Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.
You're not the only one that makes the above mistakes. It's RAMPANT here. I'm trying to discern whether it's the result of a lack of command of the language or the inability to differentiate between opinion and fact.
What I think Quirhid is pointing out is that you present opinion as fact, and then base your conclusion on what you have derived from that.
"Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive?"
The issue there is that you are saying that it is true, thus the reasonable request for you to provide proof that it is.
The quote itself INCLUDES the acknowledgement that it's not provable, or at least that I can't prove it.
And by the way, I don't believe for a second that I'm misusing the language half as much as people on both sides of these discussions. I see other sandbox advocates and themepark advocates not only omitting the "In my opinion..." that you seem to think needs to precede every opinion, but they outright say things are facts when in truth they're opinions. It's pretty obvious that Quirhid takes issue with me in particular because he has a grudge of some sort or doesn't like how bluntly I argue.
IMO it stems down to big businesses making these high budget themepark wow clones and get initially good box sales then people realize its the same old crap all over again and leave. This in turns makes the devs go F2P. Swtor is the best example.
Weve seen what small indie devs can do with limited money (wurm online, embers of caerus, ect ect) sandboxes are much cheaper to make as they dont need VO for quests, lots of dev time on quests, ect ect. Thats why we see more indie devs go the sandbox route, its cheaper and if they pull it off its amazing.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
IMO it stems down to big businesses making these high budget themepark wow clones and get initially good box sales then people realize its the same old crap all over again and leave. This in turns makes the devs go F2P. Swtor is the best example.
Weve seen what small indie devs can do with limited money (wurm online, embers of caerus, ect ect) sandboxes are much cheaper to make as they dont need VO for quests, lots of dev time on quests, ect ect. Thats why we see more indie devs go the sandbox route, its cheaper and if they pull it off its amazing.
I think sandboxes in general are going to be cheaper to produce than themeparks. The fact that sandboxes often have "player generated content" should alleviate some of the pressure on devs to produce expansions and new content. The flipside to that is that the games themselves probably have to have deeper/more complex systems. And those systems have to work organically with each other to produce a virtual world where people can indeed make their own content.
IMO it stems down to big businesses making these high budget themepark wow clones and get initially good box sales then people realize its the same old crap all over again and leave. This in turns makes the devs go F2P. Swtor is the best example.
Weve seen what small indie devs can do with limited money (wurm online, embers of caerus, ect ect) sandboxes are much cheaper to make as they dont need VO for quests, lots of dev time on quests, ect ect. Thats why we see more indie devs go the sandbox route, its cheaper and if they pull it off its amazing.
I think sandboxes in general are going to be cheaper to produce than themeparks. The fact that sandboxes often have "player generated content" should alleviate some of the pressure on devs to produce expansions and new content. The flipside to that is that the games themselves probably have to have deeper/more complex systems. And those systems have to work organically with each other to produce a virtual world where people can indeed make their own content.
No one here can think sandbox will some how save the genre? Every MMO out there is going to be hit by the change in what the playerbase now expects and the back biting number of MMO's. You can go niche and expect to have fewer players, but that has its own issues. Sandbox has a temporary advantage in that not as many sandbox games are out, but that advantage is already starting to fade. I do think modding could be the saviour of MMOs, but you can mod a more themepark game too. It is the complexity you mention that will be the issue for a sandbox, downgrading the graphics has been one solution that does not go down well.
As a proponent of themeparks in a sandbox sandwich I want the best of both worlds, but it is a big ask.
IMO it stems down to big businesses making these high budget themepark wow clones and get initially good box sales then people realize its the same old crap all over again and leave. This in turns makes the devs go F2P. Swtor is the best example.
Weve seen what small indie devs can do with limited money (wurm online, embers of caerus, ect ect) sandboxes are much cheaper to make as they dont need VO for quests, lots of dev time on quests, ect ect. Thats why we see more indie devs go the sandbox route, its cheaper and if they pull it off its amazing.
I think sandboxes in general are going to be cheaper to produce than themeparks. The fact that sandboxes often have "player generated content" should alleviate some of the pressure on devs to produce expansions and new content. The flipside to that is that the games themselves probably have to have deeper/more complex systems. And those systems have to work organically with each other to produce a virtual world where people can indeed make their own content.
No one here can think sandbox will some how save the genre? Every MMO out there is going to be hit by the change in what the playerbase now expects and the back biting number of MMO's. You can go niche and expect to have fewer players, but that has its own issues. Sandbox has a temporary advantage in that not as many sandbox games are out, but that advantage is already starting to fade. I do think modding could be the saviour of MMOs, but you can mod a more themepark game too. It is the complexity you mention that will be the issue for a sandbox, downgrading the graphics has been one solution that does not go down well.
As a proponent of themeparks in a sandbox sandwich I want the best of both worlds, but it is a big ask.
Well you talk about the temporary advantage that sandboxes have and how it may not last. It doesn't have to. What I'm claiming is simply that the market isn't currently catering to the people it's supposed to. I think sandbox players are underserved. I don't expect sandboxes to ever be more popular than themeparks, but I do expect them to be more popular than they are right now.
And yes, the complexity of a sandbox is going to be an obstacle to overcome. However I think it's an intellectual problem more than it is a cash problem. I don't think it's necessarily expensive to design interesting, deep, complex systems. I just think it's hard.
Originally posted by FinalFikus lets forget about old school and talk about the new school.Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old schoolDDO- failLORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolWAR-deadAOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolTabla rasa-deadVangaurd-failFinal fantasy- looks like it will join the old schoolRift-joins the old schoolStar trek-join the old schoolCOH-deadAion- joins the old school at least hereFallen earth-old schoolGuild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxesGuild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxesStar wars old republic- lol unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money.
The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
lets forget about old school and talk about the new school.
Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.
Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old school
DDO- fail
LORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old school
WAR-dead
AOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old school
Tabla rasa-dead
Vangaurd-fail
Final fantasy- looks like it will join the old school
Rift-joins the old school
Star trek-join the old school
COH-dead
Aion- joins the old school at least here
Fallen earth-old school
Guild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxes
Guild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxes
Star wars old republic- lol
unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).
Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.
Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.
Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money.
The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
Originally posted by FinalFikus No he didn't loktofiet. He clearly stated "whether it is true or not" in the very next sentence. C'mon. Im not even reading most of it and I had no problem understanding. Im stupid too.
If someone is building both their argument and the reasoning behind it on a particular statement, you really feel it is irrelevant whether that statement is true or not? Are you truly trying to make that claim?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Then please do explain your position again, only differently. I've given you that courtesy over a dozen times (although in vain).
What courtesy are you talking about? In this very discussion you've been ignoring 90% of what I've been saying, and the 10% you do respond to either has little bearing on the overall discussion or you just flat out don't understand.
What I am trying to do is to make you understand my point. And I've tried to explain things differently when you haven't followed my meaning. But fine if you don't want to do that... Fine.
And I'm not going to explain anything differently, I'm going to repost what I said the FIRST time. This after you said I had no rational arguments to back up what I say:
Gives me a chance to pick it apart then.
"1. I've given a TON of rational arguments for why I'm in favor of old school games. Oh there is some rationale behind it, just not very sound.
I've explained how watering down works. Yes you have, you made fairly risky assumptions there though, which make me think your argument about watering down is rather weak.
I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. This phenomenon is commonplace. Nothing to get giddy over. No, you all but outright blamed the companies for making profit. I have a strong suspicion that this part of the argument only stems from the fact that you are displeased by the fact how companies are not catering to you. You're just venting. I forgive you.
Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." Because you erroneously think that the market 10 years ago would be the same as today. Its not. It is rather naive to think so.
How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? I mind when you pollute the forums I read with faulty logic and bitter tirade about today's companies, games and their players.
And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on." Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Let me Google that for you.
I pick on those little phrases because your arguments rests on them. There's no point in entertaining wild theories and claims when I can direct my attention where it all went wrong. I'd rather treat the disease, not the symptom, you see?
I would be shocked to find out if you didn't care much about the validity of your rationale. Do you even care if your logic is sound when the conclusion you've arrived to is the one you want. Not the correct one, not the most likely one, but the one you like the most. And you act like its the truth.
WRONG. Pretty much every time you're ignoring the points my argument rests on and leading us off into a bunny trail that doesn't matter.
And there are no "wild theories" here. Please do tell me what wild theories I've presented, because my "theories" are all extremely tame. In fact at this point I'm pretty sure you're just attributing everything a sandbox advocate has said to me.
You can keep insisting that I skew arguments or evidence to fit my opinion, but you never point out how. Every one of my posts is FAR MORE exhaustive than the best of yours. Did you ever consider that you're the one that has an agenda? That you just flat out don't like how bluntly and directly I argue that you'll do or say anything to make it look like I'm wrong? Because so far you've said some pretty indefensible things in your ongoing crusade against me. You said WoW had no effect on the market. You said Haven and Hearth was touted as "THE ONE" by sandbox advocates.
Everything you have is speculation and conjecture. You make assumptions and assertions which cannot be proven to be valid. You completely missed my point when I tried to explain to you a fault in your logic with the watered down theory. I explained it twice if not thrice, but it didn't sink in. You were so adamant that "WoW is watered down" that you didn't care if your rationale was faulty.
I defend my positions vehemently simply because I choose them carefully and sparingly. I'm not just posting theories willy nilly only to have to eat my words.
I admit your defense of the strawman you made from Loktofeit's argument in that one thread was quite remarkable. We still don't know why you did it though. And it is still a strawman.
You say WoW is dumbed down or watered down. You say they're not as deep as... whatever game you happen to like. And you've tried very hard to make a distinction between popular games and "good games". It is like anything you don't enjoy yourself can't be good.
Look at your posts. You are very rude.
I'm rude when other people are rude. If you're going to be arrogant and condescending while at the same time ignore things when you can't think of anything to say to them, then you've given up your right to play the victim.
Saying a game is watered down or dumbed down is NOT inherently rude. What is it with you and this over the top PC attitude? It's rude to say something is inferior to something else? My gosh man, if somebody is offended by that, they need thicker skin. And by the way, one of my best friends who I've known for half of my life LOVES WoW. Again, you're projecting some kind of personality onto me that doesn't exist.
Also, I do indeed think some things are good even though I don't enjoy them. EvE mainly. Also some TV shows like Homeland. Mmmm I never could get into Harry Potter, but I acknowledge that they're good books. Again, you're just assuming things about me because it fits your narrative.
You get what you're asking for. If you are polite, I am polite. When you are not, why should I? You won't find me throwing ad hominems around though. And when have I played the victim?
It is rude to call something inferior when it isn't. It is rude when you choose to talk with derogative and antagonizing terminology. Are you expecting people just accept their game is a "WoW clone" when they think it isn't? Watered-down when they think it isn't?
It is arrogant to automatically assume that just because someone share your view must not know as much as you do. And it is arrogant to imply your preference is better than someone else's.
You don't get to decide what is good and what is not. It is not up to you. You can't say which is fast food and which is fine dining, because everyone's preference is their own. Just like you would say your friends game is trash, he might say your game is trash, and you both would be right. You have no right, no expertise, no authority to claim the high ground or set any standards. You just don't get to do that.
Only objective measure of quality available to us, is the sales & sub numbers.
Hey that "one coder", the indie dev? He was also the designer. He was a one man project. But I am anxious to find out: How do you know a design is good?
If he's making decisions that involve blatantly copying other games then I'm going to point that out. I'm not saying if he writes code then he's off-limits from people criticizing him. I'm saying I'm not criticizing the person that has nothing to do with my criticisms. If there's some young guy working at X Company doing his job and creating the content he's supposed to create, I'm not criticizing him. This isn't Nazi Germany, I'm not expecting him to make a point and stand up to whoever is responsible for what I think are bad decisions. That really should be obvious.
And how do you expect me to answer a vague question like that? The question is about if I've been insulting to developers. And I'm saying I'm only addressing the people in charge of the things I'm criticizing. Again, should be intuitive, but somehow you don't get it. You seem to think some indie developer is going to get distraught when I put down bigger, greedier developers and praise indie developers....
Nevermind then. You made a vague statement. I thought you might have an explanation. Still, you only assume they are greedy. They might be hard working people trying to make a game they themselves want to play. But you call them greedy, lazy and clueless. How do you know if they are any of those things?
You are venting. I forgive you.
I am not attacking you I am attacking your arguments. You're the one making personal comments. I just can't be arsed to dust off old threads that have reached the point of ad nauseam. Declaring yourself victor or "right" on the basis of that doesn't speak highly of you.
ARE YOU EVER GOING TO STOP IGNORING POINTS? This is a perfect example of a moment in a discussion where YOU will claim that we're just going around circles and I'm being stubborn, but in reality you're not even coming close to responding to the original point. If we're going around in circles, it's because I'm chasing you around as you run away from the main and original point.
Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?
Arguing with you is always so pointless because you are simply incapable of having a cohesive, sequential discussion. As soon as I respond to something inaccurate you've said, you change the subject to something else.
I guess I didn't make my view clear enough here or in the other thread so let me explain again:
The statement "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its true" is by no means sensible or intuitive because it implies that if I should want to prove the argument false, I would have to provide the evidence. Rather than you providing proof of positive you require me to proof the negative. Its just not good practice.
If we all operated the same way. Any argument could be considered true. It is the flying spaghetti monster argument. I can't prove that there is no FSM. But like the FSM argument, yours is so weak, so unlikely, that it crosses my threshold over to fiction.
Hopefully you'll now understand how comical it is to watch you defend such arguments like they were a certainty.
You most certainly did NOT make yourself clear because you never spoke a word about it.
Well I strongly implied it at least.
And now that you have, let me explain why you're wrong. Saying "Just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true" absolutely does NOT imply that you have to prove me wrong. What it DOES imply (or even outright says, actually) is that just because you've shown that I haven't proven it, doesn't mean it isn't true. In other words, some things are never meant to be presented as provable facts... hell, the vast MAJORITY of posts on this website and sentences uttered in the real world fit that exact description, that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it, it doesn't mean it's not true.
Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.
Like Loktofeit said, if you state that something is or isn't you should provide evidence toward the positive.
"There is other life in the Universe" can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either. Only True statement we can make is, "we are the only life in the universe - that we know of". We can argue what speaks in favor of extraterrestrial life and against and decide how likely that possibility is. In other words, we can decide whether that argument is strong or weak.
Since we are on the topic, I find extraterrestrial life to be likely because of the seemingly infinite number of galaxies. But like I already said, I find your argument weak. Based off of the assumptions you make that I wouldn't make, the logic which I think is erroneous and your skewed view of the industry and the market.
Also part of why has been such a momentous clash is because you think the things you claim are intuitive, when they really are not. Not to us. Something to think on.
In conclusion: I think you are a crackpot. -But don't worry! I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
But you are assuming that developers haven't done their research? Where does that get us?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
But you are assuming that developers haven't done their research? Where does that get us?
And these days I don't believe much into accepted theories on untested human behavior or untried activities. As I said before its all assumptions until tried both ways. Majority of MMORPG players have only had one type of MMORPGs because they can post WoW. To say they would never play another type is unproven. That's my point.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by FinalFikuslets forget about old school and talk about the new school.Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old schoolDDO- failLORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolWAR-deadAOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolTabla rasa-deadVangaurd-failFinal fantasy- looks like it will join the old schoolRift-joins the old schoolStar trek-join the old schoolCOH-deadAion- joins the old school at least hereFallen earth-old schoolGuild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxesGuild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxesStar wars old republic- lol unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen.
So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by FinalFikuslets forget about old school and talk about the new school.Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old schoolDDO- failLORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolWAR-deadAOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolTabla rasa-deadVangaurd-failFinal fantasy- looks like it will join the old schoolRift-joins the old schoolStar trek-join the old schoolCOH-deadAion- joins the old school at least hereFallen earth-old schoolGuild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxesGuild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxesStar wars old republic- lol unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen.
So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.
Ok, we've gotten into circular argument going on here. You're comparing older games directly to newer games and not older style games to newer styled games. There are no modern older styled games at all except WoW clones. There is no direct comparison until one is made. But no other western subscription game outside WoW has maintained a substationally higher player base than older games. Not talking about release peaks.
I mean, UO's spiritual successor SWG also sold more. Each new GTA has sold more than the last. I am sure a "brand new" 1995 Honda Accord is not going to sell as well as 2013 version even if it was more mechanically sound.
Then please do explain your position again, only differently. I've given you that courtesy over a dozen times (although in vain).
What courtesy are you talking about? In this very discussion you've been ignoring 90% of what I've been saying, and the 10% you do respond to either has little bearing on the overall discussion or you just flat out don't understand.
What I am trying to do is to make you understand my point. And I've tried to explain things differently when you haven't followed my meaning. But fine if you don't want to do that... Fine.
And I'm not going to explain anything differently, I'm going to repost what I said the FIRST time. This after you said I had no rational arguments to back up what I say:
Gives me a chance to pick it apart then.
"1. I've given a TON of rational arguments for why I'm in favor of old school games. Oh there is some rationale behind it, just not very sound.
I've explained how watering down works. Yes you have, you made fairly risky assumptions there though, which make me think your argument about watering down is rather weak.
Except you never found any fault with how I determine what it means, just how it applies to WoW. And then when we started talking about how it applies to WoW you just.... shocker... stopped replying.
I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. This phenomenon is commonplace. Nothing to get giddy over. No, you all but outright blamed the companies for making profit. I have a strong suspicion that this part of the argument only stems from the fact that you are displeased by the fact how companies are not catering to you. You're just venting. I forgive you.
So let me get this straight... you argue against it happening and then say it's commonplace? If it's commonplace then how am I wrong? My point is that WoW introduced an unnatural distortion in the market which lead companies to focus more on themeparks and specifically them stealing features from WoW.
And what do you mean outright blame them for making a profit? I've said over and over that I don't blame companies for wanting to make money, but part of a free market is consumers voicing their opinions. Part of the problem is people enabling companies to get away with rehashing the same formula over and over with a new skin over top.
Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." Because you erroneously think that the market 10 years ago would be the same as today. Its not. It is rather naive to think so.
What does this even mean? I never said the market 10 years ago would be the same as today... whatever that means? Would be the same if what? Myself and others IN THIS VERY THREAD have specifically said that we don't want to just remake oldschool games.... they already exist. I can go play a free UO shard if I want. What we do want is for companies to have evolved down a different path than they did. Unless we involve Shane Carouth, that's obviously never gonna happen. So what we're asking/hoping for is companies to make new games, but bring back some of the oldschool principles. Bring back depth, consequences, virtual worlds, etc. I can't believe you're actually using the word naive to describe me, when yours is the side that is unwilling to believe that it's even possible to have evolved a certain way, or that it's even possible for games to come out that follow these very very very simple principles.
How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? I mind when you pollute the forums I read with faulty logic and bitter tirade about today's companies, games and their players.
As it turns out, it's not your forums. And just to emulate your debate tactics, I'll point out that pollution to you may not be pollution to everybody else. Maybe I find all of this talk about themeparks to be polluting the forums. And I love how you keep saying my logic is faulty and you've never been able to explain why. Usually what happens is you claim something I said is illogical, I explain to you in detail why it's totally reasonable and logical, and then you change the subject. That's how almost every one of our engagements play out.
And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on." Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Let me Google that for you.
I don't think you understand that phrase. I'm not saying it HAS to be the case that our "whining" lead to sandboxes being produced. But for you to deny that it has anything to do with it is just downright dishonest. But again, this is you just trying to "poke holes" without really taking a stance. Do YOU think it's a coincidence that there are so many people complaining on forums about a lack of sandbox games and now there are a decent amount of sandbox titles in production? Do you think the two are completely unrelated?
I pick on those little phrases because your arguments rests on them. There's no point in entertaining wild theories and claims when I can direct my attention where it all went wrong. I'd rather treat the disease, not the symptom, you see?
I would be shocked to find out if you didn't care much about the validity of your rationale. Do you even care if your logic is sound when the conclusion you've arrived to is the one you want. Not the correct one, not the most likely one, but the one you like the most. And you act like its the truth.
WRONG. Pretty much every time you're ignoring the points my argument rests on and leading us off into a bunny trail that doesn't matter.
And there are no "wild theories" here. Please do tell me what wild theories I've presented, because my "theories" are all extremely tame. In fact at this point I'm pretty sure you're just attributing everything a sandbox advocate has said to me.
You can keep insisting that I skew arguments or evidence to fit my opinion, but you never point out how. Every one of my posts is FAR MORE exhaustive than the best of yours. Did you ever consider that you're the one that has an agenda? That you just flat out don't like how bluntly and directly I argue that you'll do or say anything to make it look like I'm wrong? Because so far you've said some pretty indefensible things in your ongoing crusade against me. You said WoW had no effect on the market. You said Haven and Hearth was touted as "THE ONE" by sandbox advocates.
Everything you have is speculation and conjecture. You make assumptions and assertions which cannot be proven to be valid. You completely missed my point when I tried to explain to you a fault in your logic with the watered down theory. I explained it twice if not thrice, but it didn't sink in. You were so adamant that "WoW is watered down" that you didn't care if your rationale was faulty.
First of all... I'll ask again: What are my wild theories?
Second, what actually happened in that conversation is you were asking what "watered down" means. I explained what it means, and then you shifted the conversation to "how do you know WoW is watered down?" To which I immediately replied that it was with judgement. Then I went on to make the case for WoW being watered down and you just stopped replying.
"I assume you mean you find an error in my claim that WoW is watered down compared to UO and SWG. Well, as I've already said a number of times, it comes down to judgement. So I'm not sure what the error in my reasoning is. But as I've said before, if you're going to claim that WoW was as targeted as those games, and thus the average player's involvement and enjoyment was as high or higher, I don't think that's an easily defensible position for you. One of the hardest things for you to contend with is WoW's obvious tendency towards catering to casual players. It seems to me that there's a somewhat direct contradiction between a game being "targeted" in the sense that it's the opposite of watering down, in other words, appeals as deeply as possible, and a game being designed largely around inviting casual players."
But as usual you just kind of... stopped responding and now are trying to rewrite history to make a point about me that isn't valid.
I defend my positions vehemently simply because I choose them carefully and sparingly. I'm not just posting theories willy nilly only to have to eat my words.
I admit your defense of the strawman you made from Loktofeit's argument in that one thread was quite remarkable. We still don't know why you did it though. And it is still a strawman.
I remember you coming into a conversation that you didn't understand and refused to ever look at it in context. I literally asked you point blank over and over why you were ignoring the context of the discussion, and you never replied. It wasn't a strawman, Loktefeit's statement was totally indefensible, and has since kind of turned out be complete hogwash since I'm still waiting on him to provide a source for his claim that the MMO genre is increasing. The only numbers I've seen (narius posted them and loktofeit pointed me towards them) seemd to include MOBAs, which is utterly useless.
Do you see how this works? I provide detail and reason in my responses. You provide nothing but malice, insult and your own warped vague interpretation of the facts.
You say WoW is dumbed down or watered down. You say they're not as deep as... whatever game you happen to like. And you've tried very hard to make a distinction between popular games and "good games". It is like anything you don't enjoy yourself can't be good.
Look at your posts. You are very rude.
I'm rude when other people are rude. If you're going to be arrogant and condescending while at the same time ignore things when you can't think of anything to say to them, then you've given up your right to play the victim.
Saying a game is watered down or dumbed down is NOT inherently rude. What is it with you and this over the top PC attitude? It's rude to say something is inferior to something else? My gosh man, if somebody is offended by that, they need thicker skin. And by the way, one of my best friends who I've known for half of my life LOVES WoW. Again, you're projecting some kind of personality onto me that doesn't exist.
Also, I do indeed think some things are good even though I don't enjoy them. EvE mainly. Also some TV shows like Homeland. Mmmm I never could get into Harry Potter, but I acknowledge that they're good books. Again, you're just assuming things about me because it fits your narrative.
You get what you're asking for. If you are polite, I am polite. When you are not, why should I? You won't find me throwing ad hominems around though. And when have I played the victim?
It is rude to call something inferior when it isn't. It is rude when you choose to talk with derogative and antagonizing terminology. Are you expecting people just accept their game is a "WoW clone" when they think it isn't? Watered-down when they think it isn't?
And what if their game is a WoW clone? Basically what you're saying is if THEY think it isn't, that means you can't criticize it? Are you serious? What world do you live in?
It is arrogant to automatically assume that just because someone share your view must not know as much as you do. And it is arrogant to imply your preference is better than someone else's.
Now THIS is what I call a strawman. I've never said, implied or assumed the first... or the second actually. I'm sure I've said, implied, thought, whatever that my OPINION is better (more valid) than someone else's... not my preference. What exactly is wrong with that? Is your opinion more valid than an infant's? Of course it is. So what you're really saying is it's up to interpretation. If my opinion is more valid than this other person's (whoever it is), then it's not arrogant. If it's not more valid, then it is arrogant. It's not just inherently arrogant to think your opinion on something matters more than somebody else's.
And I think the only time I've said somebody's opinion is more valid than somebody else's is when making the claim that sandbox players know more about themepark games than themepark players know about sandbox games. If that's true, then yes I would say holding all things constant, the sandbox player's opinion is more valid than the themepark player's opinion because he's more knowledgeable about the subject. Is there some kind of problem with this?
I look forward to you picking out some inconsequential phrase while ignoring the main point.
You don't get to decide what is good and what is not. It is not up to you. You can't say which is fast food and which is fine dining, because everyone's preference is their own. Just like you would say your friends game is trash, he might say your game is trash, and you both would be right. You have no right, no expertise, no authority to claim the high ground or set any standards. You just don't get to do that.
Only objective measure of quality available to us, is the sales & sub numbers.
Yeah and the most important thing you said is "...available to us." If you were God you could peer into the minds of every living human see which game type they would prefer if they gave each a fair chance. That is an example of an objective measure of "good" that we will obviously never know. If you think I'm claiming to know the answer to that question, you're wrong. But I absolutely am making the claim that if you forced people to play every type of game for a sufficient amount of time so they could get a deep understanding of the game, sandbox games would come out on top. This is where the DISCUSSION comes into play. I'm not claiming to know this for a fact, but this is how debates, arguments, discussions start. I make a claim, and you can take issue with it. But what you do is you just immediately jump to "you can't prove that."
I think if you polled those people you'd get a number of different responses, including ones like this:
1. I think sandbox games are better, and I prefer playing them.
2. I think sandbox games are better, but I prefer playing themeparks.
3. I think themepark games are better, and I prefer playing them.
4. I think themepark games are better, but I prefer playing sandboxes.
I know a lot of people who admit that something is good or better, even if they don't usually partake in it. For instance, I appreciate and am impressed by classical music, but I don't often listen to it. I prefer tech metal. But if you ask me which is better, I'm going to tell you classical music is better. I know people who admit that Breaking Bad is one of the best shows ever, but it's not really their style. You guys keep trying to make "preference" the only way to measure quality, it isn't.
I don't think you'd get a lot of people saying they play sandboxes but they think themeparks are better.
Hey that "one coder", the indie dev? He was also the designer. He was a one man project. But I am anxious to find out: How do you know a design is good?
If he's making decisions that involve blatantly copying other games then I'm going to point that out. I'm not saying if he writes code then he's off-limits from people criticizing him. I'm saying I'm not criticizing the person that has nothing to do with my criticisms. If there's some young guy working at X Company doing his job and creating the content he's supposed to create, I'm not criticizing him. This isn't Nazi Germany, I'm not expecting him to make a point and stand up to whoever is responsible for what I think are bad decisions. That really should be obvious.
And how do you expect me to answer a vague question like that? The question is about if I've been insulting to developers. And I'm saying I'm only addressing the people in charge of the things I'm criticizing. Again, should be intuitive, but somehow you don't get it. You seem to think some indie developer is going to get distraught when I put down bigger, greedier developers and praise indie developers....
Nevermind then. You made a vague statement. I thought you might have an explanation. Still, you only assume they are greedy. They might be hard working people trying to make a game they themselves want to play. But you call them greedy, lazy and clueless. How do you know if they are any of those things?
You are venting. I forgive you.
No, I didn't make a vague statement. It's vague to you because you're constantly trying to find fault with what I say. If I'm talking about developers making bad decisions or being greedy, how can you NOT know that I'm talking about the people who are in a position to make bad decisions or be greedy?
Not to mention I'm not usually the kind of guy who is using those terms when describing people. I usually deliberately try to say it's "lazy game design" or the company is being greedy. I'm not going to claim that I've NEVER called somebody lazy or greedy, but I think this is just another case of you assuming things about me that aren't true. If I say something is lazy game design, that's a lot different (and less rude) than saying "you are lazy."
I am not attacking you I am attacking your arguments. You're the one making personal comments. I just can't be arsed to dust off old threads that have reached the point of ad nauseam. Declaring yourself victor or "right" on the basis of that doesn't speak highly of you.
ARE YOU EVER GOING TO STOP IGNORING POINTS? This is a perfect example of a moment in a discussion where YOU will claim that we're just going around circles and I'm being stubborn, but in reality you're not even coming close to responding to the original point. If we're going around in circles, it's because I'm chasing you around as you run away from the main and original point.
Yeah, that's what I said. That's different from what you claimed I said. And it absolutely is a reasonable thing to say. How is it not? It seems to me to be 100% intuitive. There are many things that you can't prove that aren't necessarily wrong... in fact the vast majority of statements made fit this exact description. What are you talking about?
Arguing with you is always so pointless because you are simply incapable of having a cohesive, sequential discussion. As soon as I respond to something inaccurate you've said, you change the subject to something else.
I guess I didn't make my view clear enough here or in the other thread so let me explain again:
The statement "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean its true" is by no means sensible or intuitive because it implies that if I should want to prove the argument false, I would have to provide the evidence. Rather than you providing proof of positive you require me to proof the negative. Its just not good practice.
If we all operated the same way. Any argument could be considered true. It is the flying spaghetti monster argument. I can't prove that there is no FSM. But like the FSM argument, yours is so weak, so unlikely, that it crosses my threshold over to fiction.
Hopefully you'll now understand how comical it is to watch you defend such arguments like they were a certainty.
You most certainly did NOT make yourself clear because you never spoke a word about it.
Well I strongly implied it at least.
And now that you have, let me explain why you're wrong. Saying "Just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true" absolutely does NOT imply that you have to prove me wrong. What it DOES imply (or even outright says, actually) is that just because you've shown that I haven't proven it, doesn't mean it isn't true. In other words, some things are never meant to be presented as provable facts... hell, the vast MAJORITY of posts on this website and sentences uttered in the real world fit that exact description, that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it, it doesn't mean it's not true.
Example: I could say that Breaking Bad is going to win an Emmy for best drama next year. I could give a number of subjective reasons why I think that... and it also just happens to be a very sensible position that a lot of people would probably agree on. Now, just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Does this seem like a statement that isn't sensible or intuitive? Whether it IS true or not isn't even the point saying that. The point of saying it is that just because you've shown that isn't a provable or knowable fact, doesn't mean it's wrong. I said the quote in question specifically to YOU because of your tendency to just deny deny deny without taking a stance in the actual discussion.
Like Loktofeit said, if you state that something is or isn't you should provide evidence toward the positive.
"There is other life in the Universe" can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either. Only True statement we can make is, "we are the only life in the universe - that we know of". We can argue what speaks in favor of extraterrestrial life and against and decide how likely that possibility is. In other words, we can decide whether that argument is strong or weak.
Since we are on the topic, I find extraterrestrial life to be likely because of the seemingly infinite number of galaxies. But like I already said, I find your argument weak. Based off of the assumptions you make that I wouldn't make, the logic which I think is erroneous and your skewed view of the industry and the market.
Also part of why has been such a momentous clash is because you think the things you claim are intuitive, when they really are not. Not to us. Something to think on.
In conclusion: I think you are a crackpot. -But don't worry! I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense.
So are you just giving up on trying to claim that "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true" is a nonsensical or irrational thing to say? Because I'm not sure if you remember but that's what we're talking about. Now you're talking about how I present my opinions?
And by the way, it's actually just how people talk, including yourself. I could easily go through your posts right now and point out dozens of statements that are not provable (or at least you didn't prove them) and were also not preceded by "in my opinion..." or something similar. And are you really trying to say that I haven't "provided evidence toward the positive"? Really? You think I'm just coming in to these discussions, stating something like it's a fact, and then leaving?
And these days I don't believe much into accepted theories on untested human behavior or untried activities. As I said before its all assumptions until tried both ways. Majority of MMORPG players have only had one type of MMORPGs because they can post WoW. To say they would never play another type is unproven. That's my point.
But even if an old-school game came out and nobody played it and it failed, you'd still find some way to argue that didn't count. There have been old-school-eque games like MO and Darkfall that have come out and failed. Old-school fans keep making excuses for why they're not "old-school enough". The fact remains, these game play options have been available and they have been overwhelmingly rejected by the mainstream MMO audience.
Originally posted by FinalFikuslets forget about old school and talk about the new school.Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old schoolDDO- failLORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolWAR-deadAOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolTabla rasa-deadVangaurd-failFinal fantasy- looks like it will join the old schoolRift-joins the old schoolStar trek-join the old schoolCOH-deadAion- joins the old school at least hereFallen earth-old schoolGuild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxesGuild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxesStar wars old republic- lol unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen.
So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.
Again, you're assuming there was only one path for games to go down. UO didn't have to implement Trammel just because it was losing players (whether that's true, or how many players it was we don't know). It could have taken different steps to increase player retention. You're basically saying that because Feluca emptied out, that means oldschool style games can't work.
And these days I don't believe much into accepted theories on untested human behavior or untried activities. As I said before its all assumptions until tried both ways. Majority of MMORPG players have only had one type of MMORPGs because they can post WoW. To say they would never play another type is unproven. That's my point.
But even if an old-school game came out and nobody played it and it failed, you'd still find some way to argue that didn't count. There have been old-school-eque games like MO and Darkfall that have come out and failed. Old-school fans keep making excuses for why they're not "old-school enough". The fact remains, these game play options have been available and they have been overwhelmingly rejected by the mainstream MMO audience.
Lol, again those are just bad games no excuse needed. Its like saying that if a type of game has a bad release I must play it because I like that type of game. Do you play horrible games because its the genre you like? Those games are not even main stream. They're indie games.
Originally posted by FinalFikus No he didn't loktofiet. He clearly stated "whether it is true or not" in the very next sentence. C'mon. Im not even reading most of it and I had no problem understanding. Im stupid too.
If someone is building both their argument and the reasoning behind it on a particular statement, you really feel it is irrelevant whether that statement is true or not? Are you truly trying to make that claim?
Originally posted by FinalFikus No he didn't loktofiet. He clearly stated "whether it is true or not" in the very next sentence. C'mon. Im not even reading most of it and I had no problem understanding. Im stupid too.
If someone is building both their argument and the reasoning behind it on a particular statement, you really feel it is irrelevant whether that statement is true or not? Are you truly trying to make that claim?
Im saying there is no doubt in my mind he was giving his opinion about something that he has no way of proving nor has anyone offered any proof other than their own claims.
Im stupid as I mentioned, so you're either way over my head,, or you are deliberately avoiding the topic because someone's opinion, which cannot be proven wrong, is being presented in the exact same manner as the opposing opinion. The only difference is no one is attacking your credibility or honesty out of respect and fair play.
Either way the topic at hand is more interesting, can we assume that people are giving opinions and have fun again plz?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Except you never found any fault with how I determine what it means, just how it applies to WoW. And then when we started talking about how it applies to WoW you just.... shocker... stopped replying.
It wasn't going anywhere. You were simply repeating how it "made sense" that WoW was watered-down, even after I had explained repeatedly why your logic is wrong. You just clung on to your conclusion nevertheless.
I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. This phenomenon is commonplace. Nothing to get giddy over. No, you all but outright blamed the companies for making profit. I have a strong suspicion that this part of the argument only stems from the fact that you are displeased by the fact how companies are not catering to you. You're just venting. I forgive you.
So let me get this straight... you argue against it happening and then say it's commonplace? If it's commonplace then how am I wrong? My point is that WoW introduced an unnatural distortion in the market which lead companies to focus more on themeparks and specifically them stealing features from WoW.
And what do you mean outright blame them for making a profit? I've said over and over that I don't blame companies for wanting to make money, but part of a free market is consumers voicing their opinions. Part of the problem is people enabling companies to get away with rehashing the same formula over and over with a new skin over top.
The fact that you think it is unnatural proves to me you don't understand business. It is entirely natural. I've tried to explain this numerous times, but apparently in vain. I don't have the fortitude to explain it again. I have my limits.
Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." Because you erroneously think that the market 10 years ago would be the same as today. Its not. It is rather naive to think so.
What does this even mean? I never said the market 10 years ago would be the same as today... whatever that means? Would be the same if what? Myself and others IN THIS VERY THREAD have specifically said that we don't want to just remake oldschool games.... they already exist. I can go play a free UO shard if I want. What we do want is for companies to have evolved down a different path than they did. Unless we involve Shane Carouth, that's obviously never gonna happen. So what we're asking/hoping for is companies to make new games, but bring back some of the oldschool principles. Bring back depth, consequences, virtual worlds, etc. I can't believe you're actually using the word naive to describe me, when yours is the side that is unwilling to believe that it's even possible to have evolved a certain way, or that it's even possible for games to come out that follow these very very very simple principles.
What I specifically mean by my comment is that,you think just because there was market for old school games 10 years ago there would be market for those games today. You do understand many of those values are in direct competition with the values that are popular right now, don't you. Cephus404 already explained, some of those people don't play MMOs anymore, preferences have changed etc. And so far every attempt to revitalize old school has enjoyed marginal success at best. Not something that can be credited to being old school.
You can't even be sure that old school should be credited by the success of early MMOs. It could simply be a matter of "being the first" as far as we know. Novelty. And once alternatives started emerging, people gladly migrated toward those titles instead. People who didn't find MMOs fun in the old school days, found the new ones much more appealing, and only now started playing MMORPGs.
lizardbones smartly pointed out, the developers have a lot more information available to them compared to us, so it is reasonable to assume they know what they are talking about when they say its not worth it. It is safe to assume they have done their research. It would be quite remarkable if they all turned out to be wrong. I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying it is highly unlikely.
How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? I mind when you pollute the forums I read with faulty logic and bitter tirade about today's companies, games and their players.
As it turns out, it's not your forums. And just to emulate your debate tactics, I'll point out that pollution to you may not be pollution to everybody else. Maybe I find all of this talk about themeparks to be polluting the forums. And I love how you keep saying my logic is faulty and you've never been able to explain why. Usually what happens is you claim something I said is illogical, I explain to you in detail why it's totally reasonable and logical, and then you change the subject. That's how almost every one of our engagements play out.
Did I say "my forums"? I said the forums I read. And the tactic you are now using is called "poisoning the well". You would be fool to think I would respond to that.
And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on." Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Let me Google that for you.
I don't think you understand that phrase. I'm not saying it HAS to be the case that our "whining" lead to sandboxes being produced. But for you to deny that it has anything to do with it is just downright dishonest. But again, this is you just trying to "poke holes" without really taking a stance. Do YOU think it's a coincidence that there are so many people complaining on forums about a lack of sandbox games and now there are a decent amount of sandbox titles in production? Do you think the two are completely unrelated?
Do I need to explain again the nature of forums?
Everything you have is speculation and conjecture. You make assumptions and assertions which cannot be proven to be valid. You completely missed my point when I tried to explain to you a fault in your logic with the watered down theory. I explained it twice if not thrice, but it didn't sink in. You were so adamant that "WoW is watered down" that you didn't care if your rationale was faulty.
First of all... I'll ask again: What are my wild theories?
Second, what actually happened in that conversation is you were asking what "watered down" means. I explained what it means, and then you shifted the conversation to "how do you know WoW is watered down?" To which I immediately replied that it was with judgement. Then I went on to make the case for WoW being watered down and you just stopped replying.
"I assume you mean you find an error in my claim that WoW is watered down compared to UO and SWG. Well, as I've already said a number of times, it comes down to judgement. So I'm not sure what the error in my reasoning is. But as I've said before, if you're going to claim that WoW was as targeted as those games, and thus the average player's involvement and enjoyment was as high or higher, I don't think that's an easily defensible position for you. One of the hardest things for you to contend with is WoW's obvious tendency towards catering to casual players. It seems to me that there's a somewhat direct contradiction between a game being "targeted" in the sense that it's the opposite of watering down, in other words, appeals as deeply as possible, and a game being designed largely around inviting casual players."
But as usual you just kind of... stopped responding and now are trying to rewrite history to make a point about me that isn't valid.
First, why should I respond to your explanation of what you mean by watered down? It doesn't matter how I would use the term, it matter how you understand it. When we speak the same language its easier to get the message across. This is basics in scientific writing: In the beginning you establish the terminology and what you mean by them.
Second, if all you say is simply based on your judgement. Why are you defending it like its the truth? A sensible person would not cling to his arguments like so when they are that weak.
And third, you completely missed my point. And I mean completely. I stated multiple times why your logic was wrong and in the point marked in red, you went with your original conclusion anyway. I will explain this to you again: Based on its size, you cannot conclude that WoW is watered down. You cannot do that. It is fine to say "I think WoW is watered-down" but you should have never said to the effect of "because WoW is large, it must be watered down". The former is just an opinion. The latter is faulty logic, because you cannot show a connection between the two.
I defend my positions vehemently simply because I choose them carefully and sparingly. I'm not just posting theories willy nilly only to have to eat my words.
I admit your defense of the strawman you made from Loktofeit's argument in that one thread was quite remarkable. We still don't know why you did it though. And it is still a strawman.
I remember you coming into a conversation that you didn't understand and refused to ever look at it in context. I literally asked you point blank over and over why you were ignoring the context of the discussion, and you never replied. It wasn't a strawman, Loktefeit's statement was totally indefensible, and has since kind of turned out be complete hogwash since I'm still waiting on him to provide a source for his claim that the MMO genre is increasing. The only numbers I've seen (narius posted them and loktofeit pointed me towards them) seemd to include MOBAs, which is utterly useless.
Do you see how this works? I provide detail and reason in my responses. You provide nothing but malice, insult and your own warped vague interpretation of the facts.
Loktofeit's comment was a sensible assumption which you warped into something you can better attack. And how are we supposed to provide facts when you keep finding excuses to dismiss them. And what should we do if the world doesn't share your definition of an MMO? Are you going to wait for that evidence forever?
You get what you're asking for. If you are polite, I am polite. When you are not, why should I? You won't find me throwing ad hominems around though. And when have I played the victim?
It is rude to call something inferior when it isn't. It is rude when you choose to talk with derogative and antagonizing terminology. Are you expecting people just accept their game is a "WoW clone" when they think it isn't? Watered-down when they think it isn't?
And what if their game is a WoW clone? Basically what you're saying is if THEY think it isn't, that means you can't criticize it? Are you serious? What world do you live in?
If they don't think its a WoW clone, its not a WoW clone. They may not share your view on what constitutes a "clone". Hardly a world shattering revelation.
It is arrogant to automatically assume that just because someone share your view must not know as much as you do. And it is arrogant to imply your preference is better than someone else's.
Now THIS is what I call a strawman. I've never said, implied or assumed the first... or the second actually. I'm sure I've said, implied, thought, whatever that my OPINION is better (more valid) than someone else's... not my preference. What exactly is wrong with that? Is your opinion more valid than an infant's? Of course it is. So what you're really saying is it's up to interpretation. If my opinion is more valid than this other person's (whoever it is), then it's not arrogant. If it's not more valid, then it is arrogant. It's not just inherently arrogant to think your opinion on something matters more than somebody else's.
And I think the only time I've said somebody's opinion is more valid than somebody else's is when making the claim that sandbox players know more about themepark games than themepark players know about sandbox games. If that's true, then yes I would say holding all things constant, the sandbox player's opinion is more valid than the themepark player's opinion because he's more knowledgeable about the subject. Is there some kind of problem with this?
I look forward to you picking out some inconsequential phrase while ignoring the main point.
It doesn't matter whether it turned out to be right or wrong, the fact that you assume your opinion is better is arrogant. How do you know sandbox players know more about themepark games? In my 2,5 years of playing Eve, I ran into numerous players who bashed themeparks, WoW in particular, and it turned out, most of them hadn't even played WoW (!). Most of them played sandboxes almost exclusively and to an alarmingly high number Eve was one of only a 1-3 MMORPGs they have ever tried.
My own encounters speak against your assertion. I think very few people actually know both sides of the genre. And I would much rather hear from the powergamers, or game hoppers as you like to call them, what they think. They've seen a lot more games than your average gamer.
You don't get to decide what is good and what is not. It is not up to you. You can't say which is fast food and which is fine dining, because everyone's preference is their own. Just like you would say your friends game is trash, he might say your game is trash, and you both would be right. You have no right, no expertise, no authority to claim the high ground or set any standards. You just don't get to do that.
Only objective measure of quality available to us, is the sales & sub numbers.
Yeah and the most important thing you said is "...available to us." If you were God you could peer into the minds of every living human see which game type they would prefer if they gave each a fair chance. That is an example of an objective measure of "good" that we will obviously never know. If you think I'm claiming to know the answer to that question, you're wrong. But I absolutely am making the claim that if you forced people to play every type of game for a sufficient amount of time so they could get a deep understanding of the game, sandbox games would come out on top. This is where the DISCUSSION comes into play. I'm not claiming to know this for a fact, but this is how debates, arguments, discussions start. I make a claim, and you can take issue with it. But what you do is you just immediately jump to "you can't prove that."
I think if you polled those people you'd get a number of different responses, including ones like this:
1. I think sandbox games are better, and I prefer playing them.
2. I think sandbox games are better, but I prefer playing themeparks.
3. I think themepark games are better, and I prefer playing them.
4. I think themepark games are better, but I prefer playing sandboxes.
I know a lot of people who admit that something is good or better, even if they don't usually partake in it. For instance, I appreciate and am impressed by classical music, but I don't often listen to it. I prefer tech metal. But if you ask me which is better, I'm going to tell you classical music is better. I know people who admit that Breaking Bad is one of the best shows ever, but it's not really their style. You guys keep trying to make "preference" the only way to measure quality, it isn't.
I don't think you'd get a lot of people saying they play sandboxes but they think themeparks are better.
And I would say that a game being good or bad is no way tied to being sandbox or themepark, but so far, sandboxes have usually reached too far and fell too short, making the term sandbox a lost synonomous with "poor quality". I haven't played an MMO sandbox yet, I could say "this is a good game". I haven't. Yet I don't think either one of the genres are better.
Gameplay in MMORPGs is worse than it is in regular multiplayer and single player games. And they nearly always fail to justify that shortcoming with the MMO part.
I also think if you want "freedom" and "roleplaying" you are better served by playing pen & paper roleplaying games than by playing MMORPGs. In comparison they have always fallen short in those aspects and they likely always will.
People like to talk about ideal sandboxes but the reality is, an ideal sandbox is a pipe dream.
Nevermind then. You made a vague statement. I thought you might have an explanation. Still, you only assume they are greedy. They might be hard working people trying to make a game they themselves want to play. But you call them greedy, lazy and clueless. How do you know if they are any of those things?
You are venting. I forgive you.
No, I didn't make a vague statement. It's vague to you because you're constantly trying to find fault with what I say. If I'm talking about developers making bad decisions or being greedy, how can you NOT know that I'm talking about the people who are in a position to make bad decisions or be greedy?
Not to mention I'm not usually the kind of guy who is using those terms when describing people. I usually deliberately try to say it's "lazy game design" or the company is being greedy. I'm not going to claim that I've NEVER called somebody lazy or greedy, but I think this is just another case of you assuming things about me that aren't true. If I say something is lazy game design, that's a lot different (and less rude) than saying "you are lazy."
The vague statement was you calling a design "good" which sparked my interest that's all.
But it is somebody who is responsible for that design, and work in that company. A company is not a separate entity. It cannot be lazy or greedy. You are unavoidably talking about the people working in that company.
Like Loktofeit said, if you state that something is or isn't you should provide evidence toward the positive.
"There is other life in the Universe" can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either. Only True statement we can make is, "we are the only life in the universe - that we know of". We can argue what speaks in favor of extraterrestrial life and against and decide how likely that possibility is. In other words, we can decide whether that argument is strong or weak.
Since we are on the topic, I find extraterrestrial life to be likely because of the seemingly infinite number of galaxies. But like I already said, I find your argument weak. Based off of the assumptions you make that I wouldn't make, the logic which I think is erroneous and your skewed view of the industry and the market.
Also part of why has been such a momentous clash is because you think the things you claim are intuitive, when they really are not. Not to us. Something to think on.
In conclusion: I think you are a crackpot. -But don't worry! I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense.
So are you just giving up on trying to claim that "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true" is a nonsensical or irrational thing to say? Because I'm not sure if you remember but that's what we're talking about. Now you're talking about how I present my opinions?
And by the way, it's actually just how people talk, including yourself. I could easily go through your posts right now and point out dozens of statements that are not provable (or at least you didn't prove them) and were also not preceded by "in my opinion..." or something similar. And are you really trying to say that I haven't "provided evidence toward the positive"? Really? You think I'm just coming in to these discussions, stating something like it's a fact, and then leaving?
Well since you made this elaborate explanation instead of saying "in my opinion..." I thought you were ready to defend your position somehow. You can still keep your opinion, but the rationale you've presented is not convincing.
And you are right, I've made statements which I have not provided evidence for, but until you showed up, I haven't had the need to do so, because generally what I am talking about could be construed as common knowledge. Like the statement about how MMORPGs have so far seen only growth. Or how companies trying to emulate the market leader is normal in business.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Except you never found any fault with how I determine what it means, just how it applies to WoW. And then when we started talking about how it applies to WoW you just.... shocker... stopped replying.
It wasn't going anywhere. You were simply repeating how it "made sense" that WoW was watered-down, even after I had explained repeatedly why your logic is wrong. You just clung on to your conclusion nevertheless.
The logic regarding what? There were 2 issues: what does watered down mean? and is wow watered down compared to other games like SWG? Because like I said at the time (which you ignored) you seemed to be merging the 2 conversations. There's nothing wrong with my logic about how to define what watered down means. The only thing you can take issue with is whether or not WoW is watered down. I made my case for why it is, you've made no case for why it isn't... just that I can't prove that it is. Here's the super short version to keep it simple: if you admit that WoW is more casual friendly, that's an indication that it's less targeted and thus watered down.
I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. This phenomenon is commonplace. Nothing to get giddy over. No, you all but outright blamed the companies for making profit. I have a strong suspicion that this part of the argument only stems from the fact that you are displeased by the fact how companies are not catering to you. You're just venting. I forgive you.
So let me get this straight... you argue against it happening and then say it's commonplace? If it's commonplace then how am I wrong? My point is that WoW introduced an unnatural distortion in the market which lead companies to focus more on themeparks and specifically them stealing features from WoW.
And what do you mean outright blame them for making a profit? I've said over and over that I don't blame companies for wanting to make money, but part of a free market is consumers voicing their opinions. Part of the problem is people enabling companies to get away with rehashing the same formula over and over with a new skin over top.
The fact that you think it is unnatural proves to me you don't understand business. It is entirely natural. I've tried to explain this numerous times, but apparently in vain. I don't have the fortitude to explain it again. I have my limits.
Trust me when I say that you guys really need to stop with these jabs about me not understand business, economics, or the market. I can guarantee you that I have a deeper understanding of all of them than you do. WoW's success which was a complete ANOMALY, influenced other companies to try and recreate that formula, often to the point of failure. If you want to mince words and say that "unnatural" isn't appropriate, I'm not gonna waste time arguing it. The point is it made companies do things they wouldn't have done otherwise, to an extreme degree. Why was it an extreme degree? Because it had ENORMOUS success. It was an outlier. That's why I'm calling it unnatural.
That's a rational argument to make about why games are made the way they are, and why I don't think the market NEEDS to be exactly how it is right now. I think it stands to reason that WoW's abnormally large amount of success (which other games haven't even touched, though not for lack of trying) caused companies to focus LESS on the types of games that I enjoy. And I believe that the market will eventually fix this problem. I don't expect sandboxes to ever be the majority, but I do expect some decent and acceptable sandboxes to be made in the near future. Is this another of my whacky theories? Or does it sound pretty rational?
Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." Because you erroneously think that the market 10 years ago would be the same as today. Its not. It is rather naive to think so.
What does this even mean? I never said the market 10 years ago would be the same as today... whatever that means? Would be the same if what? Myself and others IN THIS VERY THREAD have specifically said that we don't want to just remake oldschool games.... they already exist. I can go play a free UO shard if I want. What we do want is for companies to have evolved down a different path than they did. Unless we involve Shane Carouth, that's obviously never gonna happen. So what we're asking/hoping for is companies to make new games, but bring back some of the oldschool principles. Bring back depth, consequences, virtual worlds, etc. I can't believe you're actually using the word naive to describe me, when yours is the side that is unwilling to believe that it's even possible to have evolved a certain way, or that it's even possible for games to come out that follow these very very very simple principles.
What I specifically mean by my comment is that,you think just because there was market for old school games 10 years ago there would be market for those games today. You do understand many of those values are in direct competition with the values that are popular right now, don't you. Cephus404 already explained, some of those people don't play MMOs anymore, preferences have changed etc. And so far every attempt to revitalize old school has enjoyed marginal success at best. Not something that can be credited to being old school.
You can't even be sure that old school should be credited by the success of early MMOs. It could simply be a matter of "being the first" as far as we know. Novelty. And once alternatives started emerging, people gladly migrated toward those titles instead. People who didn't find MMOs fun in the old school days, found the new ones much more appealing, and only now started playing MMORPGs.
lizardbones smartly pointed out, the developers have a lot more information available to them compared to us, so it is reasonable to assume they know what they are talking about when they say its not worth it. It is safe to assume they have done their research. It would be quite remarkable if they all turned out to be wrong. I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying it is highly unlikely.
I'm not basing my belief that there's a market for sandbox games on the fact that sandbox games used to exist. I'm basing it on my opinion of what makes a good game and my interacting with people in the community for the majority of my life. I think a virtual world with consequences to your actions and the ability to truly play how you want is good game design. I think a lot of people will play a game like that. And I think a lot of people HAVE played games like that, and a lot of people still do play games like that (EvE). And I also think that's why there are several games in production that are promising to fill that role.
What do you have that says otherwise? That the market isn't making them yet? Well that's where WoW comes into play. I know in the past you've denied that WoW had an effect on the market, but it actually did. It had a huge effect on the market. I mean... do you understand how silly your argument is? You basically are saying that no sandbox game can exist. Are you going to take ALL of this back when one does come out and is successful enough to stay alive? What about EvE? As I've pointed out, that games has more than enough sandbox elements to appease most of us (including me), I just happen to not be into the space combat. But the level of sandbox in that game SHOULD deter people from playing, if what you're claiming is true.
How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? I mind when you pollute the forums I read with faulty logic and bitter tirade about today's companies, games and their players.
As it turns out, it's not your forums. And just to emulate your debate tactics, I'll point out that pollution to you may not be pollution to everybody else. Maybe I find all of this talk about themeparks to be polluting the forums. And I love how you keep saying my logic is faulty and you've never been able to explain why. Usually what happens is you claim something I said is illogical, I explain to you in detail why it's totally reasonable and logical, and then you change the subject. That's how almost every one of our engagements play out.
Did I say "my forums"? I said the forums I read. And the tactic you are now using is called "poisoning the well". You would be fool to think I would respond to that.
If you admit that they're not your forums, then how do you think it's ok to criticize people for voicing their opinion on them? What's the point of you saying nothing will come of our "whining" on the forums?
And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on." Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Let me Google that for you.
I don't think you understand that phrase. I'm not saying it HAS to be the case that our "whining" lead to sandboxes being produced. But for you to deny that it has anything to do with it is just downright dishonest. But again, this is you just trying to "poke holes" without really taking a stance. Do YOU think it's a coincidence that there are so many people complaining on forums about a lack of sandbox games and now there are a decent amount of sandbox titles in production? Do you think the two are completely unrelated?
Do I need to explain again the nature of forums?
No, you've never needed to explain it. You've never needed to explain anything to me. What you need to do is start responding to points consistently. I asked you a question. Do you think it's a coincidence that there are so many people complaining on the forums about a lack of sandbox games and now there are a decent amount of sandbox titles in production? Do you think the two are completely unrelated?
Everything you have is speculation and conjecture. You make assumptions and assertions which cannot be proven to be valid. You completely missed my point when I tried to explain to you a fault in your logic with the watered down theory. I explained it twice if not thrice, but it didn't sink in. You were so adamant that "WoW is watered down" that you didn't care if your rationale was faulty.
First of all... I'll ask again: What are my wild theories?
Second, what actually happened in that conversation is you were asking what "watered down" means. I explained what it means, and then you shifted the conversation to "how do you know WoW is watered down?" To which I immediately replied that it was with judgement. Then I went on to make the case for WoW being watered down and you just stopped replying.
"I assume you mean you find an error in my claim that WoW is watered down compared to UO and SWG. Well, as I've already said a number of times, it comes down to judgement. So I'm not sure what the error in my reasoning is. But as I've said before, if you're going to claim that WoW was as targeted as those games, and thus the average player's involvement and enjoyment was as high or higher, I don't think that's an easily defensible position for you. One of the hardest things for you to contend with is WoW's obvious tendency towards catering to casual players. It seems to me that there's a somewhat direct contradiction between a game being "targeted" in the sense that it's the opposite of watering down, in other words, appeals as deeply as possible, and a game being designed largely around inviting casual players."
But as usual you just kind of... stopped responding and now are trying to rewrite history to make a point about me that isn't valid.
First, why should I respond to your explanation of what you mean by watered down? It doesn't matter how I would use the term, it matter how you understand it. When we speak the same language its easier to get the message across. This is basics in scientific writing: In the beginning you establish the terminology and what you mean by them.
You don't need to respond to that. Are you following along here? There were two parts to that discussion:
1. What does watered down mean?
2. Why do I believe WoW is more watered down than SWG etc?
It was already established what watered down means and how I'm using it. Then I went on to address the second point. That's what you ignored, not the explanation of what watered down means. Are you just not reading this? I don't understand.
Second, if all you say is simply based on your judgement. Why are you defending it like its the truth? A sensible person would not cling to his arguments like so when they are that weak.
Would you stop acting like if it's not provable, it's not worth arguing? That's literally the ONLY time you would argue. If it was provable and not based on judgement or reason, then there'd be no point in arguing. And what's weak about it? You haven't even answered it.
And third, you completely missed my point. And I mean completely. I stated multiple times why your logic was wrong and in the point marked in red, you went with your original conclusion anyway. I will explain this to you again: Based on its size, you cannot conclude that WoW is watered down. You cannot do that. It is fine to say "I think WoW is watered-down" but you should have never said to the effect of "because WoW is large, it must be watered down". The former is just an opinion. The latter is faulty logic, because you cannot show a connection between the two.
Don't put quotes around things that I didn't say. What I may have said was "holding all things constant, in order to increase your playerbase you have to water down your game." As in, yes you can increase your playerbase by having better aesthetics and things like that, but assuming an equal playing field, in order to get more people involved, you generally have to appeal less deeply to those people.
Not only that, the point you ignored wasn't even about the size of the playerbase... so why are we even talking about it? The point that I made was about casual players. If a game has a relatively large amount of casual players, that seems to me to be an indication that it's more watered down, aka less targeted.
I defend my positions vehemently simply because I choose them carefully and sparingly. I'm not just posting theories willy nilly only to have to eat my words.
I admit your defense of the strawman you made from Loktofeit's argument in that one thread was quite remarkable. We still don't know why you did it though. And it is still a strawman.
I remember you coming into a conversation that you didn't understand and refused to ever look at it in context. I literally asked you point blank over and over why you were ignoring the context of the discussion, and you never replied. It wasn't a strawman, Loktefeit's statement was totally indefensible, and has since kind of turned out be complete hogwash since I'm still waiting on him to provide a source for his claim that the MMO genre is increasing. The only numbers I've seen (narius posted them and loktofeit pointed me towards them) seemd to include MOBAs, which is utterly useless.
Do you see how this works? I provide detail and reason in my responses. You provide nothing but malice, insult and your own warped vague interpretation of the facts.
Loktofeit's comment was a sensible assumption which you warped into something you can better attack. And how are we supposed to provide facts when you keep finding excuses to dismiss them. And what should we do if the world doesn't share your definition of an MMO? Are you going to wait for that evidence forever?
LOL what fact have I ever dismissed? In fact, I actually blindly accepted the "fact" that the MMO playerbase was increasing every year. Again, you're just plainly making things up. I absolutely did NOT ignore it. In fact, I didn't even ask him to back it up at the time. I eventually became curious about his source when somebody else mentioned that it may include MOBAs.
And what he said was not sensible and I warped nothing. I said that a lot of people seem to be disappointed with modern MMOs when they come out. He said that people are probably pretty satisfied because the genre continues to grow. I pointed out that you cannot assume that a person paying for a game is satisfied. Satisfied in this context has to mean satisfied to the point of not being disappointed, but then you guys tried to turn it into "satisfied enough to keep playing" which would be a completely redundant and pointless thing to say. This lack of context is something you still refuse to acknowledge.
Also, I can't find anything in that report that indicates what games it's counting. The whole reason I was asking for a source was because somebody pointed out that these numbers may include MOBAs. Then when Narius provided a link, his did include MOBAs. That would completely invalidate those numbers if that were the case.
You get what you're asking for. If you are polite, I am polite. When you are not, why should I? You won't find me throwing ad hominems around though. And when have I played the victim?
It is rude to call something inferior when it isn't. It is rude when you choose to talk with derogative and antagonizing terminology. Are you expecting people just accept their game is a "WoW clone" when they think it isn't? Watered-down when they think it isn't?
And what if their game is a WoW clone? Basically what you're saying is if THEY think it isn't, that means you can't criticize it? Are you serious? What world do you live in?
If they don't think its a WoW clone, its not a WoW clone. They may not share your view on what constitutes a "clone". Hardly a world shattering revelation.
This is just completely nonsensical. What does their biased opinion of their own game have to do with how much of a WoW clone it is? So if I make a game that rips off the structure of the game, UI design, etc of WoW but I somehow make myself believe that it's not a WoW clone, that's supposed to mean something?
In fact, I can't believe you're even trying to make this claim right now. Do you want to take it back or something because this seems too easy....
It is arrogant to automatically assume that just because someone share your view must not know as much as you do. And it is arrogant to imply your preference is better than someone else's.
Now THIS is what I call a strawman. I've never said, implied or assumed the first... or the second actually. I'm sure I've said, implied, thought, whatever that my OPINION is better (more valid) than someone else's... not my preference. What exactly is wrong with that? Is your opinion more valid than an infant's? Of course it is. So what you're really saying is it's up to interpretation. If my opinion is more valid than this other person's (whoever it is), then it's not arrogant. If it's not more valid, then it is arrogant. It's not just inherently arrogant to think your opinion on something matters more than somebody else's.
And I think the only time I've said somebody's opinion is more valid than somebody else's is when making the claim that sandbox players know more about themepark games than themepark players know about sandbox games. If that's true, then yes I would say holding all things constant, the sandbox player's opinion is more valid than the themepark player's opinion because he's more knowledgeable about the subject. Is there some kind of problem with this?
I look forward to you picking out some inconsequential phrase while ignoring the main point.
It doesn't matter whether it turned out to be right or wrong, the fact that you assume your opinion is better is arrogant. How do you know sandbox players know more about themepark games? In my 2,5 years of playing Eve, I ran into numerous players who bashed themeparks, WoW in particular, and it turned out, most of them hadn't even played WoW (!). Most of them played sandboxes almost exclusively and to an alarmingly high number Eve was one of only a 1-3 MMORPGs they have ever tried.
Classic Quirhid. Deny something that would be completely intuitive to anybody willing to think about it for more than a moment, but you won't take a stand one way or the other. If you had to guess, which do you think is true? Would you say that themepark players know more about sandboxes, or sandbox players know more about themeparks?
Because here's a pretty basic way of looking at it: A lot more people play themeparks. It's possible that the few players playing sandbox games just haven't played themeparks, but let's just think about this logically. Considering there are tens of millions of people playing themeparks, and probably only like a million total playing sandboxes (rought estimates... half a million playing eve, let's just call it half a million playing whatever other sandboxes there are), it's far more likely that a random person has played a themepark game. Not only that, themepark games are just naturally more accessible. Sandbox games are known for being more complex and "hardcore" so it stands to reason that more "hardcore" gamers play them, gamers who have a deeper knowledge of the mmo industry. Sandbox players are known for their dislike of themepark games. Themepark players aren't particularly KNOWN for their dislike of sandbox games. You could claim that sandbox players are just generally more likely to dislike something they haven't played, but I'd like to hear why.
I'll ask again, if you had to guess... which would you say is more likely?
My own encounters speak against your assertion. I think very few people actually know both sides of the genre. And I would much rather hear from the powergamers, or game hoppers as you like to call them, what they think. They've seen a lot more games than your average gamer.
They have indeed! And if I ever want an opinion on a game that is likely to appeal to a "game hopper", then I'll ask them.
You don't get to decide what is good and what is not. It is not up to you. You can't say which is fast food and which is fine dining, because everyone's preference is their own. Just like you would say your friends game is trash, he might say your game is trash, and you both would be right. You have no right, no expertise, no authority to claim the high ground or set any standards. You just don't get to do that.
Only objective measure of quality available to us, is the sales & sub numbers.
Yeah and the most important thing you said is "...available to us." If you were God you could peer into the minds of every living human see which game type they would prefer if they gave each a fair chance. That is an example of an objective measure of "good" that we will obviously never know. If you think I'm claiming to know the answer to that question, you're wrong. But I absolutely am making the claim that if you forced people to play every type of game for a sufficient amount of time so they could get a deep understanding of the game, sandbox games would come out on top. This is where the DISCUSSION comes into play. I'm not claiming to know this for a fact, but this is how debates, arguments, discussions start. I make a claim, and you can take issue with it. But what you do is you just immediately jump to "you can't prove that."
I think if you polled those people you'd get a number of different responses, including ones like this:
1. I think sandbox games are better, and I prefer playing them.
2. I think sandbox games are better, but I prefer playing themeparks.
3. I think themepark games are better, and I prefer playing them.
4. I think themepark games are better, but I prefer playing sandboxes.
I know a lot of people who admit that something is good or better, even if they don't usually partake in it. For instance, I appreciate and am impressed by classical music, but I don't often listen to it. I prefer tech metal. But if you ask me which is better, I'm going to tell you classical music is better. I know people who admit that Breaking Bad is one of the best shows ever, but it's not really their style. You guys keep trying to make "preference" the only way to measure quality, it isn't.
I don't think you'd get a lot of people saying they play sandboxes but they think themeparks are better.
And I would say that a game being good or bad is no way tied to being sandbox or themepark, but so far, sandboxes have usually reached too far and fell too short, making the term sandbox a lost synonomous with "poor quality". I haven't played an MMO sandbox yet, I could say "this is a good game". I haven't. Yet I don't think either one of the genres are better.
Gameplay in MMORPGs is worse than it is in regular multiplayer and single player games. And they nearly always fail to justify that shortcoming with the MMO part.
I also think if you want "freedom" and "roleplaying" you are better served by playing pen & paper roleplaying games than by playing MMORPGs. In comparison they have always fallen short in those aspects and they likely always will.
People like to talk about ideal sandboxes but the reality is, an ideal sandbox is a pipe dream.
To keep it as succinct as possible, I'll just respond with this: You're probably going to end up being wrong. I think it's extremely likely that as technology progresses and making "acceptable" levels of aesthetics becomes cheaper for smaller developers, and as the effect of WoW becomes less and less important, it seems totally reasonable that there will be a number of sandbox games that I will enjoy far longer than the average themepark player enjoys their game of choice. I think your position is just completely untenable and all I can say is: we'll see. If The Repopulation comes out and has enough players to keep it alive, and I enjoy it immensely, will you admit that you're wrong? Or if EQN comes out and ends up being as much a sandbox as it's claiming to be, will you then admit that you're wrong? Because you know how stubborn I am, you know I will absolutely PM you when that day comes to demand a response.
Nevermind then. You made a vague statement. I thought you might have an explanation. Still, you only assume they are greedy. They might be hard working people trying to make a game they themselves want to play. But you call them greedy, lazy and clueless. How do you know if they are any of those things?
You are venting. I forgive you.
No, I didn't make a vague statement. It's vague to you because you're constantly trying to find fault with what I say. If I'm talking about developers making bad decisions or being greedy, how can you NOT know that I'm talking about the people who are in a position to make bad decisions or be greedy?
Not to mention I'm not usually the kind of guy who is using those terms when describing people. I usually deliberately try to say it's "lazy game design" or the company is being greedy. I'm not going to claim that I've NEVER called somebody lazy or greedy, but I think this is just another case of you assuming things about me that aren't true. If I say something is lazy game design, that's a lot different (and less rude) than saying "you are lazy."
The vague statement was you calling a design "good" which sparked my interest that's all.
But it is somebody who is responsible for that design, and work in that company. A company is not a separate entity. It cannot be lazy or greedy. You are unavoidably talking about the people working in that company.
Yes, but which people? If I'm talking about bad decisions, then obviously I'm talking about the people making those decisions. And by the way, companies have mission statements and goals. Companies ABSOLUTELY can be more or less greedy than other companies.
Like Loktofeit said, if you state that something is or isn't you should provide evidence toward the positive.
"There is other life in the Universe" can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either. Only True statement we can make is, "we are the only life in the universe - that we know of". We can argue what speaks in favor of extraterrestrial life and against and decide how likely that possibility is. In other words, we can decide whether that argument is strong or weak.
Since we are on the topic, I find extraterrestrial life to be likely because of the seemingly infinite number of galaxies. But like I already said, I find your argument weak. Based off of the assumptions you make that I wouldn't make, the logic which I think is erroneous and your skewed view of the industry and the market.
Also part of why has been such a momentous clash is because you think the things you claim are intuitive, when they really are not. Not to us. Something to think on.
In conclusion: I think you are a crackpot. -But don't worry! I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense.
So are you just giving up on trying to claim that "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true" is a nonsensical or irrational thing to say? Because I'm not sure if you remember but that's what we're talking about. Now you're talking about how I present my opinions?
And by the way, it's actually just how people talk, including yourself. I could easily go through your posts right now and point out dozens of statements that are not provable (or at least you didn't prove them) and were also not preceded by "in my opinion..." or something similar. And are you really trying to say that I haven't "provided evidence toward the positive"? Really? You think I'm just coming in to these discussions, stating something like it's a fact, and then leaving?
Well since you made this elaborate explanation instead of saying "in my opinion..." I thought you were ready to defend your position somehow. You can still keep your opinion, but the rationale you've presented is not convincing.
And you are right, I've made statements which I have not provided evidence for, but until you showed up, I haven't had the need to do so, because generally what I am talking about could be construed as common knowledge. Like the statement about how MMORPGs have so far seen only growth. Or how companies trying to emulate the market leader is normal in business.
No, I'm saying you make claims that are your opinion, but you don't precede it with "In my opinion...." That's not an insult, I'm pointing out that's how people talk.
But, again, I'd really like to know what's wrong with saying "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true"
As I pointed out, you could say it about the vast majority of statements uttered by human beings. I have no idea what's wrong with it.
And these days I don't believe much into accepted theories on untested human behavior or untried activities. As I said before its all assumptions until tried both ways. Majority of MMORPG players have only had one type of MMORPGs because they can post WoW. To say they would never play another type is unproven. That's my point.
But even if an old-school game came out and nobody played it and it failed, you'd still find some way to argue that didn't count. There have been old-school-eque games like MO and Darkfall that have come out and failed. Old-school fans keep making excuses for why they're not "old-school enough". The fact remains, these game play options have been available and they have been overwhelmingly rejected by the mainstream MMO audience.
Lol, again those are just bad games no excuse needed. Its like saying that if a type of game has a bad release I must play it because I like that type of game. Do you play horrible games because its the genre you like? Those games are not even main stream. They're indie games.
Indie games can and often do appeal to the mainstream, they're just put out by independent developers. There is nothing inherent in the term "indie" that means it has to be a niche game. Secondly, you're playing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, any game you don't like, you play off as a bad game until something that comes along and is successful, at which point you can claim victory. These games have existed. These games have failed. You don't get to just ignore any failed game because it didn't produce the results you like.
So mmorpgs are packaged goods or mere products instead of entertainment. I can understand the business approach then, and also the lack of gameplay.
Being packaged goods, or a product is not mutually exclusive to being entertainment.
MMORPGs are entertainment product, and often packaged goods at the same time. You can picked up a copy of WOW at a local gamestop (so package good) and when you go home and play, it entertains you.
Don't tell me you never heard of the term "entertainment product".
Comments
The quote itself INCLUDES the acknowledgement that it's not provable, or at least that I can't prove it.
And by the way, I don't believe for a second that I'm misusing the language half as much as people on both sides of these discussions. I see other sandbox advocates and themepark advocates not only omitting the "In my opinion..." that you seem to think needs to precede every opinion, but they outright say things are facts when in truth they're opinions. It's pretty obvious that Quirhid takes issue with me in particular because he has a grudge of some sort or doesn't like how bluntly I argue.
IMO it stems down to big businesses making these high budget themepark wow clones and get initially good box sales then people realize its the same old crap all over again and leave. This in turns makes the devs go F2P. Swtor is the best example.
Weve seen what small indie devs can do with limited money (wurm online, embers of caerus, ect ect) sandboxes are much cheaper to make as they dont need VO for quests, lots of dev time on quests, ect ect. Thats why we see more indie devs go the sandbox route, its cheaper and if they pull it off its amazing.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
I think sandboxes in general are going to be cheaper to produce than themeparks. The fact that sandboxes often have "player generated content" should alleviate some of the pressure on devs to produce expansions and new content. The flipside to that is that the games themselves probably have to have deeper/more complex systems. And those systems have to work organically with each other to produce a virtual world where people can indeed make their own content.
No one here can think sandbox will some how save the genre? Every MMO out there is going to be hit by the change in what the playerbase now expects and the back biting number of MMO's. You can go niche and expect to have fewer players, but that has its own issues. Sandbox has a temporary advantage in that not as many sandbox games are out, but that advantage is already starting to fade. I do think modding could be the saviour of MMOs, but you can mod a more themepark game too. It is the complexity you mention that will be the issue for a sandbox, downgrading the graphics has been one solution that does not go down well.
As a proponent of themeparks in a sandbox sandwich I want the best of both worlds, but it is a big ask.
Well you talk about the temporary advantage that sandboxes have and how it may not last. It doesn't have to. What I'm claiming is simply that the market isn't currently catering to the people it's supposed to. I think sandbox players are underserved. I don't expect sandboxes to ever be more popular than themeparks, but I do expect them to be more popular than they are right now.
And yes, the complexity of a sandbox is going to be an obstacle to overcome. However I think it's an intellectual problem more than it is a cash problem. I don't think it's necessarily expensive to design interesting, deep, complex systems. I just think it's hard.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money.
The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
If someone is building both their argument and the reasoning behind it on a particular statement, you really feel it is irrelevant whether that statement is true or not? Are you truly trying to make that claim?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well I strongly implied it at least.
Like Loktofeit said, if you state that something is or isn't you should provide evidence toward the positive.
"There is other life in the Universe" can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either. Only True statement we can make is, "we are the only life in the universe - that we know of". We can argue what speaks in favor of extraterrestrial life and against and decide how likely that possibility is. In other words, we can decide whether that argument is strong or weak.
Since we are on the topic, I find extraterrestrial life to be likely because of the seemingly infinite number of galaxies. But like I already said, I find your argument weak. Based off of the assumptions you make that I wouldn't make, the logic which I think is erroneous and your skewed view of the industry and the market.
Also part of why has been such a momentous clash is because you think the things you claim are intuitive, when they really are not. Not to us. Something to think on.
In conclusion: I think you are a crackpot. -But don't worry! I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense.I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But you are assuming that developers haven't done their research? Where does that get us?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And these days I don't believe much into accepted theories on untested human behavior or untried activities. As I said before its all assumptions until tried both ways. Majority of MMORPG players have only had one type of MMORPGs because they can post WoW. To say they would never play another type is unproven. That's my point.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen.
So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Ok, we've gotten into circular argument going on here. You're comparing older games directly to newer games and not older style games to newer styled games. There are no modern older styled games at all except WoW clones. There is no direct comparison until one is made. But no other western subscription game outside WoW has maintained a substationally higher player base than older games. Not talking about release peaks.
I mean, UO's spiritual successor SWG also sold more. Each new GTA has sold more than the last. I am sure a "brand new" 1995 Honda Accord is not going to sell as well as 2013 version even if it was more mechanically sound.
So are you just giving up on trying to claim that "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true" is a nonsensical or irrational thing to say? Because I'm not sure if you remember but that's what we're talking about. Now you're talking about how I present my opinions?
And by the way, it's actually just how people talk, including yourself. I could easily go through your posts right now and point out dozens of statements that are not provable (or at least you didn't prove them) and were also not preceded by "in my opinion..." or something similar. And are you really trying to say that I haven't "provided evidence toward the positive"? Really? You think I'm just coming in to these discussions, stating something like it's a fact, and then leaving?
But even if an old-school game came out and nobody played it and it failed, you'd still find some way to argue that didn't count. There have been old-school-eque games like MO and Darkfall that have come out and failed. Old-school fans keep making excuses for why they're not "old-school enough". The fact remains, these game play options have been available and they have been overwhelmingly rejected by the mainstream MMO audience.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Again, you're assuming there was only one path for games to go down. UO didn't have to implement Trammel just because it was losing players (whether that's true, or how many players it was we don't know). It could have taken different steps to increase player retention. You're basically saying that because Feluca emptied out, that means oldschool style games can't work.
Lol, again those are just bad games no excuse needed. Its like saying that if a type of game has a bad release I must play it because I like that type of game. Do you play horrible games because its the genre you like? Those games are not even main stream. They're indie games.
I honestly don't get you. Are you going to respond to this or what? http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5970535#5970535
Or this? http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5969270#5969270
Or this? http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5970053#5970053
Or this? http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5961409#5961409
I'm sure you'll offer some lame excuse about the argument "going in circles" even though none of these fit that description.
Im saying there is no doubt in my mind he was giving his opinion about something that he has no way of proving nor has anyone offered any proof other than their own claims.
Im stupid as I mentioned, so you're either way over my head,, or you are deliberately avoiding the topic because someone's opinion, which cannot be proven wrong, is being presented in the exact same manner as the opposing opinion. The only difference is no one is attacking your credibility or honesty out of respect and fair play.
Either way the topic at hand is more interesting, can we assume that people are giving opinions and have fun again plz?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Well since you made this elaborate explanation instead of saying "in my opinion..." I thought you were ready to defend your position somehow. You can still keep your opinion, but the rationale you've presented is not convincing.
And you are right, I've made statements which I have not provided evidence for, but until you showed up, I haven't had the need to do so, because generally what I am talking about could be construed as common knowledge. Like the statement about how MMORPGs have so far seen only growth. Or how companies trying to emulate the market leader is normal in business.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No, I'm saying you make claims that are your opinion, but you don't precede it with "In my opinion...." That's not an insult, I'm pointing out that's how people talk.
But, again, I'd really like to know what's wrong with saying "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true"
As I pointed out, you could say it about the vast majority of statements uttered by human beings. I have no idea what's wrong with it.
So mmorpgs are packaged goods or mere products instead of entertainment. I can understand the business approach then, and also the lack of gameplay.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
That's what they've always been and always will be. Welcome to reality.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Indie games can and often do appeal to the mainstream, they're just put out by independent developers. There is nothing inherent in the term "indie" that means it has to be a niche game. Secondly, you're playing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, any game you don't like, you play off as a bad game until something that comes along and is successful, at which point you can claim victory. These games have existed. These games have failed. You don't get to just ignore any failed game because it didn't produce the results you like.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Being packaged goods, or a product is not mutually exclusive to being entertainment.
MMORPGs are entertainment product, and often packaged goods at the same time. You can picked up a copy of WOW at a local gamestop (so package good) and when you go home and play, it entertains you.
Don't tell me you never heard of the term "entertainment product".