Well, looks like this thread is headed in the standard "horrible PuGs moan complain" direction.
Once upon a time, we would advise people who constantly railed about horrible pugs to maybe "Stop PuGing". It's the gamer-forum variant of shooting your own foot off, followed by complaining that your foot hurts.
The only other semi-effective tactic is to remind them that each and every one of their horrible PuG groups has exactly one thing in common.
Maybe they don't want to be in a guild. Which is ironic considering the issue is about being social!
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
If you notice the proponents for new MMOs talk about the convenience of just getting to the killing. Running dungeons, raids, etc.
The people that don't want that, are complaining that their world is being taken away, and the games are in a sense shrinking.
You can kind of think of it as a slow death on the part of MMOs as they turn into lobby style games. You aren't socializing or interacting on a massive scale, you're seeing a decline in the amount of people you interact with concurrently, and it's focus is being pushed primarily towards isolating the action to private locations for small groups of people.
In order to encapsulate the gameplay more easily, they've essentially taken the massive part out of MMO.
There are a few games that cater more towards the traditional MMO scheme. Camelot Unchained being a developemtn title with such a goal. A lot of the ones that want to be MMOs still though are more conflict focused. Planetside2, Darkfall, CU.
It can more or less be noted that it's because both sides are combat focused in order to achieve anything.
In the case of the PvE games, it makes a gaming world and community the enemy, because they get in the way of you getting to stay nonstop on the monster slaying treadmill.
In the case of PvP games, it's considered a boon still because it opens the potential to scale conflicts from a personal level all the way to fights of 100+ people in the same place, opening up new potential levels of strategy and elements to employ.
I would very much blame the fact that for a large part the focus of the genre has failed to evolve dramatically as technology has provided more power to create more variety with. We're largely doing the same thing now as when Neverwinter cropped up so long ago, and the secondary elements are largely only there to support the endeavor rather than to provide alternative solution.
Think about MUDs for a moment. They had the advantage of the focus not being on graphical elements, so the ability to perform actions was only limited by what you could code into the game via text. Consequently there was a pretty good degree of flexibility, much like pen and paper games, for you to have a variety of means to achieve a task.
Thinking about modern games, Monaco would be one of the few to give you some focus back to playing with other people and giving them flexibility in the approach they have to the title.
It these kinda aspects that can push a more friendy community into things. When players aren't focused on a gameplay element that they have to compete against one another in order to achieve things and instead have co-operative goals they can attend and contribute to in different ways, there's less reason for animosity and more for interacting between other parts of the player base.
If you look at the new Neverwinter and take it as an example of what went wrong. You can see the problem crop up in how insular each character is. The only game is the dungeons and the raids. You can craft to max level, but you'll still be doing the same things then as you would have done leveling to max. And together or alone, you're playing the same things and attacking monsters to move through the same tile sets several dozen times a day. Ultimately your only goal becomes the loot, so why share? Why interact with other people unless you know they have what you want?
In the end, for that game it's better to keep the loot you get and post it to auction, because you'll have better odds of getting what you want by gathering the money to purchase it rather than to hope for it to drop and you get it. so People have almost no incentive to even talk to other players unless that's something they enjoy doing.
GW2, while a more sociable game (at least on the server I joined, likely because it's the unofficial RP server) still has this same kind of issue. People will flow freely into and out of grouping with one another as it fits to achieve something, but beyond that it's an every man for themselves approach you're more apt to see
It can be seen too in the likes of LoL as par of why the community there is perceived as so volatile. Everyone is more concerned about the specifics of procedure and execution based on their own strategies that they aren't acting cooperatively, but rather mechanically, and any variance from that mechanical take that they think might jeopardize 'their' success and 'their' score, is met with hostility.
Because ultimately the only way to win is to kill the other team, if you can't contribute to the death of the enemies or survival of allies, you're dead weight.
There are no alternatives. No espionage, no stealth gameplay (beyond the basic level, really), no fast talking or misdirection. Only at it's core, combat.
If all you have to do is kill things, then that's all you're gonna do. You don't need to talk to people and you don't need a MMO to get that done. Hence the drift. The community might have been just as unfriendly in parts back then, but the games have failed to evolve in a manner that changes that. With the shift towards lobbies and shrinking scope of the game worlds, there's less for other kinds of people to do, and as such you're going to see more people that are just the meta gaming 'get it done and go' types that breed more hostility in that situation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Well, I'm just going to compare PUGs in Everquest to PUGs in modern games I've played like Rift and SW:TOR and why I see a difference.
