Two main factors drove the popularity of the old school MMORPG's.
One was the difficulty. No maps, no quest markers, no hints, no CLUE. Want to craft something? No recipe, you have to experiment to discover the recipe. Where are the mobs you need to kill? Explore!
This difficulty drove two things; the need to interact with other players and the need to spend time working to accomplish a goal. You did not simply get things given to you, you had to WORK for them.
You developed relationships with other players through the shared accomplishments.
In Everquest, I spent MONTHS of real time earning the Blessed Coldain Prayer Shawl, from leveling up all the crafting disciplines to hunting down rare ingredients. By the time I was done I felt like I had done something significant, something I could be proud of. My main in that game, Kunnar, STILL has that shawl in his bank despite it not being relevant in the game anymore.
That sense of accomplishment, of having EARNED something of value is missing from games today.
Online communities, not needing to co-operate or have more than momentary contact, have become toxic, acerbic, and downright abusive. This simply drives people to avoid other players and has been the driving force behind the 'I need to be able to solo' efforts.
I think a new game, built with the principals and mechanics of the old school games simply will not succeed today. People do not have the time to spend in game, they are distracted by too many other things, and want to finish NOW. Honestly, I don't have the time for it anymore myself. I mostly play ESO today, because when I try to go back to Everquest or LOTRO, I find I cannot get anything done in the time I have available. The world has changed, and so have gamers.
THis is a pretty impressive post for only the third post on this site....very well done!
Post quality usually goes down the longer you have been on the site.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
From the 1st generation of MMORPGs (pre-WoW), I miss the sense of community.
The designers of the 1st gen MMORPGs were really the explorers and inventors of the genre. They had no templates to work from, just inspiration from tabletop and crpgs. As a result, we got a lot of different designs which meant a greater chance of the player finding a game that suited them.
I also feel like the designers really leaned into the "massively multiplayer" feature. Given that this is the only unique selling point of the genre, those early designers really tried their hardest to make the most of the feature. Whether that was creating a sandbox to run a virtual society experiment (UO), or large scale PvP (DAoC), or focusing on virtual economies (SWG), each MMO back then made a good attempt at utilising the USP.
Sure, the graphics were terrible, the gameplay mechanics were clunky, but those early games were made by small teams with tiny budgets and no clue what they were doing!
But the end result is that each game did its best to bring people together. Friendships formed over time, leading to online communities that felt welcoming. That has mostly disappeared from modern MMOs. The design drives people apart, rather than brings them together.
So, what I'd want from a modern MMORPG is that same focus on bringing players together in order. I don't need the clunky mechanics they used to use to achieve this goal, but I do want that focus brought back.
From the 2nd generation of MMORPGs (WoW - pre-ESO), I miss the depth of the combat mechanics. The peak for me was early years LotRO, but I know others got similar feelings from WoW, AoC, hell, even WAR had a ton more depth than modern games!
That depth meant that the game held my interest for much longer than modern games. It took me nearly 6 months to fully master my main in LotRO (a captain) because there was just so much depth to the combat mechanics in general, and that class in particular.
By the time SWTOR came out, that mastery process had gone from months to weeks. When action combat came along and became the norm, that process shortened even further, from weeks to days, sometimes even down to hours.
Part of that is natural: I'm older and more experienced so I already understand half the mechanics before I've even started a game, making it quicker to learn the rest.
A lot of it is simply the shallow nature of modern mechanics.
So, in an old school game with lots of depth, my interest is held for months, often years, whilst I master my class, complete all the content, level some alts and enjoy the company of the server's community.
In modern, shallow games, I have a lot of fun for a few days, but by week 2 I've mastered my class. After that point, its just a case of going through the motions, something that leads to boredom and quitting very quickly. As I don't care about story or quests, if the mechanics are shallow and easily mastered then there is very little to keep me in game.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I think I have played and participated in every AAA mmo and many indies ..
The reason I consistently return to Eve,Ultima,Anarchy, etc.
Comes down to two things.Challenge and Risk vs Reward .
Near all of the 2nd and 3rd generation games are handheld casual, monotonous very pretty, easy games with participation trophies with very little challenge and no Risk vs Reward ..
I am a true old school when it comes to MMORPGs. Let me tell you why old games were better.
I started with Meridian59. Only about a 100 to 200 people per server, but we had a blast. No instances, full loot, everything was permanent. We were fighting big bosses, but it was dangerous, because a rival guild could come and attack us at any time. It had to be well organized. The sense of constant danger made social interaction extremely important.
But the best (I have never seen this in any other games) were guildhalls. They were pre-built and we had to rent them. The best guildhalls were insane. I remember my guild had this guildhall inside a mountain. The main entrance was behind a waterfall and we needed a password to enter. But anyone could hear the password, then enter the guildhall and steal everything. They could even steal the guildhall itself. They to turn a switch and hold it for 30 minutes or so. The whole guild would receive a message that the guildhall was under attack, and we would all rush back to the guildhall to defend it or recapture it.
Our guildhall also had a huge hall like in Khazad-dûm. There was also a balcony up high to address everyone downstairs. It was epic. Though, our guild was only 20 people strong, so it really looked empty even when we were all there.
There was also a secret entrance/exit to a forest in a totally different part of the world. Meridian59 was great for a first MMORPG.
Ultima Online was probably the greatest game in my opinion. It was a real sandbox with a totally persistent world. No instances. We had total freedom. Rich world, no quest, full player looting on death, player-driven world, economy and everything. So many objects, mostly decorative. Highly customizable housing. Crafting allowed us to build like 60% of the game's objects. From swords to chairs and tables. Anything you could think of, you could probably craft it. But there was also a lot of uncraftable or special objects, and people would go treasure hunting. A lot of those decorative objects were found in dangerous dungeons as drops, in chest, dungeon decoration or just on the ground.
We didn't go to dungeons to get a specific loot, but just to farm, treasure hunt (there was a treasure maps system) or player killing.
I have so many fun stories. We were so free and nothing to follow. We spent our messing around and socialize. We spent 70% just talking and walking around killing a monster here and there. And suddenly a portal would open, a player would run out of it and a demon would be chasing. We would then either help him kill the demon or trap it in a house.
I remember one time where a high level player would stay on a road nearby a village and would paralyze every player passing by (paralyzed was way OP at the beginning, there was no time limit). He would then force everyone to dye their clothes in pink, otherwise he would kill us. And so everyone would be dressed up in pink around that village. It was hilarious.
Sometimes, we would randomly meet someone, and they would invite to come to their home. We would sit on the rooftop and talk or show off rare objects. And those were never weapons or armor. Also exotic decorative objects.
Sometimes we would see a whole bunch of people running, and we would stay there asking ourselves what was going on, and a whole guild of Player Killers would follow and kill us, and we would lose all our equipment. We would then resurect, go home, gear up again, and join the anti-PK squad that would spontaneously organized itself at the nearest village and hunt PKs.
Sometimes, a group of us would all polymorph into a monster then we would go in a forest and scare players by simulating a huge monster attack.
Housing in UO was incredible. We could stack objects on to of each other to create art. Houses were wildly different. Some people had waterfalls, or created an aquarium by stacking different piece of dyed cloths to create the illusion of an aquarium. Then placed fish, starfish and other objects on it. It was beautiful. Some people only played UO to decorate their house. Some players were even hired as interior designer. The possibilities were endless. You should go check photos of houses in UO. It was like Minecraft or Terraria but 20 years earlier.
The economy was completely player-driven like Eve Online. We would rarely equip rare named items, because the likeliness to die and lose them was too high. We mostly used them at tournaments. Player Killer would equip them, because dying was not an option for PK as they would lose 30% of their level/XP.
And the game was skill-based and not level-based, so we would not be chasing levels. We would just enjoy the game, and the more we played, the stronger we naturally became according to our actions.
And exploration was so great. There still tons of places I have never been. Because there is no real incentive to go to some places. Or it was just hard to get there. Some places were only accessible by boat first. But not many of us had a boat.
Ultima Online was by far the best game to me. Everything was so spontaneous all the time. Only Eve Online is like that nowadays.
I could go with Asheron's call where two level 20 players could kill a level 40, which is impossible in today's games. And we also had tremendous freedom.
Since EverQuest, MMORPGs have become theme parks. Everything is designed for us to follow. And people spend their time chasing levels, quests and equipment. Everything is instanced. Nothing is spontaneous, it feels like work not a game. I would rather play Diablo if that was my purpose. An MMORPG should be lived, not played.
Also, PvP is highly regulated, instanced and safe. It's like a sport. Nothing exciting anymore after a short while. It's better to go play CS, OW, or LOL at this point.
Real free-for-all PvP in non-instanced world with full loot keeps it exciting at all time.
To me, a good MMORPGs has the following:
- Sandbox
- No instance
- Full player looting
- Fully Free-for-All PvP
- Economy fully driven by players
- Mostly everything should be craftable. Especially commonly used weapons and armor. And decorative items.
- Extreme customization of character and housing. Minecraft/Terraria like freedom and customization.
- Non-instanced housing
- Extreme number of collectable exotic objects
- Skill-based progression
- Social interaction should be the focus of the game
I think I have played and participated in every AAA mmo and many indies ..
The reason I consistently return to Eve,Ultima,Anarchy, etc.
Comes down to two things.Challenge and Risk vs Reward .
Near all of the 2nd and 3rd generation games are handheld casual, monotonous very pretty, easy games with participation trophies with very little challenge and no Risk vs Reward ..
I am a true old school when it comes to MMORPGs. Let me tell you why old games were better.
I started with Meridian59. Only about a 100 to 200 people per server, but we had a blast. No instances, full loot, everything was permanent. We were fighting big bosses, but it was dangerous, because a rival guild could come and attack us at any time. It had to be well organized. The sense of constant danger made social interaction extremely important.
But the best (I have never seen this in any other games) were guildhalls. They were pre-built and we had to rent them. The best guildhalls were insane. I remember my guild had this guildhall inside a mountain. The main entrance was behind a waterfall and we needed a password to enter. But anyone could hear the password, then enter the guildhall and steal everything. They could even steal the guildhall itself. They to turn a switch and hold it for 30 minutes or so. The whole guild would receive a message that the guildhall was under attack, and we would all rush back to the guildhall to defend it or recapture it.
Our guildhall also had a huge hall like in Khazad-dûm. There was also a balcony up high to address everyone downstairs. It was epic. Though, our guild was only 20 people strong, so it really looked empty even when we were all there.
There was also a secret entrance/exit to a forest in a totally different part of the world. Meridian59 was great for a first MMORPG.
Ultima Online was probably the greatest game in my opinion. It was a real sandbox with a totally persistent world. No instances. We had total freedom. Rich world, no quest, full player looting on death, player-driven world, economy and everything. So many objects, mostly decorative. Highly customizable housing. Crafting allowed us to build like 60% of the game's objects. From swords to chairs and tables. Anything you could think of, you could probably craft it. But there was also a lot of uncraftable or special objects, and people would go treasure hunting. A lot of those decorative objects were found in dangerous dungeons as drops, in chest, dungeon decoration or just on the ground.
We didn't go to dungeons to get a specific loot, but just to farm, treasure hunt (there was a treasure maps system) or player killing.
I have so many fun stories. We were so free and nothing to follow. We spent our messing around and socialize. We spent 70% just talking and walking around killing a monster here and there. And suddenly a portal would open, a player would run out of it and a demon would be chasing. We would then either help him kill the demon or trap it in a house.
I remember one time where a high level player would stay on a road nearby a village and would paralyze every player passing by (paralyzed was way OP at the beginning, there was no time limit). He would then force everyone to dye their clothes in pink, otherwise he would kill us. And so everyone would be dressed up in pink around that village. It was hilarious.
Sometimes, we would randomly meet someone, and they would invite to come to their home. We would sit on the rooftop and talk or show off rare objects. And those were never weapons or armor. Also exotic decorative objects.
Sometimes we would see a whole bunch of people running, and we would stay there asking ourselves what was going on, and a whole guild of Player Killers would follow and kill us, and we would lose all our equipment. We would then resurect, go home, gear up again, and join the anti-PK squad that would spontaneously organized itself at the nearest village and hunt PKs.
Sometimes, a group of us would all polymorph into a monster then we would go in a forest and scare players by simulating a huge monster attack.
Housing in UO was incredible. We could stack objects on to of each other to create art. Houses were wildly different. Some people had waterfalls, or created an aquarium by stacking different piece of dyed cloths to create the illusion of an aquarium. Then placed fish, starfish and other objects on it. It was beautiful. Some people only played UO to decorate their house. Some players were even hired as interior designer. The possibilities were endless. You should go check photos of houses in UO. It was like Minecraft or Terraria but 20 years earlier.
The economy was completely player-driven like Eve Online. We would rarely equip rare named items, because the likeliness to die and lose them was too high. We mostly used them at tournaments. Player Killer would equip them, because dying was not an option for PK as they would lose 30% of their level/XP.
And the game was skill-based and not level-based, so we would not be chasing levels. We would just enjoy the game, and the more we played, the stronger we naturally became according to our actions.
And exploration was so great. There still tons of places I have never been. Because there is no real incentive to go to some places. Or it was just hard to get there. Some places were only accessible by boat first. But not many of us had a boat.
Ultima Online was by far the best game to me. Everything was so spontaneous all the time. Only Eve Online is like that nowadays.
I could go with Asheron's call where two level 20 players could kill a level 40, which is impossible in today's games. And we also had tremendous freedom.
Since EverQuest, MMORPGs have become theme parks. Everything is designed for us to follow. And people spend their time chasing levels, quests and equipment. Everything is instanced. Nothing is spontaneous, it feels like work not a game. I would rather play Diablo if that was my purpose. An MMORPG should be lived, not played.
Also, PvP is highly regulated, instanced and safe. It's like a sport. Nothing exciting anymore after a short while. It's better to go play CS, OW, or LOL at this point.
Real free-for-all PvP in non-instanced world with full loot keeps it exciting at all time.
To me, a good MMORPGs has the following:
- Sandbox
- No instance
- Full player looting
- Fully Free-for-All PvP
- Economy fully driven by players
- Mostly everything should be craftable. Especially commonly used weapons and armor. And decorative items.
- Extreme customization of character and housing. Minecraft/Terraria like freedom and customization.
- Non-instanced housing
- Extreme number of collectable exotic objects
- Skill-based progression
- Social interaction should be the focus of the game
To me, a good MMORPGs has the following:
- Sandbox
- No instance
- Full player looting
- Fully Free-for-All PvP
- Economy fully driven by players
- Mostly everything should be craftable. Especially commonly used weapons and armor. And decorative items.
- Extreme customization of character and housing. Minecraft/Terraria like freedom and customization.
- Non-instanced housing
- Extreme number of collectable exotic objects
- Skill-based progression
- Social interaction should be the focus of the game
It's an interesting list that I'm sure at least a few people would agree with, though a couple things on there I would call a death-knell if released to the modern audience.
It can simply be a problem of exposure and the amount of people that would play it, but full player looting and FFA PvP continues to be the not-so-slow killer of several titles with similar ambitions.
You could get away with it when the player base for such games was more finite and the amount of potential griefers was much more limited, but now the genre is functionally just self-cannibalizing.
This isn't calling PvP in general bad, but it is a weak point for MMOs, and there's a reason lobby style PvP games remain wildly more popular than open PvP experiences.
It seems to me that socialization is key. If you want that, then you have to get rid of the disparity in level power, which divides players by said level power.
The only effort to date in most MMORPGs to fix that problem has been Scaling. But Scaling removes any meaning to advancement. That's not a good answer. You have to reduce that power spread enough so that Characters can interact on a wide scale.
From there you can build that Sandbox WORLD that feels like a WORLD.
People are social animals, socialization will come naturally for most, even if it takes them a little while to get into it. Once they start to know other Characters (and not losing them to level divisions), it usually steamrolls into more and more socializing. Especially in a game world that's designed for Player interaction.
Having a realistic economy is very important, since that is where most Players start to interact and get to know other Players. An economy that's based on level loot is not good for this because it's already dividing Players into groupings.
@kelghu, yes, UO was alive exactly because of all of the Player interaction. I mean really alive! No other game, in my mind, has come close to UO in that regard. Although, the Blue Healer situation ruined what would have been a great Justice System. And too many Players left the game because of constant abuse.
My dream game would be UO without the constant abuse (i.e. don't allow Blues to Heal Reds without going Gray), and advanced with modern technology in ways that stick to it's original design principles.
To me, a good MMORPGs has the following:
- Sandbox
- No instance
- Full player looting
- Fully Free-for-All PvP
- Economy fully driven by players
- Mostly everything should be craftable. Especially commonly used weapons and armor. And decorative items.
- Extreme customization of character and housing. Minecraft/Terraria like freedom and customization.
- Non-instanced housing
- Extreme number of collectable exotic objects
- Skill-based progression
- Social interaction should be the focus of the game
I like alot of your list.
But these - Full player looting - Fully Free-for-All PvP
At the bare minimum there needs to be at least 1 PVE server and 1 PVP server. If you dont have a PVE server option your game is going to be niche.
All devs needs is enough PVP and PVE servers so there are no queues. No clue why a game would put so much time into making a game and then turn off such a large playerbase. Just free money they throwing away.
Give me any of the old mmorpgs with modern qol and I’ll pay whatever you want (Anarchy Online would be favorite). Tried all the modern junk - boring, dull, pointless not playing any. Many people have already explained why.
What many people call 'modern' MMOs have been out over 15 years.
The genre is not what many think it is. (It was hardly what many think it was) You had a handful of early games, based on pen and paper and MUDs that were different. 98% of the other games were not.
It is the nostalgia lens. What was had from the early days will never return because it can't. It requires certain factors that do not exist anymore.
I am not convinced at all if you took an EQ type game and modernized it with graphics and sound and whatever else people say they want, that it would make enough money to pay for itself.
No 'talented' development house thinks that either. That is why it is not, has not, will not be done.
You have one-off teams doing projects like 'Pantheon' which many here look forward to, but the reality compared to their memory will prove the point. It is old, stale and there are reasons why the genre shifted its developmental focus so long ago.
Everyone who speaks of 'old school' is generally talking about 4 to 6 games.
4 to 6 games.
Think about that.
Or you could try to create a hybrid between old and new school, that's what Lotro, FFXIV and ESO were at launch really. It does not have to be one or the other and after look at the success of classic, sure the servers get eventually shut down, but that's the story of MMO servers these days, it always happens. What gets me is when WoW executives say things like "the modern game will not be informed by classic at all". In other words no studio wants to even look at a hybrid, how does that make sense?
It is old, stale and there are reasons why the genre shifted its developmental focus so long ago.
Amen.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
What many people call 'modern' MMOs have been out over 15 years.
It is the nostalgia lens.
I don't think it's "necessarily" the nostalgia lens.
I think people legitimately want games that are cast in the spirit of those 4 to 6 games.
I know I have more fun in Vanguard Emulator than I do in any "modern" mmorpg. Not to say that it supersedes the original Vanguard.
I do agree that no large development house would make such a game and that players don't really understand this. It's small developers who are willing to take the risk but players don't understand that these games will not come out quickly (if at all) as these developers seem to fly by the seat of their pants.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It is old, stale and there are reasons why the genre shifted its developmental focus so long ago.
Amen.
There was never really a shift. Going back to text based games, there was always the split between D&D based designs and what we call Skill Based. But what the difference really was is in the World vs. Level Grind designs. MMORPGs in large numbers started with UO, EQ came out with the Level Grind design. Two early MMORPGs.
The Level Grind won because of D&D, which also inspired the SP computer games, for the most part. But when you add in "Massively Multiplayer" in the MMORPGs, you have a problem with that social structure of playing in a "World."
And if the problem with MMORPGs is about the lack of Social in game play, and it is, then you have to start addressing that problem that's based on Level Grinds and the division of the game's Players by disparate levels.
You guys can ignore this huge issue, but all you're doing is supporting the continuation of the problem and the continued decline of the genre.
Two main factors drove the popularity of the old school MMORPG's.
One was the difficulty. No maps, no quest markers, no hints, no CLUE. Want to craft something? No recipe, you have to experiment to discover the recipe. Where are the mobs you need to kill? Explore!
This difficulty drove two things; the need to interact with other players and the need to spend time working to accomplish a goal. You did not simply get things given to you, you had to WORK for them.
You developed relationships with other players through the shared accomplishments.
In Everquest, I spent MONTHS of real time earning the Blessed Coldain Prayer Shawl, from leveling up all the crafting disciplines to hunting down rare ingredients. By the time I was done I felt like I had done something significant, something I could be proud of. My main in that game, Kunnar, STILL has that shawl in his bank despite it not being relevant in the game anymore.
That sense of accomplishment, of having EARNED something of value is missing from games today.
Online communities, not needing to co-operate or have more than momentary contact, have become toxic, acerbic, and downright abusive. This simply drives people to avoid other players and has been the driving force behind the 'I need to be able to solo' efforts.
I think a new game, built with the principals and mechanics of the old school games simply will not succeed today. People do not have the time to spend in game, they are distracted by too many other things, and want to finish NOW. Honestly, I don't have the time for it anymore myself. I mostly play ESO today, because when I try to go back to Everquest or LOTRO, I find I cannot get anything done in the time I have available. The world has changed, and so have gamers.
That's just it tho, older MMO's were like full-time jobs. You needed to actually put in the hours to achieve your goals and there was a sense of accomplishment when you did. Nowadays developers are designing MMO's with a casual players in mind first, that's why there aren't that many sandbox MMO's being made. Most players want content they can do in bite sized chunks(stuff that can be done in an hour or less) and still be rewarded. So, they give you things like mini-maps, quest markers, fast travel, etc.. so you don't even have to bother even reading the quest dialogue to figure out how to complete the quest. They even sell you power and items to help you progress faster and make your character stronger. Monthly sub models are a thing of the past when developers can make millions more with microtransactions.
For someone like me, who started their MMO journey with games like EQ, Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot, it's kinda sad to see what the genre has evolved into but I also don't have as much time to invest in MMO's like I did 20 years ago. So while I hate the shallowness of these newer MMO's I do appreciate that they cater to my playstyle. I don't have to invest the hundreds of hours like I used to, I can jump on and play for a couple of hours and still have fun but these newer MMO's will never give me the sense of accomplishment and memories the older ones did.
What many people call 'modern' MMOs have been out over 15 years.
The genre is not what many think it is. (It was hardly what many think it was) You had a handful of early games, based on pen and paper and MUDs that were different. 98% of the other games were not.
It is the nostalgia lens. What was had from the early days will never return because it can't. It requires certain factors that do not exist anymore.
I am not convinced at all if you took an EQ type game and modernized it with graphics and sound and whatever else people say they want, that it would make enough money to pay for itself.
No 'talented' development house thinks that either. That is why it is not, has not, will not be done.
You have one-off teams doing projects like 'Pantheon' which many here look forward to, but the reality compared to their memory will prove the point. It is old, stale and there are reasons why the genre shifted its developmental focus so long ago.
Everyone who speaks of 'old school' is generally talking about 4 to 6 games.
4 to 6 games.
Think about that.
Disagree, again. And honestly it’s a bit insulting for people who are happy with the stuff available to today to pat us on the head and talk about nostalgia lenses or rose colored lenses. We aren’t children. We actually know what we enjoy. And as explained numerous times, the current game situation is directly a result of chasing not just a bigger slice of the pie, but bigger pies. So it’s grown in stages to appeal to a wider audience. And each bigger pie gets it further from what it was.
The people who like old school games are still here. In similar numbers to what we always were. We just make up an increasing smaller percent of an increasingly larger pie. And no matter hard you might try to sell it, we do not want games where we play generic classes characters (click and change), where we jump around like Mario with a controller, solo our way through the game, and play on our phones.
That might describe a huge number of the playerbase, but not us. So please stop telling us what we do or do not want. You sound like this guy to us:
I am not convinced at all if you took an EQ type game and modernized it with graphics and sound and whatever else people say they want, that it would make enough money to pay for itself.
No 'talented' development house thinks that either. That is why it is not, has not, will not be done.
You have one-off teams doing projects like 'Pantheon' which many here look forward to, but the reality compared to their memory will prove the point. It is old, stale and there are reasons why the genre shifted its developmental focus so long ago.
not convinced?
LOL thats just an opinion. Interesting nobody can even know, because there hasnt been a single game based on OLD school that is actually AS GOOD or better than the old school games. What is possible is a good OLD school game COULD absolutely blow out every game in history. You cant know if thats true or not because they havent made one.
No 'talented' development house thinks that either.
This is a complete joke of a statement. What talented development house are you even talking about. Who would trust these people anyways, all they have been making is trash. This entire genre is in decline. Every game coming out cant even get any subs close to the old school games. There hasnt been a new game in the last 8 years that is even decent that can get subs. All the top MMO from 15 years ago are losing players hand over fist other than maybe 1 FFIVX. So the top development houses are completely clueless as to what the customers want.
Makes me think of how so many people predicted Avatar 2 and Top Gun Maverick would not do well and was just nostalgia flix. How can only a couple of directors have almost all the top movies of all time. Yet all the other "industry insiders" picking movies like Babylon and Amsterdam are completely clueless. Oh I bet Babylon and Amsterdam will win a billion Awards, but still be BIG FLOPS, meanwhile the nostalgia movies are killing it at the box office.
I could give a rats ... what the "talented" dev houses think, they are garbage.
No 'talented' development house thinks that either. should be changed to "no talent" development houses think that too.
To me, a good MMORPGs has the following:
- Sandbox
- No instance
- Full player looting
- Fully Free-for-All PvP
- Economy fully driven by players
- Mostly everything should be craftable. Especially commonly used weapons and armor. And decorative items.
- Extreme customization of character and housing. Minecraft/Terraria like freedom and customization.
- Non-instanced housing
- Extreme number of collectable exotic objects
- Skill-based progression
- Social interaction should be the focus of the game
It's an interesting list that I'm sure at least a few people would agree with, though a couple things on there I would call a death-knell if released to the modern audience.
It can simply be a problem of exposure and the amount of people that would play it, but full player looting and FFA PvP continues to be the not-so-slow killer of several titles with similar ambitions.
You could get away with it when the player base for such games was more finite and the amount of potential griefers was much more limited, but now the genre is functionally just self-cannibalizing.
This isn't calling PvP in general bad, but it is a weak point for MMOs, and there's a reason lobby style PvP games remain wildly more popular than open PvP experiences.
I understand, but what I observe is different... Sandboxes since UO have been bad. The reason is they all have been limited because they were too focused on certain feature, particularly on PvP but not on building. It's building and protecting that brings people together. In a sandbox, what we want is freedom, but what we need is possibilities. To me, the only reasons sandboxes fail is they focus on the wrong things. A sandbox should be a world building game and not a PvP battleground.
Case in point, look at the success of Minecraft or Valheim. If those game went MMO, imagine how insane that would be.
Concerning full body looting, it is a pre-requisite for a true player-driven economy (along with item recycling into raw material). I really don't see the problem. It creates scarcity and demand. But yes, it has to give much less importance to mythical items, and players have to rely on common and abundant items to play the game. And only take out their shiny armor for important events or just to show off. At the same time, only then do rare items become really precious.
And I totally disagree about griefing. Griefing really only happens when killing players goes unpunished. If the consequences for being an outlaw are high, people would think twice before becoming a PK (red). In UO, PK dying was like losing 6 months of character leveling. There was a bounty hunting system for killing PKs. Every time there was a PK "outbreak", people would quickly gather to hunt them down. It was actually always a highlight of a day. And much better and exciting events than any "raid" in other games.
Where I agree is: property and value should not be easily destroyed. Because that would kill players moral and they might quit the game. But risk makes the games more fun and exciting. It also create insane stories, like what we see in Eve Online. Who infiltrates a corporation for 2 years, becomes its CEO just to burn it down out of vengeance about events that happened over 2 years before? Or massive armies destroyed? Betreyals and other stuff? That only can happen if full loot and the destruction of assets is allowed.
In other words, total freedom along with great possibilities (extremely extensive items crafting and world building) makes a truly engaging game. It needs a few safeguards, but at least as possible.
To me, a good MMORPGs has the following:
- Sandbox
- No instance
- Full player looting
- Fully Free-for-All PvP
- Economy fully driven by players
- Mostly everything should be craftable. Especially commonly used weapons and armor. And decorative items.
- Extreme customization of character and housing. Minecraft/Terraria like freedom and customization.
- Non-instanced housing
- Extreme number of collectable exotic objects
- Skill-based progression
- Social interaction should be the focus of the game
It's an interesting list that I'm sure at least a few people would agree with, though a couple things on there I would call a death-knell if released to the modern audience.
It can simply be a problem of exposure and the amount of people that would play it, but full player looting and FFA PvP continues to be the not-so-slow killer of several titles with similar ambitions.
You could get away with it when the player base for such games was more finite and the amount of potential griefers was much more limited, but now the genre is functionally just self-cannibalizing.
This isn't calling PvP in general bad, but it is a weak point for MMOs, and there's a reason lobby style PvP games remain wildly more popular than open PvP experiences.
I understand, but what I observe is different... Sandboxes since UO have been bad. The reason is they all have been limited because they were too focused on certain feature, particularly on PvP but not on building. It's building and protecting that brings people together. In a sandbox, what we want is freedom, but what we need is possibilities. To me, the only reasons sandboxes fail is they focus on the wrong things. A sandbox should be a world building game and not a PvP battleground.
Case in point, look at the success of Minecraft or Valheim. If those game went MMO, imagine how insane that would be.
Concerning full body looting, it is a pre-requisite for a true player-driven economy (along with item recycling into raw material). I really don't see the problem. It creates scarcity and demand. But yes, it has to give much less importance to mythical items, and players have to rely on common and abundant items to play the game. And only take out their shiny armor for important events or just to show off. At the same time, only then do rare items become really precious.
And I totally disagree about griefing. Griefing really only happens when killing players goes unpunished. If the consequences for being an outlaw are high, people would think twice before becoming a PK (red). In UO, PK dying was like losing 6 months of character leveling. There was a bounty hunting system for killing PKs. Every time there was a PK "outbreak", people would quickly gather to hunt them down. It was actually always a highlight of a day. And much better and exciting events than any "raid" in other games.
Where I agree is: property and value should not be easily destroyed. Because that would kill players moral and they might quit the game. But risk makes the games more fun and exciting. It also create insane stories, like what we see in Eve Online. Who infiltrates a corporation for 2 years, becomes its CEO just to burn it down out of vengeance about events that happened over 2 years before? Or massive armies destroyed? Betreyals and other stuff? That only can happen if full loot and the destruction of assets is allowed.
In other words, total freedom along with great possibilities (extremely extensive items crafting and world building) makes a truly engaging game. It needs a few safeguards, but at least as possible.
That's my view. :P
If you think you have a concept you would like that's cool.
Definitely not a sentiment I share however.
Given you brought up griefing, it's been a problem even in systems with heavy punishments. People simply move to sacrificial players/accounts, or find other ways to grief people (like stacking items to break into someone's home and tool about). It's not even PvP specific in that regard, but PvP does lend itself to unpredictable ebbs in moments like that.
Similarly, loot drops are not inherently necessary to cycle loot. Simply implementing durability to items and tweaking the availability of types of gear accomplishes much the same.
Killing a player's morale is not that hard to do. Any kind of game mechanic where the consequence of it can be described as "denial" of a player's time, effort, or other investments, will always run the risk of damaging a player's morale and interest in continues participation. It's a moving target across demographics as well, where you might be ok with some such losses as part of a risk vs reward mindset, there are others to which that simply does not sell well.
And part of that is why we've seen the shifts we have. You can blame lowest common denominator or whatever else, but ultimately the potential value seems to have leaned towards more people preferring less loss over such mechanics.
This also feeds directly into why lobby style PvP games have so much more popularity over open PvP experiences.
And no matter hard you might try to sell it, we do not want games where we play generic classes characters (click and change), where we jump around like Mario with a controller, solo our way through the game, and play on our phones.
Not many of you want to play the old games that still remain either, unless you all do and they still only make up a tiny fragment of the market.
To me, a good MMORPGs has the following:
- Sandbox
- No instance
- Full player looting
- Fully Free-for-All PvP
- Economy fully driven by players
- Mostly everything should be craftable. Especially commonly used weapons and armor. And decorative items.
- Extreme customization of character and housing. Minecraft/Terraria like freedom and customization.
- Non-instanced housing
- Extreme number of collectable exotic objects
- Skill-based progression
- Social interaction should be the focus of the game
It's an interesting list that I'm sure at least a few people would agree with, though a couple things on there I would call a death-knell if released to the modern audience.
It can simply be a problem of exposure and the amount of people that would play it, but full player looting and FFA PvP continues to be the not-so-slow killer of several titles with similar ambitions.
You could get away with it when the player base for such games was more finite and the amount of potential griefers was much more limited, but now the genre is functionally just self-cannibalizing.
This isn't calling PvP in general bad, but it is a weak point for MMOs, and there's a reason lobby style PvP games remain wildly more popular than open PvP experiences.
I understand, but what I observe is different... Sandboxes since UO have been bad. The reason is they all have been limited because they were too focused on certain feature, particularly on PvP but not on building. It's building and protecting that brings people together. In a sandbox, what we want is freedom, but what we need is possibilities. To me, the only reasons sandboxes fail is they focus on the wrong things. A sandbox should be a world building game and not a PvP battleground.
Case in point, look at the success of Minecraft or Valheim. If those game went MMO, imagine how insane that would be.
Concerning full body looting, it is a pre-requisite for a true player-driven economy (along with item recycling into raw material). I really don't see the problem. It creates scarcity and demand. But yes, it has to give much less importance to mythical items, and players have to rely on common and abundant items to play the game. And only take out their shiny armor for important events or just to show off. At the same time, only then do rare items become really precious.
And I totally disagree about griefing. Griefing really only happens when killing players goes unpunished. If the consequences for being an outlaw are high, people would think twice before becoming a PK (red). In UO, PK dying was like losing 6 months of character leveling. There was a bounty hunting system for killing PKs. Every time there was a PK "outbreak", people would quickly gather to hunt them down. It was actually always a highlight of a day. And much better and exciting events than any "raid" in other games.
Where I agree is: property and value should not be easily destroyed. Because that would kill players moral and they might quit the game. But risk makes the games more fun and exciting. It also create insane stories, like what we see in Eve Online. Who infiltrates a corporation for 2 years, becomes its CEO just to burn it down out of vengeance about events that happened over 2 years before? Or massive armies destroyed? Betreyals and other stuff? That only can happen if full loot and the destruction of assets is allowed.
In other words, total freedom along with great possibilities (extremely extensive items crafting and world building) makes a truly engaging game. It needs a few safeguards, but at least as possible.
That's my view. :P
If you think you have a concept you would like that's cool.
Definitely not a sentiment I share however.
Given you brought up griefing, it's been a problem even in systems with heavy punishments. People simply move to sacrificial players/accounts, or find other ways to grief people (like stacking items to break into someone's home and tool about). It's not even PvP specific in that regard, but PvP does lend itself to unpredictable ebbs in moments like that.
Similarly, loot drops are not inherently necessary to cycle loot. Simply implementing durability to items and tweaking the availability of types of gear accomplishes much the same.
Killing a player's morale is not that hard to do. Any kind of game mechanic where the consequence of it can be described as "denial" of a player's time, effort, or other investments, will always run the risk of damaging a player's morale and interest in continues participation. It's a moving target across demographics as well, where you might be ok with some such losses as part of a risk vs reward mindset, there are others to which that simply does not sell well.
And part of that is why we've seen the shifts we have. You can blame lowest common denominator or whatever else, but ultimately the potential value seems to have leaned towards more people preferring less loss over such mechanics.
This also feeds directly into why lobby style PvP games have so much more popularity over open PvP experiences.
Well said. It is far too easy to grind players down. No am not even remotely interested in a game with player looting and killing. I too prefer lobby style PvP. I will wholeheartedly play those games with glee but will never play a game @kelghu described.
I'm actually quite pleased that developers generally stay far away from those games and the games that do it are pretty niche. I mean if people truly enjoyed that so much why are those games struggling to gain popularity. Albion Online being the exception and EvE. However there should always be games like that for people who enjoy that but I am doubtful that the majority of players enjoy that mechanic. I think that it takes a certain mind set to not get upset when a player kills and loots you and I am sadly unable to handle that. I don't have excuses nor do I need to defend my dislike for it. I will say however that it is too deeply ingrained in my case.
WoW PvP was extremely popular and the BGs were a definite demonstration of how people enjoy their PvP. I believe that Dark Age of Camelot had that idea down too where people could level up and gain loot and experience without harassment from PvP players and only chose to PvP when they want to.
Flagging for PvP is also something I don't mind like how it was in SWG. You play a game and then you decide when you want to PvP is the way I like my games. I don't want other players deciding or forcing me into it so I avoid any game that does. I do play PvP games I just try my damnest to avoid it at all cost. That is a game in itself.
And no matter hard you might try to sell it, we do not want games where we play generic classes characters (click and change), where we jump around like Mario with a controller, solo our way through the game, and play on our phones.
Not many of you want to play the old games that still remain either, unless you all do and they still only make up a tiny fragment of the market.
Addressed multiple times previously.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The reason I consistently return to Eve,Ultima,Anarchy, etc.
Comes down to two things.Challenge and Risk vs Reward .
Near all of the 2nd and 3rd generation games are handheld casual, monotonous very pretty, easy games with participation trophies with very little challenge and no Risk vs Reward ..
I started with Meridian59. Only about a 100 to 200 people per server, but we had a blast. No instances, full loot, everything was permanent. We were fighting big bosses, but it was dangerous, because a rival guild could come and attack us at any time. It had to be well organized. The sense of constant danger made social interaction extremely important.
But the best (I have never seen this in any other games) were guildhalls. They were pre-built and we had to rent them. The best guildhalls were insane. I remember my guild had this guildhall inside a mountain. The main entrance was behind a waterfall and we needed a password to enter. But anyone could hear the password, then enter the guildhall and steal everything. They could even steal the guildhall itself. They to turn a switch and hold it for 30 minutes or so. The whole guild would receive a message that the guildhall was under attack, and we would all rush back to the guildhall to defend it or recapture it.
Our guildhall also had a huge hall like in Khazad-dûm. There was also a balcony up high to address everyone downstairs. It was epic. Though, our guild was only 20 people strong, so it really looked empty even when we were all there.
There was also a secret entrance/exit to a forest in a totally different part of the world. Meridian59 was great for a first MMORPG.
Ultima Online was probably the greatest game in my opinion. It was a real sandbox with a totally persistent world. No instances. We had total freedom. Rich world, no quest, full player looting on death, player-driven world, economy and everything. So many objects, mostly decorative. Highly customizable housing. Crafting allowed us to build like 60% of the game's objects. From swords to chairs and tables. Anything you could think of, you could probably craft it. But there was also a lot of uncraftable or special objects, and people would go treasure hunting. A lot of those decorative objects were found in dangerous dungeons as drops, in chest, dungeon decoration or just on the ground.
We didn't go to dungeons to get a specific loot, but just to farm, treasure hunt (there was a treasure maps system) or player killing.
I have so many fun stories. We were so free and nothing to follow. We spent our messing around and socialize. We spent 70% just talking and walking around killing a monster here and there. And suddenly a portal would open, a player would run out of it and a demon would be chasing. We would then either help him kill the demon or trap it in a house.
I remember one time where a high level player would stay on a road nearby a village and would paralyze every player passing by (paralyzed was way OP at the beginning, there was no time limit). He would then force everyone to dye their clothes in pink, otherwise he would kill us. And so everyone would be dressed up in pink around that village. It was hilarious.
Sometimes, we would randomly meet someone, and they would invite to come to their home. We would sit on the rooftop and talk or show off rare objects. And those were never weapons or armor. Also exotic decorative objects.
Sometimes we would see a whole bunch of people running, and we would stay there asking ourselves what was going on, and a whole guild of Player Killers would follow and kill us, and we would lose all our equipment. We would then resurect, go home, gear up again, and join the anti-PK squad that would spontaneously organized itself at the nearest village and hunt PKs.
Sometimes, a group of us would all polymorph into a monster then we would go in a forest and scare players by simulating a huge monster attack.
Housing in UO was incredible. We could stack objects on to of each other to create art. Houses were wildly different. Some people had waterfalls, or created an aquarium by stacking different piece of dyed cloths to create the illusion of an aquarium. Then placed fish, starfish and other objects on it. It was beautiful. Some people only played UO to decorate their house. Some players were even hired as interior designer. The possibilities were endless. You should go check photos of houses in UO. It was like Minecraft or Terraria but 20 years earlier.
The economy was completely player-driven like Eve Online. We would rarely equip rare named items, because the likeliness to die and lose them was too high. We mostly used them at tournaments. Player Killer would equip them, because dying was not an option for PK as they would lose 30% of their level/XP.
And the game was skill-based and not level-based, so we would not be chasing levels. We would just enjoy the game, and the more we played, the stronger we naturally became according to our actions.
And exploration was so great. There still tons of places I have never been. Because there is no real incentive to go to some places. Or it was just hard to get there. Some places were only accessible by boat first. But not many of us had a boat.
Ultima Online was by far the best game to me. Everything was so spontaneous all the time. Only Eve Online is like that nowadays.
I could go with Asheron's call where two level 20 players could kill a level 40, which is impossible in today's games. And we also had tremendous freedom.
Since EverQuest, MMORPGs have become theme parks. Everything is designed for us to follow. And people spend their time chasing levels, quests and equipment. Everything is instanced. Nothing is spontaneous, it feels like work not a game. I would rather play Diablo if that was my purpose. An MMORPG should be lived, not played.
Also, PvP is highly regulated, instanced and safe. It's like a sport. Nothing exciting anymore after a short while. It's better to go play CS, OW, or LOL at this point.
Real free-for-all PvP in non-instanced world with full loot keeps it exciting at all time.
To me, a good MMORPGs has the following:
- Sandbox
- No instance
- Full player looting
- Fully Free-for-All PvP
- Economy fully driven by players
- Mostly everything should be craftable. Especially commonly used weapons and armor. And decorative items.
- Extreme customization of character and housing. Minecraft/Terraria like freedom and customization.
- Non-instanced housing
- Extreme number of collectable exotic objects
- Skill-based progression
- Social interaction should be the focus of the game
It can simply be a problem of exposure and the amount of people that would play it, but full player looting and FFA PvP continues to be the not-so-slow killer of several titles with similar ambitions.
You could get away with it when the player base for such games was more finite and the amount of potential griefers was much more limited, but now the genre is functionally just self-cannibalizing.
This isn't calling PvP in general bad, but it is a weak point for MMOs, and there's a reason lobby style PvP games remain wildly more popular than open PvP experiences.
If you want that, then you have to get rid of the disparity in level power, which divides players by said level power.
The only effort to date in most MMORPGs to fix that problem has been Scaling.
But Scaling removes any meaning to advancement. That's not a good answer.
You have to reduce that power spread enough so that Characters can interact on a wide scale.
From there you can build that Sandbox WORLD that feels like a WORLD.
People are social animals, socialization will come naturally for most, even if it takes them a little while to get into it. Once they start to know other Characters (and not losing them to level divisions), it usually steamrolls into more and more socializing.
Especially in a game world that's designed for Player interaction.
Having a realistic economy is very important, since that is where most Players start to interact and get to know other Players. An economy that's based on level loot is not good for this because it's already dividing Players into groupings.
@kelghu, yes, UO was alive exactly because of all of the Player interaction. I mean really alive!
No other game, in my mind, has come close to UO in that regard.
Although, the Blue Healer situation ruined what would have been a great Justice System. And too many Players left the game because of constant abuse.
My dream game would be UO without the constant abuse (i.e. don't allow Blues to Heal Reds without going Gray), and advanced with modern technology in ways that stick to it's original design principles.
Once upon a time....
I like alot of your list.
But these
- Full player looting
- Fully Free-for-All PvP
At the bare minimum there needs to be at least 1 PVE server and 1 PVP server. If you dont have a PVE server option your game is going to be niche.
All devs needs is enough PVP and PVE servers so there are no queues. No clue why a game would put so much time into making a game and then turn off such a large playerbase. Just free money they throwing away.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
I mean, at its most basic core design concept.
Would it be fair to say that "old school" = Worldly,
and "new school" = Level Grind (including gear grind, et.al.)?
Once upon a time....
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I think people legitimately want games that are cast in the spirit of those 4 to 6 games.
I know I have more fun in Vanguard Emulator than I do in any "modern" mmorpg. Not to say that it supersedes the original Vanguard.
I do agree that no large development house would make such a game and that players don't really understand this. It's small developers who are willing to take the risk but players don't understand that these games will not come out quickly (if at all) as these developers seem to fly by the seat of their pants.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
MMORPGs in large numbers started with UO, EQ came out with the Level Grind design. Two early MMORPGs.
The Level Grind won because of D&D, which also inspired the SP computer games, for the most part.
But when you add in "Massively Multiplayer" in the MMORPGs, you have a problem with that social structure of playing in a "World."
And if the problem with MMORPGs is about the lack of Social in game play, and it is, then you have to start addressing that problem that's based on Level Grinds and the division of the game's Players by disparate levels.
You guys can ignore this huge issue, but all you're doing is supporting the continuation of the problem and the continued decline of the genre.
Once upon a time....
And honestly it’s a bit insulting for people who are happy with the stuff available to today to pat us on the head and talk about nostalgia lenses or rose colored lenses.
We aren’t children. We actually know what we enjoy.
And as explained numerous times, the current game situation is directly a result of chasing not just a bigger slice of the pie, but bigger pies. So it’s grown in stages to appeal to a wider audience. And each bigger pie gets it further from what it was.
And no matter hard you might try to sell it, we do not want games where we play generic classes characters (click and change), where we jump around like Mario with a controller, solo our way through the game, and play on our phones.
So please stop telling us what we do or do not want. You sound like this guy to us:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ly10r6m_-n8
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
not convinced?
LOL thats just an opinion. Interesting nobody can even know, because there hasnt been a single game based on OLD school that is actually AS GOOD or better than the old school games. What is possible is a good OLD school game COULD absolutely blow out every game in history. You cant know if thats true or not because they havent made one.
No 'talented' development house thinks that either.
This is a complete joke of a statement. What talented development house are you even talking about. Who would trust these people anyways, all they have been making is trash. This entire genre is in decline. Every game coming out cant even get any subs close to the old school games. There hasnt been a new game in the last 8 years that is even decent that can get subs. All the top MMO from 15 years ago are losing players hand over fist other than maybe 1 FFIVX. So the top development houses are completely clueless as to what the customers want.
Makes me think of how so many people predicted Avatar 2 and Top Gun Maverick would not do well and was just nostalgia flix. How can only a couple of directors have almost all the top movies of all time. Yet all the other "industry insiders" picking movies like Babylon and Amsterdam are completely clueless. Oh I bet Babylon and Amsterdam will win a billion Awards, but still be BIG FLOPS, meanwhile the nostalgia movies are killing it at the box office.
I could give a rats ... what the "talented" dev houses think, they are garbage.
No 'talented' development house thinks that either.
should be changed to
"no talent" development houses think that too.
I understand, but what I observe is different... Sandboxes since UO have been bad. The reason is they all have been limited because they were too focused on certain feature, particularly on PvP but not on building. It's building and protecting that brings people together. In a sandbox, what we want is freedom, but what we need is possibilities. To me, the only reasons sandboxes fail is they focus on the wrong things. A sandbox should be a world building game and not a PvP battleground.
Case in point, look at the success of Minecraft or Valheim. If those game went MMO, imagine how insane that would be.
Concerning full body looting, it is a pre-requisite for a true player-driven economy (along with item recycling into raw material). I really don't see the problem. It creates scarcity and demand. But yes, it has to give much less importance to mythical items, and players have to rely on common and abundant items to play the game. And only take out their shiny armor for important events or just to show off. At the same time, only then do rare items become really precious.
And I totally disagree about griefing. Griefing really only happens when killing players goes unpunished. If the consequences for being an outlaw are high, people would think twice before becoming a PK (red). In UO, PK dying was like losing 6 months of character leveling. There was a bounty hunting system for killing PKs. Every time there was a PK "outbreak", people would quickly gather to hunt them down. It was actually always a highlight of a day. And much better and exciting events than any "raid" in other games.
Where I agree is: property and value should not be easily destroyed. Because that would kill players moral and they might quit the game. But risk makes the games more fun and exciting. It also create insane stories, like what we see in Eve Online. Who infiltrates a corporation for 2 years, becomes its CEO just to burn it down out of vengeance about events that happened over 2 years before? Or massive armies destroyed? Betreyals and other stuff? That only can happen if full loot and the destruction of assets is allowed.
In other words, total freedom along with great possibilities (extremely extensive items crafting and world building) makes a truly engaging game. It needs a few safeguards, but at least as possible.
That's my view. :P
Definitely not a sentiment I share however.
Given you brought up griefing, it's been a problem even in systems with heavy punishments. People simply move to sacrificial players/accounts, or find other ways to grief people (like stacking items to break into someone's home and tool about). It's not even PvP specific in that regard, but PvP does lend itself to unpredictable ebbs in moments like that.
Similarly, loot drops are not inherently necessary to cycle loot. Simply implementing durability to items and tweaking the availability of types of gear accomplishes much the same.
Killing a player's morale is not that hard to do. Any kind of game mechanic where the consequence of it can be described as "denial" of a player's time, effort, or other investments, will always run the risk of damaging a player's morale and interest in continues participation. It's a moving target across demographics as well, where you might be ok with some such losses as part of a risk vs reward mindset, there are others to which that simply does not sell well.
And part of that is why we've seen the shifts we have. You can blame lowest common denominator or whatever else, but ultimately the potential value seems to have leaned towards more people preferring less loss over such mechanics.
This also feeds directly into why lobby style PvP games have so much more popularity over open PvP experiences.
Not many of you want to play the old games that still remain either, unless you all do and they still only make up a tiny fragment of the market.
I'm actually quite pleased that developers generally stay far away from those games and the games that do it are pretty niche. I mean if people truly enjoyed that so much why are those games struggling to gain popularity. Albion Online being the exception and EvE. However there should always be games like that for people who enjoy that but I am doubtful that the majority of players enjoy that mechanic. I think that it takes a certain mind set to not get upset when a player kills and loots you and I am sadly unable to handle that. I don't have excuses nor do I need to defend my dislike for it. I will say however that it is too deeply ingrained in my case.
WoW PvP was extremely popular and the BGs were a definite demonstration of how people enjoy their PvP. I believe that Dark Age of Camelot had that idea down too where people could level up and gain loot and experience without harassment from PvP players and only chose to PvP when they want to.
Flagging for PvP is also something I don't mind like how it was in SWG. You play a game and then you decide when you want to PvP is the way I like my games. I don't want other players deciding or forcing me into it so I avoid any game that does. I do play PvP games I just try my damnest to avoid it at all cost. That is a game in itself.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018