What depth or complexity is added by the LFR/LFD system that was not there before?
The choice of using LFR/LFD instead of walking there?
To the WoW talent trees, they aren't even choices anymore. If you pick a type of play(dps/tank/heal/pvp) there really is no choice to be made. It presents you with three options. Each one suited for a certain playstyle. You choose the one for your playstyle. The only ones that have even the slightest bit of real choice are the classes with three dps trees. So no, they did not add any complexity or depth. You said yourself, they took out the number crunching. There's not even comparisons really now. You take the one for your build. For most of those "choices" it's pointless to even ask the question. They should just ask what role you want to perform and give you the talents you'll take anyways. It's just an illusion of choice.
Whether or not you thought they had depth before is debateable, but they have less now than they did before. It went from small amount of choice to almost no choice. That is not depth.
Have you actually SEEN the new talent system in MOP? No more number points on talent tree. ONLY different choice of combat mechanics (kind of like D3 system). i will predict there will be less cookie cutter build, and more variety.
I never said to maintain a community outside a game. I said the community of the game is not there because of the way it's built to avoid too much interaction. Usually via world design, self reliance of classes, and instancing of everything that you can warp straight to. Don't twist words.
Sure. But i do not care about a community INSIDE a game. A community outside of the game is as good, if not better. And why should i be forced to interact with someone when i don't want to? That should be a choice too. I thought you are FOR player choices.
What depth or complexity is added by the LFR/LFD system that was not there before?
The choice of using LFR/LFD instead of walking there?
To the WoW talent trees, they aren't even choices anymore. If you pick a type of play(dps/tank/heal/pvp) there really is no choice to be made. It presents you with three options. Each one suited for a certain playstyle. You choose the one for your playstyle. The only ones that have even the slightest bit of real choice are the classes with three dps trees. So no, they did not add any complexity or depth. You said yourself, they took out the number crunching. There's not even comparisons really now. You take the one for your build. For most of those "choices" it's pointless to even ask the question. They should just ask what role you want to perform and give you the talents you'll take anyways. It's just an illusion of choice.
Whether or not you thought they had depth before is debateable, but they have less now than they did before. It went from small amount of choice to almost no choice. That is not depth.
Have you actually SEEN the new talent system in MOP? No more number points on talent tree. ONLY different choice of combat mechanics (kind of like D3 system). i will predict there will be less cookie cutter build, and more variety.
I never said to maintain a community outside a game. I said the community of the game is not there because of the way it's built to avoid too much interaction. Usually via world design, self reliance of classes, and instancing of everything that you can warp straight to. Don't twist words.
Sure. But i do not care about a community INSIDE a game. A community outside of the game is as good, if not better. And why should i be forced to interact with someone when i don't want to? That should be a choice too. I thought you are FOR player choices.
How is the choice to use LFD/LFR adding depth? The dungeons/raids are the exact same. It does not add modes you can't do otherwise. It's a tool of convenience. It automates/streamlines the grouping so you don't have to do it manually. But, it also means you aren't the one choosing. I said this before and you still stick to the same answer despite what I said. This is why I wanted to leave the convo the first time. I asked the question to give you a chance to prove your point. Instead, you repeated something that still is incorrect. Do you know what depth means?
Did I not just describe the new talent system in my last reply? Where at certain levels you get a choice of three talents? Where, if you are a hybrid class, you have no real choice unless you want to take talents for a role you aren't? Did you not read what I posted before replying? More variety? Less cookie cutter? The only classes with any miniscule choice at all are ones with 3 dps roles. How is that more choice and variety than what they had? As bad as it already was. As much as it was already pruned down. This is LESS choice and less depth.
Once again, you stray from the point to avoid it. So, how about this. What does community in a game mean to you? We'll start there.
Did I not just describe the new talent system in my last reply? Where at certain levels you get a choice of three talents? Where, if you are a hybrid class, you have no real choice unless you want to take talents for a role you aren't? Did you not read what I posted before replying? More variety? Less cookie cutter? The only classes with any miniscule choice at all are ones with 3 dps roles. How is that more choice and variety than what they had? As bad as it already was. As much as it was already pruned down. This is LESS choice and less depth.
Have you actually read the new talent choices? You get 6 choices .. each has 3 options. EACH option has a different mechanics. For example, a mage at the last choice, can have a rune on the ground to increase DPS, or do away with CD of evocation ... there is no clear choice, unlike adding 1% for each point for each skill point, as before.
There are 729 (3^6) combinations of how players can choose their talents. That is why more than 3 cookie cutter build today.
Once again, you stray from the point to avoid it. So, how about this. What does community in a game mean to you? We'll start there.
Nothing. I got some people who i play with, may be even like enough to befriend. Whether it is in the same game, same server, different game, different server makes absolutely no different to me. I don't play games for community. I play game for the GAME.
Did I not just describe the new talent system in my last reply? Where at certain levels you get a choice of three talents? Where, if you are a hybrid class, you have no real choice unless you want to take talents for a role you aren't? Did you not read what I posted before replying? More variety? Less cookie cutter? The only classes with any miniscule choice at all are ones with 3 dps roles. How is that more choice and variety than what they had? As bad as it already was. As much as it was already pruned down. This is LESS choice and less depth.
Have you actually read the new talent choices? You get 6 choices .. each has 3 options. EACH option has a different mechanics. For example, a mage at the last choice, can have a rune on the ground to increase DPS, or do away with CD of evocation ... there is no clear choice, unlike adding 1% for each point for each skill point, as before.
There are 729 (3^6) combinations of how players can choose their talents. That is why more than 3 cookie cutter build today.
Once again, you stray from the point to avoid it. So, how about this. What does community in a game mean to you? We'll start there.
Nothing. I got some people who i play with, may be even like enough to befriend. Whether it is in the same game, same server, different game, different server makes absolutely no different to me. I don't play games for community. I play game for the GAME.
3 options, just like I said. You also missed where I said the only ones with any choice at all are classes with 3 dps roles. Guess what, a Mage has 3 dps roles. But, even there in most situations you will take the talent that fits best with the path you chose(fire, frost, arcane) Now go look at something like a Druid. Notice the healing, tanking, and dps choices. If you choose one of those roles, what choice is there but to pick the one for that role. To the actual choices, some of those are pve and some of them are pvp choices. And lastly, please explain to me how that has more depth or choice than before, Go back to Vanilla and TBC. Compare those trees with Wrath. Now compare all the flip flopping during Wrath and all the pruning before Cata. Now compare Cata and MoP. See anything?
The whole reason there are cookie cutter builds is not based on number of choices. It's completely based on the value of those choices. That will still happen. Even if something has a non dps effect, it will be weighed against the talent that gives dps. It'll be weighed, instead of on a spreadsheet, by how useful it is in keeping you doing dps. Things like a charge are weighed this way because they allow you to get back on target as a melee faster. If that negation of lost time gives you more dps than what the other choice gives as a whole for the encounter, it will be viewed as superior. The question then becomes how often will you need/use it in the specified raids that are current for the build. So yes, they will still have best/cookie cutter builds.
Honestly, there was never huge depth in WoW's trees because Blizzard ensured it. "Unintended" specs were made not possible or talents were nerfed heavily to prevent their use. If you compare the old systems to being a shallow puddle in terms of depth, I would say take out another inch of water and you have the MoP version. It's less than before.
The community is part of the game. It's part of the design. Honestly, it sounds like you hate something that you've never tried or been a part of. What other older MMORPGs have you played besides EQ?
Honestly, I feel like current MMORPGs mimic life. Both are in a time of "Me Me Me...Look at me!" "I want and deserve everything even though I don't know why I want or need it." "And...I want it NOW! Immediately!". There is something to be said about the task that ends in reward instead of just getting the reward handed to you.
But the point is that despite whatever generation you want to classify people, for ME, there are plenty of entertainment. In fact, the number of choices are INCREASING every day. I found good TV shows, just found a new sci-fi author i like, good computer games ...
There is utterly no reason to be bitter and depressed if ONE genre of games does not pan out the way i want. MMOs are great now for me .. and i don't expect it to last forever. Just like i had fun with Ultima 3-6 .. but the series died around 8 (definitely 9).
What you mean to say is there is no reason for YOU, because for you MMOs are no more meaningful than a TV show. Obviously you are not going to lament their decline or even disappearance. I personally could care less if TV shows vanished from the face of the planet. But for many people, like me, MMOs were/are way more important than that. Ideally, I think, the industry would develop their games around the desires of players who are fundamentally in love with the genre, not those who could care less.
You keep saying this genre is easy come easy go for you. That community isnt a big deal to you. But you are defending these ideals tooth and nail. You say that you don't care if this genre goes in a direction you don't like because you'll just move on. But you can;t let go of a single opposing view in this thread. You say none of it matters but you're taking every differing opinion as a personal affront.
So why are you still here? Is it because someone else started this volley and you're here to finish it? That wouldn't make sense considering the stance you are taking towards this genre. You have made you point abundantly clear. Maybe a few others here are goading you. You've been telling us all to move on. Maybe its time to take your own advice before we get too many more of these personal responses.
This is a thread about a genre that has changed for the worse (imo obviously). You disagree. I'm not here to convince you you are wrong. Thats not the point of this thread. Maybe some other more passionate people are trying to do that. See my quote on that one heh.
This is a thread about virtual worlds and their expansiveness. And how that is missing in todays genre. How we perceive convenience, depth, and fun are heavy themes and in themselves are interesting to discuss. But to battle over semantics is not very productive. And some of these posts are degrading into that.
Id love to talk about this stuff with you more. Just try not to take things personally when talking about a genre of video games. Especially one that you claim to be able to easily walk away from
But the point is that despite whatever generation you want to classify people, for ME, there are plenty of entertainment. In fact, the number of choices are INCREASING every day. I found good TV shows, just found a new sci-fi author i like, good computer games ...
There is utterly no reason to be bitter and depressed if ONE genre of games does not pan out the way i want. MMOs are great now for me .. and i don't expect it to last forever. Just like i had fun with Ultima 3-6 .. but the series died around 8 (definitely 9).
What you mean to say is there is no reason for YOU, because for you MMOs are no more meaningful than a TV show. Obviously you are not going to lament their decline or even disappearance. I personally could care less if TV shows vanished from the face of the planet. But for many people, like me, MMOs were/are way more important than that. Ideally, I think, the industry would develop their games around the desires of players who are fundamentally in love with the genre, not those who could care less.
Well, i use the phrase "for me" several times .. i think it is pretty obvious that i am talking about me.
If MMO disappears, probably it will make interesting conversation like i can discuss the ending of the ultima series. But yeah, at the end, it is just entertainment. It is not like it is my life.
I think, industry would develop their games around who would PAY. No money, no more future development. Now if there are 10M people in love with the genre, then it is fine .. but if there is only 100, the industry will starve if it only caters to those who love the genre. It all boils down to the numbers.
You keep saying this genre is easy come easy go for you. That community isnt a big deal to you. But you are defending these ideals tooth and nail. You say that you don't care if this genre goes in a direction you don't like because you'll just move on. But you can;t let go of a single opposing view in this thread. You say none of it matters but you're taking every differing opinion as a personal affront.
So why are you still here? Is it because someone else started this volley and you're here to finish it? That wouldn't make sense considering the stance you are taking towards this genre. You have made you point abundantly clear. Maybe a few others here are goading you. You've been telling us all to move on. Maybe its time to take your own advice before we get too many more of these personal responses.
Because it is fun? Because it is good relaxation in-between waiting for my computer analysis to run? Don't think for a min that i am here to convince anyone. People cannot be convinced on the internet.
This is a thread about a genre that has changed for the worse (imo obviously). You disagree. I'm not here to convince you you are wrong. Thats not the point of this thread. Maybe some other more passionate people are trying to do that. See my quote on that one heh.
This is a thread about virtual worlds and their expansiveness. And how that is missing in todays genre. How we perceive convenience, depth, and fun are heavy themes and in themselves are interesting to discuss. But to battle over semantics is not very productive. And some of these posts are degrading into that.
And to discuss what is missing (in your view) of today's MMO, it is as important to discuss what is there, and why people actually like what is here today. If everyone loves virtual worlds, and hate LFD, you think we will be here today? And yes, i agree discussion semantics is silly. But there are some here who are so fired up about the definition of MMO .. that it is just irresistable not to call them out whenever they post.
Id love to talk about this stuff with you more. Just try not to take things personally when talking about a genre of video games. Especially one that you claim to be able to easily walk away from
I never take things personally on internet forums. It is just another fun way to past time. It is also fun to see very polarizing views, and how people react to it.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Foomerang@nariusseldonYou keep saying this genre is easy come easy go for you. That community isnt a big deal to you. But you are defending these ideals tooth and nail. You say that you don't care if this genre goes in a direction you don't like because you'll just move on. But you can;t let go of a single opposing view in this thread. You say none of it matters but you're taking every differing opinion as a personal affront. So why are you still here? Is it because someone else started this volley and you're here to finish it? That wouldn't make sense considering the stance you are taking towards this genre. You have made you point abundantly clear. Maybe a few others here are goading you. You've been telling us all to move on. Maybe its time to take your own advice before we get too many more of these personal responses. Because it is fun? Because it is good relaxation in-between waiting for my computer analysis to run? Don't think for a min that i am here to convince anyone. People cannot be convinced on the internet. This is a thread about a genre that has changed for the worse (imo obviously). You disagree. I'm not here to convince you you are wrong. Thats not the point of this thread. Maybe some other more passionate people are trying to do that. See my quote on that one heh. This is a thread about virtual worlds and their expansiveness. And how that is missing in todays genre. How we perceive convenience, depth, and fun are heavy themes and in themselves are interesting to discuss. But to battle over semantics is not very productive. And some of these posts are degrading into that. And to discuss what is missing (in your view) of today's MMO, it is as important to discuss what is there, and why people actually like what is here today. If everyone loves virtual worlds, and hate LFD, you think we will be here today? And yes, i agree discussion semantics is silly. But there are some here who are so fired up about the definition of MMO .. that it is just irresistable not to call them out whenever they post. Id love to talk about this stuff with you more. Just try not to take things personally when talking about a genre of video games. Especially one that you claim to be able to easily walk away from I never take things personally on internet forums. It is just another fun way to past time. It is also fun to see very polarizing views, and how people react to it.
1. What may be considered "fun" for you could sometimes be considered breaking the roc here so we should all be mindful.
2. If you want to discuss the importance of existing features in mmos, this is probably the wrong thread to do so. Id suggest making your own. This thread is about including virtual world features into the mix, not to get rid of the current style. That has been my point since the beginning. There have been some good discussions here regarding how to make older game mechanics more interesting or how to bring back forgotten aspects of this genre. Coming in here and constantly saying "I dont like that, I like the way it is now" is really kind of missing the point of the discussion and again, comes close to breaking the roc concerning this thread.
If you made a thread in order to discuss how LFG could be made better, I wouldn't come in and say "I don't like LFG" over and over. I wouldn't start arguments with other posters because its "fun". Especially if it derailed the point of the thread.
Just asking for you consideration on that here. Thank you
1. What may be considered "fun" for you could sometimes be considered breaking the roc here so we should all be mindful.
Point taken. But this is an internet forum, and unless i am using abusive language, i am entitled to raise whatever point i wish to riase.
2. If you want to discuss the importance of existing features in mmos, this is probably the wrong thread to do so. Id suggest making your own. This thread is about including virtual world features into the mix, not to get rid of the current style. That has been my point since the beginning. There have been some good discussions here regarding how to make older game mechanics more interesting or how to bring back forgotten aspects of this genre. Coming in here and constantly saying "I dont like that, I like the way it is now" is really kind of missing the point of the discussion and again, comes close to breaking the roc concerning this thread.
It is not like i do not give reasons of why i do not like some of the old mechanics. (The famous example is, of course, that i think traveling between point A to B, for multiple times, becomes bornig.) There *is* discussion about how to mitigate that. In fact, while antagonistic, the discussion did bring out arguments of why some of the mechanics can become interesting (at least to some).
While it is often common to assume the other guy "did not get the point", you are missing the point (pun intended) that he is probably try to raise a different point.
And i think you are mistaken that this thread is about improvement VW. This thread is about proclaiming and ranting on "the genre is dead" and why some of you hate modern MMOs. It is only fair game that the opposite opinion is aired.
If you made a thread in order to discuss how LFG could be made better, I wouldn't come in and say "I don't like LFG" over and over. I wouldn't start arguments with other posters because its "fun". Especially if it derailed the point of the thread.
hahahah .. really? My take is that many will come in a thread like that (may be not you) and say "LFD is the downfall of MMO" or "LFD games is not true MMO".
Just asking for you consideration on that here. Thank you
You are civil, and i appreciate that, which is more than how many behave here. The only reciprocity i can offer, however, is to remain civil (language-wise). Thank you
100% combat oriented online games. Cash shops come standard. Purely developer driven content. Esport is the name of the game for pvp. Socialization has become automatized.
If you were to tell me ten years ago that this is what MMORPGS would be like, I would have never even bothered to get involved.
MMO versions of old console games from a decade ago. Thats what we have right now. The irony is that console games today are actually more open and diverse than these so called mmorpgs.
Its a shame. I have faith in indie devs, as always. But the AAA mmo devs have really led the genre astray as of late. I wonder if it will ever get back on track.
This is an example of what I call "Old People's Disease." Things were always better 'in the old days.' Well, I'm 51 and I lived in 'the old days' compared to most of you. My PC, right now, is faster and more powerful than the mini-computer my grandfather's business owned in the late 1960s. It's more powerful than the main-frame computers of the 1970s on which I had my first programming class. My cell phone was still 'science fiction' in the 1960s. iPad type computers didn't even hit sci-fi until the 1970s. In old sci-fi, Astrogators had to use look-up tables and compute jumps with pen and paper because computers weren't powerful enough and slide-rules were still used when I was in high school...
Games are so much better today than when I got my first computer that it's ludicrous to compare them. Games were ASCII graphics and text scrolling across a screen. My smart-phone, limited as it is, has better games, and graphics, than my old computer. And in MMOs, every now and then I play UO for laughs. What a monstrosity. Ugly. Clunky. Frozen in time. It has a few good mechanics, but most of it is rubbish. It's cute for about 3-hours so I can remember just how bad it was back then, then I uninstall it I don't it again for years.
The world has changed and no amount of romantic wool-gathering will make it go back or make the old days better.
So, here is some advice -- embrace change or get left behind with a bad case of 'old people's disease' that leaves you bitter and angry. In balance, all of computer gaming is better than it was in the 'old days.' Unless, of course, you really do think monochrome ASCII graphics and text adventures were 'the thing.'
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Foomerang1. What may be considered "fun" for you could sometimes be considered breaking the roc here so we should all be mindful. Point taken. But this is an internet forum, and unless i am using abusive language, i am entitled to raise whatever point i wish to riase. 2. If you want to discuss the importance of existing features in mmos, this is probably the wrong thread to do so. Id suggest making your own. This thread is about including virtual world features into the mix, not to get rid of the current style. That has been my point since the beginning. There have been some good discussions here regarding how to make older game mechanics more interesting or how to bring back forgotten aspects of this genre. Coming in here and constantly saying "I dont like that, I like the way it is now" is really kind of missing the point of the discussion and again, comes close to breaking the roc concerning this thread. It is not like i do not give reasons of why i do not like some of the old mechanics. (The famous example is, of course, that i think traveling between point A to B, for multiple times, becomes bornig.) There *is* discussion about how to mitigate that. In fact, while antagonistic, the discussion did bring out arguments of why some of the mechanics can become interesting (at least to some). While it is often common to assume the other guy "did not get the point", you are missing the point (pun intended) that he is probably try to raise a different point. And i think you are mistaken that this thread is about improvement VW. This thread is about proclaiming and ranting on "the genre is dead" and why some of you hate modern MMOs. It is only fair game that the opposite opinion is aired. If you made a thread in order to discuss how LFG could be made better, I wouldn't come in and say "I don't like LFG" over and over. I wouldn't start arguments with other posters because its "fun". Especially if it derailed the point of the thread. hahahah .. really? My take is that many will come in a thread like that (may be not you) and say "LFD is the downfall of MMO" or "LFD games is not true MMO". Just asking for you consideration on that here. Thank you You are civil, and i appreciate that, which is more than how many behave here. The only reciprocity i can offer, however, is to remain civil (language-wise). Thank you
So, here is some advice -- embrace change or get left behind with a bad case of 'old people's disease' that leaves you bitter and angry. In balance, all of computer gaming is better than it was in the 'old days.' Unless, of course, you really do think monochrome ASCII graphics and text adventures were 'the thing.'
From my point of view, people like yourself championing the current model are the one's stuck in the "good old days" because you are resistent to change. That is why you don't want to hear any suggestions over how games could be better.
But change is coming. The WoW generation ended with the death of SWTOR, this is a time for change, and during such times it is of vital importance that players participate in this evolution through conversation. Whining about people who feel the WoW generation of games let us down is missing the point that it is precisely this WoW fatigue that is going to continue to propel the modernization of gaming. Players who are happy with themepark design are going to become old farts very soon.
As I said before, I don't want old games. I want the evolution of those old games. If I just wanted those old games, I could still go back and play some of them. It's not about being old and wanting what you are used to. It's about wanting the next evolution of what you like.
I agree the dicussion over depth is now far off topic, but I felt there were important points to stick to. I've tried to make those points and I'm done with it. I've already said them multiple ways to begin with.
Part of me thinks the virtual world game design was too far ahead of its time. Sort of like back in the day when hobbyists would mix and match circuit boards to make digital music. It was absolutely brilliant, but it took decades for it to catch on in the mainstream.
It will come back. I don't think the golden age of mmorpgs has happened yet. I think we got a taste of what it could be. And now we wait for capitalism and mass marketing to exhaust all of its options. Eventually, it will come back around. All it takes is that one game to come along and change the genre.
I have a feeling when that game finally comes, it wont have levels or quests or gear with stats. It wont have players killing each other and stealing loot. It wont have raids or ladder systems or cash shops. It will be something that gives a new perspective on virtual worlds and mmorpgs.
Part of me thinks the virtual world game design was too far ahead of its time. Sort of like back in the day when hobbyists would mix and match circuit boards to make digital music. It was absolutely brilliant, but it took decades for it to catch on in the mainstream.
It will come back. I don't think the golden age of mmorpgs has happened yet. I think we got a taste of what it could be. And now we wait for capitalism and mass marketing to exhaust all of its options. Eventually, it will come back around. All it takes is that one game to come along and change the genre.
EXACTLY!!!
It isn't that I want to go back to those old games, it is that there was something about that period that felt MORE modern than the current one, but that "something" wasn't ever fully actualized, it was more like the kernel of truth about this genre that we expected would only become "more and more" with each new game. Instead, the truth seems to have been buried away, hidden like a dark secret no one wants to admit was ever there. The graphics have gotten better, the action has improved with each new game, the externals have all continued to evolve . . . but the soul is missing. (And just the fact that champions of the current model here on this forum are simultaneously advocating it and yawning about it, indifferent to whether the genre even survives, is proof enough that the current model lacks soul. I completely agree with them! If we are talking about the current age of MMOs, I too think they are boring enough that their demise won't be unwelcomed. But I don't think anyone who tasted that kernel of truth of the old age would ever feel such indifference.)
Virtual realities aren't here yet, not the kind like in the Matrix or Total Recall. Yet -- barring nuclear disaster or an astroid -- it seems inevitable that they will become reality one day. MMOs were, I think, the first very earliest model of this future phenomena, like the telegraph was an early model of the internet. At the time of the early MMOs many movies were being made about the idea of virtual realities, it was in the consciousness of my generation and this was expressed in our approach to gaming. But the mainstream movies that are successful today seem all nostalgic, they are all copies of something from the past (mostly rehashed superheroes). In the so-called "old days" we dreamed about the future, the world seemed bright and full of possibilities. Gaming, for us, was the future. Today, though some of us are still dreaming, the majority seemed fixated on how miserable everything is, how the future is nothing but apocalypse, and how the past was better. Today, gaming is no longer a bright circle of possibility, it is a symbol of everything that is wrong with humanity. In some ways by talking about the past as being better in MMO gaming we sound like we are participating in this same consciousness, but in fact it is just the opposite, we are lamenting what this pessimistic consciousness has done to gaming.
Originally posted by Foomerang1. What may be considered "fun" for you could sometimes be considered breaking the roc here so we should all be mindful. Point taken. But this is an internet forum, and unless i am using abusive language, i am entitled to raise whatever point i wish to riase. 2. If you want to discuss the importance of existing features in mmos, this is probably the wrong thread to do so. Id suggest making your own. This thread is about including virtual world features into the mix, not to get rid of the current style. That has been my point since the beginning. There have been some good discussions here regarding how to make older game mechanics more interesting or how to bring back forgotten aspects of this genre. Coming in here and constantly saying "I dont like that, I like the way it is now" is really kind of missing the point of the discussion and again, comes close to breaking the roc concerning this thread. It is not like i do not give reasons of why i do not like some of the old mechanics. (The famous example is, of course, that i think traveling between point A to B, for multiple times, becomes bornig.) There *is* discussion about how to mitigate that. In fact, while antagonistic, the discussion did bring out arguments of why some of the mechanics can become interesting (at least to some). While it is often common to assume the other guy "did not get the point", you are missing the point (pun intended) that he is probably try to raise a different point. And i think you are mistaken that this thread is about improvement VW. This thread is about proclaiming and ranting on "the genre is dead" and why some of you hate modern MMOs. It is only fair game that the opposite opinion is aired. If you made a thread in order to discuss how LFG could be made better, I wouldn't come in and say "I don't like LFG" over and over. I wouldn't start arguments with other posters because its "fun". Especially if it derailed the point of the thread. hahahah .. really? My take is that many will come in a thread like that (may be not you) and say "LFD is the downfall of MMO" or "LFD games is not true MMO". Just asking for you consideration on that here. Thank you You are civil, and i appreciate that, which is more than how many behave here. The only reciprocity i can offer, however, is to remain civil (language-wise). Thank you
Fair enough. Thank you
I like people that have opposite views but are civil. Just an off topic question .. is there something wrong with your browser? Your quote of my post became a wall of text with no formatting. You may want to check into that.
Part of me thinks the virtual world game design was too far ahead of its time. Sort of like back in the day when hobbyists would mix and match circuit boards to make digital music. It was absolutely brilliant, but it took decades for it to catch on in the mainstream.
It will come back. I don't think the golden age of mmorpgs has happened yet. I think we got a taste of what it could be. And now we wait for capitalism and mass marketing to exhaust all of its options. Eventually, it will come back around. All it takes is that one game to come along and change the genre.
EXACTLY!!!
It isn't that I want to go back to those old games, it is that there was something about that period that felt MORE modern than the current one, but that "something" wasn't ever fully actualized, it was more like the kernel of truth about this genre that we expected would only become "more and more" with each new game. Instead, the truth seems to have been buried away, hidden like a dark secret no one wants to admit was ever there. The graphics have gotten better, the action has improved with each new game, the externals have all continued to evolve . . . but the soul is missing. (And just the fact that champions of the current model here on this forum are simultaneously advocating it and yawning about it, indifferent to whether the genre even survives, is proof enough that the current model lacks soul. I completely agree with them! If we are talking about the current age of MMOs, I too think they are boring enough that their demise won't be unwelcomed. But I don't think anyone who tasted that kernel of truth of the old age would ever feel such indifference.)
Virtual realities aren't here yet, not the kind like in the Matrix or Total Recall. Yet -- barring nuclear disaster or an astroid -- it seems inevitable that they will become reality one day. MMOs were, I think, the first very earliest model of this future phenomena, like the telegraph was an early model of the internet. At the time of the early MMOs many movies were being made about the idea of virtual realities, it was in the consciousness of my generation and this was expressed in our approach to gaming. But the mainstream movies that are successful today seem all nostalgic, they are all copies of something from the past (mostly rehashed superheroes). In the so-called "old days" we dreamed about the future, the world seemed bright and full of possibilities. Gaming, for us, was the future. Today, though some of us are still dreaming, the majority seemed fixated on how miserable everything is, how the future is nothing but apocalypse, and how the past was better. Today, gaming is no longer a bright circle of possibility, it is a symbol of everything that is wrong with humanity. In some ways by talking about the past as being better in MMO gaming we sound like we are participating in this same consciousness, but in fact it is just the opposite, we are lamenting what this pessimistic consciousness has done to gaming.
While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, Virtual Reality != Virtual World. We've had Virtual Worlds before. They were before everything was sharded, instanced, and phased. I like shiny graphics too, but not when they come at the expense of performance and make all the sharding, instancing, and phasing required to be playable. A few companies are trying to bring back the one big seemless world idea and I applaud that.
As to Virtual Reality, I liken that to 3D technology. As nice as it will eventually be, we aren't close to those technologies yet. That won't stop some marketing team from saying they accomplished it and trying to sell it. We need a technology jump or two to reach those truly. I want the real deal, not a supposed illusion of it that is basically oversold in it's greatness when it should be sold as a new technology to compliment what they had.
So, here is some advice -- embrace change or get left behind with a bad case of 'old people's disease' that leaves you bitter and angry. In balance, all of computer gaming is better than it was in the 'old days.' Unless, of course, you really do think monochrome ASCII graphics and text adventures were 'the thing.'
From my point of view, people like yourself championing the current model are the one's stuck in the "good old days" because you are resistent to change. That is why you don't want to hear any suggestions over how games could be better.
But change is coming. The WoW generation ended with the death of SWTOR, this is a time for change, and during such times it is of vital importance that players participate in this evolution through conversation. Whining about people who feel the WoW generation of games let us down is missing the point that it is precisely this WoW fatigue that is going to continue to propel the modernization of gaming. Players who are happy with themepark design are going to become old farts very soon.
Well, all industries are always changing. The cliche "the only constant is change" is a cliche for a reason.
However, i doubt the direction of change is pointing at where you will like. Sure TOR is not a big success, but it still sold north of 2M copies. That, i am sure, did not go unnotice by devs.
Secondly, i would argue that the failure of TOR is because it is TOO virtual world like. If it cut out its virtual world, make it a co-op ARPG, it will be a lot more successful. In other words, a KOTOR 3, with multiplayer (and possibly trading) will be better than a TOR MMO.
I do not think the trend of MMOs becoming more like co-op action RPG will change. There is obviously a huge market of this type of games. D3, even with all its problems, and less longevity compared to D2, sold a whopping 10M copies (8.8 if you discount annual pass players). After GW2, one of the next big AAA MMO, Marvel Heroes (with a BIG licence no less) is going this direction. Now i am not discounting features and ideas like public quests, or auto-grouping idea in GW2. But the point is ... getting into co-op group combat fast without hassle of lfg is clearly a direction to go.
Part of me thinks the virtual world game design was too far ahead of its time. Sort of like back in the day when hobbyists would mix and match circuit boards to make digital music. It was absolutely brilliant, but it took decades for it to catch on in the mainstream.
It will come back. I don't think the golden age of mmorpgs has happened yet. I think we got a taste of what it could be. And now we wait for capitalism and mass marketing to exhaust all of its options. Eventually, it will come back around. All it takes is that one game to come along and change the genre.
I have a feeling when that game finally comes, it wont have levels or quests or gear with stats. It wont have players killing each other and stealing loot. It wont have raids or ladder systems or cash shops. It will be something that gives a new perspective on virtual worlds and mmorpgs.
I totally disagree. The virtual world concept is as old as Ultima itself. At that time of U4, Origin's tagline is "We Build Worlds" .. abate only SP worlds.
While it sounds good, i highly doubt having full VW featuers is that entertaining. Surely having some of it does not hurt, but i do not think VW features is the reason why games are entertaining. Diablo 1 is the best example. It strips out everything else and focus on 2 and only 2 things: combat & progression. (Yeah it has a thin story to add atmosphere, but no one really notices or care about it very much). I think VW is the same ... add atmosphere, but is not a show-stopper for most.
I have no doubt there is a small minority of players who would like to live a second life. But how many players do you think really want to have meetings about guilds, or whatever political organization in the game, AFTER their day job? Instead of jumping in, kill some mobs in interesting ways, and get a good shiny reward with cool animation?
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by FoomerangPart of me thinks the virtual world game design was too far ahead of its time. Sort of like back in the day when hobbyists would mix and match circuit boards to make digital music. It was absolutely brilliant, but it took decades for it to catch on in the mainstream.It will come back. I don't think the golden age of mmorpgs has happened yet. I think we got a taste of what it could be. And now we wait for capitalism and mass marketing to exhaust all of its options. Eventually, it will come back around. All it takes is that one game to come along and change the genre. I have a feeling when that game finally comes, it wont have levels or quests or gear with stats. It wont have players killing each other and stealing loot. It wont have raids or ladder systems or cash shops. It will be something that gives a new perspective on virtual worlds and mmorpgs.
I totally disagree. The virtual world concept is as old as Ultima itself. At that time of U4, Origin's tagline is "We Build Worlds" .. abate only SP worlds.
While it sounds good, i highly doubt having full VW featuers is that entertaining. Surely having some of it does not hurt, but i do not think VW features is the reason why games are entertaining. Diablo 1 is the best example. It strips out everything else and focus on 2 and only 2 things: combat & progression. (Yeah it has a thin story to add atmosphere, but no one really notices or care about it very much). I think VW is the same ... add atmosphere, but is not a show-stopper for most.
I have no doubt there is a small minority of players who would like to live a second life. But how many players do you think really want to have meetings about guilds, or whatever political organization in the game, AFTER their day job? Instead of jumping in, kill some mobs in interesting ways, and get a good shiny reward with cool animation?
I have an idea for a virtual world mmorpg. Maybe I'll put it in a blog someday. And it doesn't have any of that boring stuff you're talking about hehe.
So, here is some advice -- embrace change or get left behind with a bad case of 'old people's disease' that leaves you bitter and angry. In balance, all of computer gaming is better than it was in the 'old days.' Unless, of course, you really do think monochrome ASCII graphics and text adventures were 'the thing.'
From my point of view, people like yourself championing the current model are the one's stuck in the "good old days" because you are resistent to change. That is why you don't want to hear any suggestions over how games could be better.
But change is coming. The WoW generation ended with the death of SWTOR, this is a time for change, and during such times it is of vital importance that players participate in this evolution through conversation. Whining about people who feel the WoW generation of games let us down is missing the point that it is precisely this WoW fatigue that is going to continue to propel the modernization of gaming. Players who are happy with themepark design are going to become old farts very soon.
Well, all industries are always changing. The cliche "the only constant is change" is a cliche for a reason.
However, i doubt the direction of change is pointing at where you will like. Sure TOR is not a big success, but it still sold north of 2M copies. That, i am sure, did not go unnotice by devs.
Secondly, i would argue that the failure of TOR is because it is TOO virtual world like. If it cut out its virtual world, make it a co-op ARPG, it will be a lot more successful. In other words, a KOTOR 3, with multiplayer (and possibly trading) will be better than a TOR MMO.
I do not think the trend of MMOs becoming more like co-op action RPG will change. There is obviously a huge market of this type of games. D3, even with all its problems, and less longevity compared to D2, sold a whopping 10M copies (8.8 if you discount annual pass players). After GW2, one of the next big AAA MMO, Marvel Heroes (with a BIG licence no less) is going this direction. Now i am not discounting features and ideas like public quests, or auto-grouping idea in GW2. But the point is ... getting into co-op group combat fast without hassle of lfg is clearly a direction to go.
The short life span and fleeing subs says that it is not a success. It hasn't made what they spent on it.
SWTOR is already a co-op lobby game. That's all there is for end game. And the leveling experience is a story on rails game that is mostly single player. You get companions to fill the gaps in your character's role. You can solo a lot of group missions. Everything is so separate and load screen loaded. Even the very build of fleet seemed like it was built to avoid people loitering except the bar in the middle. Which no one used. Fleet was also population instanced to keep the number of people in an area down. SWTOR is definitely not a virtual world.
Part of me thinks the virtual world game design was too far ahead of its time. Sort of like back in the day when hobbyists would mix and match circuit boards to make digital music. It was absolutely brilliant, but it took decades for it to catch on in the mainstream.
It will come back. I don't think the golden age of mmorpgs has happened yet. I think we got a taste of what it could be. And now we wait for capitalism and mass marketing to exhaust all of its options. Eventually, it will come back around. All it takes is that one game to come along and change the genre.
I have a feeling when that game finally comes, it wont have levels or quests or gear with stats. It wont have players killing each other and stealing loot. It wont have raids or ladder systems or cash shops. It will be something that gives a new perspective on virtual worlds and mmorpgs.
I totally disagree. The virtual world concept is as old as Ultima itself. At that time of U4, Origin's tagline is "We Build Worlds" .. abate only SP worlds.
While it sounds good, i highly doubt having full VW featuers is that entertaining. Surely having some of it does not hurt, but i do not think VW features is the reason why games are entertaining. Diablo 1 is the best example. It strips out everything else and focus on 2 and only 2 things: combat & progression. (Yeah it has a thin story to add atmosphere, but no one really notices or care about it very much). I think VW is the same ... add atmosphere, but is not a show-stopper for most.
I have no doubt there is a small minority of players who would like to live a second life. But how many players do you think really want to have meetings about guilds, or whatever political organization in the game, AFTER their day job? Instead of jumping in, kill some mobs in interesting ways, and get a good shiny reward with cool animation?
You are essentially arguing that classical music shouldn't exist because most people prefer rock . . . and that the classical music that does exist should be made to sound more like rock.
The world doesn't have to be ubiquitous and everything the same, there can be variety and genres. That is why those of us that love this genre -- that aren't interested in seeing it simply disappear or morph into something that its not -- want to discuss how best approach to making great MMOs for MMO lovers, not for the masses. Pop music is for the masses, we aren't talking about Pop music, we are talking about classical music.
In many ways the primary characteristic of the last decade was this standard "how can we make one game that will appeal to everyone" . . . one game to rule them all, a MMO that will appeal to the masses. And you are right, if you want a MMO to appeal to the lowest common denominator it needs to be dumbed down. But what seems to be happening now days is that there are so many games they can't even give them away for free, players just don't have time to play all of the choices out there. Which means, I think, that increasingly this idea of one game to appeal to everyone is giving way to more niche games.
Once you get into niche, then the focus over how to make a good game leans away from this "universal standard" of what the masses want, toward a standard that focuses on what players of a certain demographic want. What classical music lovers want is not to listen to stuff that sounds like rock.
The short life span and fleeing subs says that it is not a success. It hasn't made what they spent on it.
SWTOR is already a co-op lobby game. That's all there is for end game. And the leveling experience is a story on rails game that is mostly single player. You get companions to fill the gaps in your character's role. You can solo a lot of group missions. Everything is so separate and load screen loaded. Even the very build of fleet seemed like it was built to avoid people loitering except the bar in the middle. Which no one used. Fleet was also population instanced to keep the number of people in an area down. SWTOR is definitely not a virtual world.
No, TOR is not a success ... but it is certainly NOT a co-op lobby game. For example, when it was released, it does NOT even had a LFG function, which many asked for. Secondly, it does not change the "world" when one progresses in quests, like in D3.
It will be a much better game, and a success if they do a proper ARPG instead. Why? a) they won't be wasting a ton of work making the world, and b) It would be a better gaming experience. These "story only" instances is jarring. There are too much backtracking. A proper SP RPG (i.e. you can port the person into a next chapter starting point without running back & forth, and you can change his "personal" world around) with multiplayer support (like D3, inviting others into your game) will be better.
Lastly, it sold 2M boxes in the first month. The only reason it is not a financial success is because of the huge investment to make it a MMO. If they do a proper RPG with a smaller scale, they would be a big success.
Part of me thinks the virtual world game design was too far ahead of its time. Sort of like back in the day when hobbyists would mix and match circuit boards to make digital music. It was absolutely brilliant, but it took decades for it to catch on in the mainstream.
It will come back. I don't think the golden age of mmorpgs has happened yet. I think we got a taste of what it could be. And now we wait for capitalism and mass marketing to exhaust all of its options. Eventually, it will come back around. All it takes is that one game to come along and change the genre.
I have a feeling when that game finally comes, it wont have levels or quests or gear with stats. It wont have players killing each other and stealing loot. It wont have raids or ladder systems or cash shops. It will be something that gives a new perspective on virtual worlds and mmorpgs.
I totally disagree. The virtual world concept is as old as Ultima itself. At that time of U4, Origin's tagline is "We Build Worlds" .. abate only SP worlds.
While it sounds good, i highly doubt having full VW featuers is that entertaining. Surely having some of it does not hurt, but i do not think VW features is the reason why games are entertaining. Diablo 1 is the best example. It strips out everything else and focus on 2 and only 2 things: combat & progression. (Yeah it has a thin story to add atmosphere, but no one really notices or care about it very much). I think VW is the same ... add atmosphere, but is not a show-stopper for most.
I have no doubt there is a small minority of players who would like to live a second life. But how many players do you think really want to have meetings about guilds, or whatever political organization in the game, AFTER their day job? Instead of jumping in, kill some mobs in interesting ways, and get a good shiny reward with cool animation?
You are essentially arguing that classical music shouldn't exist because most people prefer rock . . . and that the classical music that does exist should be made to sound more like rock.
No. I am arguing the industry should invest LESS on classical music than rock, which is exactly what happened today. I never said virtual world game should disappear. In fact, didn't i say "there is a small minority of players who would like to live a second life"?
The world doesn't have to be ubiquitous and everything the same, there can be variety and genres. That is why those of us that love this genre -- that aren't interested in seeing it simply disappear or morph into something that its not -- want to discuss how best approach to making great MMOs for MMO lovers, not for the masses. Pop music is for the masses, we aren't talking about Pop music, we are talking about classical music.
No. It does not have to be .. and it is not. But at the same time, expected AAA dev for a very minority customer segment is wishful thinking. In fact, graphical adventure is making a comeback in indie games. However, you wouldn't not expected graphical point & click adventure to be AAA again like back in the King Quest days, do you?
In many ways the primary characteristic of the last decade was this standard "how can we make one game that will appeal to everyone" . . . one game to rule them all, a MMO that will appeal to the masses. And you are right, if you want a MMO to appeal to the lowest common denominator it needs to be dumbed down. But what seems to be happening now days is that there are so many games they can't even give them away for free, players just don't have time to play all of the choices out there. Which means, I think, that increasingly this idea of one game to appeal to everyone is giving way to more niche games.
"dumb down" how elitist? Don't think making a map on a graphical paper is a big deal. I did that back in the might & magic days just because the technology was not there. It is a trivial and boring exercise. Long travel and boat rides are not more "intelligence". People here confuse assessible with dumbing down.
Once you get into niche, then the focus over how to make a good game leans away from this "universal standard" of what the masses want, toward a standard that focuses on what players of a certain demographic want. What classical music lovers want is not to listen to stuff that sounds like rock.
Well the kind of investment you can make depends on how big the niche is, right? What is a realistic investment for your niche? Is it enough to make a virtual world? Being indie & niche is not the solution for everything. Music is dirt cheap to produce. That is why you have so many variations. Anyone with a band and a garage can produce for his/her niche.
Can you do it for MMO games when you need programmers, art, music, servers and so on ...
I am not arguing that there should be none, i am just laying out reality.
Comments
How is the choice to use LFD/LFR adding depth? The dungeons/raids are the exact same. It does not add modes you can't do otherwise. It's a tool of convenience. It automates/streamlines the grouping so you don't have to do it manually. But, it also means you aren't the one choosing. I said this before and you still stick to the same answer despite what I said. This is why I wanted to leave the convo the first time. I asked the question to give you a chance to prove your point. Instead, you repeated something that still is incorrect. Do you know what depth means?
Did I not just describe the new talent system in my last reply? Where at certain levels you get a choice of three talents? Where, if you are a hybrid class, you have no real choice unless you want to take talents for a role you aren't? Did you not read what I posted before replying? More variety? Less cookie cutter? The only classes with any miniscule choice at all are ones with 3 dps roles. How is that more choice and variety than what they had? As bad as it already was. As much as it was already pruned down. This is LESS choice and less depth.
Once again, you stray from the point to avoid it. So, how about this. What does community in a game mean to you? We'll start there.
3 options, just like I said. You also missed where I said the only ones with any choice at all are classes with 3 dps roles. Guess what, a Mage has 3 dps roles. But, even there in most situations you will take the talent that fits best with the path you chose(fire, frost, arcane) Now go look at something like a Druid. Notice the healing, tanking, and dps choices. If you choose one of those roles, what choice is there but to pick the one for that role. To the actual choices, some of those are pve and some of them are pvp choices. And lastly, please explain to me how that has more depth or choice than before, Go back to Vanilla and TBC. Compare those trees with Wrath. Now compare all the flip flopping during Wrath and all the pruning before Cata. Now compare Cata and MoP. See anything?
The whole reason there are cookie cutter builds is not based on number of choices. It's completely based on the value of those choices. That will still happen. Even if something has a non dps effect, it will be weighed against the talent that gives dps. It'll be weighed, instead of on a spreadsheet, by how useful it is in keeping you doing dps. Things like a charge are weighed this way because they allow you to get back on target as a melee faster. If that negation of lost time gives you more dps than what the other choice gives as a whole for the encounter, it will be viewed as superior. The question then becomes how often will you need/use it in the specified raids that are current for the build. So yes, they will still have best/cookie cutter builds.
Honestly, there was never huge depth in WoW's trees because Blizzard ensured it. "Unintended" specs were made not possible or talents were nerfed heavily to prevent their use. If you compare the old systems to being a shallow puddle in terms of depth, I would say take out another inch of water and you have the MoP version. It's less than before.
The community is part of the game. It's part of the design. Honestly, it sounds like you hate something that you've never tried or been a part of. What other older MMORPGs have you played besides EQ?
Honestly, I feel like current MMORPGs mimic life. Both are in a time of "Me Me Me...Look at me!" "I want and deserve everything even though I don't know why I want or need it." "And...I want it NOW! Immediately!". There is something to be said about the task that ends in reward instead of just getting the reward handed to you.
What you mean to say is there is no reason for YOU, because for you MMOs are no more meaningful than a TV show. Obviously you are not going to lament their decline or even disappearance. I personally could care less if TV shows vanished from the face of the planet. But for many people, like me, MMOs were/are way more important than that. Ideally, I think, the industry would develop their games around the desires of players who are fundamentally in love with the genre, not those who could care less.
@nariusseldon
You keep saying this genre is easy come easy go for you. That community isnt a big deal to you. But you are defending these ideals tooth and nail. You say that you don't care if this genre goes in a direction you don't like because you'll just move on. But you can;t let go of a single opposing view in this thread. You say none of it matters but you're taking every differing opinion as a personal affront.
So why are you still here? Is it because someone else started this volley and you're here to finish it? That wouldn't make sense considering the stance you are taking towards this genre. You have made you point abundantly clear. Maybe a few others here are goading you. You've been telling us all to move on. Maybe its time to take your own advice before we get too many more of these personal responses.
This is a thread about a genre that has changed for the worse (imo obviously). You disagree. I'm not here to convince you you are wrong. Thats not the point of this thread. Maybe some other more passionate people are trying to do that. See my quote on that one heh.
This is a thread about virtual worlds and their expansiveness. And how that is missing in todays genre. How we perceive convenience, depth, and fun are heavy themes and in themselves are interesting to discuss. But to battle over semantics is not very productive. And some of these posts are degrading into that.
Id love to talk about this stuff with you more. Just try not to take things personally when talking about a genre of video games. Especially one that you claim to be able to easily walk away from
Well, i use the phrase "for me" several times .. i think it is pretty obvious that i am talking about me.
If MMO disappears, probably it will make interesting conversation like i can discuss the ending of the ultima series. But yeah, at the end, it is just entertainment. It is not like it is my life.
I think, industry would develop their games around who would PAY. No money, no more future development. Now if there are 10M people in love with the genre, then it is fine .. but if there is only 100, the industry will starve if it only caters to those who love the genre. It all boils down to the numbers.
1. What may be considered "fun" for you could sometimes be considered breaking the roc here so we should all be mindful.
2. If you want to discuss the importance of existing features in mmos, this is probably the wrong thread to do so. Id suggest making your own. This thread is about including virtual world features into the mix, not to get rid of the current style. That has been my point since the beginning. There have been some good discussions here regarding how to make older game mechanics more interesting or how to bring back forgotten aspects of this genre. Coming in here and constantly saying "I dont like that, I like the way it is now" is really kind of missing the point of the discussion and again, comes close to breaking the roc concerning this thread.
If you made a thread in order to discuss how LFG could be made better, I wouldn't come in and say "I don't like LFG" over and over. I wouldn't start arguments with other posters because its "fun". Especially if it derailed the point of the thread.
Just asking for you consideration on that here. Thank you
This is an example of what I call "Old People's Disease." Things were always better 'in the old days.' Well, I'm 51 and I lived in 'the old days' compared to most of you. My PC, right now, is faster and more powerful than the mini-computer my grandfather's business owned in the late 1960s. It's more powerful than the main-frame computers of the 1970s on which I had my first programming class. My cell phone was still 'science fiction' in the 1960s. iPad type computers didn't even hit sci-fi until the 1970s. In old sci-fi, Astrogators had to use look-up tables and compute jumps with pen and paper because computers weren't powerful enough and slide-rules were still used when I was in high school...
Games are so much better today than when I got my first computer that it's ludicrous to compare them. Games were ASCII graphics and text scrolling across a screen. My smart-phone, limited as it is, has better games, and graphics, than my old computer. And in MMOs, every now and then I play UO for laughs. What a monstrosity. Ugly. Clunky. Frozen in time. It has a few good mechanics, but most of it is rubbish. It's cute for about 3-hours so I can remember just how bad it was back then, then I uninstall it I don't it again for years.
The world has changed and no amount of romantic wool-gathering will make it go back or make the old days better.
So, here is some advice -- embrace change or get left behind with a bad case of 'old people's disease' that leaves you bitter and angry. In balance, all of computer gaming is better than it was in the 'old days.' Unless, of course, you really do think monochrome ASCII graphics and text adventures were 'the thing.'
Fair enough. Thank you
From my point of view, people like yourself championing the current model are the one's stuck in the "good old days" because you are resistent to change. That is why you don't want to hear any suggestions over how games could be better.
But change is coming. The WoW generation ended with the death of SWTOR, this is a time for change, and during such times it is of vital importance that players participate in this evolution through conversation. Whining about people who feel the WoW generation of games let us down is missing the point that it is precisely this WoW fatigue that is going to continue to propel the modernization of gaming. Players who are happy with themepark design are going to become old farts very soon.
As I said before, I don't want old games. I want the evolution of those old games. If I just wanted those old games, I could still go back and play some of them. It's not about being old and wanting what you are used to. It's about wanting the next evolution of what you like.
I agree the dicussion over depth is now far off topic, but I felt there were important points to stick to. I've tried to make those points and I'm done with it. I've already said them multiple ways to begin with.
Part of me thinks the virtual world game design was too far ahead of its time. Sort of like back in the day when hobbyists would mix and match circuit boards to make digital music. It was absolutely brilliant, but it took decades for it to catch on in the mainstream.
It will come back. I don't think the golden age of mmorpgs has happened yet. I think we got a taste of what it could be. And now we wait for capitalism and mass marketing to exhaust all of its options. Eventually, it will come back around. All it takes is that one game to come along and change the genre.
I have a feeling when that game finally comes, it wont have levels or quests or gear with stats. It wont have players killing each other and stealing loot. It wont have raids or ladder systems or cash shops. It will be something that gives a new perspective on virtual worlds and mmorpgs.
EXACTLY!!!
It isn't that I want to go back to those old games, it is that there was something about that period that felt MORE modern than the current one, but that "something" wasn't ever fully actualized, it was more like the kernel of truth about this genre that we expected would only become "more and more" with each new game. Instead, the truth seems to have been buried away, hidden like a dark secret no one wants to admit was ever there. The graphics have gotten better, the action has improved with each new game, the externals have all continued to evolve . . . but the soul is missing. (And just the fact that champions of the current model here on this forum are simultaneously advocating it and yawning about it, indifferent to whether the genre even survives, is proof enough that the current model lacks soul. I completely agree with them! If we are talking about the current age of MMOs, I too think they are boring enough that their demise won't be unwelcomed. But I don't think anyone who tasted that kernel of truth of the old age would ever feel such indifference.)
Virtual realities aren't here yet, not the kind like in the Matrix or Total Recall. Yet -- barring nuclear disaster or an astroid -- it seems inevitable that they will become reality one day. MMOs were, I think, the first very earliest model of this future phenomena, like the telegraph was an early model of the internet. At the time of the early MMOs many movies were being made about the idea of virtual realities, it was in the consciousness of my generation and this was expressed in our approach to gaming. But the mainstream movies that are successful today seem all nostalgic, they are all copies of something from the past (mostly rehashed superheroes). In the so-called "old days" we dreamed about the future, the world seemed bright and full of possibilities. Gaming, for us, was the future. Today, though some of us are still dreaming, the majority seemed fixated on how miserable everything is, how the future is nothing but apocalypse, and how the past was better. Today, gaming is no longer a bright circle of possibility, it is a symbol of everything that is wrong with humanity. In some ways by talking about the past as being better in MMO gaming we sound like we are participating in this same consciousness, but in fact it is just the opposite, we are lamenting what this pessimistic consciousness has done to gaming.
I like people that have opposite views but are civil. Just an off topic question .. is there something wrong with your browser? Your quote of my post became a wall of text with no formatting. You may want to check into that.
While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, Virtual Reality != Virtual World. We've had Virtual Worlds before. They were before everything was sharded, instanced, and phased. I like shiny graphics too, but not when they come at the expense of performance and make all the sharding, instancing, and phasing required to be playable. A few companies are trying to bring back the one big seemless world idea and I applaud that.
As to Virtual Reality, I liken that to 3D technology. As nice as it will eventually be, we aren't close to those technologies yet. That won't stop some marketing team from saying they accomplished it and trying to sell it. We need a technology jump or two to reach those truly. I want the real deal, not a supposed illusion of it that is basically oversold in it's greatness when it should be sold as a new technology to compliment what they had.
Well, all industries are always changing. The cliche "the only constant is change" is a cliche for a reason.
However, i doubt the direction of change is pointing at where you will like. Sure TOR is not a big success, but it still sold north of 2M copies. That, i am sure, did not go unnotice by devs.
Secondly, i would argue that the failure of TOR is because it is TOO virtual world like. If it cut out its virtual world, make it a co-op ARPG, it will be a lot more successful. In other words, a KOTOR 3, with multiplayer (and possibly trading) will be better than a TOR MMO.
I do not think the trend of MMOs becoming more like co-op action RPG will change. There is obviously a huge market of this type of games. D3, even with all its problems, and less longevity compared to D2, sold a whopping 10M copies (8.8 if you discount annual pass players). After GW2, one of the next big AAA MMO, Marvel Heroes (with a BIG licence no less) is going this direction. Now i am not discounting features and ideas like public quests, or auto-grouping idea in GW2. But the point is ... getting into co-op group combat fast without hassle of lfg is clearly a direction to go.
I totally disagree. The virtual world concept is as old as Ultima itself. At that time of U4, Origin's tagline is "We Build Worlds" .. abate only SP worlds.
While it sounds good, i highly doubt having full VW featuers is that entertaining. Surely having some of it does not hurt, but i do not think VW features is the reason why games are entertaining. Diablo 1 is the best example. It strips out everything else and focus on 2 and only 2 things: combat & progression. (Yeah it has a thin story to add atmosphere, but no one really notices or care about it very much). I think VW is the same ... add atmosphere, but is not a show-stopper for most.
I have no doubt there is a small minority of players who would like to live a second life. But how many players do you think really want to have meetings about guilds, or whatever political organization in the game, AFTER their day job? Instead of jumping in, kill some mobs in interesting ways, and get a good shiny reward with cool animation?
While it sounds good, i highly doubt having full VW featuers is that entertaining. Surely having some of it does not hurt, but i do not think VW features is the reason why games are entertaining. Diablo 1 is the best example. It strips out everything else and focus on 2 and only 2 things: combat & progression. (Yeah it has a thin story to add atmosphere, but no one really notices or care about it very much). I think VW is the same ... add atmosphere, but is not a show-stopper for most.
I have no doubt there is a small minority of players who would like to live a second life. But how many players do you think really want to have meetings about guilds, or whatever political organization in the game, AFTER their day job? Instead of jumping in, kill some mobs in interesting ways, and get a good shiny reward with cool animation?
I have an idea for a virtual world mmorpg. Maybe I'll put it in a blog someday. And it doesn't have any of that boring stuff you're talking about hehe.
The short life span and fleeing subs says that it is not a success. It hasn't made what they spent on it.
SWTOR is already a co-op lobby game. That's all there is for end game. And the leveling experience is a story on rails game that is mostly single player. You get companions to fill the gaps in your character's role. You can solo a lot of group missions. Everything is so separate and load screen loaded. Even the very build of fleet seemed like it was built to avoid people loitering except the bar in the middle. Which no one used. Fleet was also population instanced to keep the number of people in an area down. SWTOR is definitely not a virtual world.
You are essentially arguing that classical music shouldn't exist because most people prefer rock . . . and that the classical music that does exist should be made to sound more like rock.
The world doesn't have to be ubiquitous and everything the same, there can be variety and genres. That is why those of us that love this genre -- that aren't interested in seeing it simply disappear or morph into something that its not -- want to discuss how best approach to making great MMOs for MMO lovers, not for the masses. Pop music is for the masses, we aren't talking about Pop music, we are talking about classical music.
In many ways the primary characteristic of the last decade was this standard "how can we make one game that will appeal to everyone" . . . one game to rule them all, a MMO that will appeal to the masses. And you are right, if you want a MMO to appeal to the lowest common denominator it needs to be dumbed down. But what seems to be happening now days is that there are so many games they can't even give them away for free, players just don't have time to play all of the choices out there. Which means, I think, that increasingly this idea of one game to appeal to everyone is giving way to more niche games.
Once you get into niche, then the focus over how to make a good game leans away from this "universal standard" of what the masses want, toward a standard that focuses on what players of a certain demographic want. What classical music lovers want is not to listen to stuff that sounds like rock.
No, TOR is not a success ... but it is certainly NOT a co-op lobby game. For example, when it was released, it does NOT even had a LFG function, which many asked for. Secondly, it does not change the "world" when one progresses in quests, like in D3.
It will be a much better game, and a success if they do a proper ARPG instead. Why? a) they won't be wasting a ton of work making the world, and b) It would be a better gaming experience. These "story only" instances is jarring. There are too much backtracking. A proper SP RPG (i.e. you can port the person into a next chapter starting point without running back & forth, and you can change his "personal" world around) with multiplayer support (like D3, inviting others into your game) will be better.
Lastly, it sold 2M boxes in the first month. The only reason it is not a financial success is because of the huge investment to make it a MMO. If they do a proper RPG with a smaller scale, they would be a big success.