It is partly due to todays cullture, even across the globe, people are consumed by instant gratification. First it was making thier lives easier, but now its in everything. Even in our video games!
Everywhere you go ts the same thing, instant this and instant that. Nobody wants to spend anytime working at anything, not in thier lives and certainly not in thier games.
The game companies have simply catered to what the people are like these days, its very sad.....
Wait, it's sad that games cater to people who play for fun? It's sad that they are not second job? It's sad that after a day of hard work you can play for an hour and get something out of it? Because, you know, entertainment was always about it. It's not like you have to jump on treadmill to watch movie or read a book. People have limited fun time, don't be surprised if they don't want to spend it working, most of them have more than enough of RL work.
If you have limited free time its your own damn fault. You CHOSE to do whatever dumb shit you did. Apparently real life isn't that different from a modern MMO after all. No consequences at all for morons who make bad decisions.
If you have limited free time its your own damn fault. You CHOSE to do whatever dumb shit you did. Apparently real life isn't that different from a modern MMO after all. No consequences at all for morons who make bad decisions.
Wow, that is a great outlook on life and society right there.
You are correct, I chose to get an education and a good job to support my family. I chose to buy a farm. I chose to raise animals and a garden. I chose to limit my time in front of my computer so I can do things that give me a true sense of accomplishment. You, apparently, chose to live in your mom's basement and simulate a life in a virtual world.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
It is partly due to todays cullture, even across the globe, people are consumed by instant gratification. First it was making thier lives easier, but now its in everything. Even in our video games!
Everywhere you go ts the same thing, instant this and instant that. Nobody wants to spend anytime working at anything, not in thier lives and certainly not in thier games.
The game companies have simply catered to what the people are like these days, its very sad.....
Wait, it's sad that games cater to people who play for fun? It's sad that they are not second job? It's sad that after a day of hard work you can play for an hour and get something out of it? Because, you know, entertainment was always about it. It's not like you have to jump on treadmill to watch movie or read a book. People have limited fun time, don't be surprised if they don't want to spend it working, most of them have more than enough of RL work.
If you have limited free time its your own damn fault. You CHOSE to do whatever dumb shit you did. Apparently real life isn't that different from a modern MMO after all. No consequences at all for morons who make bad decisions.
Riiight. I chose to have full time job and family, so there shouldn't be MMOs that cater to my lifestyle... makes perfect sense.
It is partly due to todays cullture, even across the globe, people are consumed by instant gratification. First it was making thier lives easier, but now its in everything. Even in our video games!
Everywhere you go ts the same thing, instant this and instant that. Nobody wants to spend anytime working at anything, not in thier lives and certainly not in thier games.
The game companies have simply catered to what the people are like these days, its very sad.....
Wait, it's sad that games cater to people who play for fun? It's sad that they are not second job? It's sad that after a day of hard work you can play for an hour and get something out of it? Because, you know, entertainment was always about it. It's not like you have to jump on treadmill to watch movie or read a book. People have limited fun time, don't be surprised if they don't want to spend it working, most of them have more than enough of RL work.
If you have limited free time its your own damn fault. You CHOSE to do whatever dumb shit you did. Apparently real life isn't that different from a modern MMO after all. No consequences at all for morons who make bad decisions.
Wait..If you have limited time to play video games it is because of some dumb shit you did? You mean like have a job and a family? So if your parents are not so wealthy that you don't have to have a job or you just were not lucky enough to win the lottery it is your fault? Maybe we should all go on welfare and ignore our kids so we can play video games.
Maybe it is more about priorities. Would I rather sit on my ass in my parents basements pissing in bottles so I never have to leave the computer or would I rather have a life? Thats a tough one. Your post is full of so much stupidity that it is painful to read. Seriously what the hell were you thinking?
You know i wonder how many whom scream for hard core sandbox, death is final, group or die type attitudes would actually really play beyond a month if they were presented with the game of their screams errr i mean dreams.
I know some would, no doubt, what makes me wonder is this, i soap boxed my displeasure over the years about the way games went, but...
When i really think about it, that was a decade ago when several things were different.
For example, that's the way it was, like it or leave it. It was really a matter of love it or leave it becasue there was no way on earth you were going to change the way it was. However as more people became aware of "video games" companies read more OMG itszzz to hard posts, which meant lost sales, but back then it was a minority voice. Over time as more people became aware of "video games" as entertainment, the it's too hard voices became too loud to ignore.
There were far less options back then as well.
Everything that came out was "new" undiscovered territory.
Social media? wtf is that, oh yeah "chat" in your mmo.
Maybe things back then were hard because developers didn't know what they were doing and learning as they go. There was no research and development done on the "player" back then.
You, me, we were all different back then as well. I thought about this, say tomorrow they say hey you can come back to the game exactly the way it was 10 years ago, ummm, honestly i don't know if I'd really want that anymore.
First I've been exposed to far better options (i just don't understand it that way as games were more exciting during the pioneering days becasue it was stuff we'd never been exposed to before), i only remember it being the time of my life it's not to say it was as good as i remember it though. Second i really don't have 18 hours a day to commit to a game anymore tbh.
Maybe games are better today and due to our fond memories we don't think so?
Originally posted by rdash Riiight. I chose to have full time job and family, so there shouldn't be MMOs that cater to my lifestyle... makes perfect sense.
ahhh.... that's the crux. There are MANY games that cater to you. There are very FEW that cater to the other style of play.
Personally, I don't care how long it takes me to grow my character. I'll play at my own pace. If it takes me 2 years to max out a character, I don't care as long as I am having a good time doing it.
It is the "I've got 30 minutes of game time, better give me fast success." crowd that rules the game market today. What can ya do? I am not saying it is bad. It just happens to be the way the market is right now.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Riiight. I chose to have full time job and family, so there shouldn't be MMOs that cater to my lifestyle... makes perfect sense.
ahhh.... that's the crux. There are MANY games that cater to you. There are very FEW that cater to the other style of play.
Personally, I don't care how long it takes me to grow my character. I'll play at my own pace. If it takes me 2 years to max out a character, I don't care as long as I am having a good time doing it.
It is the "I've got 30 minutes of game time, better give me fast success." crowd that rules the game market today. What can ya do? I am not saying it is bad. It just happens to be the way the market is right now.
Obviously, there are a crud-ton more that's willing to pay for that type of gaming. Why ignore it?
Riiight. I chose to have full time job and family, so there shouldn't be MMOs that cater to my lifestyle... makes perfect sense.
ahhh.... that's the crux. There are MANY games that cater to you. There are very FEW that cater to the other style of play.
Personally, I don't care how long it takes me to grow my character. I'll play at my own pace. If it takes me 2 years to max out a character, I don't care as long as I am having a good time doing it.
It is the "I've got 30 minutes of game time, better give me fast success." crowd that rules the game market today. What can ya do? I am not saying it is bad. It just happens to be the way the market is right now.
The problem is people are too worried about what other people are doing. Most of the games people complain about being streamlined and "handholding" don't require gamers to use any of those features. Take WoW for example, you can absolutely travel on foot or horseback to your Firelands raid if you want to, no one makes you use fast travel, portals, LFG, LF RAID, etc. If you don't want to quest while leveling up, you don't have to. I realize there are limitations such as the size of the world, there are load screens between zones and other things such as no player housing, etc.
The bottom line is, a lot of these "olden" features are there, but there are some added features to make things more streamlined for people who may not appreciate trecking through a forest every time they want to go clear a dungeon with their buddies. Open ended game play is also there, but people on these boards seem to prefer moaning and complaining like a bunch of nancies. I know plenty of old school gamers, myself included, who enjoy old games and new games alike. The difference is, they don't feel the need to post on these boards and drum up false conspiracy theories because they are busy enjoying games for what they are. Congrats, you are the hipsters of the interwebz.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be MMOs for both, the problem comes however when one type takes over and we have no more of the hardcore type. It's like how strat games all went to the DOTA style for awhile before they all failed and Starcraft proved te older style is still popular. That said my faves are SupCom and CoH lol.
Riiight. I chose to have full time job and family, so there shouldn't be MMOs that cater to my lifestyle... makes perfect sense.
ahhh.... that's the crux. There are MANY games that cater to you. There are very FEW that cater to the other style of play.
Personally, I don't care how long it takes me to grow my character. I'll play at my own pace. If it takes me 2 years to max out a character, I don't care as long as I am having a good time doing it.
It is the "I've got 30 minutes of game time, better give me fast success." crowd that rules the game market today. What can ya do? I am not saying it is bad. It just happens to be the way the market is right now.
The problem is people are too worried about what other people are doing. Most of the games people complain about being streamlined and "handholding" don't require gamers to use any of those features. Take WoW for example, you can absolutely travel on foot or horseback to your Firelands raid if you want to, no one makes you use fast travel, portals, LFG, LF RAID, etc. If you don't want to quest while leveling up, you don't have to. I realize there are limitations such as the size of the world, there are load screens between zones and other things such as no player housing, etc.
The bottom line is, a lot of these "olden" features are there, but there are some added features to make things more streamlined for people who may not appreciate trecking through a forest every time they want to go clear a dungeon with their buddies. Open ended game play is also there, but people on these boards seem to prefer moaning and complaining like a bunch of nancies. I know plenty of old school gamers, myself included, who enjoy old games and new games alike. The difference is, they don't feel the need to post on these boards and drum up false conspiracy theories because they are busy enjoying games for what they are. Congrats, you are the hipsters of the interwebz.
Its not a single player game, you know
"Well, just do it the old way if you dont like the new way" is quite common these days, where you are making a mistake is assuming that there is a huge number of players which think like you do, who will willingly put themselves in a disadvantage for no other reason than immersion (even RP works only if more people RP with you), there just arent, people will either quit because their gaming experience is a dull blur, or continue playing moaning that their experience is a dull blur...
Riiight. I chose to have full time job and family, so there shouldn't be MMOs that cater to my lifestyle... makes perfect sense.
ahhh.... that's the crux. There are MANY games that cater to you. There are very FEW that cater to the other style of play.
Personally, I don't care how long it takes me to grow my character. I'll play at my own pace. If it takes me 2 years to max out a character, I don't care as long as I am having a good time doing it.
It is the "I've got 30 minutes of game time, better give me fast success." crowd that rules the game market today. What can ya do? I am not saying it is bad. It just happens to be the way the market is right now.
I'm not saying there aren't. I'm just refuting the point that such playstyle is "sad".
Also, I wouldn't say "fast success", I'd rather use "fast fun". A lot of casual players don't mind failing, as long as they get something out of it (preferably, fun). The problem isn't in difficult content, it's in content that's inaccessible (so they can't even take a fair shot at it), and content that's straight out boring work (like grind). There's good effort, and there's bad effort.
Vast majority of players treat MMOs as games, not virtual worlds, but it's not because they're spoiled brats. Quite the opposite - most players are adults with full-time jobs and commitments, and they can't afford to waste their entertainment time spending hours working or running in game. This "instant gratification" is reasonable expectation of players who can devote only so much time to gaming, and want to get something out of it. Your idea of fun may be diferent, but it isn't better than theirs.
I agree completely. If I hate something in mmos then it's the time sinks. The other thing I miss in today's mmos is depth.
NEWSFLASH - time sinks <> depth lol
Too many hardcores equate these two while its exactly the opposite that is true. The shallowest games usually rely on massive time sinks to mask this deficiency. My Ideal game would be fun all the time I play it but with a depth of gameplay. It's not about "instant gratification" but the fact that I'm paying for entertainment.
Originally posted by rdash Riiight. I chose to have full time job and family, so there shouldn't be MMOs that cater to my lifestyle... makes perfect sense.
ahhh.... that's the crux. There are MANY games that cater to you. There are very FEW that cater to the other style of play.
Personally, I don't care how long it takes me to grow my character. I'll play at my own pace. If it takes me 2 years to max out a character, I don't care as long as I am having a good time doing it. It is the "I've got 30 minutes of game time, better give me fast success." crowd that rules the game market today. What can ya do? I am not saying it is bad. It just happens to be the way the market is right now.
I'm not saying there aren't. I'm just refuting the point that such playstyle is "sad". Also, I wouldn't say "fast success", I'd rather use "fast fun". A lot of casual players don't mind failing, as long as they get something out of it (preferably, fun). The problem isn't in difficult content, it's in content that's inaccessible (so they can't even take a fair shot at it), and content that's straight out boring work (like grind). There's good effort, and there's bad effort.
I agree with the accessibility of content and good effort/bad effort. Good points, both.
I did not mean to imply that ANY playstyle is "sad". I guess the way I presented the more casual gamers attitude did make it seem so. I apologize for that
[EDIT]
Originally posted by Pilnkplonk I agree completely. If I hate something in mmos then it's the time sinks. The other thing I miss in today's mmos is depth. NEWSFLASH - time sinks <> depth lol Too many hardcores equate these two while its exactly the opposite that is true. The shallowest games usually rely on massive time sinks to mask this deficiency. My Ideal game would be fun all the time I play it but with a depth of gameplay. It's not about "instant gratification" but the fact that I'm paying for entertainment.
What do you define as depth? I'm just curious
Remember, EVERYTHING a game does is a time-sink. It is designed to occupy your time. Fun, on the other hand, is very debatable
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I agree completely. If I hate something in mmos then it's the time sinks. The other thing I miss in today's mmos is depth.
NEWSFLASH - time sinks <> depth lol
Too many hardcores equate these two while its exactly the opposite that is true. The shallowest games usually rely on massive time sinks to mask this deficiency. My Ideal game would be fun all the time I play it but with a depth of gameplay. It's not about "instant gratification" but the fact that I'm paying for entertainment.
What do you define as depth? I'm just curious
Remember, EVERYTHING a game does is a time-sink. It is designed to occupy your time. Fun, on the other hand, is very debatable
"Depth" and "complexity" are two commonly used terms in game design theory. I believe there is a good article (on Gamasutra, or somewheres) explaining the difference. In short, "complexity" is the number of game design elements while "depth" is the number of ways these elements can interact...
In Board game terms, a game with extremely low complexity and immense depth is Go. Chess is abit more complex but with comparable depth. Old school Avalon Hill war simulations (like Squad Leader etc) did offer some depth but at the cost of huge complexity. The board game revival of the 2000's is driven by the popularity of "german" or "euro" games which offered a lot of depth with low complexity rules (Settlers of Catan and Carcassonne), basically a throwback to "classical" game design principles.
In video games, a game with "depth" would be the one ofering a lot to explore in terms of game mechanics. For example, a "deep" FPS would give you many options on how to complete a certain level or use your weapons on the enemies. A deep mmo would allow you to accomplish the task (say level to the max.) in a many different ways. Civilization is a "deep" game that keeps you playing just to see how the story will play out completely differently each time you play. A "deep" rpg gear system would allow you to pick and choose different gear for different tasks and playstyles while a shallow one would just linearly tier them like the garbage that is WoW.
The primary task of a (good) game designer is to make the games ruleset as simple as possible while maximizing the depth it offers. In the industry this is usually called "elegance." An "elegant" game is the one which is very simple and yet has amazing depth, such as Go. Civilization V is much more elegant than Civilization IV. The designers managed to reduce the complexity of the game while actually increasing depth. This is called "good" or "elegant" game design.
Incidentally, "depth" is what provides longevity (and subs! and subs!) It is very similar to what you have in films - a "deep" movie which has many layers of meaning will enjoy repeat viewings and increased DVD sales unlike a "shallow" one where the complete content of the movie can be absorbed in one viewing or even by just watching a trailer. Note that "deep" does not mean "intellectual" or "boring." Most cult movies, including comedies, have immense depth and that is why people never tire of watching them.
Actually when people complain about "grind" what they are doing is complaining about the lack of depth. How come killing some mobs in a mmo is a grind, while spending comparable time in TF2 killing some pixellated avatars isn't? Well the thing is that PvP is the easiest and cheapest way of adding depth to the gameplay. Emergent game behavior as a way to do it in PvE is an "elegant" solution to depth problems of single-player games (as in Civilization) while piling up tightly-scripted content is probably the riskiest and the most expensive one.
I just don't agree that some kinds of experiences are possible in little 30 minute blocks. In a game where you cannot save like single player games, and which is persistent, even statically persistent, much less dynamically persistent, you cannot have long tied together missions that you can do with those small blocks of casual player time. Especially in the case of group content.
This is why games are loading up on SINGLE PLAYER CONTENT IN INSTANCES AND PHASES THAT IS NOT EVEN PERSISTENT. The reason that I do not think games like Guild Wars and SWTOR and modern WoW are MMOs is because they are taking out the persistence for significant portions of the game.
Everyone always gets pissy and acts like I am calling their game dumb or lame or shallow. It doesn't have to be that way, GW is certainly not shallow. But its also not an MMO and the company actually admits it. I have so much more respect for Arena Net than Bioware because they did in 2005 what Bioware is doing now AND they didn't lie and call their game an MMO.
So when we say that people who are playing MMOs don't really want to play MMOs that is what we mean. Not that they are sad and pathetic and don't deserve games that cater to their time limitations, but just that the games that are suited for their life circumstances and not MMOs but instance/phased Coop with a small number of persistent zones and which are not virtual worlds as MMOs were intended to be.
I get many PMs from people who say: "Man I wish I could explain it like you do and not just explode in rage halfway through a discussion because no matter how hard I try to be accurate and respectful and reasonable the reaction I get from themeparkers tends to be no more respectful than if I just said they are losers and should go play farmville."
And even the ones who aren't douchebags just say that MMOs have changed and since the majority of people who play are now casuals they get to decide what an MMO is. You can blame it partially on the companies who didn't understand or didn't care that their games were not MMOs and just wanted the money that sub based MMOs got.
I know its a losing fight. People always ask why sandbox players often get so mad and there it is. I try to avoid this discussion a lot because most people can't even say something like: "I understand your point of view and understand why you guys get so upset."
I don't even care if you agree. But 99% of the responses even to a thought out explanation are just: "Casuals rule suck it up grandpa!"
I just don't agree that some kinds of experiences are possible in little 30 minute blocks. In a game where you cannot save like single player games, and which is persistent, even statically persistent, much less dynamically persistent, you cannot have long tied together missions that you can do with those small blocks of casual player time. Especially in the case of group content.
While I certainly agree that not all experiences are suitable for that kind of playstyle, I disagree with premise that you can't have MMO experience that fits it. Casual players don't want single player content - they want content that's approachable, and it just happens that instances are more approachable than classical world content. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to develop persistent, massive content that's accessible (Anet seems to be aiming for it with GW2).
In other words - casual playstyle doesn't stand in opposition to persistent, massive nature of MMORPGs, only some implementations of it.
I just don't agree that some kinds of experiences are possible in little 30 minute blocks. In a game where you cannot save like single player games, and which is persistent, even statically persistent, much less dynamically persistent, you cannot have long tied together missions that you can do with those small blocks of casual player time. Especially in the case of group content.
While I certainly agree that not all experiences are suitable for that kind of playstyle, I disagree with premise that you can't have MMO experience that fits it. Casual players don't want single player content - they want content that's approachable, and it just happens that instances are more approachable than classical world content. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to develop persistent, massive content that's accessible (Anet seems to be aiming for it with GW2).
In other words - casual playstyle doesn't stand in opposition to persistent, massive nature of MMORPGs, only some implementations of it.
Most implementations, and generally the most interesting ones. Defending from dynamic attacks, long quests, and no killing 10 rats is never going to be a real quest, raids.
If it were possible to have casual play why do all the games create LF, aka matchmaking, and instancing and phasing tools, which are all essentially attempts to render mmos into coops? You say that they are not mutually exclusive but provide no examples.
I remember saying SWTOR was flop a couple months ago on these forums. People rushed to buy the game like they rushed to buy Crap of Duty:MW3. No one did their homework and assumed that the game would be great because it was BIOWARE. Im sorry but BIOWARE games suck, Mass Effect, Dragon Age 2, highly overrated.
Funny how you say people want to play games like Diablo 2 and Guild Wars 1, because most Guild Wars 1 players want to play games like Guild Wars 2 with the massive persistent world.
Don't buy themepark games. You should know what youre running into when you are buying a thempark. Linear and solo are two key words in a themepark. Players will exploit a game's weakness such as what you mentioned with the fleet station and certain missions.
Try not to be lured by big company names like Bioware, Blizzard, Epic Games, because they are just out there for your money. There companies are like a bunch of koreans drawing cartoons in a sweatshop to meet a deadline just to make the year's quota. Independent games are getting better and new game developers are coming out with new and better ideas. You don't hear them because these big companies pay lots of money to the media to shout in your ear "Buy from me!". Games wouldnt cost so much to make if there wasn't so much overhead its pathetic.
Money is king. Money money money moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney
I remember saying SWTOR was flop a couple months ago on these forums. People rushed to buy the game like they rushed to buy Crap of Duty:MW3. No one did their homework and assumed that the game would be great because it was BIOWARE. Im sorry but BIOWARE games suck, Mass Effect, Dragon Age 2, highly overrated.
Funny how you say people want to play games like Diablo 2 and Guild Wars 1, because most Guild Wars 1 players want to play games like Guild Wars 2 with the massive persistent world.
Don't buy themepark games. You should know what youre running into when you are buying a thempark. Linear and solo are two key words in a themepark. Players will exploit a game's weakness such as what you mentioned with the fleet station and certain missions.
Try not to be lured by big company names like Bioware, Blizzard, Epic Games, because they are just out there for your money. There companies are like a bunch of koreans drawing cartoons in a sweatshop to meet a deadline just to make the year's quota. Independent games are getting better and new game developers are coming out with new and better ideas. You don't hear them because these big companies pay lots of money to the media to shout in your ear "Buy from me!". Games wouldnt cost so much to make if there wasn't so much overhead its pathetic.
Money is king. Money money money moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney
Agreed. Marketing made WoW rich and its making all the huge studio backed themepark games rich. Not as rich though. But better than the marketing any sandbox games can get.
I just don't agree that some kinds of experiences are possible in little 30 minute blocks. In a game where you cannot save like single player games, and which is persistent, even statically persistent, much less dynamically persistent, you cannot have long tied together missions that you can do with those small blocks of casual player time. Especially in the case of group content.
While I certainly agree that not all experiences are suitable for that kind of playstyle, I disagree with premise that you can't have MMO experience that fits it. Casual players don't want single player content - they want content that's approachable, and it just happens that instances are more approachable than classical world content. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to develop persistent, massive content that's accessible (Anet seems to be aiming for it with GW2).
In other words - casual playstyle doesn't stand in opposition to persistent, massive nature of MMORPGs, only some implementations of it.
Most implementations, and generally the most interesting ones. Defending from dynamic attacks, long quests, and no killing 10 rats is never going to be a real quest, raids.
If it were possible to have casual play why do all the games create LF, aka matchmaking, and instancing and phasing tools, which are all essentially attempts to render mmos into coops? You say that they are not mutually exclusive but provide no examples.
Answer is simple - because it works, and they are lazy. The fact that nobody does it doesn't mean it's impossible - also, this staleness seems to fade out with some of the planned games. I can't help but to bring GW2 as example of trying to match accessible with MMO, with their Dynamic Events (PvE) and WvWvW (PvP). They both sound fun, massive, persistent, and extremely easy to hop in.
I live in an expansive non-virtual world. I cut firewood weekly through the spring and fall (winter sometimes too). I build fences and barns. I raise goats and horses (and a llama even). I have a garden larger than the typical suburban housing lot. I also have a 40hr job in a factory.
I don't want to do these things in a virtual world. I want to play games. Sometimes, I want to play them with other people.
I understand why some people want sandbox games because I enjoy all of the items I listed above and I'm sure some people can't experience them in the real world. But to say that only sandboxes are true MMOs and everyone else is destroying your sandcastle with their desire for fun gameplay that isn't what you call fun? Grow up.
I live in an expansive non-virtual world. I cut firewood weekly through the spring and fall (winter sometimes too). I build fences and barns. I raise goats and horses (and a llama even). I have a garden larger than the typical suburban housing lot. I also have a 40hr job in a factory.
I don't want to do these things in a virtual world. I want to play games. Sometimes, I want to play them with other people.
I understand why some people want sandbox games because I enjoy all of the items I listed above and I'm sure some people can't experience them in the real world. But to say that only sandboxes are true MMOs and everyone else is destroying your sandcastle with their desire for fun gameplay that isn't what you call fun? Grow up.
I have to agree with this.
I dont have to, and i dont
Once again this is misunderstanding the problem, while the post WhiteLantern was replying to might have been exceptionally stupid, i dont know, the bottom line is, IF someone wants to just have "fun" in terms of arcade gameplay, he can open any flash game with a chat box at the side and play alone or with other people while chatting, BUT IF you like a persistent world and all the "work" (and i personally believe that mmos SHOULD offer options to the player, to do that work in the most FUN way) that comes with playing mmorpgs, you can only choose mmorpgs.
Comments
If you have limited free time its your own damn fault. You CHOSE to do whatever dumb shit you did. Apparently real life isn't that different from a modern MMO after all. No consequences at all for morons who make bad decisions.
I like not being forced into grouping, I like being able to get stuff done at 4:00am if that's when I'm online.
What people want is freedom, albeit the freedom to fast travel, or the freedom to ride from buttstank to mars if they so desired.
Then again I'm in no position to speak for everyone.
Wow, that is a great outlook on life and society right there.
You are correct, I chose to get an education and a good job to support my family. I chose to buy a farm. I chose to raise animals and a garden. I chose to limit my time in front of my computer so I can do things that give me a true sense of accomplishment. You, apparently, chose to live in your mom's basement and simulate a life in a virtual world.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Riiight. I chose to have full time job and family, so there shouldn't be MMOs that cater to my lifestyle... makes perfect sense.
Wait..If you have limited time to play video games it is because of some dumb shit you did? You mean like have a job and a family? So if your parents are not so wealthy that you don't have to have a job or you just were not lucky enough to win the lottery it is your fault? Maybe we should all go on welfare and ignore our kids so we can play video games.
Maybe it is more about priorities. Would I rather sit on my ass in my parents basements pissing in bottles so I never have to leave the computer or would I rather have a life? Thats a tough one. Your post is full of so much stupidity that it is painful to read. Seriously what the hell were you thinking?
Is it safe to call "TROLL THREAD" on this one yet?
You know i wonder how many whom scream for hard core sandbox, death is final, group or die type attitudes would actually really play beyond a month if they were presented with the game of their screams errr i mean dreams.
I know some would, no doubt, what makes me wonder is this, i soap boxed my displeasure over the years about the way games went, but...
When i really think about it, that was a decade ago when several things were different.
For example, that's the way it was, like it or leave it. It was really a matter of love it or leave it becasue there was no way on earth you were going to change the way it was. However as more people became aware of "video games" companies read more OMG itszzz to hard posts, which meant lost sales, but back then it was a minority voice. Over time as more people became aware of "video games" as entertainment, the it's too hard voices became too loud to ignore.
There were far less options back then as well.
Everything that came out was "new" undiscovered territory.
Social media? wtf is that, oh yeah "chat" in your mmo.
Maybe things back then were hard because developers didn't know what they were doing and learning as they go. There was no research and development done on the "player" back then.
You, me, we were all different back then as well. I thought about this, say tomorrow they say hey you can come back to the game exactly the way it was 10 years ago, ummm, honestly i don't know if I'd really want that anymore.
First I've been exposed to far better options (i just don't understand it that way as games were more exciting during the pioneering days becasue it was stuff we'd never been exposed to before), i only remember it being the time of my life it's not to say it was as good as i remember it though. Second i really don't have 18 hours a day to commit to a game anymore tbh.
Maybe games are better today and due to our fond memories we don't think so?
Personally, I don't care how long it takes me to grow my character. I'll play at my own pace. If it takes me 2 years to max out a character, I don't care as long as I am having a good time doing it.
It is the "I've got 30 minutes of game time, better give me fast success." crowd that rules the game market today. What can ya do? I am not saying it is bad. It just happens to be the way the market is right now.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Obviously, there are a crud-ton more that's willing to pay for that type of gaming. Why ignore it?
The problem is people are too worried about what other people are doing. Most of the games people complain about being streamlined and "handholding" don't require gamers to use any of those features. Take WoW for example, you can absolutely travel on foot or horseback to your Firelands raid if you want to, no one makes you use fast travel, portals, LFG, LF RAID, etc. If you don't want to quest while leveling up, you don't have to. I realize there are limitations such as the size of the world, there are load screens between zones and other things such as no player housing, etc.
The bottom line is, a lot of these "olden" features are there, but there are some added features to make things more streamlined for people who may not appreciate trecking through a forest every time they want to go clear a dungeon with their buddies. Open ended game play is also there, but people on these boards seem to prefer moaning and complaining like a bunch of nancies. I know plenty of old school gamers, myself included, who enjoy old games and new games alike. The difference is, they don't feel the need to post on these boards and drum up false conspiracy theories because they are busy enjoying games for what they are. Congrats, you are the hipsters of the interwebz.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be MMOs for both, the problem comes however when one type takes over and we have no more of the hardcore type. It's like how strat games all went to the DOTA style for awhile before they all failed and Starcraft proved te older style is still popular. That said my faves are SupCom and CoH lol.
Its not a single player game, you know
"Well, just do it the old way if you dont like the new way" is quite common these days, where you are making a mistake is assuming that there is a huge number of players which think like you do, who will willingly put themselves in a disadvantage for no other reason than immersion (even RP works only if more people RP with you), there just arent, people will either quit because their gaming experience is a dull blur, or continue playing moaning that their experience is a dull blur...
There is no easy solution.
I'm not saying there aren't. I'm just refuting the point that such playstyle is "sad".
Also, I wouldn't say "fast success", I'd rather use "fast fun". A lot of casual players don't mind failing, as long as they get something out of it (preferably, fun). The problem isn't in difficult content, it's in content that's inaccessible (so they can't even take a fair shot at it), and content that's straight out boring work (like grind). There's good effort, and there's bad effort.
I agree completely. If I hate something in mmos then it's the time sinks. The other thing I miss in today's mmos is depth.
NEWSFLASH - time sinks <> depth lol
Too many hardcores equate these two while its exactly the opposite that is true. The shallowest games usually rely on massive time sinks to mask this deficiency. My Ideal game would be fun all the time I play it but with a depth of gameplay. It's not about "instant gratification" but the fact that I'm paying for entertainment.
I did not mean to imply that ANY playstyle is "sad". I guess the way I presented the more casual gamers attitude did make it seem so. I apologize for that
[EDIT]
What do you define as depth? I'm just curiousRemember, EVERYTHING a game does is a time-sink. It is designed to occupy your time. Fun, on the other hand, is very debatable
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
"Depth" and "complexity" are two commonly used terms in game design theory. I believe there is a good article (on Gamasutra, or somewheres) explaining the difference. In short, "complexity" is the number of game design elements while "depth" is the number of ways these elements can interact...
In Board game terms, a game with extremely low complexity and immense depth is Go. Chess is abit more complex but with comparable depth. Old school Avalon Hill war simulations (like Squad Leader etc) did offer some depth but at the cost of huge complexity. The board game revival of the 2000's is driven by the popularity of "german" or "euro" games which offered a lot of depth with low complexity rules (Settlers of Catan and Carcassonne), basically a throwback to "classical" game design principles.
In video games, a game with "depth" would be the one ofering a lot to explore in terms of game mechanics. For example, a "deep" FPS would give you many options on how to complete a certain level or use your weapons on the enemies. A deep mmo would allow you to accomplish the task (say level to the max.) in a many different ways. Civilization is a "deep" game that keeps you playing just to see how the story will play out completely differently each time you play. A "deep" rpg gear system would allow you to pick and choose different gear for different tasks and playstyles while a shallow one would just linearly tier them like the garbage that is WoW.
The primary task of a (good) game designer is to make the games ruleset as simple as possible while maximizing the depth it offers. In the industry this is usually called "elegance." An "elegant" game is the one which is very simple and yet has amazing depth, such as Go. Civilization V is much more elegant than Civilization IV. The designers managed to reduce the complexity of the game while actually increasing depth. This is called "good" or "elegant" game design.
Incidentally, "depth" is what provides longevity (and subs! and subs!) It is very similar to what you have in films - a "deep" movie which has many layers of meaning will enjoy repeat viewings and increased DVD sales unlike a "shallow" one where the complete content of the movie can be absorbed in one viewing or even by just watching a trailer. Note that "deep" does not mean "intellectual" or "boring." Most cult movies, including comedies, have immense depth and that is why people never tire of watching them.
Actually when people complain about "grind" what they are doing is complaining about the lack of depth. How come killing some mobs in a mmo is a grind, while spending comparable time in TF2 killing some pixellated avatars isn't? Well the thing is that PvP is the easiest and cheapest way of adding depth to the gameplay. Emergent game behavior as a way to do it in PvE is an "elegant" solution to depth problems of single-player games (as in Civilization) while piling up tightly-scripted content is probably the riskiest and the most expensive one.
I just don't agree that some kinds of experiences are possible in little 30 minute blocks. In a game where you cannot save like single player games, and which is persistent, even statically persistent, much less dynamically persistent, you cannot have long tied together missions that you can do with those small blocks of casual player time. Especially in the case of group content.
This is why games are loading up on SINGLE PLAYER CONTENT IN INSTANCES AND PHASES THAT IS NOT EVEN PERSISTENT. The reason that I do not think games like Guild Wars and SWTOR and modern WoW are MMOs is because they are taking out the persistence for significant portions of the game.
Everyone always gets pissy and acts like I am calling their game dumb or lame or shallow. It doesn't have to be that way, GW is certainly not shallow. But its also not an MMO and the company actually admits it. I have so much more respect for Arena Net than Bioware because they did in 2005 what Bioware is doing now AND they didn't lie and call their game an MMO.
So when we say that people who are playing MMOs don't really want to play MMOs that is what we mean. Not that they are sad and pathetic and don't deserve games that cater to their time limitations, but just that the games that are suited for their life circumstances and not MMOs but instance/phased Coop with a small number of persistent zones and which are not virtual worlds as MMOs were intended to be.
I get many PMs from people who say: "Man I wish I could explain it like you do and not just explode in rage halfway through a discussion because no matter how hard I try to be accurate and respectful and reasonable the reaction I get from themeparkers tends to be no more respectful than if I just said they are losers and should go play farmville."
And even the ones who aren't douchebags just say that MMOs have changed and since the majority of people who play are now casuals they get to decide what an MMO is. You can blame it partially on the companies who didn't understand or didn't care that their games were not MMOs and just wanted the money that sub based MMOs got.
I know its a losing fight. People always ask why sandbox players often get so mad and there it is. I try to avoid this discussion a lot because most people can't even say something like: "I understand your point of view and understand why you guys get so upset."
I don't even care if you agree. But 99% of the responses even to a thought out explanation are just: "Casuals rule suck it up grandpa!"
I don't want to rely on the fact that some teenager is gonna swing his stick when he needs to or will be lazy and pop a heal when needed.
Thus, the only "social" aspect I need in an MMO is the grouping of the pvp.
Member of Talon | www.lakexeno.com
RIFT: Redcameo, Warrior, Faemist Server
RIFT: Bluecameo, Mage, Faemist Server
While I certainly agree that not all experiences are suitable for that kind of playstyle, I disagree with premise that you can't have MMO experience that fits it. Casual players don't want single player content - they want content that's approachable, and it just happens that instances are more approachable than classical world content. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to develop persistent, massive content that's accessible (Anet seems to be aiming for it with GW2).
In other words - casual playstyle doesn't stand in opposition to persistent, massive nature of MMORPGs, only some implementations of it.
Most implementations, and generally the most interesting ones. Defending from dynamic attacks, long quests, and no killing 10 rats is never going to be a real quest, raids.
If it were possible to have casual play why do all the games create LF, aka matchmaking, and instancing and phasing tools, which are all essentially attempts to render mmos into coops? You say that they are not mutually exclusive but provide no examples.
I remember saying SWTOR was flop a couple months ago on these forums. People rushed to buy the game like they rushed to buy Crap of Duty:MW3. No one did their homework and assumed that the game would be great because it was BIOWARE. Im sorry but BIOWARE games suck, Mass Effect, Dragon Age 2, highly overrated.
Funny how you say people want to play games like Diablo 2 and Guild Wars 1, because most Guild Wars 1 players want to play games like Guild Wars 2 with the massive persistent world.
Don't buy themepark games. You should know what youre running into when you are buying a thempark. Linear and solo are two key words in a themepark. Players will exploit a game's weakness such as what you mentioned with the fleet station and certain missions.
Try not to be lured by big company names like Bioware, Blizzard, Epic Games, because they are just out there for your money. There companies are like a bunch of koreans drawing cartoons in a sweatshop to meet a deadline just to make the year's quota. Independent games are getting better and new game developers are coming out with new and better ideas. You don't hear them because these big companies pay lots of money to the media to shout in your ear "Buy from me!". Games wouldnt cost so much to make if there wasn't so much overhead its pathetic.
Money is king. Money money money moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney
-I am here to perform logic
Agreed. Marketing made WoW rich and its making all the huge studio backed themepark games rich. Not as rich though. But better than the marketing any sandbox games can get.
Answer is simple - because it works, and they are lazy. The fact that nobody does it doesn't mean it's impossible - also, this staleness seems to fade out with some of the planned games. I can't help but to bring GW2 as example of trying to match accessible with MMO, with their Dynamic Events (PvE) and WvWvW (PvP). They both sound fun, massive, persistent, and extremely easy to hop in.
I have to agree with this.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I dont have to, and i dont
Once again this is misunderstanding the problem, while the post WhiteLantern was replying to might have been exceptionally stupid, i dont know, the bottom line is, IF someone wants to just have "fun" in terms of arcade gameplay, he can open any flash game with a chat box at the side and play alone or with other people while chatting, BUT IF you like a persistent world and all the "work" (and i personally believe that mmos SHOULD offer options to the player, to do that work in the most FUN way) that comes with playing mmorpgs, you can only choose mmorpgs.
Hence the thread title