today when we can see how poorly online solo rpgs are doing and the long term success of games based around community and grouping.
It's not the solo aspects that are doing bad, it's the lack of content and the quick rise to the top. Solo content can VERY much co-exist in an MMORPG, it just needs to be very challenging and revolve around a balance of all players where they can assist and help each other without the "need" to group. Everquest is a great example of this, as long as there are people around to clear mobs and assist there is no real reason to "group" per say.
It's important that the worlds lend themselves to this type of environment where it is beneficial for all players or just plain fun and I do not agree that the core aspect or feature of an MMORPG should be solely about grouping or as stated forced grouping, it ruins the immersion, fun and the feeling of exploration and turns it into a hamster wheel without much variation.
Solo players are very important to MMORPG's, just their struggle needs to be real and they need to quit being pandered to by making the journey so easy that everything just falls apart. It needs to be a challenge and everything needs to work together. "Just" focusing on group centric MMORPG's is actually against the grain of old school architecture.
Well said.
GW2 is and example of what you speak. Their concept of game play may be lacking in some areas, but they are on the right track in how they implemented the grouping aspect of the game.
People play what they have to play.... my question is why does it have to be such an absolute? A game can't offer both? It's just weird to focus so much on exclusion when talking massively multiplayer.
Its not an absolute, because plenty of games give you plenty of solo gameplay. Most games give you a bit of both, but unfortunately in doing so they find they have the opportunity to also make more money if they introduce more convenience and make the game easier at the same time. Apparently its some sort of catch 22. You either want to create a virtual world, and you design it around massively multiplayer content, or you go casual and sacrifice challenge and realism in favor of a wider audience and convenience.
Hypothetically both solo and group content should be able to co-exist; unfortunately every time its done people start bitching and making up trigger words like "forced grouping" and all of a sudden your virtual world is played using menus and lobbys.
I can agree there, it does seem to be one way or the other, no give and take. People complaining about options has never made much sense to me.
I think that's just the thing for me, my mainstay was SWG, a game that offered plenty of options, people seemed to co-exist there with ease. It's proof positive it can be done. It just isn't, why I haven't the slightest outside of possible budget/scope concerns, yet when I consider they're spending 100's of millions on one trick ponies, that doesn't make much sense either.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I see how you are trying to redefine massively multiplayer, but its just not enough. Just because various forms of other multiplayer forms of gameplay exists outside of combat, doesn't really make it OK to go ahead and make the primary form of progression in an MMORPG based around solo gameplay. I realize games do it, and will continue to do it, because it makes money, but lets not try to justify it by creating some bridge between solo progression and massively multiplayer simply because "lot of people are playing at the same time."
Everyone's idea of what is okay in a MMORPG is going to be based on what they were brought up on. That's the problem with thinking one knows what's "okay" or not for an MMORPG , .. A person brought up on DAOC is going to have a totally different outlook than one brought up in SWG, or EQ. that's problem number one no one starting these threads seems to consider. Old-schooler's don't all want one thing, we're not all hung up on group content, we're not all hung up on how hard it is, etc.. It's a misnomer to assume an oldchooler wants (insert).
There are many different aspects an MMORPG can bring to the table in a community sense that have nothing at all to do with "grouping"... Building cities, selling wares, building guilds, entertainment/parties... etc.etc.etc.
I realize that, but as I said in my previous post, its more of a problem with very basic design tenets than their specific manifestations like group based progression.
The real issue is whether you want to design your game/world around realism or immersion (suspension of disbelief) or you want your game to simply be fun, with fantasy elements.
Is X feature really going to help establish the believability of the world, the sense of community, the feeling of accomplishment, or was it designed to simply offer a way to appeal to more people ($) and detract from the massively multiplay aspect of the game?
One of the reasons people are often so inflexible about a particular feature, is that we know what side of the spectrum that idea is coming from and we know where those ideas lead developers... straight to the themepark.
What you want is old-school mechanics in a new school engine with new school art?
And for people to stop thinking you a fool for wanting ancient pixelish graphics, when that's not what you want at all.
Am I getting this right?
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Back then MMOs were going for big open worlds, they were going for playing in groups, a heavy emphasis on exploration, crafting, socialising and just living in a world. That is what the whole genre was created for, I keep saying it but it's THE WORLD!
The problem with modern "MMOs" and I use that term loosely because most are now just online RPGs; they don't do a world and all the content isn't there for fun, it's there to grind through ASAP. If you look at the modern MMO, the world just gets in the way of you wanting to level up fast, then you all moan when there is nothing left to do and leave; this is why none of them last very long any more.
So like I said, it's a vision for the genre, it isn't about wanting those exact same games in HD or whatever.
It is not a "problem" if the vision is changed to making convenient online games.
Whatever the genre was created for, that is no longer relevant anymore ... if the world is the point, there won't be so many MMOs without a world.
Oh wheesht man you like a broken record. The discussion is about nostalgia not 'convenient online games'. The genre is not 'relevant' to anything, it's a representation of a flavour of game that people enjoy.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Everyone's idea of what is okay in a MMORPG is going to be based on what they were brought up on. That's the problem with thinking one knows what's "okay" or not for an MMORPG , .. A person brought up on DAOC is going to have a totally different outlook than one brought up in SWG, or EQ. that's problem number one no one starting these threads seems to consider. Old-schooler's don't all want one thing, we're not all hung up on group content, we're not all hung up on how hard it is, etc.. It's a misnomer to assume an oldchooler wants (insert).
There are many different aspects an MMORPG can bring to the table in a community sense that have nothing at all to do with "grouping"... Building cities, selling wares, building guilds, entertainment/parties... etc.etc.etc.
I realize that, but as I said in my previous post, its more of a problem with very basic design tenets than their specific manifestations like group based progression.
The real issue is whether you want to design your game/world around realism or immersion (suspension of disbelief) or you want your game to simply be fun, with fantasy elements.
Is X feature really going to help establish the believability of the world, the sense of community, the feeling of accomplishment, or was it designed to simply offer a way to appeal to more people ($) and detract from the massively multiplay aspect of the game?
One of the reasons people are often so inflexible about a particular feature, is that we know what side of the spectrum that idea is coming from and we know where those ideas lead developers... straight to the themepark.
I see what you're saying, and mostly agree, with how mechanics influence approach to an extent. I've just never been one to equate mechanics to community. I think community building of old was a factor of the newness of the genre as much as it was any single mechanic. I think in large part folks have moved away from that on their own. A lot of that i believe is based on competitive ego driven tendency, as well as less like minded people, more so than devs moving away from it.
I could be wrong, it's one of those things that is largely up to interpretation.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Dullahan Good post. The original MMORPGs were about the world, well said. We don't miss old graphics. We certainly don't miss melee classes like in EQ that had only 2 or 3 abilities. What we miss is the group dynamic. We miss having to struggle together to survive and progress. Shared adversity fosters community. Modern games are all about removing that adversity, and replacing it with the ability to succeed on your own, with little to no real time investment. Hub games, instancing, megaservers, all those things are for the sake of convenience and detract from the social aspect and the things that made old MMOs seem more like virtual fantasy worlds than merely video games.
By "we", you mean "you". Let's not over-generalize. I'm about as old school as they come for gaming, and I certainly do not miss forced grouping.
He definitely means "me". I'm also as old school as many and way more old school than some here, and I definitely don't miss those awful grinds, the poor and tedious mechanics and the forced grouping of those old school games.
What's amusing is that tentatives have been made to resurrect that "old school" model, and until now, all have failed. Next in line, "Pantheon". So those old schoolers are possibly just a minority of forum dwellers who will never be happy with any game anyway...
We, definitely means we. We being the most "old school" gamers here, and I know how much it annoys you, because every other post you make is about how "old school" you are, and how bad Everquest was, even though you admit to only playing it briefly. Sorry you missed out buddy, but no need to keep hate posting in ignorance.
As of course you know, no one has resurrected the EQ model. The closest one was Vanguard, and it basically died at birth. You just seem to get your jollies from trolling the oldschool majority, because in reality, there have actually been half a dozen rehashed versions of your favorite MMOs, and those are the ones that actually failed miserably.
What you want is old-school mechanics in a new school engine with new school art?
And for people to stop thinking you a fool for wanting ancient pixelish graphics, when that's not what you want at all.
Am I getting this right?
Nope still wrong.
The old school mechanics also require updated. It is merely the concept of the game that many want back and carried forward using modern technology and understanding about game development. This includes lessons learned from multiple genres including those outside of video games such as RPGs.
And honestly how hard is this to understand? You either have enough experience in gaming (in many genres) to realize there are many different approaches one can take to making mmos or you lack such experience and spout the argumentative crap so many do here simply for the point of arguing.
Old school is only called old school because the concept of the game has become lost due profit grabbing over game design. It would never have needed to be called old school if these games were allowed to evolve (there initial mechanics were often horrible and further bound by tech limitations ... EVERYONE expected them to improve). Both graphics and mechanics would change over time but the core concept would remain. Large developers stripped the core concept in favor of adapting mmos to the masses therefore making them more like an arcade game over living worlds fostering community.Community power was stripped along with concept therefore relegating mmorpg a thing of the past and therefore old school.
Well ... we want our fucking game back. Who are we? Anyone wanting that multi-player RPG concept back of fantasy realism. Anyone wanting to log into a mmorpg and have it feel like you are walking out of your front door into a real living fantasy world with nearly all the choices one has in real life. What the games looks like or what mechanics are thrown together to construct it matter fucking not ... they only have to function together to successfully create AND maintain the concept of the game. It cannot be rewritten entirely each expansion. It cannot be abruptly changed because a new business model proves better short term profit gains. It cannot be about changing the game to attract new and different players. This is what has happened to nearly every mmo created by large developers.
Magic the gathering doesn't become a dice game because it would destroy the game and upset the players who play it.
Warhammer doesn't change to a card game because it would destroy the game and upset the community.
Second life doesn't become an action FPS because it would destroy the community and concept of the game.
Am I starting to make a point here because it seems people have to type this shit out over and over and we still get over simplified responses from what apparently are people clueless in both reading and comprehension. If this continues to confuse those reading this please go out and gain life experience in other social gaming like RPGs and table top games to understand that other players are there to ENHANCE the game and not be there as an annoyance and competition. Grasp this concept and perhaps proper dialogue can be constructed for once.
Originally posted by Dullahan Good post. The original MMORPGs were about the world, well said. We don't miss old graphics. We certainly don't miss melee classes like in EQ that had only 2 or 3 abilities. What we miss is the group dynamic. We miss having to struggle together to survive and progress. Shared adversity fosters community. Modern games are all about removing that adversity, and replacing it with the ability to succeed on your own, with little to no real time investment. Hub games, instancing, megaservers, all those things are for the sake of convenience and detract from the social aspect and the things that made old MMOs seem more like virtual fantasy worlds than merely video games.
By "we", you mean "you". Let's not over-generalize. I'm about as old school as they come for gaming, and I certainly do not miss forced grouping.
He definitely means "me". I'm also as old school as many and way more old school than some here, and I definitely don't miss those awful grinds, the poor and tedious mechanics and the forced grouping of those old school games.
What's amusing is that tentatives have been made to resurrect that "old school" model, and until now, all have failed. Next in line, "Pantheon". So those old schoolers are possibly just a minority of forum dwellers who will never be happy with any game anyway...
And that's the catch here. It's like the people who seem to feel a need to get their PhD in law and philosophy to properly define what sandbox means. Only, in this thread, it's a couple of people who seem to think their old school idea is more pure than everyone else. It's just silly, and you are right.
Even though I started with Pong, graduated to table-top D&D, played MUDs, and thrived in EQ and DAoC, I'm still not old school enough. I suppose I, like someone posted earlier, should just give up on gaming altogether and live out a bitter existence on gaming forums, b*tching about all those kids these days and their new fangled ideas.
Im not here to argue. I barely come here anymore because I hate all the "discussion".
Its always PC vs Console, or ThemePark vs Sandbox, or Old School vs New, or Solo vs Group, or P2P vs F2P, Casual vs Harcore.
I don't even care anymore to try to explain my views for the most part. Im just a gamer! I play on all sorts of devices and more hours then a sane person can justify. Game first....... I can sleep or eat when Im dead!
What would I like? A brand new game with a lot of oldschool concepts, but with a few of the newer mechanics. With brand new graphics and tech, on a fresh new Dark Fantasy IP, that is P2P with heavy group-centric "slower" more tactical combat (think XI), with older themepark style content (raids and endgame and midgame that are epic and very long not 15 min repeatable dungeons, down-time and lockouts were a good thing godamnit). My three pillars of mmo gaming are in this order: Exploration, Comradery (both socialization and interdependency), and loot! Oh and yes Im a sinner that would love all this on a console or at least with native gamepad support for PC
If you don't agree with me that's absolutely fine. People like different things, as they should. And I don't hate or begrudge others for the games they like nor do I wish them to fail (that's just insanity to me). People should play what they want and they same generosity should be extended to me. Its not rocket science.
My brother Drivendawn plays and loves FFXIV. I don't........ but that doesn't mean I hate it or want it to fail or cant recognize its success or the good things it does. Its just not for me. I liked FFXIV right up to 2.0. After 2.0 it became a different beast and I slowly realized I just couldn't make myself play it anymore.
Will I ever get to play the game I described above? Maybe not but honestly there is plenty of room in this world for it so who is to say? In the mean time I play skyrim, or witcher 3, or Dark Souls, or Bloodborne, and soon Metal Gear Solid 5, etc. While I wait for a MMO that I can enjoy. And even give money to Kickstarter and such. My current hopes are that Pantheon RoTF or Saga of Lucimia deliver. They might not be exactly what I want but a lot closer than anything else.
Old School folks just give up trying to convert the masses and go support one of the indie MMOs. Crowfall, Pantheon, Elite, whatever your cup of tea is. Trust me it would be a much more valuable way to spend your energy.
Non-OldSchool and/or Pro Solo folks, you know what you like. Go do your thing.
What you want is old-school mechanics in a new school engine with new school art?
And for people to stop thinking you a fool for wanting ancient pixelish graphics, when that's not what you want at all.
Am I getting this right?
Nope still wrong.
The old school mechanics also require updated. It is merely the concept of the game that many want back and carried forward using modern technology and understanding about game development. This includes lessons learned from multiple genres including those outside of video games such as RPGs.
Thank-you for explaining. Very helpful.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
There's an awful lot of self-elected Leaders of the Rebellion in this thread.
We have one thing in common: "It was better before." Except, you know, we can't even all agree on that.
Because "before" means pre-97, or 97, or 2001, or 2003, even 2004 and later. And it covers at last a dozen vastly different games.
I would say most games were deeper (more to learn, more to do), open world games until they gave way to convenience around 2005. It wasn't exclusive to WoW, either. It existed in EQ at that point, EQ2, and of course once SOE got their hands on Vanguard, all casual elements like solo gameplay, fast travel, quick leveling, no downtime, quest progression and linear "hero's story" driven plot became common place.
From there it basically took over all new titles outside of a few indie projects that did poorly for their own reasons.
That's really all it boils down to. You can argue what level of "grind" should exist. You can argue over how important PvE is all day. You can say crafting needs to have such and such amount of depth or what sort of PvP rulesets games should adopt, but all those things aren't the mechanics that make or break a virtual world.
It always comes back to convenience vs realism: How shallow your game is, how much there is to do, and how long it takes, and how many choices the game offers as far as forms of gameplay and how everything works together to create a community of players working together or against each other, in various ways, for numerous reasons. When accessibility is the driving force influencing the design of these systems, that is where modern games differ from the older ones.
Theres no perfect way. We can argue all day but its just preference. Personally my favorite MMO would be a synthesis of UO and EQ. I feel like UO lacked lacked the story, environment and dungeon crawling harsh and exciting world via PvE. EQ lacked the greater variation found in crafting and all the different ways to play that UO had. That is actually what they intended to do with Vanguard until they ran out of money.
Originally posted by Dullahan Good post. The original MMORPGs were about the world, well said. We don't miss old graphics. We certainly don't miss melee classes like in EQ that had only 2 or 3 abilities. What we miss is the group dynamic. We miss having to struggle together to survive and progress. Shared adversity fosters community. Modern games are all about removing that adversity, and replacing it with the ability to succeed on your own, with little to no real time investment. Hub games, instancing, megaservers, all those things are for the sake of convenience and detract from the social aspect and the things that made old MMOs seem more like virtual fantasy worlds than merely video games.
By "we", you mean "you". Let's not over-generalize. I'm about as old school as they come for gaming, and I certainly do not miss forced grouping.
He definitely means "me". I'm also as old school as many and way more old school than some here, and I definitely don't miss those awful grinds, the poor and tedious mechanics and the forced grouping of those old school games.
What's amusing is that tentatives have been made to resurrect that "old school" model, and until now, all have failed. Next in line, "Pantheon". So those old schoolers are possibly just a minority of forum dwellers who will never be happy with any game anyway...
so? and he definitely does not mean "me". You can always find a few people who wants this or that. Let's the market decide.
There's an awful lot of self-elected Leaders of the Rebellion in this thread.
We have one thing in common: "It was better before." Except, you know, we can't even all agree on that.
Because "before" means pre-97, or 97, or 2001, or 2003, even 2004 and later. And it covers at last a dozen vastly different games.
I see it like this:
1. I speak only for myself. I realize nobody agrees with my perspective, and I'm fine with that. It's part of being an individual thinker. (If you want to use the term, Hipster fits pretty well in that I'm an Indie supporting non-conformist)
2. Old systems costs tons of money. I have a laptop from 1999 that cost $2,000 and the thing isn't anything special.
3. Old systems (consumer level store brands) didn't come from the factory 3D acceleration that was worth crap. 3DFX Voodoo 2 was what I used, and most computer users didn't have them.
4. Household Internet connectivity wasn't on full time since we were on using dial-up modems and broadband was rare and had spotty availability early on. Unless you had 2 phone lines, you couldn't spend 12 hours in game without family members being pissy about not being able to use the phone. At 56k maximum, you sure didn't download 20 gigs of game on a whim.
5. Early Internet based games had it tough because the available playerbase just wasn't there (notes: 2 to 4)
6. Perfect storm happened. OpenGL support hit onboard video. D3D support hit onboard video. System prices dropped to $300 entry level ($450 if you needed a monitor). Broadband hit wide availability with insane speeds (compared to dial-up) and 24x7 access including home network via router or Windows ICS.
7. A shit-load of people discovered online gaming, drastically changing the demographics.
8. 'New' games were created for the 'new' gamers. Give or take a few years, this was 2004.
9. The 'new gamer' transition continued for 5 years or so, and by 2009 (or so) the 'new' games were very different than the old ones.
10. [Some] People who were gaming BEFORE the transition (myself included although I'm barely a gamer) get all butt hurt because games changed in a way they don't like.
Market changes, games change. It's that simple. Some love it, some hate it, but...
... once the avalanche has started, the pebble doesn't get a vote.
Red is edit
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
1. I speak only for myself. I realize nobody agrees with my perspective, and I'm fine with that. It's part of being an individual thinker. (If you want to use the term, Hipster fits pretty well in that I'm an Indie supporting non-conformist)
10. People who were gaming BEFORE the transition (myself included although I'm barely a gamer) get all butt hurt because games changed in a way they don't like.
Market changes, games change. It's that simple. Some love it, some hate it, but...
... once the avalanche has started, the pebble doesn't get a vote.
Yeh .. you speak for yourself. I was gaming before the transition, and i am delighted that today online games are much more convenient, and better games.
Of course the pebble gets a vote ..... even on f2p games you get to decide whether to buy a virtual item. Just not a very big vote unless you are a whale.
1. I speak only for myself. I realize nobody agrees with my perspective, and I'm fine with that. It's part of being an individual thinker. (If you want to use the term, Hipster fits pretty well in that I'm an Indie supporting non-conformist)
10. People who were gaming BEFORE the transition (myself included although I'm barely a gamer) get all butt hurt because games changed in a way they don't like.
Market changes, games change. It's that simple. Some love it, some hate it, but...
... once the avalanche has started, the pebble doesn't get a vote.
Yeh .. you speak for yourself. I was gaming before the transition, and i am delighted that today online games are much more convenient, and better games.
Of course the pebble gets a vote ..... even on f2p games you get to decide whether to buy a virtual item. Just not a very big vote unless you are a whale.
An appropriate response. I should have said 'SOME people who were gaming before the transition...'
My bad.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Comments
It's not the solo aspects that are doing bad, it's the lack of content and the quick rise to the top. Solo content can VERY much co-exist in an MMORPG, it just needs to be very challenging and revolve around a balance of all players where they can assist and help each other without the "need" to group. Everquest is a great example of this, as long as there are people around to clear mobs and assist there is no real reason to "group" per say.
It's important that the worlds lend themselves to this type of environment where it is beneficial for all players or just plain fun and I do not agree that the core aspect or feature of an MMORPG should be solely about grouping or as stated forced grouping, it ruins the immersion, fun and the feeling of exploration and turns it into a hamster wheel without much variation.
Solo players are very important to MMORPG's, just their struggle needs to be real and they need to quit being pandered to by making the journey so easy that everything just falls apart. It needs to be a challenge and everything needs to work together. "Just" focusing on group centric MMORPG's is actually against the grain of old school architecture.
Its not an absolute, because plenty of games give you plenty of solo gameplay. Most games give you a bit of both, but unfortunately in doing so they find they have the opportunity to also make more money if they introduce more convenience and make the game easier at the same time. Apparently its some sort of catch 22. You either want to create a virtual world, and you design it around massively multiplayer content, or you go casual and sacrifice challenge and realism in favor of a wider audience and convenience.
Hypothetically both solo and group content should be able to co-exist; unfortunately every time its done people start bitching and making up trigger words like "forced grouping" and all of a sudden your virtual world is played using menus and lobbys.
The point being made, and one that is clearly illustrated by both of our posts, is that neither one of us get to define the term MMORPG. It means something different to all of us. People's definition of what an MMORPG should be differ. And that is ok. We should all have the option to play the game the way we want and not be "forced" into any particular way to play it. No one is denying those that want to group up and fight to do so. We are just asking to be given the option to play solo if we so chose.
Everyone's idea of what is okay in a MMORPG is going to be based on what they were brought up on. That's the problem with thinking one knows what's "okay" or not for an MMORPG , .. A person brought up on DAOC is going to have a totally different outlook than one brought up in SWG, or EQ. that's problem number one no one starting these threads seems to consider. Old-schooler's don't all want one thing, we're not all hung up on group content, we're not all hung up on how hard it is, etc.. It's a misnomer to assume an oldchooler wants (insert).
There are many different aspects an MMORPG can bring to the table in a community sense that have nothing at all to do with "grouping"... Building cities, selling wares, building guilds, entertainment/parties... etc.etc.etc.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well said.
GW2 is and example of what you speak. Their concept of game play may be lacking in some areas, but they are on the right track in how they implemented the grouping aspect of the game.
Honestly screw what we have had, give us something we have never seen before.
Push the limits of our hardware technology.
I remember when hardware was racing to keep up with software, and that is where we need to go again.
I can agree there, it does seem to be one way or the other, no give and take. People complaining about options has never made much sense to me.
I think that's just the thing for me, my mainstay was SWG, a game that offered plenty of options, people seemed to co-exist there with ease. It's proof positive it can be done. It just isn't, why I haven't the slightest outside of possible budget/scope concerns, yet when I consider they're spending 100's of millions on one trick ponies, that doesn't make much sense either.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
No thank you. or if you're offering to keep us all up to date with the latest hardware then go right ahead.
I had fun once, it was terrible.
I realize that, but as I said in my previous post, its more of a problem with very basic design tenets than their specific manifestations like group based progression.
The real issue is whether you want to design your game/world around realism or immersion (suspension of disbelief) or you want your game to simply be fun, with fantasy elements.
Is X feature really going to help establish the believability of the world, the sense of community, the feeling of accomplishment, or was it designed to simply offer a way to appeal to more people ($) and detract from the massively multiplay aspect of the game?
One of the reasons people are often so inflexible about a particular feature, is that we know what side of the spectrum that idea is coming from and we know where those ideas lead developers... straight to the themepark.
OP, so let me see if I understand.
What you want is old-school mechanics in a new school engine with new school art?
And for people to stop thinking you a fool for wanting ancient pixelish graphics, when that's not what you want at all.
Am I getting this right?
It is not a "problem" if the vision is changed to making convenient online games.
Whatever the genre was created for, that is no longer relevant anymore ... if the world is the point, there won't be so many MMOs without a world.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I see what you're saying, and mostly agree, with how mechanics influence approach to an extent. I've just never been one to equate mechanics to community. I think community building of old was a factor of the newness of the genre as much as it was any single mechanic. I think in large part folks have moved away from that on their own. A lot of that i believe is based on competitive ego driven tendency, as well as less like minded people, more so than devs moving away from it.
I could be wrong, it's one of those things that is largely up to interpretation.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
We, definitely means we. We being the most "old school" gamers here, and I know how much it annoys you, because every other post you make is about how "old school" you are, and how bad Everquest was, even though you admit to only playing it briefly. Sorry you missed out buddy, but no need to keep hate posting in ignorance.
As of course you know, no one has resurrected the EQ model. The closest one was Vanguard, and it basically died at birth. You just seem to get your jollies from trolling the oldschool majority, because in reality, there have actually been half a dozen rehashed versions of your favorite MMOs, and those are the ones that actually failed miserably.
Stay salty though.
Nope still wrong.
The old school mechanics also require updated. It is merely the concept of the game that many want back and carried forward using modern technology and understanding about game development. This includes lessons learned from multiple genres including those outside of video games such as RPGs.
And honestly how hard is this to understand? You either have enough experience in gaming (in many genres) to realize there are many different approaches one can take to making mmos or you lack such experience and spout the argumentative crap so many do here simply for the point of arguing.
Old school is only called old school because the concept of the game has become lost due profit grabbing over game design. It would never have needed to be called old school if these games were allowed to evolve (there initial mechanics were often horrible and further bound by tech limitations ... EVERYONE expected them to improve). Both graphics and mechanics would change over time but the core concept would remain. Large developers stripped the core concept in favor of adapting mmos to the masses therefore making them more like an arcade game over living worlds fostering community.Community power was stripped along with concept therefore relegating mmorpg a thing of the past and therefore old school.
Well ... we want our fucking game back. Who are we? Anyone wanting that multi-player RPG concept back of fantasy realism. Anyone wanting to log into a mmorpg and have it feel like you are walking out of your front door into a real living fantasy world with nearly all the choices one has in real life. What the games looks like or what mechanics are thrown together to construct it matter fucking not ... they only have to function together to successfully create AND maintain the concept of the game. It cannot be rewritten entirely each expansion. It cannot be abruptly changed because a new business model proves better short term profit gains. It cannot be about changing the game to attract new and different players. This is what has happened to nearly every mmo created by large developers.
Magic the gathering doesn't become a dice game because it would destroy the game and upset the players who play it.
Warhammer doesn't change to a card game because it would destroy the game and upset the community.
Second life doesn't become an action FPS because it would destroy the community and concept of the game.
Am I starting to make a point here because it seems people have to type this shit out over and over and we still get over simplified responses from what apparently are people clueless in both reading and comprehension. If this continues to confuse those reading this please go out and gain life experience in other social gaming like RPGs and table top games to understand that other players are there to ENHANCE the game and not be there as an annoyance and competition. Grasp this concept and perhaps proper dialogue can be constructed for once.
You stay sassy!
And that's the catch here. It's like the people who seem to feel a need to get their PhD in law and philosophy to properly define what sandbox means. Only, in this thread, it's a couple of people who seem to think their old school idea is more pure than everyone else. It's just silly, and you are right.
Even though I started with Pong, graduated to table-top D&D, played MUDs, and thrived in EQ and DAoC, I'm still not old school enough. I suppose I, like someone posted earlier, should just give up on gaming altogether and live out a bitter existence on gaming forums, b*tching about all those kids these days and their new fangled ideas.
..No. I'll just have fun and adapt.
Im not here to argue. I barely come here anymore because I hate all the "discussion".
Its always PC vs Console, or ThemePark vs Sandbox, or Old School vs New, or Solo vs Group, or P2P vs F2P, Casual vs Harcore.
I don't even care anymore to try to explain my views for the most part. Im just a gamer! I play on all sorts of devices and more hours then a sane person can justify. Game first....... I can sleep or eat when Im dead!
What would I like? A brand new game with a lot of oldschool concepts, but with a few of the newer mechanics. With brand new graphics and tech, on a fresh new Dark Fantasy IP, that is P2P with heavy group-centric "slower" more tactical combat (think XI), with older themepark style content (raids and endgame and midgame that are epic and very long not 15 min repeatable dungeons, down-time and lockouts were a good thing godamnit). My three pillars of mmo gaming are in this order: Exploration, Comradery (both socialization and interdependency), and loot! Oh and yes Im a sinner that would love all this on a console or at least with native gamepad support for PC
If you don't agree with me that's absolutely fine. People like different things, as they should. And I don't hate or begrudge others for the games they like nor do I wish them to fail (that's just insanity to me). People should play what they want and they same generosity should be extended to me. Its not rocket science.
My brother Drivendawn plays and loves FFXIV. I don't........ but that doesn't mean I hate it or want it to fail or cant recognize its success or the good things it does. Its just not for me. I liked FFXIV right up to 2.0. After 2.0 it became a different beast and I slowly realized I just couldn't make myself play it anymore.
Will I ever get to play the game I described above? Maybe not but honestly there is plenty of room in this world for it so who is to say? In the mean time I play skyrim, or witcher 3, or Dark Souls, or Bloodborne, and soon Metal Gear Solid 5, etc. While I wait for a MMO that I can enjoy. And even give money to Kickstarter and such. My current hopes are that Pantheon RoTF or Saga of Lucimia deliver. They might not be exactly what I want but a lot closer than anything else.
Old School folks just give up trying to convert the masses and go support one of the indie MMOs. Crowfall, Pantheon, Elite, whatever your cup of tea is. Trust me it would be a much more valuable way to spend your energy.
Non-OldSchool and/or Pro Solo folks, you know what you like. Go do your thing.
Thank-you for explaining. Very helpful.
There's an awful lot of self-elected Leaders of the Rebellion in this thread.
We have one thing in common: "It was better before." Except, you know, we can't even all agree on that.
Because "before" means pre-97, or 97, or 2001, or 2003, even 2004 and later. And it covers at last a dozen vastly different games.
I would say most games were deeper (more to learn, more to do), open world games until they gave way to convenience around 2005. It wasn't exclusive to WoW, either. It existed in EQ at that point, EQ2, and of course once SOE got their hands on Vanguard, all casual elements like solo gameplay, fast travel, quick leveling, no downtime, quest progression and linear "hero's story" driven plot became common place.
From there it basically took over all new titles outside of a few indie projects that did poorly for their own reasons.
That's really all it boils down to. You can argue what level of "grind" should exist. You can argue over how important PvE is all day. You can say crafting needs to have such and such amount of depth or what sort of PvP rulesets games should adopt, but all those things aren't the mechanics that make or break a virtual world.
It always comes back to convenience vs realism: How shallow your game is, how much there is to do, and how long it takes, and how many choices the game offers as far as forms of gameplay and how everything works together to create a community of players working together or against each other, in various ways, for numerous reasons. When accessibility is the driving force influencing the design of these systems, that is where modern games differ from the older ones.
Theres no perfect way. We can argue all day but its just preference. Personally my favorite MMO would be a synthesis of UO and EQ. I feel like UO lacked lacked the story, environment and dungeon crawling harsh and exciting world via PvE. EQ lacked the greater variation found in crafting and all the different ways to play that UO had. That is actually what they intended to do with Vanguard until they ran out of money.
so? and he definitely does not mean "me". You can always find a few people who wants this or that. Let's the market decide.
No one is changing existing games. At the same time, no one owes you a new game you like.
If no devs believes in old ideas, they don't have to do a thing to make a new game with old designs.
and while already existing games don't change, who says a genre cannot?
In fact, Warhammer 40k DID change to a card collection/turn based tactical game on the iOS. So what are you talking about?
I see it like this:
1. I speak only for myself. I realize nobody agrees with my perspective, and I'm fine with that. It's part of being an individual thinker. (If you want to use the term, Hipster fits pretty well in that I'm an Indie supporting non-conformist)
2. Old systems costs tons of money. I have a laptop from 1999 that cost $2,000 and the thing isn't anything special.
3. Old systems (consumer level store brands) didn't come from the factory 3D acceleration that was worth crap. 3DFX Voodoo 2 was what I used, and most computer users didn't have them.
4. Household Internet connectivity wasn't on full time since we were on using dial-up modems and broadband was rare and had spotty availability early on. Unless you had 2 phone lines, you couldn't spend 12 hours in game without family members being pissy about not being able to use the phone. At 56k maximum, you sure didn't download 20 gigs of game on a whim.
5. Early Internet based games had it tough because the available playerbase just wasn't there (notes: 2 to 4)
6. Perfect storm happened. OpenGL support hit onboard video. D3D support hit onboard video. System prices dropped to $300 entry level ($450 if you needed a monitor). Broadband hit wide availability with insane speeds (compared to dial-up) and 24x7 access including home network via router or Windows ICS.
7. A shit-load of people discovered online gaming, drastically changing the demographics.
8. 'New' games were created for the 'new' gamers. Give or take a few years, this was 2004.
9. The 'new gamer' transition continued for 5 years or so, and by 2009 (or so) the 'new' games were very different than the old ones.
10. [Some] People who were gaming BEFORE the transition (myself included although I'm barely a gamer) get all butt hurt because games changed in a way they don't like.
Market changes, games change. It's that simple. Some love it, some hate it, but...
... once the avalanche has started, the pebble doesn't get a vote.
Red is edit
Yeh .. you speak for yourself. I was gaming before the transition, and i am delighted that today online games are much more convenient, and better games.
Of course the pebble gets a vote ..... even on f2p games you get to decide whether to buy a virtual item. Just not a very big vote unless you are a whale.
An appropriate response. I should have said 'SOME people who were gaming before the transition...'
My bad.