Except it really isn't. Quality can be objectified, and quantified. It's about designing systems that meet the most stringent of criteria. Someone who totes that 'well that's your opinion' hides behind a subjective truth, not an inclusive one. If this concept eludes you, perhaps you're not privy to its understanding?
Then you need to define objective standards of quality and establish an agreement upon this definition with whoever you argue it with. The problem arises when you forgo this bit and simply reffer to quality as your subjective opinion of it. Without a consensus as to how quality should be defined this is a moot point, taking liberties in defining debatable terms such as 'quality' or 'meaning' is poor form and makes for poor arguments.
Where did WoW come into the discussion of the quotes you made? But since you brought it up... WoW represents perhaps too great a leap forward. It has dried up creativity (hopefully this much is evident given successive MMORPG releases?) in the industry, while simultaneously [progressively] degrading the roots of what MMORPGs were always about. Piss off the roots, and you create divide. While many aspects of said title should be praised, it doesn't excuse the negative impacts that it's had along the way as well. Glazing over it promotes ignorance, nothing more.
This is again a claim without true justification. It is opinion presented as truth. Of course you are free to feel this way, your feelings and opinions are your own, but you need to accept that they do not qualify as facts. You do not have the power to define what mmorpgs are supposed to be, nor what innovations are good or bad.
Argue the masses over what quality is? It would be in vain. Politics, marketing, hell even judicial proceedings are about intellectuals highlighting facts in order to win over those less comprehensive. At some point, those with knowledge or understanding must content themselves to *knowing*, because there's always some slapjack out there willing to push instant-result formulae to win over a customer (credit card marketting anyone?). Reason purpose and truth with the customer, and watch that same marketter hit up 10 other customers at the cost to your one.
Arguments from elitism carry as little weight as arguments from popularity. This is not a judical prosess, there are no laws to be followed. Trying to argue of some claimed "knowledge" or "understanding" is an empty claim. You must first justify it for it to even be a weak argument from authority. On a side note, popularity is indeed not proof of quality, it can be an indication, but not proof. On the flipside it's not proof of lack of quality it's not even an indication. Vise versa, lack of popularity most certainly is neither proof nor indication of quality, though it is not proof of the lack of quality either.
(...) The industry is dying. Growth and evolution accelerate this mechanic. At some point, it gets too big, and breaks off, spins off. At some point, it gets too advanced, and dries up. This concept of change can be witnessed and studied in many areas of life: the corporate market-space being a perfect palette from which to paint a picture.
This claim is faulty. Growth and evolution is not an indication of "the industry" dying. The car industry has been growing and changing for decades, it might come to an end sometime in the future, but it's not an easy prediction ot make. the same can be said for numerous other industries, as well as for most other game generes. you are not supporting this claim with anything, but a faulty claim of "that's just how it is". you should at the very least come up with an example and argue why this example is more valid than the many counter examples than can be produced.
You want innovation? In any sector of industry? The answer is *always* the first place one can look: right in front of you. Embrace the industry based on its birth, since everyone always tries to one-up and out-do the other guy, and you will truly effect change in a method that all parties involved can embrace.
A claim such as "The answer is *always* the first place one can look: right in front of you." shouldn't be made this lightly and certainly not without a proper argument. It's common sensial, but it's not given to be true. Even taking it for true it doesn't suppport the followup "Embrace the industry based on its birth", it doesn't follow by any nessessity that the "birth of the industry" si the only thing "right in front of you" (the current state of the industry, other trends, other industries, your customers, etc.) nor that it contains the sole source of enlightenment or innovation. You yet again fail to provide an argument as to why this should be taken for truth.
We just need a daoc 2.0 that's not warhammeresque...
Daoc 2 would be the ...
you will never get daoc 2 with ea/mystic attached to it they proved that by making warhammer/warcraft if they just made their own path instead of trying to follow blizzards it would be ranked
Yet how do you objectify quality for MMORPG's yet alone video games, movies, music and other media? Metacritic? Are you going to argue the masses over the quality of music of Lady Gaga and tell them they all lack the taste in music as well or are you going to still stick to Led Zeppelin being the best music ever? Same can be said for favorite movies etc.? Again, you want to say quality can be objectified but never even bother to point out what "stringent of criteria" can be even used universally? I'll cite again: "If this concept eludes you, perhaps you're not privy to its understanding?" I expanded enough on the topic, breaking it down further shouldn't be necessary. But here goes anyway: Person A and Person B listen to music. Person A likes lots of harmonics and cord changes, with heavy beats while Person B is perfectly content with a simple snare drum once every so often. If you write a song that meets the criterion of Person B, with a snare drum being used, then Person B will subjectively call it quality. Write a song that includes meditated guitar work and interesting rhythms, and both Person A and B will subjectively claim it's quality. Considering that are they represent a combined completion of all criteria in your system, the quality is now objective and inclusive. Expand this concept using multiple variables and multiple sources, and embrace applications of discrete math. When building something of objective quality, you first meet the requirements of the most stringent of demands. Organized chaos, everything else 'falls into place', and you have terms that everyone can agree to. I believe WoW came into my discussion when it became an MMORPG, I don't think I need permission to use something as an example. Everything you say in this paragraph are all subjective further proving my point. You say creativity is dried up but yet some can argue that creativity can never be dried up. Again more statements with lack of any support, further proving that things like this is subjective. I cited in parenthesis my catch-all. Perhaps you missed it. Politics, marketing, judicial proceedings? You criticized my post over bringing up WoW and you pull this? And if you're trying to bring up quality in regards to these topics, again more subjectivity. Again, apparently you think you're the ultimate definition of everything even beyond MMORPG's huh I'm including a global scope of understanding. I bring to bear examples of how efforts can be in vain. To illustrate one, let alone many, would require a medium that forums aren't condusive towards. Very briefly, because you seem to be nitpicking the details and missing the points: I explain how someone who possesses understanding of a certain topic might be correct, might have the most inclusive truth, but people will still manage to miss the concept when said individual shares with them, due to personal bias, fears, persuasion etc. At this point, he who knows must be content with simply 'knowing that he knows'. Yes, things can be dated or else Porches would look more like this:
First Car Link broken. Also, I stated from current day to T minus decades, not from birth until present. You rubberbanded my statement, convenient for argumentation but futile. Yes, that'll be one of the first cars made and if the model was so great, why don't the cars today stick to their roots. I believe thats your argument in trying to use un-related analogies that don't even work with media. You have to realize these are on a whole different level. MMORPG's aren't measured by a combination of safety ratings, performance and reliability. There is no horsepower involved in an MMORPG's engine. It's all based on around opinion and based around the opinion of the most people that fall along the same line, you either like it or you don't for the most part with some in between. You should really reread posts before you decide to respond. Nowhere did I state that progress or movement forward wasn't 1. necessary 2. beneficial or 3. desired. I stated, very *clearly*, that if you want to provoke innovation, you *embrace* the roots, not *mimic* them. And again, before you rubberband this concept, I'm not talking about embracing 'how one remembers' (nostalgia), but how things truly were, to capture the *essence* of a sector of industry's birth, while keeping the forward momentum and progress obtained through the years since. History has a way of repeating itself across all walks of life: music, war, fashion, you name it. What was 'in' once, comes back around. There are times of forward motion, and there are times where forward motion is achieved through first taking a step back. You seem attached to the concept of mechanics. You've taken examples and fixated your arguments on them rather than the points they make. The success of MMORPGs is popular in nature (hell, the first two 'M's in the name), but popularity is not synonymous with quality. This thread is talking about the mojo, the 'it' factor, of our beloved gaming genre. Clearly, there are plenty of people who play MMORPGs, so the masses cannot be the 'it' the OP is speaking to. He's asking why, for him (a more stringent critic than 'the masses'), has the MMORPG genre lost 'it'. We're talking about what made/makes MMORPGs 'great'. We're talking quality. Embracing the industry based on its birth sounds like a person who doesn't know how to look beyond it and how does that involve innovation when you're looking back at things that already have been done? Innovation Definition Touched on above. You've misread my postings and jumped to numerous conclusions prematurely. My suggestion is to put more focus in your posts, it looks scattered and please look out for any contradictions. Re-reading/proofreading your own posts can go miles as well. This sounds all over the place with no clear idea of where you're trying to get at. Suggestion noted. Your subjective viewpoint might do well with some reading comprehension of its own, as pointed out in various locations in this response, and perhaps some of the scattered findings might align.
[Edit] Format.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Whether the genre has lost its mojo or is better than ever is purely a matter of perspective with no right or wrong answer. But I do think the discussion is somewhat clouded by people's opinions of WoW. Some people love it, some loathe it but if you put WoW to one side for a moment how many people would actually argue that the last five years has seen a bumper crop of interesting and enjoyable MMO releases?
There have been a few decent games but nothing really great and overall it's been a pretty fallow period in my opinion.
MMO's lost their magic when the next generation of players came along. I see them as the (Me) generation or the (Now) generation. They wanted everything dumbed down and made easy for casual play. They believe, as they do in life that everything should be handed to them and if they have to work for it then its a bad thing. Why work for it when they can go someplace else and get it for free or with little to no effort.
The relative number of players from the early days was little compared to the vast number of the new generation that lives on the computer.
With a large number of players of a certain type, they MMO designers did as they are supposed to... They made games for the masses. Its basic economics. They fulfilled a need.
The customers drive the market as they do in all things commercial. If no one bought the easy dumbed down games, there would be none made as they would be seen as a waste of time and investment. Players get what they want by their spending practices.
WOW wouldnt exist now if players didnt fund it. New developers wouldnt use them as a template for success.
Secondary:
Not to remove all blame from the developers..
The same said (Me) generation got old enough for jobs and entered the workforce. Some of which got jobs at game companies. With them they brought the same gaming attitude. The professional term is "projection". They believe that since they want dumbed down games, everyone else must also think it the same. Since the games that have lost their "mojo" are doing well, they would be correct. They cater to the same kind of player that they are and that spends the money.
Originally posted by J.YossarianThen you need to define objective standards of quality and establish an agreement upon this definition with whoever you argue it with. The problem arises when you forgo this bit and simply reffer to quality as your subjective opinion of it. Without a consensus as to how quality should be defined this is a moot point, taking liberties in defining debatable terms such as 'quality' or 'meaning' is poor form and makes for poor arguments. I wasn't aware that defining every term used needed to be done at the moment of its entry into discussion. If an individual doesn't possess the mental dexterity to work a concept, at that point they should say so and explanations are given. Otherwise, we press onward. In my response to the individual, I briefly explained how 'quality', 'objectivity' and 'inclusion' are married terms. If one wants to insist that some things are subjective by definition, while I offer ways to quantify them, then an impasse is at hand. This is again a claim without true justification. It is opinion presented as truth. Of course you are free to feel this way, your feelings and opinions are your own, but you need to accept that they do not qualify as facts. You do not have the power to define what mmorpgs are supposed to be, nor what innovations are good or bad. It absolutely was without justification. In this example I'm echo'ing sentiments rampantly expressed for favor of shortened dialogue. Explaining who, why these statements were made would be another page in a forum post. While I didn't expand on the statements, I did include a catch-all: 'hopefully this much is evident given successive MMORPG releases?' If you want specific examples, I can briefly cite how the numbers game plays to WoW favor and many people who try a new MMORPG rebound back to WoW because it's 'more of the same, but not as good' (paraphrasing, no supporting links, but hopefully you've witnessed these statements yourself, so we can move past the nitpicking?). WoW leeches concepts like achievement schemes from other releases and bundles it with their own title. In these 2 examples, we can safely conclude that there is a 'drying up' of creativity from other sectors of the industry, because the masses play WoW, and WoW feeds them the innovation that was first birthed elsewhere. I can objectively state many things about MMORPGs, but nowhere do I claim what they are supposed to be. I hope this statement wasn't suggestive in nature, because it is laughable already. And with an objective eye, can not most anyone unearth what innovations progress a genre, versus regress it? Progress and regress, themselves, hinging on terms of quality? On terms of quantity? Arguments from elitism carry as little weight as arguments from popularity. This is not a judical prosess, there are no laws to be followed. Trying to argue of some claimed "knowledge" or "understanding" is an empty claim. You must first justify it for it to even be a weak argument from authority. On a side note, popularity is indeed not proof of quality, it can be an indication, but not proof. On the flipside it's not proof of lack of quality it's not even an indication. Vise versa, lack of popularity most certainly is neither proof nor indication of quality, though it is not proof of the lack of quality either. Sadly, you're right. I say 'sadly' because you missed the point, despite making a correct statement. You focused on who the messenger is, not on the message being delivered. Just because someone might know something that is an all-inclusive truth, doesn't mean they will be able to share it with everyone, much less have others accept it. At a certain point, that individual must simply enjoy their knowledge, because sharing it would be in vain. Does this make the truth said person holds any less truthful? *Contrarily*, does it make the individual less authoritative because he is in the few? I explained the concept of stringent criteria and objective and inclusive quality. I referenced how and why popular vote isn't synonymous with correct vote. And while you seemingly reject my statements, you back-peddle over them yourself? This claim is faulty. Growth and evolution is not an indication of "the industry" dying. The car industry has been growing and changing for decades, it might come to an end sometime in the future, but it's not an easy prediction ot make. the same can be said for numerous other industries, as well as for most other game generes. you are not supporting this claim with anything, but a faulty claim of "that's just how it is". you should at the very least come up with an example and argue why this example is more valid than the many counter examples than can be produced. Life is a terminal illness. Suns that burn brighter die faster. The moment something is birthed, it has a due-date. The faster you move forward, the faster that due-date approaches. It's the 'terminative concept'. This is the reference I'm making. Since you referenced cars, I'll use a micro/macro-cosm approach in this discussion. Steam engines were developed and saw their end. Coal usage saw its end, became refined oil, is becoming electric power. There comes a time in any industry, or sector of industry, where the progress forward will terminate the need for previous concepts. But that progress forward wouldn't have been achieved without the input of the advancing technology that made itself obsolete, ultimately. I state again: the faster you move forward, the faster you bring your due-date. Perhaps you understand now this claim? A claim such as "The answer is *always* the first place one can look: right in front of you." shouldn't be made this lightly and certainly not without a proper argument. It's common sensial, but it's not given to be true. Even taking it for true it doesn't suppport the followup "Embrace the industry based on its birth", it doesn't follow by any nessessity that the "birth of the industry" si the only thing "right in front of you" (the current state of the industry, other trends, other industries, your customers, etc.) nor that it contains the sole source of enlightenment or innovation. You yet again fail to provide an argument as to why this should be taken for truth. Since you were talking cars, just before, we'll keep to the same vein. Horse-drawn carriages were once the exclusive's form of travel. Today, technology has rendered them obsolete. But in doing so, we have lost much of what travel could be. The intimacy, the detachment from a hurried world, the true concept of 'horse-power' (sorry, I couldn't resist!), just to name a few ideas. I'm not saying that auto-makers need to throw away metal engine blocks for muscular horse-driven power, I'm saying that the auto-industry, every time it takes a step forward, it remembers its past. The essence, the spirit, of luxury travel has concepts that need not be forgotten in the quest to move forward. By forgetting them, we cheapen the overall meaning. By including them, while making cars ever-safer, ever-faster whatever other criteria you introduce, we achieve quantitative, qualitative progress.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
They didn't lose their mojo. You either got burnt out on MMOs or you outgrew them. Trust me, that thirteen year old logging onto his MMO for the first time? Plenty of mojo. Even the crappy MMOs.
Except for the fact that the MMOs many of us as supposedly "nostalgic" over have had several fundamental shifts in gameplay caused by developers altering the scope of the game, causing said games to be so different they could be considered completely new games.
Additionally, and in part due to the aforementioned, there are virtually no games that fill the desires of "oldschool" MMO gamers. Most MMO developers today focus on creating content treadmills to keep players busy, rather than caring about actually making a virtual world for players to participate in, interact with, and leave an impact.
I wasn't aware that defining every term used needed to be done at the moment of its entry into discussion. If an individual doesn't possess the mental dexterity to work a concept, at that point they should say so and explanations are given. Otherwise, we press onward. In my response to the individual, I briefly explained how 'quality', 'objectivity' and 'inclusion' are married terms. If one wants to insist that some things are subjective by definition, while I offer ways to quantify them, then an impasse is at hand.
It's not nessisary to define every term, but a term as central to the argument as "quality" is here is allways a hot candidate and when there is doubt as to the meaning of this term I'd say a definition needs to be made. If we shared this notion of quality it would not be a problem, but alas we don't. Then it becomes meaningless to say you can use it objectively without being more precise as to it's meaning. Furthermore "quality" is a value ladden term and often is used in a negative as "lack of quality". Certainly there is a fundamental and justfied disagreement as to what constitutes "quality" and that needs to be taken seriously.
It absolutely was without justification. In this example I'm echo'ing sentiments rampantly expressed for favor of shortened dialogue. Explaining who, why these statements were made would be another page in a forum post. While I didn't expand on the statements, I did include a catch-all: 'hopefully this much is evident given successive MMORPG releases?' If you want specific examples, I can briefly cite how the numbers game plays to WoW favor and many people who try a new MMORPG rebound back to WoW because it's 'more of the same, but not as good' (paraphrasing, no supporting links, but hopefully you've witnessed these statements yourself, so we can move past the nitpicking?). WoW leeches concepts like achievement schemes from other releases and bundles it with their own title. In these 2 examples, we can safely conclude that there is a 'drying up' of creativity from other sectors of the industry, because the masses play WoW, and WoW feeds them the innovation that was first birthed elsewhere. I can objectively state many things about MMORPGs, but nowhere do I claim what they are supposed to be. I hope this statement wasn't suggestive in nature, because it is laughable already. And with an objective eye, can not most anyone unearth what innovations progress a genre, versus regress it? Progress and regress, themselves, hinging on terms of quality? On terms of quantity?
Then surely that is my missunderstanding and we can agree to there not being a given objective "way mmorpgs should be". Certainly there is a great room for debate as to what 'can ba' and what would be interesting avenues, so long as the discussion does not degenereate into undue 'ortodoxy' on either side. As for innovation I would dissagree. Many recently released gamers play with diffrent concepts, even if they fail; and bring to bear diffrent ways of doing things and diffrent experiences. Even when not successful to the degree hoped there are lessons to be learned. Taking and using concepts from other games and areas surely is a for of innovation internally. To expand on the car analogy, using spaceship materials, aerodynamic ideas from aviation, gps, etc. These are innovation by virtue of being moved from one context to a new one. Achievments are at large a big success, taking it an implementing it in a diffrent game format is an innovation, as is taking and using a rating system as used in chess. It mgiht not fit every game, but they are new ideas for the genera and have their fans. WoW has also made many innovations on their own, some of these are subtle such as moving the wight of gameplay around or making content acceccible removing waiting times etc. some such as phasing can be used for game changing effects. It remains to see what Bioware has in store as to storytelling in mmorpgs; or what LEGU universe does with building and crafting. I do not belive the case for innovation drying up to be nearly as strong as you claim. It might be true for some concepts, but the genera is larget than a subset of it's concepts.
Sadly, you're right. I say 'sadly' because you missed the point, despite making a correct statement. You focused on who the messenger is, not on the message being delivered. Just because someone might know something that is an all-inclusive truth, doesn't mean they will be able to share it with everyone, much less have others accept it. At a certain point, that individual must simply enjoy their knowledge, because sharing it would be in vain. Does this make the truth said person holds any less truthful? *Contrarily*, does it make the individual less authoritative because he is in the few? I explained the concept of stringent criteria and objective and inclusive quality. I referenced how and why popular vote isn't synonymous with correct vote. And while you seemingly reject my statements, you back-peddle over them yourself?
Let's not try to make this a philosophical issue. Claiming access to some "deeper truth" that cannot be explained is itself very dodgy. It nearly passes over to be religious and I doubt that is a very frugal approach. It might not make you less truthful, but you might be wrong and that is the problem. you might belive it to be so as deeply as that, btu it might not be, or it might not be univerally so. That aside there is a tendency, and I belive most of us will indulge in it given the chane, to assume our tastes and opinion as to be surperior. Some would say it's down to how our brain works in making our choices appear, to us as correct to support our conviction in persuing these choices. I'm content to refrain from making crass calls on quality based on either popularity nor elitism; though both might have their virtues in select cases.
Life is a terminal illness. Suns that burn brighter die faster. The moment something is birthed, it has a due-date. The faster you move forward, the faster that due-date approaches. It's the 'terminative concept'. This is the reference I'm making.
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
There's leak, there's leak,
In the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
Yes, we're all going to die; everything comes to an end and I'd sell your heart to the junkman baby for a buck. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) We're still talking timeframes here, the end of the world has been proclaimes quite a few times and still hasn't come about. The mmorpg industry will end at some point, but it might keep going for a houndred years for all we know. It might have the recursive element of fashion and we'll see old concepts return to style. I guess what I'm trying to say is, there is a diffrence between knowing we're going to die and knowing when and how.
Since you referenced cars, I'll use a micro/macro-cosm approach in this discussion. Steam engines were developed and saw their end. Coal usage saw its end, became refined oil, is becoming electric power. There comes a time in any industry, or sector of industry, where the progress forward will terminate the need for previous concepts. But that progress forward wouldn't have been achieved without the input of the advancing technology that made itself obsolete, ultimately. I state again: the faster you move forward, the faster you bring your due-date. Perhaps you understand now this claim?
I maintain it to be a false claim, not dictated by logical nesessity, nor suitable for detailed analysis on this scale. It becomes a thought experiment too losely connected to reality to apply meaningfully to it. It still lacks a cocise argument and to be honest you might do better ion trying to make a structured argument that isn't a metaphor as it might clarify it more.
Since you were talking cars, just before, we'll keep to the same vein. Horse-drawn carriages were once the exclusive's form of travel. Today, technology has rendered them obsolete. But in doing so, we have lost much of what travel could be. The intimacy, the detachment from a hurried world, the true concept of 'horse-power' (sorry, I couldn't resist!), just to name a few ideas. I'm not saying that auto-makers need to throw away metal engine blocks for muscular horse-driven power, I'm saying that the auto-industry, every time it takes a step forward, it remembers its past. The essence, the spirit, of luxury travel has concepts that need not be forgotten in the quest to move forward. By forgetting them, we cheapen the overall meaning. By including them, while making cars ever-safer, ever-faster whatever other criteria you introduce, we achieve quantitative, qualitative progress.
There is a diffrence between remembering your past and the past being the only true souce of progress. there are lessons to be learned from the past indeed, but allso from other places. Priviliging the past over these other souces of progress might be a misstake. As is presuming that any change not tied to the past being a problem. There is this notion of maintaining the essence; "how much can you change something before it's not anynore". This however doesn't have an answer written in stone. Allan Touring would perhaps not at first reccognize the iPad as a decendant of the old Colossus computer. Change is change.
MMO's have not lost their "mojo". They are not inferior, as a genre, to a golden age. Once you have become familiar with the concept it no longer inspires like it used to. Simple.
You can search high and low for all sorts of arbitrary reasoning to explain your own lack of enthralment, but it really is nothing more than familiarization. As popularity rises, so do the people jumping on the bandwagon hoping for a slice of the action, some of these titles will inevitably be of poor standard, not every car is made the same high standards of others.
This. To all those who lament the alleged "good old days" of MMO's, read this and then re-read it.
I would disagree.
The only statement in niko's post that has any validity is the one about quality. Most games in recent years have been released in a very poor state, and the developers have not made enough effort to improve their quality up to a marginal standard.
I agree with yor statements and this default counter reaction that we are all just stuck in the ‘good old days’ just doesn’t hold water. In the PC gaming world it’s very clear that there is a direct and measurable reduction in game features, content and accessibility that can be easily quantified and measured.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Primary: MMO's lost their magic when the next generation of players came along. I see them as the (Me) generation or the (Now) generation. They wanted everything dumbed down and made easy for casual play. They believe, as they do in life that everything should be handed to them and if they have to work for it then its a bad thing. Why work for it when they can go someplace else and get it for free or with little to no effort. The relative number of players from the early days was little compared to the vast number of the new generation that lives on the computer. With a large number of players of a certain type, they MMO designers did as they are supposed to... They made games for the masses. Its basic economics. They fulfilled a need. The customers drive the market as they do in all things commercial. If no one bought the easy dumbed down games, there would be none made as they would be seen as a waste of time and investment. Players get what they want by their spending practices. WOW wouldnt exist now if players didnt fund it. New developers wouldnt use them as a template for success. Secondary: Not to remove all blame from the developers.. The same said (Me) generation got old enough for jobs and entered the workforce. Some of which got jobs at game companies. With them they brought the same gaming attitude. The professional term is "projection". They believe that since they want dumbed down games, everyone else must also think it the same. Since the games that have lost their "mojo" are doing well, they would be correct. They cater to the same kind of player that they are and that spends the money.
People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Just because we g-g-get around (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I think I'm getting to old for this shit, hehe. I have a pet peeve with the phrase "dumbed down", it's so habbitually missused. People will claim that removing a mindless timesing constitutes "dumbing something down", how is it becomming dumber when only a moron would find the element removed challenging? I've come across people who find removing an hour long wait "dumbing down", do these people find waiting mentally challenging? Is Penn and Teller's Desert Bus truly an intelligent game? There are "good challenges" and "bad challenges"; most of the stuff removed are of the bad kind. Unintelligent, pointless, random and not adding to gameplay. Maybe there is a need for more good challenges, but that is a distinctly different notion than the one often brough forth. Frankly the challenge in killing a dragon ought to be killing the dragon not waiting for it. there is room for a more even distribution of challenge in certain games (or a certain game to be precice), but the challenge is being moved to where it's supposed to be instead of cluttered into Desert Buss land.
People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Just because we g-g-get around (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation) I think I'm getting to old for this shit, hehe. I have a pet peeve with the phrase "dumbed down", it's so habbitually missused. People will claim that removing a mindless timesing constitutes "dumbing something down", how is it becomming dumber when only a moron would find the element removed challenging? I've come across people who find removing an hour long wait "dumbing down", do these people find waiting mentally challenging? Is Penn and Teller's Desert Bus truly an intelligent game? There are "good challenges" and "bad challenges"; most of the stuff removed are of the bad kind. Unintelligent, pointless, random and not adding to gameplay. Maybe there is a need for more good challenges, but that is a distinctly different notion than the one often brough forth. Frankly the challenge in killing a dragon ought to be killing the dragon not waiting for it. there is room for a more even distribution of challenge in certain games (or a certain game to be precice), but the challenge is being moved to where it's supposed to be instead of cluttered into Desert Buss land.
its not true for TV content, it is true for games and its very direct and measurable without much effort.
Sorry when it comes to games its not the 'good old days' efffect. its very measureable and direct, game content, accessiblity has decreased over just the past 3-5 years dramatically
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD its not true for TV content, it is true for games and its very direct and measurable without much effort. Sorry when it comes to games its not the 'good old days' efffect. its very measureable and direct, game content, accessiblity has decreased over just the past 3-5 years dramatically
It's even measurable? Maybe you could you present me with the measurements then?
It's not nessisary to define every term, but a term as central to the argument as "quality" is here is allways a hot candidate and when there is doubt as to the meaning of this term I'd say a definition needs to be made. If we shared this notion of quality it would not be a problem, but alas we don't. Then it becomes meaningless to say you can use it objectively without being more precise as to it's meaning. Furthermore "quality" is a value ladden term and often is used in a negative as "lack of quality". Certainly there is a fundamental and justfied disagreement as to what constitutes "quality" and that needs to be taken seriously. So you would have desired quality be immediately defined. In response to the other individual I did so post-factum. Quality is absolutely a value-laden term, but again, I touch on how and why it can be objectified. It has to do with inclusion. Discussing this further would be beating a dead horse. I've been clear and concise throughout. Then surely that is my missunderstanding and we can agree to there not being a given objective "way mmorpgs should be". Certainly there is a great room for debate as to what 'can ba' and what would be interesting avenues, so long as the discussion does not degenereate into undue 'ortodoxy' on either side. As for innovation I would dissagree. Many recently released gamers play with diffrent concepts, even if they fail; and bring to bear diffrent ways of doing things and diffrent experiences. Even when not successful to the degree hoped there are lessons to be learned. Taking and using concepts from other games and areas surely is a for of innovation internally. To expand on the car analogy, using spaceship materials, aerodynamic ideas from aviation, gps, etc. These are innovation by virtue of being moved from one context to a new one. Achievments are at large a big success, taking it an implementing it in a diffrent game format is an innovation, as is taking and using a rating system as used in chess. It mgiht not fit every game, but they are new ideas for the genera and have their fans. WoW has also made many innovations on their own, some of these are subtle such as moving the wight of gameplay around or making content acceccible removing waiting times etc. some such as phasing can be used for game changing effects. It remains to see what Bioware has in store as to storytelling in mmorpgs; or what LEGU universe does with building and crafting. I do not belive the case for innovation drying up to be nearly as strong as you claim. It might be true for some concepts, but the genera is larget than a subset of it's concepts.
I didn't agree on not being able to say 'way mmorpgs should be'. I merely said I never stated my stance. You can analyze demographic data, challenge:reward systems, and compile a system that could dictate the terms in which an MMORPG should reside. All of which, quantifiable provided you meet the heaviest of your critics first. But this rubberbands back to the concept of quality. You mention this tidbit of 'different ways of doing things and different experiences'. You and I match wavelengths on this. Perhaps you take my words to mean 'only one way'. I'm stating 'only one system'. As far as innovations, you must consider that everything has a cost. We praise forward progress, but often ignore, or choose to ignore, the losses required to get there. If you define your system as being all inclusive, you must account for this. In the end, you may find some of the 'steps forward' were net steps back. With what concerns innovation inside of a genre, I'm speaking from an osmosis standpoint, where the masses flock to a location. It matters not what happens outside of that location, because its gravity brings it inwards. It 'dries up' what's on the outside.
Pardon my use of metaphor, I can see you dislike it. Sadly, being someone with a comparative oriented mind, I have found it easier to learn, and teach, via concepts that might be presently familiar with an audience. That aside there is a tendency, and I belive most of us will indulge in it given the chane, to assume our tastes and opinion as to be surperior. Some would say it's down to how our brain works in making our choices appear, to us as correct to support our conviction in persuing these choices. I'm content to refrain from making crass calls on quality based on either popularity nor elitism; though both might have their virtues in select cases. Let's not try to make this a philosophical issue. Claiming access to some "deeper truth" that cannot be explained is itself very dodgy. It nearly passes over to be religious and I doubt that is a very frugal approach. It might not make you less truthful, but you might be wrong and that is the problem. you might belive it to be so as deeply as that, btu it might not be, or it might not be univerally so. You're taking the statement and orienting yourself to blast off in the wrong direction with it. Let me make reference again to a senario that might be presently familiar with the audience: Da Vinci was a smart dude. Word is, he was the smartest dude of his time. That's a lot of smartness inside a single man's noggen. Well, Da Vinci realized the importance of knowledge and intellect. Matter of fact, he knew that in the wrong hands, knowledge could be devastating. But with a knowledge as extense as his at the time of his existence, his skull couldn't contain everything could it? And so he would write down information backwards. Clearly, this alone was testament to his genius. He knew that only someone smart enough to figure a way to *read* his information should be worthy of understanding it. Did he do this simply to maintain an air of mystique about himself from the outside world? Or did he do it because he was concerned with who might use his knowledge? In either case, he illustrated a very valid point: information might be free, but should only be accessible to those who are able to first understand how it is used, where it came from. Or, in socio-political terms: man left ungoverned falls into chaos. There is a need for exclusivity of truth. Regarding your statement on tendency, it has validity only when you organize the cause:effect pattern uni-directionally. If, for example, I seek out to learn everything there is to know about subject_x, and *THEN* make my opinion the inclusive truth that I have, then there is nothing popular or elitist to argue. These two are convenient terms used to segregate camps, and typically used by one camp towards the other. These only take place when there is first opinion, and an attempt to make it into fact. But again, this doesn't fit the first situation. The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
There's leak, there's leak,
In the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business. Yes, we're all going to die; everything comes to an end and I'd sell your heart to the junkman baby for a buck. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) We're still talking timeframes here, the end of the world has been proclaimes quite a few times and still hasn't come about. The mmorpg industry will end at some point, but it might keep going for a houndred years for all we know. It might have the recursive element of fashion and we'll see old concepts return to style. I guess what I'm trying to say is, there is a diffrence between knowing we're going to die and knowing when and how.
The prose was cute, but not entirely sure you've addressed the point. The devil, as they say, is in the details. You're talking about how we're all (humans, industries, technologies) going to end, but not knowing when or how. I'm simply stating that any progress you make, is simultaneously progress towards termination. I'm not setting a date, nor a method. Apples? Oranges?
I maintain it to be a false claim, not dictated by logical nesessity, nor suitable for detailed analysis on this scale. It becomes a thought experiment too losely connected to reality to apply meaningfully to it. It still lacks a cocise argument and to be honest you might do better ion trying to make a structured argument that isn't a metaphor as it might clarify it more. Sadly, for as much badgering you've done to my arguments, you fall into the same blunder you claim that I have. You're claiming based on nothing more than personal judgement, and state as much. The only reason why I used the terms that I have, is due to first the audience suggesting a metaphor. Identifying said metaphor as being familiar with the individual, I always try to maintain terms within those grounds. Perhaps I should have chosen my own? Perhaps the metaphor was poor from inception? No matter, the terms could easily be applied elsewhere. There is a diffrence between remembering your past and the past being the only true souce of progress. there are lessons to be learned from the past indeed, but allso from other places. Priviliging the past over these other souces of progress might be a misstake. As is presuming that any change not tied to the past being a problem. There is this notion of maintaining the essence; "how much can you change something before it's not anynore". This however doesn't have an answer written in stone. Allan Touring would perhaps not at first reccognize the iPad as a decendant of the old Colossus computer. Change is change. No one said the past should be the only source of inspiration. Exclusive. Unique. I'm stating that if you want to move forward, you must always maintain understanding and focus based on where you have been. Furthermore, where often we get so 'caught up' in the here and now, or the future, often the true 'way forward' is nothing more than embracing what got us here in the first place. The marriage of these 2 notions is what sprung my comment in the first place. If you change something to the point of being unrecognizable to the origin, that is when you have spin-offs in corporate structures, that is when you have new terms. You have in effect birthed a new concept. Allan Touring is a suitable example (since you use him as a reference, I will try to do the same). He worked for Apple Computers. The course of said company has veered and ventured into regions that forced the powers-that-be to adopt a new name: Apple. Change is change. But that's a simplification, and judging from your expressed intellect I sure hope you can accept as much. You have elements of good, elements of bad. You must always maintain visibility and consideration of these. Or, don't, and produce as the terminology today dictates: 'hot trash'.
Pardon the formatting. Segments might have been moved around while deleting spaces, as blocks of text would jump to the top.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
So you would have desired quality be immediately defined. In response to the other individual I did so post-factum. Quality is absolutely a value-laden term, but again, I touch on how and why it can be objectified. It has to do with inclusion. Discussing this further would be beating a dead horse. I've been clear and concise throughout.
I don't think quality is a good choice of words when dealing with an issue of content selection in games. It's too value ladden and unclear. It makes for confusion and missunderstandings. We could talk about the quality of code or implementation, but quality outside of the goals of the game seems troublesome.
I didn't agree on not being able to say 'way mmorpgs should be'. I merely said I never stated my stance. You can analyze demographic data, challenge:reward systems, and compile a system that could dictate the terms in which an MMORPG should reside. All of which, quantifiable provided you meet the heaviest of your critics first. But this rubberbands back to the concept of quality.
You mention this tidbit of 'different ways of doing things and different experiences'. You and I match wavelengths on this. Perhaps you take my words to mean 'only one way'. I'm stating 'only one system'.
I guess I'd like that clarified. *Only one system'? As for the first bit, it was worth a go. I don't think it's that easily quantifiable, and I think that assumption is a dead alley. That is shere intuition though. I just don't see many of the paramethers as very promising.
As far as innovations, you must consider that everything has a cost. We praise forward progress, but often ignore, or choose to ignore, the losses required to get there. If you define your system as being all inclusive, you must account for this. In the end, you may find some of the 'steps forward' were net steps back. With what concerns innovation inside of a genre, I'm speaking from an osmosis standpoint, where the masses flock to a location. It matters not what happens outside of that location, because its gravity brings it inwards. It 'dries up' what's on the outside.
Pardon my use of metaphor, I can see you dislike it. Sadly, being someone with a comparative oriented mind, I have found it easier to learn, and teach, via concepts that might be presently familiar with an audience.
It is not that I dislike metaphores, I like them very much. I allway think in metaphores myself. I just don't follow your metaphores very well, the osmosis bit is probably just adding confusion rather than clarity. I will rephrase my opinion as to be that even if an attempt has a cost you can learn something from it. Sure as you change something someone will not be happy about it, but you learn from it or someone else learns from it. change happens in individual games the results go into a collective pot of experiences to be taken from. Some ideas come from within others from outside, I'm not sure I see the problem.
You're taking the statement and orienting yourself to blast off in the wrong direction with it. Let me make reference again to a senario that might be presently familiar with the audience: Da Vinci was a smart dude. Word is, he was the smartest dude of his time. That's a lot of smartness inside a single man's noggen. Well, Da Vinci realized the importance of knowledge and intellect. Matter of fact, he knew that in the wrong hands, knowledge could be devastating. But with a knowledge as extense as his at the time of his existence, his skull couldn't contain everything could it? And so he would write down information backwards. Clearly, this alone was testament to his genius. He knew that only someone smart enough to figure a way to *read* his information should be worthy of understanding it. Did he do this simply to maintain an air of mystique about himself from the outside world? Or did he do it because he was concerned with who might use his knowledge? In either case, he illustrated a very valid point: information might be free, but should only be accessible to those who are able to first understand how it is used, where it came from. Or, in socio-political terms: man left ungoverned falls into chaos. There is a need for exclusivity of truth. Regarding your statement on tendency, it has validity only when you organize the cause:effect pattern uni-directionally. If, for example, I seek out to learn everything there is to know about subject_x, and *THEN* make my opinion the inclusive truth that I have, then there is nothing popular or elitist to argue. These two are convenient terms used to segregate camps, and typically used by one camp towards the other. These only take place when there is first opinion, and an attempt to make it into fact. But again, this doesn't fit the first situation.
That didn't make anything any clearer; quite the opposit. The point is simply that "learning all there is to learn" is and will allways remain a thought experiment and hence philosophical. what I'm syaing is that it's easy to overestimate ones own understanding, it often commes naturally. It does not by nessessity signify truth, only that you percive it as truth. You can feel right about something without being so. That is why an argument from elitism is dodgy, because you can't prove it and it might then be wrong. the knowlede behind it might make for a good argument, but it's not a good argument in itself. It's nice to know where your commign from and what you want, but misstaking it for truth is a real danger that must be tanken serious.
The prose was cute, but not entirely sure you've addressed the point. The devil, as they say, is in the details. You're talking about how we're all (humans, industries, technologies) going to end, but not knowing when or how. I'm simply stating that any progress you make, is simultaneously progress towards termination. I'm not setting a date, nor a method. Apples? Oranges?
I take any opportunity to quote Waits, even if it's slim. The logic here is not good though. In many cases the end comes regardless of progress. My point is that progress does not logically lead to termination. If you talk about change that is not the same as termination. I think we're talking past eachother here.
No one said the past should be the only source of inspiration. Exclusive. Unique. I'm stating that if you want to move forward, you must always maintain understanding and focus based on where you have been. Furthermore, where often we get so 'caught up' in the here and now, or the future, often the true 'way forward' is nothing more than embracing what got us here in the first place. The marriage of these 2 notions is what sprung my comment in the first place. If you change something to the point of being unrecognizable to the origin, that is when you have spin-offs in corporate structures, that is when you have new terms. You have in effect birthed a new concept. Allan Touring is a suitable example (since you use him as a reference, I will try to do the same). He worked for Apple Computers. The course of said company has veered and ventured into regions that forced the powers-that-be to adopt a new name: Apple. Change is change. But that's a simplification, and judging from your expressed intellect I sure hope you can accept as much. You have elements of good, elements of bad. You must always maintain visibility and consideration of these. Or, don't, and produce as the terminology today dictates: 'hot trash'.
I knew I should have looked up the spelling, but still. Allan Turing died something like 20 years before Apple was founded. Ironically from eating an apple laced with poison. He's one of the most importan scientists of the last century, known for his pioneering work into the therory of computers as well as for working as a code braker at Bletchley Park during WW2 where the first electronic computer "Collossus" was build (though being a wartime secret this wasn't revealed untill later).
The point is that there is a link from the first computer to modern applications such as the iPad which techincally is a computer. It is an evolution, someone only familliar with one end might not recognize the other, but they are still part of the same legacy. I suppose this is the diffrence, I see it as a continious development where some core remains.
Pardon the formatting. Segments might have been moved around while deleting spaces, as blocks of text would jump to the top.
I'm not sure we're getting anywhere, but it's completly unreadable by now.
I take issue with those who think all perception of decline in MMO quality is subjective. Of course there is a subjective element, that is built into the way we think. But if you put it all down to only that, subjectivity just becomes an excuse for people to dismiss arguments you don’t like.
When someone presents evidence which challenges your political views you put that down to the person who is challenging you being subjective. It becomes an excuse for you never to take seriously the opinions of anyone who does not have your opinions. Hopefully you can spot the irony here.
As I said before, if we can see one genre declining in a set space of time more quickly than our perception of any other, then there is more than just harkening back to the good old days. If you think MMO’s have gone down hill more in the last ten to fifteen years than music, TV, films and books it does indicate a real phenomena.
I agree.Runescape lost its Mojo,because really nothing exciting is going on,and none really talks about it anymore.SO WHAT MMO HASNT LOST IT'S MOJO???_
Darkfall its ALIVE ALIVE and become better and better by the month:)
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
I take issue with those who think all perception of decline in MMO quality is subjective. Of course there is a subjective element, that is built into the way we think. But if you put it all down to only that, subjectivity just becomes an excuse for people to dismiss arguments you don’t like. When someone presents evidence which challenges your political views you put that down to the person who is challenging you being subjective. It becomes an excuse for you never to take seriously the opinions of anyone who does not have your opinions. Hopefully you can spot the irony here. As I said before, if we can see one genre declining in a set space of time more quickly than our perception of any other, then there is more than just harkening back to the good old days. If you think MMO’s have gone down hill more in the last ten to fifteen years than music, TV, films and books it does indicate a real phenomena.
If it's not your subjective opinion then what is it? I'm sure you want your every word to be accepted as fact at face value, but hey you can't allways get what you want. The problem is that you don't have much of an argument at all. "People are making money off mmorpgs, well more money then they used to. That must mean they are evil souless monsters and anyone who likes the games must be a brainwashed zombie," That is not an argument. "I don't like the new games so they must be bad." That is opinion.
I'm sorry, but you do not present fact you present opinion and acting up when called on it doesn't change that. When you start an argument assuming that you are right and going from there that is simple a circular argument. "If you think MMO’s have gone down hill more in the last ten to fifteen years than music, TV, films and books it does indicate a real phenomena." So you claim that what you think is a sure path to truth, unless of course they don't think that.
You have the right to your feelings and opinions, but that doesn't make them fact. You should argue for your preferences, but that doesn't makes other peoples preferences void. the corrolation between making money and making good products is allways hard to nail down; but this indi heaven I don't belive in, I've heard too much crap indi music for that.
While many think we've reached the end of days for MMORPG's in the old school, I think as the more casual player tires of the 'starter games' they'll one day want to take off the training wheels and demand more in depth games. No, we'll probably never see a return to the early days, but I think that in the future MMORPG's will substantial improve in terms of what the old school gamers are looking for.
Big companies like Blizzard will cater to instant gratification kids until the end of times. Maybe an indie company can deliver a little bit of those early days, but ain't gonna happen again like it was in the past. The mindset of devs these days is that if Blizzard is getting so much profit, at least we can get some even if we can't beat them. What matters is the cash and the good lifestyle we can get out of it. Business as usual.
Also, I believe some companies should stop making MMOs, they would do better making single player games.
They didn't lose their mojo. You either got burnt out on MMOs or you outgrew them. Trust me, that thirteen year old logging onto his MMO for the first time? Plenty of mojo. Even the crappy MMOs.
They didn't lose their mojo. You either got burnt out on MMOs or you outgrew them. Trust me, that thirteen year old logging onto his MMO for the first time? Plenty of mojo. Even the crappy MMOs.
Except for the fact that the MMOs many of us as supposedly "nostalgic" over have had several fundamental shifts in gameplay caused by developers altering the scope of the game, causing said games to be so different they could be considered completely new games.
Additionally, and in part due to the aforementioned, there are virtually no games that fill the desires of "oldschool" MMO gamers. Most MMO developers today focus on creating content treadmills to keep players busy, rather than caring about actually making a virtual world for players to participate in, interact with, and leave an impact.
Sure, devs have heard us, but have any supposed revolutionary MMORPGS actaully lived up to the hype? Maybe it means that devs have tried and changed their approach and we are still not satisfied cuz we have played too much of them, and its not the gameplay that really matters here. I feel nostalgic about a couple MMORPGS but then when ithink about playing them with modern graphics, i realize that i still wont feel as hyped about them as i did when i played them back in the day. I would agree with everything said here, BUT i would make an emphasize mainly on OUTGROWING games in general. I stopped playing 8bit i stopped playing consoles i stopped playing handhelds, and now MMOS dont seem as fun as they used to be. I will definitely play an MMO that has lots of freedom in its gameplay, but it will never feel like it did, the first time i started playing MMORPGS
I'll pretty much agree with your list though you didn't mention SOE they bought up the real developers of the ART-MMORPG called Everquest 1. Back in the golden days it was nice to meet some people with behaviour, dedication and commitement to a game that wasn't found elsewhere.
MMORPG's were based around the simple term of playing together, this also helped to get rid off whiners, dramaqueens and stuff like that. But well most of them found a new home once Bli$$ard came up with a game called World of Warcraft. It still had some elements for the more dedicated player but that shouldn't be a surprise at all since the hired some of the topguys like Jeffrey "Tigol" Kaplan.
and so the downfall continued other investors saw Wow's huge numbers forgetting the massive IP, starting flat rate prices and Bli$$ards incredible fanbase based around Diablo 2 and Warcraft.
Till nowadays we're just seeing whats probable the end of dedicated gaming, big studios with bastards like Ricitello, Kotick in charge buying up independent studios and trying to force them to average low quality casual gimp mmo's.
Like some mmo's showed this isn't the way to do it. You'll always be looked at at the game thats like Wow but not the originel one. Just look at Mythic all they had to do was: take the Daoc setting and add it into THE IP --->$$$$ but they tremendously failed.
As long as big companies carying more about shareholders than audience we'll continue to see average, uninspired mmo's. The black days will be over once the MMORPG world will get rid off all the crap that destroyed this genre: instand gratification, simplification, big companies in charge.
So its not our fault MMORPG's lost their mojo we can base this shit cleary on the big companies, no mmorpg players and stuff like that polutting what once was OUR GENRE!
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Scott Jennings has taken a look at the commercialism of gaming and lays the blame at the door of publishers. Which he sees as the non-creative corporation which takes over the creative one which produced the MMO. He then goes on to expound how that results in a change in ethos which favours end of quarter reports over game quality.
Hopefully this helps fill in some of the gaps that resulted from my limited ability to scrutinise the gaming genre.
Comments
you will never get daoc 2 with ea/mystic attached to it they proved that by making warhammer/warcraft if they just made their own path instead of trying to follow blizzards it would be ranked
[Edit] Format.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Whether the genre has lost its mojo or is better than ever is purely a matter of perspective with no right or wrong answer. But I do think the discussion is somewhat clouded by people's opinions of WoW. Some people love it, some loathe it but if you put WoW to one side for a moment how many people would actually argue that the last five years has seen a bumper crop of interesting and enjoyable MMO releases?
There have been a few decent games but nothing really great and overall it's been a pretty fallow period in my opinion.
Primary:
MMO's lost their magic when the next generation of players came along. I see them as the (Me) generation or the (Now) generation. They wanted everything dumbed down and made easy for casual play. They believe, as they do in life that everything should be handed to them and if they have to work for it then its a bad thing. Why work for it when they can go someplace else and get it for free or with little to no effort.
The relative number of players from the early days was little compared to the vast number of the new generation that lives on the computer.
With a large number of players of a certain type, they MMO designers did as they are supposed to... They made games for the masses. Its basic economics. They fulfilled a need.
The customers drive the market as they do in all things commercial. If no one bought the easy dumbed down games, there would be none made as they would be seen as a waste of time and investment. Players get what they want by their spending practices.
WOW wouldnt exist now if players didnt fund it. New developers wouldnt use them as a template for success.
Secondary:
Not to remove all blame from the developers..
The same said (Me) generation got old enough for jobs and entered the workforce. Some of which got jobs at game companies. With them they brought the same gaming attitude. The professional term is "projection". They believe that since they want dumbed down games, everyone else must also think it the same. Since the games that have lost their "mojo" are doing well, they would be correct. They cater to the same kind of player that they are and that spends the money.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
How did MMO’s lose their Mojo?
They didn't lose their mojo.
You either got burnt out on MMOs or you outgrew them.
Trust me, that thirteen year old logging onto his MMO for the first time? Plenty of mojo. Even the crappy MMOs.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
Except for the fact that the MMOs many of us as supposedly "nostalgic" over have had several fundamental shifts in gameplay caused by developers altering the scope of the game, causing said games to be so different they could be considered completely new games.
Additionally, and in part due to the aforementioned, there are virtually no games that fill the desires of "oldschool" MMO gamers. Most MMO developers today focus on creating content treadmills to keep players busy, rather than caring about actually making a virtual world for players to participate in, interact with, and leave an impact.
This. To all those who lament the alleged "good old days" of MMO's, read this and then re-read it.
I would disagree.
The only statement in niko's post that has any validity is the one about quality. Most games in recent years have been released in a very poor state, and the developers have not made enough effort to improve their quality up to a marginal standard.
I agree with yor statements and this default counter reaction that we are all just stuck in the ‘good old days’ just doesn’t hold water. In the PC gaming world it’s very clear that there is a direct and measurable reduction in game features, content and accessibility that can be easily quantified and measured.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Just because we g-g-get around (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I think I'm getting to old for this shit, hehe. I have a pet peeve with the phrase "dumbed down", it's so habbitually missused. People will claim that removing a mindless timesing constitutes "dumbing something down", how is it becomming dumber when only a moron would find the element removed challenging? I've come across people who find removing an hour long wait "dumbing down", do these people find waiting mentally challenging? Is Penn and Teller's Desert Bus truly an intelligent game? There are "good challenges" and "bad challenges"; most of the stuff removed are of the bad kind. Unintelligent, pointless, random and not adding to gameplay. Maybe there is a need for more good challenges, but that is a distinctly different notion than the one often brough forth. Frankly the challenge in killing a dragon ought to be killing the dragon not waiting for it. there is room for a more even distribution of challenge in certain games (or a certain game to be precice), but the challenge is being moved to where it's supposed to be instead of cluttered into Desert Buss land.
its not true for TV content, it is true for games and its very direct and measurable without much effort.
Sorry when it comes to games its not the 'good old days' efffect. its very measureable and direct, game content, accessiblity has decreased over just the past 3-5 years dramatically
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's even measurable? Maybe you could you present me with the measurements then?
Pardon the formatting. Segments might have been moved around while deleting spaces, as blocks of text would jump to the top.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Pardon the formatting. Segments might have been moved around while deleting spaces, as blocks of text would jump to the top.
I'm not sure we're getting anywhere, but it's completly unreadable by now.
I take issue with those who think all perception of decline in MMO quality is subjective. Of course there is a subjective element, that is built into the way we think. But if you put it all down to only that, subjectivity just becomes an excuse for people to dismiss arguments you don’t like.
When someone presents evidence which challenges your political views you put that down to the person who is challenging you being subjective. It becomes an excuse for you never to take seriously the opinions of anyone who does not have your opinions. Hopefully you can spot the irony here.
As I said before, if we can see one genre declining in a set space of time more quickly than our perception of any other, then there is more than just harkening back to the good old days. If you think MMO’s have gone down hill more in the last ten to fifteen years than music, TV, films and books it does indicate a real phenomena.
EVE. Darkfall.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Darkfall its ALIVE ALIVE and become better and better by the month:)
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
If it's not your subjective opinion then what is it? I'm sure you want your every word to be accepted as fact at face value, but hey you can't allways get what you want. The problem is that you don't have much of an argument at all. "People are making money off mmorpgs, well more money then they used to. That must mean they are evil souless monsters and anyone who likes the games must be a brainwashed zombie," That is not an argument. "I don't like the new games so they must be bad." That is opinion.
I'm sorry, but you do not present fact you present opinion and acting up when called on it doesn't change that. When you start an argument assuming that you are right and going from there that is simple a circular argument. "If you think MMO’s have gone down hill more in the last ten to fifteen years than music, TV, films and books it does indicate a real phenomena." So you claim that what you think is a sure path to truth, unless of course they don't think that.
You have the right to your feelings and opinions, but that doesn't make them fact. You should argue for your preferences, but that doesn't makes other peoples preferences void. the corrolation between making money and making good products is allways hard to nail down; but this indi heaven I don't belive in, I've heard too much crap indi music for that.
Big companies like Blizzard will cater to instant gratification kids until the end of times. Maybe an indie company can deliver a little bit of those early days, but ain't gonna happen again like it was in the past. The mindset of devs these days is that if Blizzard is getting so much profit, at least we can get some even if we can't beat them. What matters is the cash and the good lifestyle we can get out of it. Business as usual.
Also, I believe some companies should stop making MMOs, they would do better making single player games.
yes, yes, what i said.
Except for the fact that the MMOs many of us as supposedly "nostalgic" over have had several fundamental shifts in gameplay caused by developers altering the scope of the game, causing said games to be so different they could be considered completely new games.
Additionally, and in part due to the aforementioned, there are virtually no games that fill the desires of "oldschool" MMO gamers. Most MMO developers today focus on creating content treadmills to keep players busy, rather than caring about actually making a virtual world for players to participate in, interact with, and leave an impact.
Sure, devs have heard us, but have any supposed revolutionary MMORPGS actaully lived up to the hype? Maybe it means that devs have tried and changed their approach and we are still not satisfied cuz we have played too much of them, and its not the gameplay that really matters here. I feel nostalgic about a couple MMORPGS but then when ithink about playing them with modern graphics, i realize that i still wont feel as hyped about them as i did when i played them back in the day. I would agree with everything said here, BUT i would make an emphasize mainly on OUTGROWING games in general. I stopped playing 8bit i stopped playing consoles i stopped playing handhelds, and now MMOS dont seem as fun as they used to be. I will definitely play an MMO that has lots of freedom in its gameplay, but it will never feel like it did, the first time i started playing MMORPGS
I'll pretty much agree with your list though you didn't mention SOE they bought up the real developers of the ART-MMORPG called Everquest 1. Back in the golden days it was nice to meet some people with behaviour, dedication and commitement to a game that wasn't found elsewhere.
MMORPG's were based around the simple term of playing together, this also helped to get rid off whiners, dramaqueens and stuff like that. But well most of them found a new home once Bli$$ard came up with a game called World of Warcraft. It still had some elements for the more dedicated player but that shouldn't be a surprise at all since the hired some of the topguys like Jeffrey "Tigol" Kaplan.
and so the downfall continued other investors saw Wow's huge numbers forgetting the massive IP, starting flat rate prices and Bli$$ards incredible fanbase based around Diablo 2 and Warcraft.
Till nowadays we're just seeing whats probable the end of dedicated gaming, big studios with bastards like Ricitello, Kotick in charge buying up independent studios and trying to force them to average low quality casual gimp mmo's.
Like some mmo's showed this isn't the way to do it. You'll always be looked at at the game thats like Wow but not the originel one. Just look at Mythic all they had to do was: take the Daoc setting and add it into THE IP --->$$$$ but they tremendously failed.
As long as big companies carying more about shareholders than audience we'll continue to see average, uninspired mmo's. The black days will be over once the MMORPG world will get rid off all the crap that destroyed this genre: instand gratification, simplification, big companies in charge.
So its not our fault MMORPG's lost their mojo we can base this shit cleary on the big companies, no mmorpg players and stuff like that polutting what once was OUR GENRE!
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Scott Jennings has taken a look at the commercialism of gaming and lays the blame at the door of publishers. Which he sees as the non-creative corporation which takes over the creative one which produced the MMO. He then goes on to expound how that results in a change in ethos which favours end of quarter reports over game quality.
Hopefully this helps fill in some of the gaps that resulted from my limited ability to scrutinise the gaming genre.
Here is his article:
http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/feature/4060/Scott-Jennings-Call-of-Money.html