Often in Everquest you would join an xp grind group and might be grouped with the same people for many hours. In addition to that, combat in Everquest tended to be more slower paced (especially in the early days) with a lot of downtime where people would talk to eachother.
Contrast that with modern games, you might join a PUG that does a dungeon that lasts 20 minutes with very little downtime, there isn't much time (or need) to communicate.
First, Rift dungeons do not last 20 minutes - 1-2 hrs or more is more like it. If you are doing 10-man dungeons it is like 4-6 hours.
I think rudeness in games and everywhere else has to do with the 'ME ME ME, it's all about ME' mentality that is out in the world. I mean look at all the posts on this forum that state, ' I don't like that game so it is crap' or similar types of posts. I don't think it has anything to do with games and more to do with how people react to others in general. There is less civility, less manners, and more rudeness.
I think there is more jurks because of the way modern games work. Back in the day your name meant something. You could not pay a few bucks to change your name or change servers. Getting geared took forever so rerolling a new main char was a huge undertaking. Heck getting to top level alone was a mile stone in it self. Now you can get top level in a few days or pay 10 bucks to jump servers.
All good. You don't have to stick with a server with people you don't like. You don't have to play the popularity game and play whatever way you want. You don't have to put up with anyone.
I see it as an improvement.
I dont agree. Much like in RL you dont act like a jurk because your name gets around and its not easy to change what you look like. Be a jurk and people will give you what you deserve. With your name in game meaning nothing now days... jurks get to be as jurky as they like with almost no impact on their names and how the server acts toward them. I think this is a huge downfall to most MMO communities.
I think rudeness in games and everywhere else has to do with the 'ME ME ME, it's all about ME' mentality that is out in the world. I mean look at all the posts on this forum that state, ' I don't like that game so it is crap' or similar types of posts. I don't think it has anything to do with games and more to do with how people react to others in general. There is less civility, less manners, and more rudeness.
wait .. we are talking about electronic entertainment. Of course it is me me me. If it stops being fun to ME, i stop playing.
And you prefer people to lie and hide their opinion?
I think there is more jurks because of the way modern games work. Back in the day your name meant something. You could not pay a few bucks to change your name or change servers. Getting geared took forever so rerolling a new main char was a huge undertaking. Heck getting to top level alone was a mile stone in it self. Now you can get top level in a few days or pay 10 bucks to jump servers.
All good. You don't have to stick with a server with people you don't like. You don't have to play the popularity game and play whatever way you want. You don't have to put up with anyone.
I see it as an improvement.
I dont agree. Much like in RL you dont act like a jurk because your name gets around and its not easy to change what you look like. Be a jurk and people will give you what you deserve. With your name in game meaning nothing now days... jurks get to be as jurky as they like with almost no impact on their names and how the server acts toward them. I think this is a huge downfall to most MMO communities.
What didn't you agree?
Don't you think it is true that i don't have stick with people i don't like because i can change my name?
Don't you think it is true that i can play anyway i want to because i can always find a PUG?
Don't you think it is true that i don't have to put up with anyone because i can just quit and find another PUG?
I suppose the only disagreement is whether it is a good thing. And that is just preference.
As to selfish, "me, me!" attitude? Ayn Rand's half-baked philosophy became the official religion: asshattery is considered good and strong.
Welcome to 2013.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
PUGs haven't been friendly for a very long time. They are apparently for speed runs. If you want social activity, you have to join guilds that don't really want you because you haven't done enough speed runs.
Sometimes I find that I have to be the social one to get the ball rolling... but other times? They just don't speak English that well and are self-conscious because quite frankly... the Grammar Nazi type has been rude to them any time they open their mouths.
I think there is more jurks because of the way modern games work. Back in the day your name meant something. You could not pay a few bucks to change your name or change servers. Getting geared took forever so rerolling a new main char was a huge undertaking. Heck getting to top level alone was a mile stone in it self. Now you can get top level in a few days or pay 10 bucks to jump servers.
All good. You don't have to stick with a server with people you don't like. You don't have to play the popularity game and play whatever way you want. You don't have to put up with anyone.
I see it as an improvement.
I dont agree. Much like in RL you dont act like a jurk because your name gets around and its not easy to change what you look like. Be a jurk and people will give you what you deserve. With your name in game meaning nothing now days... jurks get to be as jurky as they like with almost no impact on their names and how the server acts toward them. I think this is a huge downfall to most MMO communities.
If you change who you are to meet the expectations of others that would hint at some far deeper issues. You're not a jerk to the people you care about because you care about them, outside of that because you might possibly need their help in the future (in a business setting) or because of other repercussions. Most people don't have to suppress the urge to be a jerk, if you do then you might have some kind of sociological disorder...jussayin.
Now...the bigger issue is really just saturation. EQ/UO/etc...had a much SMALLER audience, also pc gaming was prohibitive, most people didn't own computers then, and especially not computers that could actually handle gaming. It's not a matter of main stream it was more a matter of accessibility. Most people own computers now, gaming computers are cheap. Not only does this lower the average age of a PC gamer it also changes the social demographic of the people that you're interacting with.
This problem will only get worse as time goes on and as technology develops further. When we were playing EQ/UO we were used to social consequences for our actions ie: If I talk ish to someone there's a possibility that they, or their bigger friend, might come cash that check. Anymore there are zero consequences for picking on someone, even if you do know them, since everyone gets all uppity whenever there's ANY physical confrontation anymore so you have kids growing up knowing that there's some authority figure protecting them even if they're in the wrong.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Easy answer. Make games that are solo-able only, you get that! However make a game freaking hard where you need a group, then you get people willing to work together.
This is what pisses me off about developers. They have the ability to make a single server hard or group dependent, they don't!
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbones
I would think the solution is to join or start a guild. Then you can use the PUG tools to fill out groups if needed, but you can set the pace and experience yourself.Or just join the anti-social crowd and focus on playing the game instead.
Yeah, either one, really. Someone else said they don't remember this marvelous community before things like LFG and I'd have to agree with them. What I remember is something a lot like High School with people hanging out in groups talking to the people they liked and mocking or ignoring the people that weren't in their group. Yes, people in PUGs can be jerks, and they can't get kicked from a guild or the group with any real consequences. Well, guilds have always had the ability to be jerks with no consequences. This just makes it so nobody, in guilds or not has any consequences.
It seems to me that people are concerned about what other people are doing, rather than doing the things that they enjoy. They want to play the games their way, but get angry when the other players do exactly that. Play the games the way they want to play them.
If it's that bad, don't play because the only real options are to create a space where you can play the way you want and just ignore those people who are playing in a way that you don't like.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Mmorpg players used to be a very niche audience. Only a small percentage of players actually want large community based games. The industry had a summit in the early 2000's and redefined the genre. They called it MMO because they wanted to broaden the scope of game coverage that fell into this category. They have been doing this ever since as well. The objective was to find a way to capitalize on the genre and draw more players in.
They succeeded. The brought in new gamers who have no idea what a true mmorpg is and brought in other gamers who only played single player/small group console and pc games. Now developers see the rapidly expanding IOS market and are dumbing down games further to include a greater spectrum of "if more than 4 people can play at once ... call it an mmo" games. I mean f$ck, just look at this site including games as mmos that would be laughed off the site by the first couple generations of mmorpg players. It will only get worse. Mmos aren't even being designed at their core as massively multiplayer anymore. Developers are using small group FPS engines to build their games ... and most players don't even see this as an issue!!
Mmos are now defined by how many players can play the game and not by how many players play the game together.
The reason why so many players don't want to join a larger gaming community ... is because the majority of mmo players aren't actually mmorpg players.
This is the ENTIRE reason behind the growing rebellion against mass marketed mmos. They aren't true mmorpgs and are not marketed for the original niche audience anymore. There was a time in the late 90's and early 2000's where you could ask nearly any mmorpg player what their gaming background was and it usually was MUDs, single player rpg, pnp rpg or some other group oriented gaming. Today you ask someone and they either say, "Wow or just a single modern mmo" or "video game consoles or single player video games".
The truth behind the first generation of mmorpg players is that they started playing them BECAUSE it was a social game and not because it was a video game. I know the thought of being able to solo or only play with a couple friends didn't even enter my mind when I first started playing AC. I knew about UO and EQ and bought AC because it was a social game and not because it was a "video game".
People aren't social in mmos because they didn't buy it to be social. They are called mmo players now and are NOT mmorpg players. Mmorpg players have been stripped of their genre and this was by design.
I think there is more jurks because of the way modern games work. Back in the day your name meant something. You could not pay a few bucks to change your name or change servers. Getting geared took forever so rerolling a new main char was a huge undertaking. Heck getting to top level alone was a mile stone in it self. Now you can get top level in a few days or pay 10 bucks to jump servers.
All good. You don't have to stick with a server with people you don't like. You don't have to play the popularity game and play whatever way you want. You don't have to put up with anyone.
I see it as an improvement.
I dont agree. Much like in RL you dont act like a jurk because your name gets around and its not easy to change what you look like. Be a jurk and people will give you what you deserve. With your name in game meaning nothing now days... jurks get to be as jurky as they like with almost no impact on their names and how the server acts toward them. I think this is a huge downfall to most MMO communities.
What didn't you agree?
Don't you think it is true that i don't have stick with people i don't like because i can change my name?
Don't you think it is true that i can play anyway i want to because i can always find a PUG?
Don't you think it is true that i don't have to put up with anyone because i can just quit and find another PUG?
I suppose the only disagreement is whether it is a good thing. And that is just preference.
My point is when there is no consequences for your actions, being a jurk, even as far as your reputation of your name. IMO thats a bad thing. Your name gets so bad on a server from your attitude or ripping people off. Heck, /guild quit pay 10 bucks to buy a new name for your char and reapp to the same guild. I dont see the improvement. Its something I miss from the early days of MMOs. You worked as hard at your rep as a player as you did your char.
People used to be dependent on each other for advancement, which put them on their best behavior. Names were remembered and people were blacklisted which could cripple you, if you wanted to experience end game. In EQ people would for the most part be stationary for a long time so if you had a bad rep, getting a spot on a list would be nearly impossible. Bad behavior had consequences
Today nobody remembers your name and even if they did, you can just plop down a little cash for a name change or a server move. Nobody cares.
I don't necessarily think mentalities has changed. Games today just enables people to be themselves. Those like yourself, wanting a social experience get them from guilds instead and avoid the rabble as much as they can
One of the big three originals, Asheron's Call, almost never required grouping...
It is mind boggling that as soon as people log into an MMO, they become a souless douche. I guess the question you have to ask: Are they just acting out what they really are? (i.e. a Souless douche)
People used to be dependent on each other for advancement, which put them on their best behavior. Names were remembered and people were blacklisted which could cripple you, if you wanted to experience end game. In EQ people would for the most part be stationary for a long time so if you had a bad rep, getting a spot on a list would be nearly impossible. Bad behavior had consequences
Today nobody remembers your name and even if they did, you can just plop down a little cash for a name change or a server move. Nobody cares.
I don't necessarily think mentalities has changed. Games today just enables people to be themselves. Those like yourself, wanting a social experience get them from guilds instead and avoid the rabble as much as they can
One of the big three originals, Asheron's Call, almost never required grouping...
AC wasn't build around the trinity and didn't force grouping. It was however an extremely social game and those people wanted to gain high levels when the game was at it's peak were required to join Monarchies. It was an early sandbox concept at it's core and allowed player freedom but high level loaners were extremely rare and all pvp and high level quest content required monarchies.
AC was such an anomaly that even though it was solo friendly for the most part it also cannot be compared to today's solo friendly games by any stretch of the imagination. The world was massive and open and the instances were shared. It didn't matter if you were solo as you still played the same game as everyone else. You weren't instanced off 90+% from the other players and there was no tagging of mobs. You had to compete and it is the lack of competition that defines today's mmos.
I've been reading a lot, and experiencing...A LOT, of anti-social gamers recently in newer titles. Specifically in Rift, Neverwinter, and SWTOR when I gave them a test-drive.
By anti-social, I mean PUG groups that act worse than your creepy next-door neighbor whom always yells at you about your cat running around your apartment at odd hours of the night.
I'm used to PUG groups being fun & enjoyable from previous titles like EQ1, SWG, AC1, AC2, etc etc. It was all about socializing, getting to meet new people, learning how to play classes better because that one magician could solo 9 mobs at once that were 3 levels above him, etc.
Nowadays if I EVER do a "pickup group" I'm left with mute ninja-looting immature children whom scoff at the thought of using real words rather than short abbreviated statements such as "Nope LOL", "u Mad?", or [insert expletives as an adjective followed by your instead of you're].
Instead of being nostalgic for gameplay of the past I'm starting to become nostalgic for the communities of the past .
-Bear
IMO F2P genre and the lack of commitment to titles, to many players game jumping and don't give a hoot about the consequences of their actions.
As soon as mmos were created in such a way as to make it possible for you to solo most of the time...i.e., WOW, RIft,...present games include NWN, GW2...games you know - these aren't immersive mmorpgs with open worlds and intelligent, thought provoking communities who offer aid and advice freely.
Why be social when you don't need to be...or when it's not truly rewarding enough?
Society in general are getting more cut throat , lack of manners and patience. Obviously this translates into all aspects of social behaviour including gaming.
I also think certain types of games attract more aggressive type of gamer , which is why some games have more arse.hats than others.
As soon as mmos were created in such a way as to make it possible for you to solo most of the time...i.e., WOW, RIft,...present games include NWN, GW2...games you know - these aren't immersive mmorpgs with open worlds and intelligent, thought provoking communities who offer aid and advice freely.
Why be social when you don't need to be...or when it's not truly rewarding enough?
If you have to force people to be social do you really feel like that's community?
There should be a higher reward for group content, IE: group bonuses not penalties (DAoC did this great because of the chain bonuses etc..), however most times it is severely worse to group up.
This really isn't the problem, I would still say that it's more of a social shift. People as a whole are MORE disconnected from each other because of how connected they are to information and lack of consequences for basically anything.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
People used to be dependent on each other for advancement, which put them on their best behavior. Names were remembered and people were blacklisted which could cripple you, if you wanted to experience end game. In EQ people would for the most part be stationary for a long time so if you had a bad rep, getting a spot on a list would be nearly impossible. Bad behavior had consequences
Today nobody remembers your name and even if they did, you can just plop down a little cash for a name change or a server move. Nobody cares.
I don't necessarily think mentalities has changed. Games today just enables people to be themselves. Those like yourself, wanting a social experience get them from guilds instead and avoid the rabble as much as they can
I'll agree.
People have changed due to not "needing" people for their own advancement this is a lack of consequences showing a player's true nature.
When I played EQ and DAoC I saw a lot of people who were just plain nasty. They just had to make sure to be nice to the right people.... it was more like high school.
Mmos are now defined by how many players can play the game and not by how many players play the game together.
Not really. MMO became as term that is used on all kind of games that offer gameplay only on company servers and use continous payments of some kind.
It became about control (game company decide what you play and when your playing end) and revenue stream (you pay over time to play and not one time payment to "own" game), not about gameplay or amount of players.
Final goal is to make all games and all software(everything in "Cloud" only) an "MMO"in above understanding, including single player games.
MMO's have always been defined by how many people can play at the same time in the same world, never about how many people you can play together with.
You were never able to play with all the people in UO or EQ at the same time, however they were there, you could interact with the people on your server in some way.
Same as today.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I don't remember this wonderful community that existed before WoW. It was different, that is for sure. There were different "anti-social" behaviors going on in UO and EQ (the two I played the most). There wasn't the same amount of ninja looting and shit talking as today, but damn there were just as many assclowns. They didn't steal loot, they sat and ganked/griefed players in UO. They trained mobs to people in EQ. It was a different type of assclownery, but it was assclownery regardless.
The community wasn't necessarily a magical, wonderful hugs-for-all sort of place, but that's why I worded it "more social". But to be completely fair, perhaps it's just that low-tier engagement with the game forced a certain amount of socialization which now isn't necessary. Because I certainly don't feel that guild socialization has decreased noticeably.
Hopefully you're not implying ninja-looting is as frequent nowadays as middle-years WOW. I saw more items ninja'd in a month in vanilla WOW than I've seen in the last 6 years of WOW. Games like Neverwinter may come onto the scene and be entirely bad about ninja looting, but that's just a flat-out design flaw.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Maybe they don't want to be in a guild. Which is ironic considering the issue is about being social!
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
It's kinda just what a few people have said now.
If you notice the proponents for new MMOs talk about the convenience of just getting to the killing. Running dungeons, raids, etc.
The people that don't want that, are complaining that their world is being taken away, and the games are in a sense shrinking.
You can kind of think of it as a slow death on the part of MMOs as they turn into lobby style games. You aren't socializing or interacting on a massive scale, you're seeing a decline in the amount of people you interact with concurrently, and it's focus is being pushed primarily towards isolating the action to private locations for small groups of people.
In order to encapsulate the gameplay more easily, they've essentially taken the massive part out of MMO.
There are a few games that cater more towards the traditional MMO scheme. Camelot Unchained being a developemtn title with such a goal. A lot of the ones that want to be MMOs still though are more conflict focused. Planetside2, Darkfall, CU.
It can more or less be noted that it's because both sides are combat focused in order to achieve anything.
In the case of the PvE games, it makes a gaming world and community the enemy, because they get in the way of you getting to stay nonstop on the monster slaying treadmill.
In the case of PvP games, it's considered a boon still because it opens the potential to scale conflicts from a personal level all the way to fights of 100+ people in the same place, opening up new potential levels of strategy and elements to employ.
I would very much blame the fact that for a large part the focus of the genre has failed to evolve dramatically as technology has provided more power to create more variety with. We're largely doing the same thing now as when Neverwinter cropped up so long ago, and the secondary elements are largely only there to support the endeavor rather than to provide alternative solution.
Think about MUDs for a moment. They had the advantage of the focus not being on graphical elements, so the ability to perform actions was only limited by what you could code into the game via text. Consequently there was a pretty good degree of flexibility, much like pen and paper games, for you to have a variety of means to achieve a task.
Thinking about modern games, Monaco would be one of the few to give you some focus back to playing with other people and giving them flexibility in the approach they have to the title.
It these kinda aspects that can push a more friendy community into things. When players aren't focused on a gameplay element that they have to compete against one another in order to achieve things and instead have co-operative goals they can attend and contribute to in different ways, there's less reason for animosity and more for interacting between other parts of the player base.
If you look at the new Neverwinter and take it as an example of what went wrong. You can see the problem crop up in how insular each character is. The only game is the dungeons and the raids. You can craft to max level, but you'll still be doing the same things then as you would have done leveling to max. And together or alone, you're playing the same things and attacking monsters to move through the same tile sets several dozen times a day. Ultimately your only goal becomes the loot, so why share? Why interact with other people unless you know they have what you want?
In the end, for that game it's better to keep the loot you get and post it to auction, because you'll have better odds of getting what you want by gathering the money to purchase it rather than to hope for it to drop and you get it. so People have almost no incentive to even talk to other players unless that's something they enjoy doing.
GW2, while a more sociable game (at least on the server I joined, likely because it's the unofficial RP server) still has this same kind of issue. People will flow freely into and out of grouping with one another as it fits to achieve something, but beyond that it's an every man for themselves approach you're more apt to see
It can be seen too in the likes of LoL as par of why the community there is perceived as so volatile. Everyone is more concerned about the specifics of procedure and execution based on their own strategies that they aren't acting cooperatively, but rather mechanically, and any variance from that mechanical take that they think might jeopardize 'their' success and 'their' score, is met with hostility.
Because ultimately the only way to win is to kill the other team, if you can't contribute to the death of the enemies or survival of allies, you're dead weight.
There are no alternatives. No espionage, no stealth gameplay (beyond the basic level, really), no fast talking or misdirection. Only at it's core, combat.
If all you have to do is kill things, then that's all you're gonna do. You don't need to talk to people and you don't need a MMO to get that done. Hence the drift. The community might have been just as unfriendly in parts back then, but the games have failed to evolve in a manner that changes that. With the shift towards lobbies and shrinking scope of the game worlds, there's less for other kinds of people to do, and as such you're going to see more people that are just the meta gaming 'get it done and go' types that breed more hostility in that situation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
First, Rift dungeons do not last 20 minutes - 1-2 hrs or more is more like it. If you are doing 10-man dungeons it is like 4-6 hours.
I think rudeness in games and everywhere else has to do with the 'ME ME ME, it's all about ME' mentality that is out in the world. I mean look at all the posts on this forum that state, ' I don't like that game so it is crap' or similar types of posts. I don't think it has anything to do with games and more to do with how people react to others in general. There is less civility, less manners, and more rudeness.
I dont agree. Much like in RL you dont act like a jurk because your name gets around and its not easy to change what you look like. Be a jurk and people will give you what you deserve. With your name in game meaning nothing now days... jurks get to be as jurky as they like with almost no impact on their names and how the server acts toward them. I think this is a huge downfall to most MMO communities.
wait .. we are talking about electronic entertainment. Of course it is me me me. If it stops being fun to ME, i stop playing.
And you prefer people to lie and hide their opinion?
What didn't you agree?
Don't you think it is true that i don't have stick with people i don't like because i can change my name?
Don't you think it is true that i can play anyway i want to because i can always find a PUG?
Don't you think it is true that i don't have to put up with anyone because i can just quit and find another PUG?
I suppose the only disagreement is whether it is a good thing. And that is just preference.
As to how they talk...texting happened.
As to selfish, "me, me!" attitude? Ayn Rand's half-baked philosophy became the official religion: asshattery is considered good and strong.
Welcome to 2013.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Made me chuckle
If you change who you are to meet the expectations of others that would hint at some far deeper issues. You're not a jerk to the people you care about because you care about them, outside of that because you might possibly need their help in the future (in a business setting) or because of other repercussions. Most people don't have to suppress the urge to be a jerk, if you do then you might have some kind of sociological disorder...jussayin.
Now...the bigger issue is really just saturation. EQ/UO/etc...had a much SMALLER audience, also pc gaming was prohibitive, most people didn't own computers then, and especially not computers that could actually handle gaming. It's not a matter of main stream it was more a matter of accessibility. Most people own computers now, gaming computers are cheap. Not only does this lower the average age of a PC gamer it also changes the social demographic of the people that you're interacting with.
This problem will only get worse as time goes on and as technology develops further. When we were playing EQ/UO we were used to social consequences for our actions ie: If I talk ish to someone there's a possibility that they, or their bigger friend, might come cash that check. Anymore there are zero consequences for picking on someone, even if you do know them, since everyone gets all uppity whenever there's ANY physical confrontation anymore so you have kids growing up knowing that there's some authority figure protecting them even if they're in the wrong.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Easy answer. Make games that are solo-able only, you get that! However make a game freaking hard where you need a group, then you get people willing to work together.
This is what pisses me off about developers. They have the ability to make a single server hard or group dependent, they don't!
Or just join the anti-social crowd and focus on playing the game instead.
Yeah, either one, really. Someone else said they don't remember this marvelous community before things like LFG and I'd have to agree with them. What I remember is something a lot like High School with people hanging out in groups talking to the people they liked and mocking or ignoring the people that weren't in their group. Yes, people in PUGs can be jerks, and they can't get kicked from a guild or the group with any real consequences. Well, guilds have always had the ability to be jerks with no consequences. This just makes it so nobody, in guilds or not has any consequences.
It seems to me that people are concerned about what other people are doing, rather than doing the things that they enjoy. They want to play the games their way, but get angry when the other players do exactly that. Play the games the way they want to play them.
If it's that bad, don't play because the only real options are to create a space where you can play the way you want and just ignore those people who are playing in a way that you don't like.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The truth is very simple:
Mmorpg players used to be a very niche audience. Only a small percentage of players actually want large community based games. The industry had a summit in the early 2000's and redefined the genre. They called it MMO because they wanted to broaden the scope of game coverage that fell into this category. They have been doing this ever since as well. The objective was to find a way to capitalize on the genre and draw more players in.
They succeeded. The brought in new gamers who have no idea what a true mmorpg is and brought in other gamers who only played single player/small group console and pc games. Now developers see the rapidly expanding IOS market and are dumbing down games further to include a greater spectrum of "if more than 4 people can play at once ... call it an mmo" games. I mean f$ck, just look at this site including games as mmos that would be laughed off the site by the first couple generations of mmorpg players. It will only get worse. Mmos aren't even being designed at their core as massively multiplayer anymore. Developers are using small group FPS engines to build their games ... and most players don't even see this as an issue!!
Mmos are now defined by how many players can play the game and not by how many players play the game together.
The reason why so many players don't want to join a larger gaming community ... is because the majority of mmo players aren't actually mmorpg players.
This is the ENTIRE reason behind the growing rebellion against mass marketed mmos. They aren't true mmorpgs and are not marketed for the original niche audience anymore. There was a time in the late 90's and early 2000's where you could ask nearly any mmorpg player what their gaming background was and it usually was MUDs, single player rpg, pnp rpg or some other group oriented gaming. Today you ask someone and they either say, "Wow or just a single modern mmo" or "video game consoles or single player video games".
The truth behind the first generation of mmorpg players is that they started playing them BECAUSE it was a social game and not because it was a video game. I know the thought of being able to solo or only play with a couple friends didn't even enter my mind when I first started playing AC. I knew about UO and EQ and bought AC because it was a social game and not because it was a "video game".
People aren't social in mmos because they didn't buy it to be social. They are called mmo players now and are NOT mmorpg players. Mmorpg players have been stripped of their genre and this was by design.
You stay sassy!
My point is when there is no consequences for your actions, being a jurk, even as far as your reputation of your name. IMO thats a bad thing. Your name gets so bad on a server from your attitude or ripping people off. Heck, /guild quit pay 10 bucks to buy a new name for your char and reapp to the same guild. I dont see the improvement. Its something I miss from the early days of MMOs. You worked as hard at your rep as a player as you did your char.
One of the big three originals, Asheron's Call, almost never required grouping...
It is mind boggling that as soon as people log into an MMO, they become a souless douche. I guess the question you have to ask: Are they just acting out what they really are? (i.e. a Souless douche)
AC wasn't build around the trinity and didn't force grouping. It was however an extremely social game and those people wanted to gain high levels when the game was at it's peak were required to join Monarchies. It was an early sandbox concept at it's core and allowed player freedom but high level loaners were extremely rare and all pvp and high level quest content required monarchies.
AC was such an anomaly that even though it was solo friendly for the most part it also cannot be compared to today's solo friendly games by any stretch of the imagination. The world was massive and open and the instances were shared. It didn't matter if you were solo as you still played the same game as everyone else. You weren't instanced off 90+% from the other players and there was no tagging of mobs. You had to compete and it is the lack of competition that defines today's mmos.
You stay sassy!
IMO F2P genre and the lack of commitment to titles, to many players game jumping and don't give a hoot about the consequences of their actions.
As soon as mmos were created in such a way as to make it possible for you to solo most of the time...i.e., WOW, RIft,...present games include NWN, GW2...games you know - these aren't immersive mmorpgs with open worlds and intelligent, thought provoking communities who offer aid and advice freely.
Why be social when you don't need to be...or when it's not truly rewarding enough?
Society in general are getting more cut throat , lack of manners and patience. Obviously this translates into all aspects of social behaviour including gaming.
I also think certain types of games attract more aggressive type of gamer , which is why some games have more arse.hats than others.
If you have to force people to be social do you really feel like that's community?
There should be a higher reward for group content, IE: group bonuses not penalties (DAoC did this great because of the chain bonuses etc..), however most times it is severely worse to group up.
This really isn't the problem, I would still say that it's more of a social shift. People as a whole are MORE disconnected from each other because of how connected they are to information and lack of consequences for basically anything.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
I'll agree.
People have changed due to not "needing" people for their own advancement this is a lack of consequences showing a player's true nature.
When I played EQ and DAoC I saw a lot of people who were just plain nasty. They just had to make sure to be nice to the right people.... it was more like high school.
Not really. MMO became as term that is used on all kind of games that offer gameplay only on company servers and use continous payments of some kind.
It became about control (game company decide what you play and when your playing end) and revenue stream (you pay over time to play and not one time payment to "own" game), not about gameplay or amount of players.
Final goal is to make all games and all software(everything in "Cloud" only) an "MMO"in above understanding, including single player games.
MMO's have always been defined by how many people can play at the same time in the same world, never about how many people you can play together with.
You were never able to play with all the people in UO or EQ at the same time, however they were there, you could interact with the people on your server in some way.
Same as today.
The community wasn't necessarily a magical, wonderful hugs-for-all sort of place, but that's why I worded it "more social". But to be completely fair, perhaps it's just that low-tier engagement with the game forced a certain amount of socialization which now isn't necessary. Because I certainly don't feel that guild socialization has decreased noticeably.
Hopefully you're not implying ninja-looting is as frequent nowadays as middle-years WOW. I saw more items ninja'd in a month in vanilla WOW than I've seen in the last 6 years of WOW. Games like Neverwinter may come onto the scene and be entirely bad about ninja looting, but that's just a flat-out design flaw.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver