I think the old console games were great because they were challenging. If you died, you had to start the level over. If you died enough times, the game was over and you had to start all the way from the beginning. It forced you to learn and play skillfully to beat the game. Solo games these days are easy. You can save your game before a hard part, if there is a hard part, and practice until you get it right. They're also too short. Some games last no longer than 8 hours.
As for MMORPG's, what made the old ones great was class interdependency and strongly encouraged grouping. Also, classes were unique and offered plenty of options for advancement. I'm thinking DAOC here.
people expect their next game to be an evolution of their last !lets say you started in eq1 back then it would have took big shoe to replace eq1 .then wow came and hasnt stop raising the bar with each expension!i bet most would have just made a new game (eq2)but not blizzard they raised the bar and kept having more and more sub!so now the bar is so high that any game maker wanting to just be on par with wow has a lot of work in front of them we arent talking evolution yet here! and player always tend their game to evolve the genre since this time around it isnt happening yet and with 64 bit wow just around the corner of official release ,the bar is gona be yet higher for upcoming futur game!that is why old game have their appeal.because most often what payer are being offered is less then what they actually play at the monent
As for MMORPG's, what made the old ones great was class interdependency and strongly encouraged grouping. Also, classes were unique and offered plenty of options for advancement. I'm thinking DAOC here.
I am not so sure. One of things that made the games so great was that there really was no wiki by then. There were no maps, no dps counter, no arrow pointing you were to go for a quest and at night it got really dark.
A lot of what was fun in the old games was exploration. Recent MMOs have had very little of that, they are rather small and don´t have all the small rewards placed out for explorers that the old games had.
Grouping and the social aspect was part of it, it is true but I think the real thing that made them great is that there were so many surprises. And of course they were often harder so they therefore felt more rewarding when you completed something. In some games even hitting max level was an achivement.
But of course they also had bad points, like the fact that they tended to be extremely buggy and sometimes made even things that was supposed to be simple very hard.
That is exactly right! Games of old understood the Risk/Reward function. If there is little risk, there is little reward. I haven't felt the rush of excitement in a game for many many years, because i know that in current games, if I die.....it means jack squat. In the games of old, WHERE you died depended on the severity of the new quest that was just formed "Get Alasti's corpse back". If you died in a rough spot, you worried that you may NEVER get your corpse back, and THAT was what was exciting!
Nah .. that was frustrating and stupid. People have lives. What if i am having dinnerin 10 min and i just die? To penalize players when they cannot devote hours and hours to a GAME is just bad design.
In the old days when i played EQ, there was more waiting, less doing, less variety (killing the SAME mob with a group for the 1000000 times was incredibly boring .. modern dungeon leveling .. even the same dungeons are 100x better).
I am glad the market moves on.
just find yourself another hobby.
Why? This hobby works just right for me now, given all the developers understand making a game to fit the players need.
And i do have other hobbies. There is no reason NOT to continue to spend some time in this one if it is fun.
I am not so sure. One of things that made the games so great was that there really was no wiki by then. There were no maps, no dps counter, no arrow pointing you were to go for a quest and at night it got really dark.
A lot of what was fun in the old games was exploration. Recent MMOs have had very little of that, they are rather small and don´t have all the small rewards placed out for explorers that the old games had.
Grouping and the social aspect was part of it, it is true but I think the real thing that made them great is that there were so many surprises. And of course they were often harder so they therefore felt more rewarding when you completed something. In some games even hitting max level was an achivement.
But of course they also had bad points, like the fact that they tended to be extremely buggy and sometimes made even things that was supposed to be simple very hard.
I think it's most of this post but especially the highlighted part.
People didn't know what to expect. You could go over the next hill and discover something new and different. Today, the experience is very regulated, all the space on the map is done is a very deliberate way so as to maximize that space in relation to the content they are putting in.
Besides the fact that you are getting a smaller group of like minded people experiencing all this at the same time. That's a far cry from all the disparate personalities that inhabit these games today.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I like older games a lot more because they were a lot more challenging. newer games are way too easy in my opinion. Well not all of them, but most of them.
Oc great old games, but equally still experiencing awesome new games in other genres... leads me to think it's not all nostalgia and that when it comes to mmorpgs, modern mmorpgs are not changing the rules enough each time another new one comes out. ; )
I like in Asherons Call 2 how I was able to go off on my own and level up without picking up quests. You could just go off and explore areas and killing mobs for loot, gear, and xp and explore the world. Very un-constricted. very fun. unlike this world of warcrap stuf that exists today.
I have never played some of these games as they were well before my time, Civ 4 > all Civs That's what you call depth.
I am surprised you didn't mention games like Icewind Dale, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Age of Empires etc. The elder scrolls series were also amazing. Daggerfall was so coool.
There are still lots of great games. Morrowind was amazing and so was Skyrim. Oblivion wasn't bad. NWN was also a great RPG. Warcraft III was one of the best RTS I've played. I am pretty sure there are many more newer games which are great.
Although nothing compares to BG I & II - the best RPG of all time.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
They were made for gamers, by gamers, not for masses.
Old games had options for failure. Depth. Risk vs Reward. Unique systems. Heart and soul poured into them.
Modern games don't.
Old MMOs were about coming together as a community against the harsh game world. Modern MMOs are about every individual being the hero and never failing.
That, Devs have taken the community out of games for whatever idiotic reason.
11 million WoW subs, for multiple years, is not a 'idiotic reason'.
Unless ofcourse you are a communist.
I tire of the blind eye gamers turn to the fact that its all about the money.
They were made for gamers, by gamers, not for masses.
Old games had options for failure. Depth. Risk vs Reward. Unique systems. Heart and soul poured into them.
Modern games don't.
Old MMOs were about coming together as a community against the harsh game world. Modern MMOs are about every individual being the hero and never failing.
That, Devs have taken the community out of games for whatever idiotic reason.
11 million WoW subs, for multiple years, is not a 'idiotic reason'.
Unless ofcourse you are a communist.
I tire of the blind eye gamers turn to the fact that its all about the money.
Plus, community is WAY over-rated. I had friends back in EQ. I have friends now in WOW. Making friends is easy and i am not playing a game to make friends. I am playing a game to have fun killing stuff.
If harsh game world = waiting for 30 min for something to happen, and every time you die, you get set back 2 weeks of progress, i am glad games are no longer harsh. I have limited time and the game needs to be fun in a short time. Commiting to a long period of play time (anything over 2 hours) is just not going to happen.
I will pay & play games that suit MY schedule & life style, NOT the other way around.
They were made for gamers, by gamers, not for masses.
Old games had options for failure. Depth. Risk vs Reward. Unique systems. Heart and soul poured into them.
Modern games don't.
Old MMOs were about coming together as a community against the harsh game world. Modern MMOs are about every individual being the hero and never failing.
That, Devs have taken the community out of games for whatever idiotic reason.
11 million WoW subs, for multiple years, is not a 'idiotic reason'.
Unless ofcourse you are a communist.
I tire of the blind eye gamers turn to the fact that its all about the money.
Plus, community is WAY over-rated. I had friends back in EQ. I have friends now in WOW. Making friends is easy and i am not playing a game to make friends. I am playing a game to have fun killing stuff.
If harsh game world = waiting for 30 min for something to happen, and every time you die, you get set back 2 weeks of progress, i am glad games are no longer harsh. I have limited time and the game needs to be fun in a short time. Commiting to a long period of play time (anything over 2 hours) is just not going to happen.
I will pay & play games that suit MY schedule & life style, NOT the other way around.
I see this line spouted so often it is almost nauseating...
There has always been countless games to cater to the instant fun, limited time crowd. There is a vast range of game types and genres out there which cover both the single player, the clan/close knit friend and pug multiplayer and the larger queuing multiplayer instant access gaming space.
If people have limited time, or only like instant fun, why the fuck not play the massive range of games that cater to that player base instead of failing to grasp that the influx of said players into the traditional, longer/larger scope mmorpg genre has totally ruined said genre? I wouldn't mind but other genres are better at it and do it without a subscription fee.
Amazingly enough, plenty of players who have/are interested in sandboxes et al are not no lifers sat at home playing them 24/7. Plenty of such players are also interested in instant action pew pew and the like, they just realise that there are other games out there that offer that.
This isn't an ideal world and the money invested in mmorpgs will go to catering to the largest audience. That is fair enough, but it is also as clear as day why it is ruining the genre for anyone who enjoys some modicum of difference in their gaming.
"I like shooters ergo I want every game to be a shooter herpa derpa" "I only want to spend 5 minutes playing each day and don't like talking to other people so all games should be like that derp". So speaks the modern gamer.
The demographic playing the older games is what made them better. It certainly wasn't perfect but my word the online gaming community these days is tragic.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Its simple,before it was not all about business and now it is. Games ware used to be made by gamers for gamers. Now you have corporate suits who dictate the market. It happend before in other things, not just games.
1: Wow started off as a spiritual successor to EQ in many respects. The best loots were on elite groups forcing you to group if you wanted the best thing. Raids had the best gear etc. It has been reformed by expansions to a more and more solo oriented thing and is far less about grouping then vanilla was. EX: Ogres by Lock Modan. Now there is more respawn points in closer areas making death even less painless then what it was.
2: What really made the older games was incentives for grouping. I loved player interaction, still do in fact. Whether it was the alliegience system of Asheron's Call or the Energy/health restoration of the SWG cantinas, these mechanics brought people together. People depended on each other to forge their way forward against a harsh world. Nowdays, the world in not nearly as harsh and to the average player, other players are a filler to a group or a means to an end.
3: Most MMO's that release today are focused on the solo players as[ect. Even non MMO's observe this trend. For example: League of Legends. Now, I know it is not an MMO but seriously look at how many people play solo queue versus how many people play in an arranged group. And this is a 5v5 team game. Solo play is more popular and for a company that is more interested in metrics of people, they will produce more content that incentivices the solo player.
4: Because companies have realized that more and more players perfer the solo style of play, they have changed design paradigms. So where does this leave us group perfered players? In the dust. I would place a heafty sum of money as a bet that the majority of the people complaining in this thread about how the new games do not match the old ones were/still are group perfered players.
5 MMO's are simply single player games now. Sure it brings more people in the door.....but it loses its sole in the process and lacks what makes a MMO an MMO. MULTIPLAYER.
Plus, community is WAY over-rated. I had friends back in EQ. I have friends now in WOW. Making friends is easy and i am not playing a game to make friends. I am playing a game to have fun killing stuff.
If harsh game world = waiting for 30 min for something to happen, and every time you die, you get set back 2 weeks of progress, i am glad games are no longer harsh. I have limited time and the game needs to be fun in a short time. Commiting to a long period of play time (anything over 2 hours) is just not going to happen.
I will pay & play games that suit MY schedule & life style, NOT the other way around.
Considering how much you said you liked F2P in MMO's as your prefered model i'm surprised you say you would even pay for an MMO in the first place.. Personally I will continue to play subscription fee games just so I have a lesser chance of running into your type of "gamers"
There are many things more productive than MMO's. If you play a game soly for the sake of playing the game & don't get anything out of the game (like lasting friendships) then why play a game in the first place. Your items do not transcend the boundries of the game but friends can.
To me it sounds like you really should be playing single player games & not MMOs. They seem more your style considering what you say you like in many of your posts.
I see this line spouted so often it is almost nauseating...
There has always been countless games to cater to the instant fun, limited time crowd. There is a vast range of game types and genres out there which cover both the single player, the clan/close knit friend and pug multiplayer and the larger queuing multiplayer instant access gaming space.
If people have limited time, or only like instant fun, why the fuck not play the massive range of games that cater to that player base instead of failing to grasp that the influx of said players into the traditional, longer/larger scope mmorpg genre has totally ruined said genre? I wouldn't mind but other genres are better at it and do it without a subscription fee.
Your logic is a bit convoluted.
Casual players only have the sway that they have because A, there are a lot of them and B, they seem willing to spend money and C, they are interested in these games.
Regardless of how some might complain on forums the people who are holding the purse strings notice trends and see that there is money to be made. In some cases, developers just need money and get into a position where they have to keep as many subscribers as possible. Remember, they don't work because this is some sort of warm fuzzy, magical gamers' club where everyone just loves games and want games to be the best they possibly can be!
They work because they need to make a living and this is a subject that they are interested in. And they would like to keep working. Few people work at the job of their dreams and even if they are in the job of their dreams they soon realize that they have to do things to stay employed.
So there is a casual market for online games. Casual players are interested in finding and paying for these games and developers are willing to accomodate. It's nothing more than that.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Casual players only have the sway that they have because A, there are a lot of them and B, they seem willing to spend money and C, they are interested in these games.
Regardless of how some might complain on forums the people who are holding the purse strings notice trends and see that there is money to be made. In some cases, developers just need money and get into a position where they have to keep as many subscribers as possible. Remember, they don't work because this is some sort of warm fuzzy, magical gamers' club where everyone just loves games and want games to be the best they possibly can be!
They work because they need to make a living and this is a subject that they are interested in. And they would like to keep working. Few people work at the job of their dreams and even if they are in the job of their dreams they soon realize that they have to do things to stay employed.
So there is a casual market for online games. Casual players are interested in finding and paying for these games and developers are willing to accomodate. It's nothing more than that.
What?
I pointed out that there are a large number of games that cater to the casual crowd, which is correct.
I then pointed out that the influx of casual players into the mmorpg genre has lead to and been driven by the developers catering to this large audience, which is correct.
This has lead to a decline in investment in more open world, longer term development games, which is correct.
I pointed out that such games are viable for players with jobs, that people who work are able to player traditional games, which is correct.
We don't live in some utopian reality in which some devs will push x money at casuals whilst some others will push the same amount at more traditional style mmos. 99% of the money is rammed at the more populous crowd (quite rightly), and thus whilst it is reasonable from a business perspective, it does indeed mean that the genre becomes homogenised.
Not sure where the flawed logic there is in all honesty. If the motivating and primary factor for gaming is instant accessibility and the quick action fun, then there are indeed other gaming genres which offer a superior product. That is also correct btw.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Casual players only have the sway that they have because A, there are a lot of them and B, they seem willing to spend money and C, they are interested in these games.
Regardless of how some might complain on forums the people who are holding the purse strings notice trends and see that there is money to be made. In some cases, developers just need money and get into a position where they have to keep as many subscribers as possible. Remember, they don't work because this is some sort of warm fuzzy, magical gamers' club where everyone just loves games and want games to be the best they possibly can be!
They work because they need to make a living and this is a subject that they are interested in. And they would like to keep working. Few people work at the job of their dreams and even if they are in the job of their dreams they soon realize that they have to do things to stay employed.
So there is a casual market for online games. Casual players are interested in finding and paying for these games and developers are willing to accomodate. It's nothing more than that.
What?
I pointed out that there are a large number of games that cater to the casual crowd, which is correct.
I then pointed out that the influx of casual players into the mmorpg genre has lead to and been driven by the developers catering to this large audience, which is correct.
This has lead to a decline in investment in more open world, longer term development games, which is correct.
I pointed out that such games are viable for players with jobs, that people who work are able to player traditional games, which is correct.
We don't live in some utopian reality in which some devs will push x money at casuals whilst some others will push the same amount at more traditional style mmos. 99% of the money is rammed at the more populous crowd (quite rightly), and thus whilst it is reasonable from a business perspective, it does indeed mean that the genre becomes homogenised.
Not sure where the flawed logic there is in all honesty. If the motivating and primary factor for gaming is instant accessibility and the quick action fun, then there are indeed other gaming genres which offer a superior product. That is also correct btw.
It's this part I was commenting on as your wording makes it seem that they should (and this is my interpretation) "know their place" and play what they have instead of (again my interpretation) polluting other games.
If people have limited time, or only like instant fun, why the fuck not play the massive range of games that cater to that player base instead of failing to grasp that the influx of said players into the traditional, longer/larger scope mmorpg genre has totally ruined said genre? I wouldn't mind but other genres are better at it and do it without a subscription fee.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's this part I was commenting on as your wording makes it seem that they should (and this is my interpretation) "know their place" and play what they have instead of (again my interpretation) polluting other games.
If people have limited time, or only like instant fun, why the fuck not play the massive range of games that cater to that player base instead of failing to grasp that the influx of said players into the traditional, longer/larger scope mmorpg genre has totally ruined said genre? I wouldn't mind but other genres are better at it and do it without a subscription fee.
It's not my place to tell other people what to play (and if it came across like that then it was not intended). But I do have to wonder why people looking for specific aspects would seek to find them in games which are, frankly, far worse at providing them.
I also have to question said mentallity when it seems as clear as day that this incessant push for instant gratification has lead to a decline in this genre.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It's not my place to tell other people what to play (and if it came across like that then it was not intended). But I do have to wonder why people looking for specific aspects would seek to find them in games which are, frankly, far worse at providing them.
I also have to question said mentallity when it seems as clear as day that this incessant push for instant gratification has lead to a decline in this genre.
I think what I was picking up on was your frustration coming through. In some ways, you are preaching to the choir. I very much preferred the longer leveling arcs/gear arcs of Lineage 2.
However, it's not that casual players are not playing games that don't cater to their casual lifestyle because they are unaware of what these games offer so much as they are drawn to the possibility of what these games offer, realize that in the long run they can't compete, developers see this mass of people who want to play these games and change things to accomodate a massive market.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
I think the old console games were great because they were challenging. If you died, you had to start the level over. If you died enough times, the game was over and you had to start all the way from the beginning. It forced you to learn and play skillfully to beat the game. Solo games these days are easy. You can save your game before a hard part, if there is a hard part, and practice until you get it right. They're also too short. Some games last no longer than 8 hours.
As for MMORPG's, what made the old ones great was class interdependency and strongly encouraged grouping. Also, classes were unique and offered plenty of options for advancement. I'm thinking DAOC here.
people expect their next game to be an evolution of their last !lets say you started in eq1 back then it would have took big shoe to replace eq1 .then wow came and hasnt stop raising the bar with each expension!i bet most would have just made a new game (eq2)but not blizzard they raised the bar and kept having more and more sub!so now the bar is so high that any game maker wanting to just be on par with wow has a lot of work in front of them we arent talking evolution yet here! and player always tend their game to evolve the genre since this time around it isnt happening yet and with 64 bit wow just around the corner of official release ,the bar is gona be yet higher for upcoming futur game!that is why old game have their appeal.because most often what payer are being offered is less then what they actually play at the monent
I am not so sure. One of things that made the games so great was that there really was no wiki by then. There were no maps, no dps counter, no arrow pointing you were to go for a quest and at night it got really dark.
A lot of what was fun in the old games was exploration. Recent MMOs have had very little of that, they are rather small and don´t have all the small rewards placed out for explorers that the old games had.
Grouping and the social aspect was part of it, it is true but I think the real thing that made them great is that there were so many surprises. And of course they were often harder so they therefore felt more rewarding when you completed something. In some games even hitting max level was an achivement.
But of course they also had bad points, like the fact that they tended to be extremely buggy and sometimes made even things that was supposed to be simple very hard.
Why? This hobby works just right for me now, given all the developers understand making a game to fit the players need.
And i do have other hobbies. There is no reason NOT to continue to spend some time in this one if it is fun.
I think it's most of this post but especially the highlighted part.
People didn't know what to expect. You could go over the next hill and discover something new and different. Today, the experience is very regulated, all the space on the map is done is a very deliberate way so as to maximize that space in relation to the content they are putting in.
Besides the fact that you are getting a smaller group of like minded people experiencing all this at the same time. That's a far cry from all the disparate personalities that inhabit these games today.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I like older games a lot more because they were a lot more challenging. newer games are way too easy in my opinion. Well not all of them, but most of them.
Oc great old games, but equally still experiencing awesome new games in other genres... leads me to think it's not all nostalgia and that when it comes to mmorpgs, modern mmorpgs are not changing the rules enough each time another new one comes out. ; )
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I like in Asherons Call 2 how I was able to go off on my own and level up without picking up quests. You could just go off and explore areas and killing mobs for loot, gear, and xp and explore the world. Very un-constricted. very fun. unlike this world of warcrap stuf that exists today.
AC2 Morningthaw, Horizons, SWG, EQ2, L2, COH, Vanguard, Runes of Magic, Rift, SWTOR, AA, Tera
I have never played some of these games as they were well before my time, Civ 4 > all Civs
That's what you call depth.
I am surprised you didn't mention games like Icewind Dale, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Age of Empires etc. The elder scrolls series were also amazing. Daggerfall was so coool.
There are still lots of great games. Morrowind was amazing and so was Skyrim. Oblivion wasn't bad. NWN was also a great RPG. Warcraft III was one of the best RTS I've played. I am pretty sure there are many more newer games which are great.
Although nothing compares to BG I & II - the best RPG of all time.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
11 million WoW subs, for multiple years, is not a 'idiotic reason'.
Unless ofcourse you are a communist.
I tire of the blind eye gamers turn to the fact that its all about the money.
Plus, community is WAY over-rated. I had friends back in EQ. I have friends now in WOW. Making friends is easy and i am not playing a game to make friends. I am playing a game to have fun killing stuff.
If harsh game world = waiting for 30 min for something to happen, and every time you die, you get set back 2 weeks of progress, i am glad games are no longer harsh. I have limited time and the game needs to be fun in a short time. Commiting to a long period of play time (anything over 2 hours) is just not going to happen.
I will pay & play games that suit MY schedule & life style, NOT the other way around.
I see this line spouted so often it is almost nauseating...
There has always been countless games to cater to the instant fun, limited time crowd. There is a vast range of game types and genres out there which cover both the single player, the clan/close knit friend and pug multiplayer and the larger queuing multiplayer instant access gaming space.
If people have limited time, or only like instant fun, why the fuck not play the massive range of games that cater to that player base instead of failing to grasp that the influx of said players into the traditional, longer/larger scope mmorpg genre has totally ruined said genre? I wouldn't mind but other genres are better at it and do it without a subscription fee.
Amazingly enough, plenty of players who have/are interested in sandboxes et al are not no lifers sat at home playing them 24/7. Plenty of such players are also interested in instant action pew pew and the like, they just realise that there are other games out there that offer that.
This isn't an ideal world and the money invested in mmorpgs will go to catering to the largest audience. That is fair enough, but it is also as clear as day why it is ruining the genre for anyone who enjoys some modicum of difference in their gaming.
"I like shooters ergo I want every game to be a shooter herpa derpa" "I only want to spend 5 minutes playing each day and don't like talking to other people so all games should be like that derp". So speaks the modern gamer.
The demographic playing the older games is what made them better. It certainly wasn't perfect but my word the online gaming community these days is tragic.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Its simple,before it was not all about business and now it is. Games ware used to be made by gamers for gamers. Now you have corporate suits who dictate the market. It happend before in other things, not just games.
A couple of things:
1: Wow started off as a spiritual successor to EQ in many respects. The best loots were on elite groups forcing you to group if you wanted the best thing. Raids had the best gear etc. It has been reformed by expansions to a more and more solo oriented thing and is far less about grouping then vanilla was. EX: Ogres by Lock Modan. Now there is more respawn points in closer areas making death even less painless then what it was.
2: What really made the older games was incentives for grouping. I loved player interaction, still do in fact. Whether it was the alliegience system of Asheron's Call or the Energy/health restoration of the SWG cantinas, these mechanics brought people together. People depended on each other to forge their way forward against a harsh world. Nowdays, the world in not nearly as harsh and to the average player, other players are a filler to a group or a means to an end.
3: Most MMO's that release today are focused on the solo players as[ect. Even non MMO's observe this trend. For example: League of Legends. Now, I know it is not an MMO but seriously look at how many people play solo queue versus how many people play in an arranged group. And this is a 5v5 team game. Solo play is more popular and for a company that is more interested in metrics of people, they will produce more content that incentivices the solo player.
4: Because companies have realized that more and more players perfer the solo style of play, they have changed design paradigms. So where does this leave us group perfered players? In the dust. I would place a heafty sum of money as a bet that the majority of the people complaining in this thread about how the new games do not match the old ones were/still are group perfered players.
5 MMO's are simply single player games now. Sure it brings more people in the door.....but it loses its sole in the process and lacks what makes a MMO an MMO. MULTIPLAYER.
Considering how much you said you liked F2P in MMO's as your prefered model i'm surprised you say you would even pay for an MMO in the first place.. Personally I will continue to play subscription fee games just so I have a lesser chance of running into your type of "gamers"
There are many things more productive than MMO's. If you play a game soly for the sake of playing the game & don't get anything out of the game (like lasting friendships) then why play a game in the first place. Your items do not transcend the boundries of the game but friends can.
To me it sounds like you really should be playing single player games & not MMOs. They seem more your style considering what you say you like in many of your posts.
Your logic is a bit convoluted.
Casual players only have the sway that they have because A, there are a lot of them and B, they seem willing to spend money and C, they are interested in these games.
Regardless of how some might complain on forums the people who are holding the purse strings notice trends and see that there is money to be made. In some cases, developers just need money and get into a position where they have to keep as many subscribers as possible. Remember, they don't work because this is some sort of warm fuzzy, magical gamers' club where everyone just loves games and want games to be the best they possibly can be!
They work because they need to make a living and this is a subject that they are interested in. And they would like to keep working. Few people work at the job of their dreams and even if they are in the job of their dreams they soon realize that they have to do things to stay employed.
So there is a casual market for online games. Casual players are interested in finding and paying for these games and developers are willing to accomodate. It's nothing more than that.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
What?
I pointed out that there are a large number of games that cater to the casual crowd, which is correct.
I then pointed out that the influx of casual players into the mmorpg genre has lead to and been driven by the developers catering to this large audience, which is correct.
This has lead to a decline in investment in more open world, longer term development games, which is correct.
I pointed out that such games are viable for players with jobs, that people who work are able to player traditional games, which is correct.
We don't live in some utopian reality in which some devs will push x money at casuals whilst some others will push the same amount at more traditional style mmos. 99% of the money is rammed at the more populous crowd (quite rightly), and thus whilst it is reasonable from a business perspective, it does indeed mean that the genre becomes homogenised.
Not sure where the flawed logic there is in all honesty. If the motivating and primary factor for gaming is instant accessibility and the quick action fun, then there are indeed other gaming genres which offer a superior product. That is also correct btw.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It's this part I was commenting on as your wording makes it seem that they should (and this is my interpretation) "know their place" and play what they have instead of (again my interpretation) polluting other games.
If people have limited time, or only like instant fun, why the fuck not play the massive range of games that cater to that player base instead of failing to grasp that the influx of said players into the traditional, longer/larger scope mmorpg genre has totally ruined said genre? I wouldn't mind but other genres are better at it and do it without a subscription fee.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It's not my place to tell other people what to play (and if it came across like that then it was not intended). But I do have to wonder why people looking for specific aspects would seek to find them in games which are, frankly, far worse at providing them.
I also have to question said mentallity when it seems as clear as day that this incessant push for instant gratification has lead to a decline in this genre.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I think what I was picking up on was your frustration coming through. In some ways, you are preaching to the choir. I very much preferred the longer leveling arcs/gear arcs of Lineage 2.
However, it's not that casual players are not playing games that don't cater to their casual lifestyle because they are unaware of what these games offer so much as they are drawn to the possibility of what these games offer, realize that in the long run they can't compete, developers see this mass of people who want to play these games and change things to accomodate a massive market.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo