You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game. I didn't play enough to know.
No, you should look at the explosion of the MMO market with the advancement of ease & assessibility.
As for wow, its expansion continues through CATA, and ease & accessibility starts way before that. Its decline is probably caused by it is a very very old game.
Because there is always going to be the difference between mainstream, mediocre products and good (not all of them), niche products. As a general rule the more you invest in something, the more you're going to get back. There are always going to be products that offer ease and accessibility at the cost of a deeper appreciation; and products that take an investment of attention and effort before you get into it.
You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game. I didn't play enough to know.
No, you should look at the explosion of the MMO market with the advancement of ease & assessibility.
As for wow, its expansion continues through CATA, and ease & accessibility starts way before that. Its decline is probably caused by it is a very very old game.
Because there is always going to be the difference between mainstream, mediocre products and good (not all of them), niche products. As a general rule the more you invest in something, the more you're going to get back. There are always going to be products that offer ease and accessibility at the cost of a deeper appreciation; and products that take an investment of attention and effort before you get into it.
One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.
Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?
What about the fact that we are living in the console age. This is one of the reasons that games seem dumbed down. Look what happened to Elderscrolls games once they went to consoles. So mmo devs to make money now make games that you don't have to think to play. If they went back to the way mmo's used to be made they will lose money . I just loaded up Neocron 2 which is back and completely f2p.. Talk about old school mmo gaming. Totally having a blast playing this again and the community seems to be older players mostly from UK and Germany. This topic comes up in chat. How older mmo's will always be better. The game is completely run by the community and being fixed. Its running better than it used too. Nice to see a chat full of people that love the game they are playing and no your mom jokes.
One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.
Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?
Sounds good to me. I play games to have fun, not to "invest".
And do we always need to get "something we have not seen before"?
I was playing Marvel Heroes and i had fun precisely because i have seen and like those characters before.
One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.
Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?
Sounds good to me. I play games to have fun, not to "invest".
And do we always need to get "something we have not seen before"?
I was playing Marvel Heroes and i had fun precisely because i have seen and like those characters before.
The problem is you're interpreting this wrongly. The point isn't that you spend more time playing the game, the point is that the time you're spending at first is about learning the game and getting a deeper understanding of it because... well it's a deeper game. It's not like people playing WoW spend less time in game than people playing UO or SWG... or at least not to my knowledge. The point is how much do you have to invest?
That's the question you have to ask because the concept of investing in order to get a higher return is like basically a staple of reality across almost every facet of human nature. Most of the time, you have to invest more to get more. That's why my claim is that sandbox players on average enjoy and appreciate their game of choice more than the average themepark player.
You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game. I didn't play enough to know.
No, you should look at the explosion of the MMO market with the advancement of ease & assessibility.
As for wow, its expansion continues through CATA, and ease & accessibility starts way before that. Its decline is probably caused by it is a very very old game.
Because there is always going to be the difference between mainstream, mediocre products and good (not all of them), niche products. As a general rule the more you invest in something, the more you're going to get back. There are always going to be products that offer ease and accessibility at the cost of a deeper appreciation; and products that take an investment of attention and effort before you get into it.
One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.
Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?
I agree with you, if I'm understanding your point correctly. The problem of dumbing games down absolutely leaves less room for innovating. How much can you innovate if everybody is trying to streamline the process? It doesn't leave as much room for differing mechanics.
You can likely look to the beginning of the decline of WoW subs with the advancement of ease and accessibility being placed into the game. I didn't play enough to know.
No, you should look at the explosion of the MMO market with the advancement of ease & assessibility.
As for wow, its expansion continues through CATA, and ease & accessibility starts way before that. Its decline is probably caused by it is a very very old game.
Because there is always going to be the difference between mainstream, mediocre products and good (not all of them), niche products. As a general rule the more you invest in something, the more you're going to get back. There are always going to be products that offer ease and accessibility at the cost of a deeper appreciation; and products that take an investment of attention and effort before you get into it.
One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.
Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?
I agree with you, if I'm understanding your point correctly. The problem of dumbing games down absolutely leaves less room for innovating. How much can you innovate if everybody is trying to streamline the process? It doesn't leave as much room for differing mechanics.
The quest hub mechanic has ruined MMORPG's for me. Not that its a bad thing in general. It took as away from grinding mobs. But it's become a crutch for content and progression because developers have a lack of imagination beyond the get max level to play end game. No matter what you wrap around quest hubs most games are going to feel like I'm playing a WoW clone to me if there is progression solely based on it.
I don't believe the issue is mainly about neuroplasticity as the OP implies, rather with carryover. Older games offered new mechanics and were themselves a new genre. As more and more titles emerged we carried the knowledge from the prior titles and applied it to the newer titles. This resulted in less time required to learn how to function within the newer gaming worlds. Add to this the changing/developing aspects of the games and their development as well.
When I listen to a friend who has just discovered mmo's their words remind me of my own over 20 years ago. It is a new experience. Just like the first time you had sex, it will never be as good as your first mates..., but you can always add new elements to reinvigorate it!
Cheers!
MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S
Sounds good to me. I play games to have fun, not to "invest".
And do we always need to get "something we have not seen before"?
I was playing Marvel Heroes and i had fun precisely because i have seen and like those characters before.
Learning new things is fun. Playing the same old thing over and over is not fun. At least that's how I feel. I barely liked WoW when I actually played it. I'm sick of playing games that take most of their ideas from it.
Sounds good to me. I play games to have fun, not to "invest".
And do we always need to get "something we have not seen before"?
I was playing Marvel Heroes and i had fun precisely because i have seen and like those characters before.
Learning new things is fun. Playing the same old thing over and over is not fun. At least that's how I feel. I barely liked WoW when I actually played it. I'm sick of playing games that take most of their ideas from it.
Not always. Otherwise, people would not be reading spiderman and iron man comics for decades. Otherwise, sequels won't be so popular.
May be you don't play the latest Splinter Cell featuring Sam Fisher .. but i think that is fun, even when i have played other Splinter Cell games before.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal The quest hub mechanic has ruined MMORPG's for me. Not that its a bad thing in general. It took as away from grinding mobs. But it's become a crutch for content and progression because developers have a lack of imagination beyond the get max level to play end game. No matter what you wrap around quest hubs most games are going to feel like I'm playing a WoW clone to me if there is progression solely based on it.
I could not agree more.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I enjoyed SWG (early days). Show me a game that has all of the following features:
An extremely in-depth and complex harvesting / crafting system.
Gigantic worlds with endless world housing and player-built cities.
Ability to group with fellow crafters in order to produce world-mall-shops w/ operational vendors.
Ability to completely leave the base game to explore a deep and extensive space universe.
A game where many people have played for years, yet never experienced any form of combat.
Ability to delve into completely different looking races and/or extreme body types, e.g., skinny, short, fat, tall etc.
A game with incentive to socialize.
A game that feels like a virtual world - feeling like a part of it.
A game where each player isn't a "special little snowflake" - not having to follow some set-in-stone quest line.
A game that virtually has endless apparel customizations.
A game with over 30 different professions - that can be mixed and molded into your very own hybrid build.
A game that was clearly made for the educated.
These modern games suck. That is the problem. I know we've talked about it before, but almost every new MMO is molded off of the WoW model, which is why most people quit within a single month.
Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.
Here's a thought, some people prefer older games because they actually liked them more than newer games. What is this constant need to make that opinion seem silly or validate it as a flaw of the human condition? It's an opinion and it's allowed to be different from your own, get over it.
TLDR;
Older games SEEM better because they WERE better... FOR ME
Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.
I don't see why a core mechanics can be wrong. It just is .. and sometimes it is preferred by some players, and sometimes not.
So what if solo content is put into a MMO.
The only relevant question is if that solo content is fun. If so, i will play it, whether it is in a MMO, an SP game with online features, or SP game with no online features.
And following your logic .. are you going dismiss a group of gamers because they prefer new games instead of old ones because they found the new games better because it is a "simpler way"?
Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.
I don't see why a core mechanics can be wrong. It just is .. and sometimes it is preferred by some players, and sometimes not.
So what if solo content is put into a MMO.
The only relevant question is if that solo content is fun. If so, i will play it, whether it is in a MMO, an SP game with online features, or SP game with no online features.
And following your logic .. are you going dismiss a group of gamers because they prefer new games instead of old ones because they found the new games better because it is a "simpler way"?
Your preference is not better than others.
Preferences are not all created equal. They aren't. Stop acting like they are. Some preferences are better than others because some people have more experience than others. Likewise, some people are less biased than others. There are many ways somebody's opinion ca be better than somebody else's. Stop trying to push this nonsense that somebody's "preference" is god. People can be ill-informed, mistaken or just plain stupid. It happens.
So what if solo content is put into an MMO? It's mixing genres, that's what. By making MMOs more like single player games, you're disenfranchising people who want to play an MMO. So what if metal became more like country music? Well, then people who like metal are missing out.
Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.
I don't see why a core mechanics can be wrong. It just is .. and sometimes it is preferred by some players, and sometimes not.
So what if solo content is put into a MMO.
The only relevant question is if that solo content is fun. If so, i will play it, whether it is in a MMO, an SP game with online features, or SP game with no online features.
And following your logic .. are you going dismiss a group of gamers because they prefer new games instead of old ones because they found the new games better because it is a "simpler way"?
Your preference is not better than others.
As usual Nariuss, I have no clue what you are on about. I was referring to being able to solo as why I prefer older games, not newer ones (Having to group to experience content or being able to solo through all of it is, in my view, a core mechanic). I never said it was the right or wrong way. My statements are MY opinion only, if you had quoted my whole response you would have seen the "FOR ME" in capital letters, specifically for people like you.
There are 2 premises floating around this thread. Let's get them straight.
1. Older games are better
They probably are. What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics.
2. Quality of games is TRENDING downwards
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit.
I enjoyed SWG (early days). Show me a game that has all of the following features:
An extremely in-depth and complex harvesting / crafting system.
Gigantic worlds with endless world housing and player-built cities.
Ability to group with fellow crafters in order to produce world-mall-shops w/ operational vendors.
Ability to completely leave the base game to explore a deep and extensive space universe.
A game where many people have played for years, yet never experienced any form of combat.
Ability to delve into completely different looking races and/or extreme body types, e.g., skinny, short, fat, tall etc.
A game with incentive to socialize.
A game that feels like a virtual world - feeling like a part of it.
A game where each player isn't a "special little snowflake" - not having to follow some set-in-stone quest line.
A game that virtually has endless apparel customizations.
A game with over 30 different professions - that can be mixed and molded into your very own hybrid build.
A game that was clearly made for the educated.
These modern games suck. That is the problem. I know we've talked about it before, but almost every new MMO is molded off of the WoW model, which is why most people quit within a single month.
I would have loved it if SWG had all those features. The game had so much promise and I was really sad to discover how badly SOE bungled the actual implementation. The stuff that attracted me to the game turned out to be either not working or turned out to be a horribly repetive grind.
You beat me to quoting Dauzqul, that shows what a MMO can be and why players have a reason to stay after two months. SWTOR was a missed opportunity, but it was but one of a number of great IP's that were turned into WoW clones. The only way of making your mark with a clone is to make it as good as the original and they did not succeed in doing that.
Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.
I don't see why a core mechanics can be wrong. It just is .. and sometimes it is preferred by some players, and sometimes not.
So what if solo content is put into a MMO.
The only relevant question is if that solo content is fun. If so, i will play it, whether it is in a MMO, an SP game with online features, or SP game with no online features.
And following your logic .. are you going dismiss a group of gamers because they prefer new games instead of old ones because they found the new games better because it is a "simpler way"?
Your preference is not better than others.
Preferences are not all created equal. They aren't. Stop acting like they are. Some preferences are better than others because some people have more experience than others. Likewise, some people are less biased than others. There are many ways somebody's opinion ca be better than somebody else's. Stop trying to push this nonsense that somebody's "preference" is god. People can be ill-informed, mistaken or just plain stupid. It happens.
So what if solo content is put into an MMO? It's mixing genres, that's what. By making MMOs more like single player games, you're disenfranchising people who want to play an MMO. So what if metal became more like country music? Well, then people who like metal are missing out.
Oh god. I wasn't going to post but I just couldn't help it.
Preferences are not all created equal. They aren't. Stop acting like they are. Some preferences are better than others because some people have more experience than others. God no. Preferences are equal. It is a prefernce. Preferences are not merely opinions, they are an expression of someone's likes and dislikes. There is absolutely no objective way of measuring them, your experience will shape your opinion but haaving more experiences doesn't make a prefernce better, just different. It may make an opinion better, not a preference.
Likewise, some people are less biased than others. There are many ways somebody's opinion ca be better than somebody else's. Yes opinions can be better, opinions can be wrong too. Opinions and preferences are very different things.
Stop trying to push this nonsense that somebody's "preference" is god. People can be ill-informed, mistaken or just plain stupid. It happens. Yes they can, none of which really has anything to do with preference, unless people really don't know if they like something or not.
So what if solo content is put into an MMO? It's mixing genres, that's what. By making MMOs more like single player games, you're disenfranchising people who want to play an MMO. So what if metal became more like country music? Well, then people who like metal are missing out. Guess what, solo content, a lot of it, has been around since the very first MMO's on the market. In fact you could say the genre was built with as much solo content as group content, it was only EQ that messed that up. So no it is not mixing genre's, having solo content could be said to be going back to the roots of the genre.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There are 2 premises floating around this thread. Let's get them straight.
1. Older games are better
They probably are. What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics.
2. Quality of games is TRENDING downwards
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit.
And this too sheesh.
They probably are. Based on nothing but your personal preference and/or opinion.
What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? Probably very little , that is a red herring argument. Each new game doesn't need to be the best ever in order for a general trend of games to be improving.
It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics. Really? Is that the only reason you can think of? Someone that likes newer games is either inexperienced or was turned off by graphics? Come on, how about they were turned off by gameplay, how about they were turned off by too much grouping if they started with EQ, or by ganking if they played a pvp game, or how about by grinding in the same spot for hours and hours and hours. There are likely literally thousands of reasons why a person who played older games did not like them. Simply saying it's because of inexperience of graphics is the worst kind of cop out. Yes there are a lot of new people who are inexperienced. It is equally true there a lot of experienced people who prefer new ones.
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. Again just based on nothing but yoru personal prefernece and opinion. I think it's pretty easy to argue this point actually
The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. They will serve some people better and some people worse, I'm sure a lot of people that played the old ones like the new ones. You constantly hear things about how people like many aspects of newer games, but disliked something else. Just because it was niche does not mean it was serving it's audience well. Just because it is big does not mean it is not serving it's audience badly or alienating more people. It is a fallacy that just because something is niche it is serving an audience better.
By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit. No. See above. Yes you need to find common ground, that does not mean that they give up certain things. Often it means they add things. Once again, just because somethign is niche doesn't mean it is serving the audience well. In fact the opposite could be true, it was not serving their audience well and so their audience left and it was relegated to the negative connotative status of "Niche" by the public.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Where confusion is creeping in is the difference between a preference and an opinion. I think examples work better so here is one. I have a preference for PvP in a MMO, I think they spice up a MMO, giving it an edge. It is my opinion that in today's MMO market a MMO that does not have PvP is likely to fail long term. Or that PvP has been downgraded in difficulty as MMOs have changed over the years. The terms can be ambiguous, but I will say this about opinions:
I would give the opinion of a person who has played a game for 15 mins less value than one who has played a game for a week.
I would give the opinion of a gamer who started last week less weight as one who started ten years ago.
If I did not see opinions this way then I would regard gaming journalists as having no special insight, their opinions being only as valid as any poster here. Regardless of years spent and contacts on the inside they have made.
So it is a tricky area, preferences and opinions are not the same concept.
Comments
Because there is always going to be the difference between mainstream, mediocre products and good (not all of them), niche products. As a general rule the more you invest in something, the more you're going to get back. There are always going to be products that offer ease and accessibility at the cost of a deeper appreciation; and products that take an investment of attention and effort before you get into it.
One of the critical comments you often see about the MMO genre is that the latest release is just the same as all the others. This is partly because gaming companies have decided to reduce the time you need to invest in a game before you understand it. To the minimum possible, which leads to talk of templates and clones. This has happened in wider gaming as well but in MMOs it is particularly acute.
Without the elbow room given by expecting players to learn something about their MMO before or even as they play, how can designers be expected to give us something we have not seen before?
Sounds good to me. I play games to have fun, not to "invest".
And do we always need to get "something we have not seen before"?
I was playing Marvel Heroes and i had fun precisely because i have seen and like those characters before.
The problem is you're interpreting this wrongly. The point isn't that you spend more time playing the game, the point is that the time you're spending at first is about learning the game and getting a deeper understanding of it because... well it's a deeper game. It's not like people playing WoW spend less time in game than people playing UO or SWG... or at least not to my knowledge. The point is how much do you have to invest?
That's the question you have to ask because the concept of investing in order to get a higher return is like basically a staple of reality across almost every facet of human nature. Most of the time, you have to invest more to get more. That's why my claim is that sandbox players on average enjoy and appreciate their game of choice more than the average themepark player.
I agree with you, if I'm understanding your point correctly. The problem of dumbing games down absolutely leaves less room for innovating. How much can you innovate if everybody is trying to streamline the process? It doesn't leave as much room for differing mechanics.
The quest hub mechanic has ruined MMORPG's for me. Not that its a bad thing in general. It took as away from grinding mobs. But it's become a crutch for content and progression because developers have a lack of imagination beyond the get max level to play end game. No matter what you wrap around quest hubs most games are going to feel like I'm playing a WoW clone to me if there is progression solely based on it.I don't believe the issue is mainly about neuroplasticity as the OP implies, rather with carryover. Older games offered new mechanics and were themselves a new genre. As more and more titles emerged we carried the knowledge from the prior titles and applied it to the newer titles. This resulted in less time required to learn how to function within the newer gaming worlds. Add to this the changing/developing aspects of the games and their development as well.
When I listen to a friend who has just discovered mmo's their words remind me of my own over 20 years ago. It is a new experience. Just like the first time you had sex, it will never be as good as your first mates..., but you can always add new elements to reinvigorate it!
Cheers!
MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S
Learning new things is fun. Playing the same old thing over and over is not fun. At least that's how I feel. I barely liked WoW when I actually played it. I'm sick of playing games that take most of their ideas from it.
Not always. Otherwise, people would not be reading spiderman and iron man comics for decades. Otherwise, sequels won't be so popular.
May be you don't play the latest Splinter Cell featuring Sam Fisher .. but i think that is fun, even when i have played other Splinter Cell games before.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Despite dozens of efforts no game after has bettered wow as a dungeon / raid farmer with a side order of pvp.
A good few sandboxes have launched since eve, but none have bettered it.
A couple of games have tried to go the daoc route of 50% open pve 50% mass pvp and not beaten it.
I disagree.
I enjoyed SWG (early days). Show me a game that has all of the following features:
Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.
Here's a thought, some people prefer older games because they actually liked them more than newer games. What is this constant need to make that opinion seem silly or validate it as a flaw of the human condition? It's an opinion and it's allowed to be different from your own, get over it.
TLDR;
Older games SEEM better because they WERE better... FOR ME
I don't see why a core mechanics can be wrong. It just is .. and sometimes it is preferred by some players, and sometimes not.
So what if solo content is put into a MMO.
The only relevant question is if that solo content is fun. If so, i will play it, whether it is in a MMO, an SP game with online features, or SP game with no online features.
And following your logic .. are you going dismiss a group of gamers because they prefer new games instead of old ones because they found the new games better because it is a "simpler way"?
Your preference is not better than others.
Preferences are not all created equal. They aren't. Stop acting like they are. Some preferences are better than others because some people have more experience than others. Likewise, some people are less biased than others. There are many ways somebody's opinion ca be better than somebody else's. Stop trying to push this nonsense that somebody's "preference" is god. People can be ill-informed, mistaken or just plain stupid. It happens.
So what if solo content is put into an MMO? It's mixing genres, that's what. By making MMOs more like single player games, you're disenfranchising people who want to play an MMO. So what if metal became more like country music? Well, then people who like metal are missing out.
As usual Nariuss, I have no clue what you are on about. I was referring to being able to solo as why I prefer older games, not newer ones (Having to group to experience content or being able to solo through all of it is, in my view, a core mechanic). I never said it was the right or wrong way. My statements are MY opinion only, if you had quoted my whole response you would have seen the "FOR ME" in capital letters, specifically for people like you.
There are 2 premises floating around this thread. Let's get them straight.
1. Older games are better
They probably are. What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics.
2. Quality of games is TRENDING downwards
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit.
I would have loved it if SWG had all those features. The game had so much promise and I was really sad to discover how badly SOE bungled the actual implementation. The stuff that attracted me to the game turned out to be either not working or turned out to be a horribly repetive grind.
You beat me to quoting Dauzqul, that shows what a MMO can be and why players have a reason to stay after two months. SWTOR was a missed opportunity, but it was but one of a number of great IP's that were turned into WoW clones. The only way of making your mark with a clone is to make it as good as the original and they did not succeed in doing that.
Oh god. I wasn't going to post but I just couldn't help it.
Preferences are not all created equal. They aren't. Stop acting like they are. Some preferences are better than others because some people have more experience than others. God no. Preferences are equal. It is a prefernce. Preferences are not merely opinions, they are an expression of someone's likes and dislikes. There is absolutely no objective way of measuring them, your experience will shape your opinion but haaving more experiences doesn't make a prefernce better, just different. It may make an opinion better, not a preference.
Likewise, some people are less biased than others. There are many ways somebody's opinion ca be better than somebody else's. Yes opinions can be better, opinions can be wrong too. Opinions and preferences are very different things.
Stop trying to push this nonsense that somebody's "preference" is god. People can be ill-informed, mistaken or just plain stupid. It happens. Yes they can, none of which really has anything to do with preference, unless people really don't know if they like something or not.
So what if solo content is put into an MMO? It's mixing genres, that's what. By making MMOs more like single player games, you're disenfranchising people who want to play an MMO. So what if metal became more like country music? Well, then people who like metal are missing out. Guess what, solo content, a lot of it, has been around since the very first MMO's on the market. In fact you could say the genre was built with as much solo content as group content, it was only EQ that messed that up. So no it is not mixing genre's, having solo content could be said to be going back to the roots of the genre.
And this too sheesh.
They probably are. Based on nothing but your personal preference and/or opinion.
What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? Probably very little , that is a red herring argument. Each new game doesn't need to be the best ever in order for a general trend of games to be improving.
It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics. Really? Is that the only reason you can think of? Someone that likes newer games is either inexperienced or was turned off by graphics? Come on, how about they were turned off by gameplay, how about they were turned off by too much grouping if they started with EQ, or by ganking if they played a pvp game, or how about by grinding in the same spot for hours and hours and hours. There are likely literally thousands of reasons why a person who played older games did not like them. Simply saying it's because of inexperience of graphics is the worst kind of cop out. Yes there are a lot of new people who are inexperienced. It is equally true there a lot of experienced people who prefer new ones.
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. Again just based on nothing but yoru personal prefernece and opinion. I think it's pretty easy to argue this point actually
The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. They will serve some people better and some people worse, I'm sure a lot of people that played the old ones like the new ones. You constantly hear things about how people like many aspects of newer games, but disliked something else. Just because it was niche does not mean it was serving it's audience well. Just because it is big does not mean it is not serving it's audience badly or alienating more people. It is a fallacy that just because something is niche it is serving an audience better.
By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit. No. See above. Yes you need to find common ground, that does not mean that they give up certain things. Often it means they add things. Once again, just because somethign is niche doesn't mean it is serving the audience well. In fact the opposite could be true, it was not serving their audience well and so their audience left and it was relegated to the negative connotative status of "Niche" by the public.
Where confusion is creeping in is the difference between a preference and an opinion. I think examples work better so here is one. I have a preference for PvP in a MMO, I think they spice up a MMO, giving it an edge. It is my opinion that in today's MMO market a MMO that does not have PvP is likely to fail long term. Or that PvP has been downgraded in difficulty as MMOs have changed over the years. The terms can be ambiguous, but I will say this about opinions:
I would give the opinion of a person who has played a game for 15 mins less value than one who has played a game for a week.
I would give the opinion of a gamer who started last week less weight as one who started ten years ago.
If I did not see opinions this way then I would regard gaming journalists as having no special insight, their opinions being only as valid as any poster here. Regardless of years spent and contacts on the inside they have made.
So it is a tricky area, preferences and opinions are not the same concept.