Go find a UO server based on pre-Trammel, play for a while and then try and tell me it's challenging. lol
When you've been telling yourself what a superior gamer you are (over the younguns) for fifteen years, believing in your own press releases is a common hazard.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Older gamers arent resistant to change. We are resistant to the consistent dumbing down and simplifying of games.
15 years ago MMO were a challenge. An adventure. They took time and some effort to make it as a player.
Now its a /faceroll from 1-65
Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that we've been doing the same thing over and over for 15 years. It couldn't be that at all. /facepalm
15 years ago games weren't more challenging. We had less experience and our less responsive hardware and software made it seem more challenging. These days we down a boss. Back then you had to beat the shitty movement, squint to figure out what you were looking at due to the shitty graphics, and triumph over the shitty network performance on top of beating the boss.
Go find a UO server based on pre-Trammel, play for a while and then try and tell me it's challenging. lol
UO was never about challenged but I am sure of the average player the player killers made the game challenging to most.
But if you look at EQ compared to most games that are it's grandchildren basically the game was hard and not just because of latency. You started out in rags and could be beaten by level 1 creatures. You had no defined leveling area that was 100%. You might have a level 30 mixed in with level 10-15. One level difference could mean your death. A lot of equal level mobs were not soloable by most classes. You couldn't escape NPCs easily. NPC's trained(argro cho cho style of death train) and called for help often. Going to where you had to go could be dangerous. Death meant losing all of you stuff and good luck getting your body back on your own if it was in some hard place. NPC's would kick your ass if you were the wrong faction/race/religion.
Go find a UO server based on pre-Trammel, play for a while and then try and tell me it's challenging. lol
When you've been telling yourself what a superior gamer you are (over the younguns) for fifteen years, believing in your own press releases is a common hazard.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around here. If I ever meet a "superior" gamer, I'll let you know. I'm pretty sure there is no such thing.
I honestly had more fun in older MMOs lol. It's the PVP system, you know when you can PK and people have to run to dungeons instead of just magically teleport.
i do like darkfall, but oh man, the graphics are harsh - it's like it was developed 10 years ago
Whenever I go back and play UO (emu), SWG (emu), EQ (emu), or DAoC, I find myself sticking around much longer than I would with most new MMOs. I mean, I don't stick around permanently because the emus are typically run by shitty staff, buggy, full of hackers and metagamers, and lack content updates, but I still end up playing them multiple months typically, compared to the couple weeks I may put into some of the new stuff that comes out.
I typically stick around with my older MMOs more because they were generally good games. They encouraged socialization, teamwork, partying, and had fun mechanics. There were no cash shops and no instant gratification.
I would love a reboot of UO, SWG, EQ, and DAOC with only updated graphics and refreshing content with the classic gameplay and would pay lots of money for a chance to play them, however its obvious that the style of older MMOs will never come back.
To make this clear, none of the following post refers to the arguments of MMO's and their depth. No one is wrong to say that MMO's are not shallow, and no one is bad for saying I am wrong to state "MMO's really are just shallow."
This entire post is referring to the arguments against the research of the elderly, and the OP which intended to educate many here who believe lies about the elderly by debunking the myths with scientific evidence supported by the standard in academia on the subject of gerontology.
---------------------
My Thoughtless Intentions
I will be completely honest. My intentions were to educate the misinformed community about the facts and debunk the myths of the elderly. Misinformed community, as in... other threads reveal far too many believe in the myths and false stereotypes about the elderly.
Then, I realized it might be too off topic for this website. I felt the need to throw in something about MMO's. I was not thinking very much when I tagged onto the topic the opposite argument of the posts I was referring to. I grabbed an argument from some of the posts which revealed the ignorance about the elderly. This was not my intention, although I do like the arguments for or against MMO's old/new and deep/shallow. However, the amount of lunacy in the response to the scientific facts supported by the majority of academia, is something I must respond to since my intentions were to educate misinformed or ignorant users who believe in myths about the elderly.
The Responses on the Research
This devolved into some of the most disgusting, headache-inducing responses I have ever read online. I provided my credentials, but people began to demand them? I am not sure as to why exactly they need me to "give my credentials" or what that even means. Short of scanning in my diploma or giving you the number of the university I graduated from, what do these skeptics expect? As irrational as it is to begin to derail the topic by attacking a straw man (my credentials), ignore the well known scientific research taught in nearly all courses on gerontology, I am simply lost for words as to the responses of some users here.
I also am entirely perplexed, as I gave my credentials in the OP. However, my credentials are entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the myths and facts of the Elderly. The research I linked was not done by me, but by well known doctors, scientists, and experts in the field of psychology. So much expertise in fact, that all of the information I provided which told the facts about the elderly and debunked the myths, is common knowledge among professionals who are educated in or who directly deal with the elderly.
40 is NOT old.
Further, the elderly are not aged around 40-something, like many here talked as if they were. The age in which I was talking about, is completely different. While I realize to some of you younger members, 40 seems old, but it is not considered to be "elderly". That is actually quite young in our modern society compared to the capable lifespan which is beginning to see a massive rise as new tech becomes commonplace. I mean, come on...we are now growing EARS on people's FACES.
Response to Non-Ad Hominem Argument
I cannot even begin to fathom the logic Meowhead used, as it is entirely irrational. Ignoring the odd behavior of demanding my credentials (which I provided) just to link well known scientific research, or what is commonly known as "ad hominem", he decided instead to try to use the scientific research to disprove the...scientific research? He used a single sentence in the factual information I provided, to say that it contradicts itself and makes it...wrong? In an extremely confusing and poorly written way, he ignored key words in the sentence and decided to twist and ignore the meaning to supply a strange argument to suggest that old people are indeed more resistant to change. Poorly written, as in...please use paragraphs, instead of flooding with a plethora of tiny sentences. My eyes and head actually began to hurt just trying to comprehend the logic, let alone read it.
I will address this, and only this, as the majority of all other arguments against the scientific research was nothing more than ad hominem. Attacking the person who presents the arguments by demanding their credentials, despite them giving it to you, is very strange. Also, i will not give you any credentials past what type of degree it is. It is not only unnecessary to give my real name or scan in these documents, it is dangerous. Please avoid ad hominem when arguing with other people.
Originally posted by Meowhead
Funny. The quote you did said older people DO tend to adapt to change at a slower rate than younger people.
Absolutely not. The quote said this exactly: "The majority of older people are not "set in their ways and unable to change." There is some evidence that older people tend to become more stable in their attitudes, but it is clear that most older people do change... Their political and social attitudes also tend to shift with those of the rest of society, although at a somewhat slower rate than for younger people."
First, it directly stated that old people are not set in their ways. Second, it said their political and social attitudes DO shift with the rest of society. They DO change. Third, it states that research shows that only their POLITICAL and SOCIAL attitudes CHANGE at a slower rate than YOUNGER people." Fourth, the third has a direct correlation to the fact it says that older people become MORE STABLE in their attitudes. This means that young people are less stable in their attitudes than older people, which is why older people change their POLITICAL and SOCIAL attitudes at a slower rate than younger people.
It actually states that older people DO change, and are actually more stable than young people. The only thing this suggests, is that younger people shift their attitudes faster because they are less stable. This is due to the fact young people are constantly learning new things and adjusting their attitudes to their life experience which they have to attain first before it becomes a stable attitude.
It's not that older people are IMMUNE to change, they're just MORE resistant to change.
Old people are NOT more resistant to change. That is what the research is saying. You are confusing the speed at which unstable/stable young/old people change their attitudes, with how resistant they are to change. If the rate of change is the same for both, young people will still change faster because they are less stable. This means that if someone is given all the information and experience required beforehand, they will most likely change at the same rate. The correlation in speed of change is related to stability of attitude, not resistance of change through brain chemistry or other physical factors in aging.
This is also an odd statement, as no one is immune to change. The research actually suggests that humans GROW in adaptability from youth to old age. That there is little difference in this area for young vs. old, exept the difference of STABILITY in attitude. Not rate of change, not resistance to change, but stability of attitude.
The key word is 'more'
For political and social attitudes ONLY. Please refrain from taking two exclusive types of attitudes, and butchering the research to suggest something entirely different. This does not refer to attitudes on entertainment or anything besides political and social attitudes. This means that the elderly, just like the young, are both likely to change and adapt to entertainment. Meaning that age most likely does NOT play a factor in whether or not someone likes new MMORPG's- at least in the area of resisting change.
Everybody is, to an extent, resistant to change.
Research actually suggests that humans are incredibly adaptive to change, not resistant to it. Just because people state something all the time or it is "common knowledge" (in other words: stereotypes on humanity) does not make it true. What makes it true, is all of the research behind it. You are more than welcome to look up research on how adaptable humans are to change, and if and why they resist certain types of change.
In fact, it is in our biology to adapt to change rather than to resist it. This is a better way to survive. Humans are KNOWN for their versatility and adaptability. So much so, it is actually often the type of traits their race gets in MMORPG's. Adaptability is quite contrary to resisting change.
Various factors can make you more so.
Of course...
Being older is one of them. 'More resistant to change'. Article doesn't prove anything other than the article writers aren't 100% sure what the word 'more' means.
Being older is NOT one of them. That is what the article states, and what the research proves. The elderly are NOT more resistant to change. They are ADAPTABLE to change, and CHANGE ALL THE TIME.
I would not advise claiming that hundreds of scientists, doctors, and experts in the field of psychology do not understand what the word "more" means. It is MUCH more likely that you, the unqualified laymen, aren't 100% sure what the word "political and social" mean. Two types of attitudes, do not mean all attitudes.
Your argument is based entirely off of a single sentence, which you entirely misunderstood. You also claim that highly educated professionals, en mass, and all those who teach this common knowledge about the elderly (common in this field) do not know what basic words mean. This is extremely arrogant to say, and is edging on translating from a poorly conceived argument to ad hominem against the hundreds, nay thousands of professionals in this field who do research and teach this research.
Everybody is resistant to change. Older people are slightly more so on average.
This is wrong. The research reveals that older people are NOT slightly more than average resistant to change. The only difference the research shows, is that older people are more stable in their attitudes, and because of it change slower, but do indeed change, on POLITICAL and SOCIAL attitudes only.
They've got a +2 to it, from leveling up.
You would think MMORPG people would be familiar with grinding abilities to be better at them.
Older people have spent their whole lifetime grinding their 'resistance to change' stat.
The opposite is true. This article and the research suggests that older people have spent their whole lifetime grinding their "adaptability to change" stat. The exact OPPOSITE of resistance to change.
In fact, the research summary ends with this very statement: "Older individuals have had extensive experience adapting to change! "
Resistance to change isn't always bad, by the way. Change isn't always good.
In fact, by reading your title and original post, I can see you think that modern MMORPGS =have= changed, and that's bad. You are resistant to modern MMO changes.
You are incorrect to assume this about me, or to try to understand what I think from such limited information. The only reason I even added the part abot MMO's, is to try to avoid going off topic (scientific research on the elderly without MMO relationship would be off topic for this forum).
That is not a value judgement, that is a statement of fact.
A fact you derived from your imagination? I don't understand how you can state that you can "see what I think" based on next to no information, and then say it is not a judgement but a fact. Some humility might serve you well. Fortunately, this is what I have given you by thoroughly explaining the inaccuracies and false information in your argument.
I am not judging that as being bad or good, just something that simply is.
It is disappointing that you ended the only real argument in this thread that wasn't ad hominem, with ad hominem... followed by a "But I'm not judging." right after being so cocky stating your judgements are "facts" and that you can "see what [people] think".
Damn GW2 has made me type everything in really short sentences thanks to the 3 line chat limit.
You can always edit your post. It would take only a few seconds to hit backspace a few times, to fix this.
I should also mention that this is research on groups of people, such as certain age groups. It is assumed by most educated professionals that just because a group tends to or tends NOT to be a certain way, does not mean the individual won't be.
The individual and an infinite number of other factors can always make a unique person more or less resistant to change. This research is discussing the correlation between age and resisting change. There is no correlation, as the elderly adapt to change very well, and change all the time. The only correlation research shows in this subject, is stability of attitude and speed of change based on that stability. However, it suggests that even the elderly's stable, firmly grounded attitudes DO CHANGE with the rest of society. If the most firm, stable, and serious matters (political, social) do change, then how much more will small matters like entertainment and hobbies also change.
In Conclusion
I will not be posting any further. After revealing how ridiculous Meowhead's argument was, and stating the simple fact that most other arguments here (about the research; not about MMO's) is just ad hominem against me, that's it.
To those who used ad hominem while ignoring the actual research summary, you are not saying that I am wrong or unqualified when you say this scientific research is "just opinion", inaccurate, or wrong. You are saying this to the hundreds of professional doctors and scientists who performed this research, along with the thousands upon thousands of schools which teach it as fact, and anyone who has ever taken a class on gerontology.
If you have a problem with my defense of the elderly and debunking of the common stereotypes and myths about "old people", you are fully welcome to educate yourself further and find out the sources of all of the scientific research I am referencing.
In a world where people who started MMORPGs with World of Warcraft and almost exclusively played that game label themself as "veteran MMORPG players", what is considered an "older gamer"?
If anything, we true veterans (those who started with UO or even before in MUDs and stuff like that) are less resistant to change and tried a way larger variety of MMORPGs than the younglings who think they've seen them all because they only played WoW and a few of its bad clones.
In a world where people who started MMORPGs with World of Warcraft and almost exclusively played that game label themself as "veteran MMORPG players", what is considered an "older gamer"?
If anything, we true veterans (those who started with UO or even before in MUDs and stuff like that) are less resistant to change and tried a way larger variety of MMORPGs than the younglings who think they've seen them all because they only played WoW and a few of its bad clones.
i geus an older gamer would be just an old person gaming. But what is old? 40+ i dont know.
do those WoW guys honestly label themselves as Veterans? what are we then? ancients?
/sign something is strange for sure, shallowness in games according to me is due to more focus on graphics this is what happens. I think next gen will be less shallow but I don't know. don't quote me on this thread.
Compare the Snes, PS1, other early era console games to modern games. Even the earlier PC games still have more depth than modern games. It's all about graphics now. Back then they were limited by the memory/graphics so they put hard work into story and gameplay to make it fun and worth our money. Now they just pour their whole budget into graphics and have one random guy write some lore and they're set. Seems like all they're doing now is just copying games too, except with their own take on graphics of course.
By the way OP, what game is your icon picture from? If it's one of those mmorts strategy things it doesn't look too bad.
Preach on.. the OP of the thread you mention is just another apologist for the industry who is trying to blame the customer for the industries failings. The industry and those who work in it aren't producing the product that the consumer base actually want and that leaves them scrambling to find excuses to why they aren't getting the sales investors are looking for.
In a world where people who started MMORPGs with World of Warcraft and almost exclusively played that game label themself as "veteran MMORPG players", what is considered an "older gamer"?
If anything, we true veterans (those who started with UO or even before in MUDs and stuff like that) are less resistant to change and tried a way larger variety of MMORPGs than the younglings who think they've seen them all because they only played WoW and a few of its bad clones.
The discussion can only go downhill when someone references something as "true X".
I didn't start with WoW. I have played WoW for only 20 minutes in beta. Still it doesn't prevent people from calling me a WoW fanboi when I disagree with their opinions.
"True veterans" have so far given little reason why their age or date when they started playing MMOs should give them more authority when talking about MMOs. They are as much full of shit as the next guy.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
In a world where people who started MMORPGs with World of Warcraft and almost exclusively played that game label themself as "veteran MMORPG players", what is considered an "older gamer"?
If anything, we true veterans (those who started with UO or even before in MUDs and stuff like that) are less resistant to change and tried a way larger variety of MMORPGs than the younglings who think they've seen them all because they only played WoW and a few of its bad clones.
The discussion can only go downhill when someone references something as "true X".
I didn't start with WoW. I have played WoW for only 20 minutes in beta. Still it doesn't prevent people from calling me a WoW fanboi when I disagree with their opinions.
"True veterans" have so far given little reason why their age or date when they started playing MMOs should give them more authority when talking about MMOs. They are as much full of shit as the next guy.
Oh I don't disagree there are idiots in all categories.
What I say remains true. The older gamers have experienced way more varied games, and therefore are logically less resistant to change, specially if they are still gaming today. The guy who only played WoW and the subsequent clones knows only one style of MMORPG.
Further, the elderly are not aged around 40-something, like many here talked as if they were. The age in which I was talking about, is completely different. While I realize to some of you younger members, 40 seems old, but it is not considered to be "elderly".
in usa, people are eliigible for AARP senior discounts at age 50
Further, the elderly are not aged around 40-something, like many here talked as if they were. The age in which I was talking about, is completely different. While I realize to some of you younger members, 40 seems old, but it is not considered to be "elderly".
in usa, people are eliigible for AARP senior discounts at age 50
but 50 does not seem old to me
40 is, unless something bad happens, approx. half of the average age span of a human in a country like USA or Europe (aka "not third world"). I'd say 40 is the peak of one's life, kinda
Oh I don't disagree there are idiots in all categories.
What I say remains true. The older gamers have experienced way more varied games, and therefore are logically less resistant to change, specially if they are still gaming today. The guy who only played WoW and the subsequent clones knows only one style of MMORPG.
But research has shown resistance to change does increase with age.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Oh I don't disagree there are idiots in all categories.
What I say remains true. The older gamers have experienced way more varied games, and therefore are logically less resistant to change, specially if they are still gaming today. The guy who only played WoW and the subsequent clones knows only one style of MMORPG.
But research has shown resistance to change does increase with age.
Oh I don't disagree there are idiots in all categories.
What I say remains true. The older gamers have experienced way more varied games, and therefore are logically less resistant to change, specially if they are still gaming today. The guy who only played WoW and the subsequent clones knows only one style of MMORPG.
But research has shown resistance to change does increase with age.
And generalizations are always bad.
Of course there's always exceptions, but it is quite sensible to make the argument given the evidence. You shouldn't blame anyone from making generalizations since the thread is filled with them.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The feeling of accomplishment that is heightened in a very unforgiving game seems lost this generation.
This x100
Every MMO since FFXI has been that "instant-gratification no challenge solo-play" (or have since been dumbed down to) - game, to please the new generation (majority) of MMO-gamers, those that came with WoW.
I have been playing mmorpg's since Ultima Online. I've enjoyed quite a few after it.
My problem is today's Mmorpg's aren't even Mmorpg's compared to older ones. There's less to in today's mmo's, they're not worlds anymore, they're sliced up zones with a chatbox. There's no adventure, no sense of danger, no sense of accomplishment, no sense of pride in your realms..I could go on and on...you get the point.....
It's the MEDIOCRITY, I can't stand with today's mmorpg's. They're released incomplete, unimaginative, the worlds are not full of life. It's as if today's dev's have no imagination, they simply copy pieces from other games, patch it together with bandaids, and say "Wala". Then it fails and they wonder why?
I once spent an entire day trying to go from one part of the world (seamless too, thank you) to get to another part of the world in Asheron's Call just to see if I could do it (was early early on in Asheron's Call). I remember that day fondly, I made it to my destination. I remember the infamous rabbit one shotting me just because I saw a rabbit and clicked on it, boom dead, in AC1.
I remember getting enough people to take down a Phoenix in Ultima Online..soo many dead people lol...I remember waiting to place my first house in Ultima Online. I remember *gasp* EXPLORING in the older games, not questing from zone to zone like today's Mmo's being hand held the whole game. I remember starting at the beginning of a NON-INSTANCED dungeon, where people passed by all the time and said hello while they made their way to the bottom of the dungeon, and couldn't wait til I was the one moving from the entrance to the middle and on down the to depths of the dungeons. I remember craftable items being some of the nicest gear you could get in early DAOC, our crafters were supported by guilds and alliances and the whole community.
Older games were experiences, adventures, full of life and full of people that enjoyed actually interacting with others.
The feeling of accomplishment that is heightened in a very unforgiving game seems lost this generation.
Good. I just told my college-applying son that "achievements" in video games are just illusions that devs used to entertain. They are not real and have zero bearing on future career, and pales in comparison to "real" achievements (get a degree, publish a story, create a painting, get something boring like writing a good paper in a class).
I asked him to play video games just for fun, and don't be too serious, and focus on real achievements (academics, arts, or whatever career path he intends to take).
Originally posted by xeniar But what is old? 40+ i dont know.
Depends on perspective, doesn't it? To a 3 year old, 6 is old! To a teenager, 20 something is old. To a 30 year old, 60 is old. I think most would agree a person 100 or more years old is old
Then you can try to factor chronological age with mental age, or maturity. That really messes things up
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
When you've been telling yourself what a superior gamer you are (over the younguns) for fifteen years, believing in your own press releases is a common hazard.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
UO was never about challenged but I am sure of the average player the player killers made the game challenging to most.
But if you look at EQ compared to most games that are it's grandchildren basically the game was hard and not just because of latency. You started out in rags and could be beaten by level 1 creatures. You had no defined leveling area that was 100%. You might have a level 30 mixed in with level 10-15. One level difference could mean your death. A lot of equal level mobs were not soloable by most classes. You couldn't escape NPCs easily. NPC's trained(argro cho cho style of death train) and called for help often. Going to where you had to go could be dangerous. Death meant losing all of you stuff and good luck getting your body back on your own if it was in some hard place. NPC's would kick your ass if you were the wrong faction/race/religion.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around here. If I ever meet a "superior" gamer, I'll let you know. I'm pretty sure there is no such thing.
I honestly had more fun in older MMOs lol. It's the PVP system, you know when you can PK and people have to run to dungeons instead of just magically teleport.
i do like darkfall, but oh man, the graphics are harsh - it's like it was developed 10 years ago
like the combat system though...
I disagree with the nostalgia glasses crap too.
Whenever I go back and play UO (emu), SWG (emu), EQ (emu), or DAoC, I find myself sticking around much longer than I would with most new MMOs. I mean, I don't stick around permanently because the emus are typically run by shitty staff, buggy, full of hackers and metagamers, and lack content updates, but I still end up playing them multiple months typically, compared to the couple weeks I may put into some of the new stuff that comes out.
I typically stick around with my older MMOs more because they were generally good games. They encouraged socialization, teamwork, partying, and had fun mechanics. There were no cash shops and no instant gratification.
I would love a reboot of UO, SWG, EQ, and DAOC with only updated graphics and refreshing content with the classic gameplay and would pay lots of money for a chance to play them, however its obvious that the style of older MMOs will never come back.
To make this clear, none of the following post refers to the arguments of MMO's and their depth. No one is wrong to say that MMO's are not shallow, and no one is bad for saying I am wrong to state "MMO's really are just shallow."
This entire post is referring to the arguments against the research of the elderly, and the OP which intended to educate many here who believe lies about the elderly by debunking the myths with scientific evidence supported by the standard in academia on the subject of gerontology.
---------------------
My Thoughtless Intentions
I will be completely honest. My intentions were to educate the misinformed community about the facts and debunk the myths of the elderly. Misinformed community, as in... other threads reveal far too many believe in the myths and false stereotypes about the elderly.
Then, I realized it might be too off topic for this website. I felt the need to throw in something about MMO's. I was not thinking very much when I tagged onto the topic the opposite argument of the posts I was referring to. I grabbed an argument from some of the posts which revealed the ignorance about the elderly. This was not my intention, although I do like the arguments for or against MMO's old/new and deep/shallow. However, the amount of lunacy in the response to the scientific facts supported by the majority of academia, is something I must respond to since my intentions were to educate misinformed or ignorant users who believe in myths about the elderly.
The Responses on the Research
This devolved into some of the most disgusting, headache-inducing responses I have ever read online. I provided my credentials, but people began to demand them? I am not sure as to why exactly they need me to "give my credentials" or what that even means. Short of scanning in my diploma or giving you the number of the university I graduated from, what do these skeptics expect? As irrational as it is to begin to derail the topic by attacking a straw man (my credentials), ignore the well known scientific research taught in nearly all courses on gerontology, I am simply lost for words as to the responses of some users here.
I also am entirely perplexed, as I gave my credentials in the OP. However, my credentials are entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the myths and facts of the Elderly. The research I linked was not done by me, but by well known doctors, scientists, and experts in the field of psychology. So much expertise in fact, that all of the information I provided which told the facts about the elderly and debunked the myths, is common knowledge among professionals who are educated in or who directly deal with the elderly.
40 is NOT old.
Further, the elderly are not aged around 40-something, like many here talked as if they were. The age in which I was talking about, is completely different. While I realize to some of you younger members, 40 seems old, but it is not considered to be "elderly". That is actually quite young in our modern society compared to the capable lifespan which is beginning to see a massive rise as new tech becomes commonplace. I mean, come on...we are now growing EARS on people's FACES.
Response to Non-Ad Hominem Argument
I cannot even begin to fathom the logic Meowhead used, as it is entirely irrational. Ignoring the odd behavior of demanding my credentials (which I provided) just to link well known scientific research, or what is commonly known as "ad hominem", he decided instead to try to use the scientific research to disprove the...scientific research? He used a single sentence in the factual information I provided, to say that it contradicts itself and makes it...wrong? In an extremely confusing and poorly written way, he ignored key words in the sentence and decided to twist and ignore the meaning to supply a strange argument to suggest that old people are indeed more resistant to change. Poorly written, as in...please use paragraphs, instead of flooding with a plethora of tiny sentences. My eyes and head actually began to hurt just trying to comprehend the logic, let alone read it.
I will address this, and only this, as the majority of all other arguments against the scientific research was nothing more than ad hominem. Attacking the person who presents the arguments by demanding their credentials, despite them giving it to you, is very strange. Also, i will not give you any credentials past what type of degree it is. It is not only unnecessary to give my real name or scan in these documents, it is dangerous. Please avoid ad hominem when arguing with other people.
I should also mention that this is research on groups of people, such as certain age groups. It is assumed by most educated professionals that just because a group tends to or tends NOT to be a certain way, does not mean the individual won't be.
The individual and an infinite number of other factors can always make a unique person more or less resistant to change. This research is discussing the correlation between age and resisting change. There is no correlation, as the elderly adapt to change very well, and change all the time. The only correlation research shows in this subject, is stability of attitude and speed of change based on that stability. However, it suggests that even the elderly's stable, firmly grounded attitudes DO CHANGE with the rest of society. If the most firm, stable, and serious matters (political, social) do change, then how much more will small matters like entertainment and hobbies also change.
In Conclusion
I will not be posting any further. After revealing how ridiculous Meowhead's argument was, and stating the simple fact that most other arguments here (about the research; not about MMO's) is just ad hominem against me, that's it.
To those who used ad hominem while ignoring the actual research summary, you are not saying that I am wrong or unqualified when you say this scientific research is "just opinion", inaccurate, or wrong. You are saying this to the hundreds of professional doctors and scientists who performed this research, along with the thousands upon thousands of schools which teach it as fact, and anyone who has ever taken a class on gerontology.
If you have a problem with my defense of the elderly and debunking of the common stereotypes and myths about "old people", you are fully welcome to educate yourself further and find out the sources of all of the scientific research I am referencing.
You can START HERE.
Other question...
In a world where people who started MMORPGs with World of Warcraft and almost exclusively played that game label themself as "veteran MMORPG players", what is considered an "older gamer"?
If anything, we true veterans (those who started with UO or even before in MUDs and stuff like that) are less resistant to change and tried a way larger variety of MMORPGs than the younglings who think they've seen them all because they only played WoW and a few of its bad clones.
My computer is better than yours.
i geus an older gamer would be just an old person gaming. But what is old? 40+ i dont know.
do those WoW guys honestly label themselves as Veterans? what are we then? ancients?
Herald of innovation, Vanquisher of the old! - Awake a few hours almost everyday!
Compare the Snes, PS1, other early era console games to modern games. Even the earlier PC games still have more depth than modern games. It's all about graphics now. Back then they were limited by the memory/graphics so they put hard work into story and gameplay to make it fun and worth our money. Now they just pour their whole budget into graphics and have one random guy write some lore and they're set. Seems like all they're doing now is just copying games too, except with their own take on graphics of course.
By the way OP, what game is your icon picture from? If it's one of those mmorts strategy things it doesn't look too bad.
My computer is better than yours.
The discussion can only go downhill when someone references something as "true X".
I didn't start with WoW. I have played WoW for only 20 minutes in beta. Still it doesn't prevent people from calling me a WoW fanboi when I disagree with their opinions.
"True veterans" have so far given little reason why their age or date when they started playing MMOs should give them more authority when talking about MMOs. They are as much full of shit as the next guy.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
good question
i prefer timesink mmos but I'm not sure they were any better than the current mmosa few things i miss from older mmos were
- community (it wasn't all roses but people grouped for several hours instead of 20 minutes)
- dungeons were public and not instanced
- crowd control / support classes
EQ2 fan sites
Oh I don't disagree there are idiots in all categories.
What I say remains true. The older gamers have experienced way more varied games, and therefore are logically less resistant to change, specially if they are still gaming today. The guy who only played WoW and the subsequent clones knows only one style of MMORPG.
My computer is better than yours.
in usa, people are eliigible for AARP senior discounts at age 50
but 50 does not seem old to me
EQ2 fan sites
40 is, unless something bad happens, approx. half of the average age span of a human in a country like USA or Europe (aka "not third world"). I'd say 40 is the peak of one's life, kinda
My computer is better than yours.
EQ2 fan sites
But research has shown resistance to change does increase with age.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And generalizations are always bad.
My computer is better than yours.
Of course there's always exceptions, but it is quite sensible to make the argument given the evidence. You shouldn't blame anyone from making generalizations since the thread is filled with them.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
This x100
Every MMO since FFXI has been that "instant-gratification no challenge solo-play" (or have since been dumbed down to) - game, to please the new generation (majority) of MMO-gamers, those that came with WoW.
I have been playing mmorpg's since Ultima Online. I've enjoyed quite a few after it.
My problem is today's Mmorpg's aren't even Mmorpg's compared to older ones. There's less to in today's mmo's, they're not worlds anymore, they're sliced up zones with a chatbox. There's no adventure, no sense of danger, no sense of accomplishment, no sense of pride in your realms..I could go on and on...you get the point.....
It's the MEDIOCRITY, I can't stand with today's mmorpg's. They're released incomplete, unimaginative, the worlds are not full of life. It's as if today's dev's have no imagination, they simply copy pieces from other games, patch it together with bandaids, and say "Wala". Then it fails and they wonder why?
I once spent an entire day trying to go from one part of the world (seamless too, thank you) to get to another part of the world in Asheron's Call just to see if I could do it (was early early on in Asheron's Call). I remember that day fondly, I made it to my destination. I remember the infamous rabbit one shotting me just because I saw a rabbit and clicked on it, boom dead, in AC1.
I remember getting enough people to take down a Phoenix in Ultima Online..soo many dead people lol...I remember waiting to place my first house in Ultima Online. I remember *gasp* EXPLORING in the older games, not questing from zone to zone like today's Mmo's being hand held the whole game. I remember starting at the beginning of a NON-INSTANCED dungeon, where people passed by all the time and said hello while they made their way to the bottom of the dungeon, and couldn't wait til I was the one moving from the entrance to the middle and on down the to depths of the dungeons. I remember craftable items being some of the nicest gear you could get in early DAOC, our crafters were supported by guilds and alliances and the whole community.
Older games were experiences, adventures, full of life and full of people that enjoyed actually interacting with others.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
Good. I just told my college-applying son that "achievements" in video games are just illusions that devs used to entertain. They are not real and have zero bearing on future career, and pales in comparison to "real" achievements (get a degree, publish a story, create a painting, get something boring like writing a good paper in a class).
I asked him to play video games just for fun, and don't be too serious, and focus on real achievements (academics, arts, or whatever career path he intends to take).
Then you can try to factor chronological age with mental age, or maturity. That really messes things up
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR