Best post in thread. This person gets perfectly the disconnect between the old and new generation in RPG players and why we will never probably all enjoy the same game. Beautiful summary.
Very incomplete though. He doesn't include those of us, like me, who enjoyed the old school and still enjoy the newer games. As someone who plays computer RPGs since the early days of the Ultima games in the 80s, and who still enjoys many of those "modern" games, I feel left out in that very "black and white" vision of reality.
I never said that the Old School Gamers doesn't enjoy the New games, I am just saying that we are further and further away from the original concept of MMORPG that a lot of the Old School MMO players are now feeling it.
I myself enjoys modern day MMO, but they do not give that same longing that players used to get in the old days.
I agree they don't but I can't say it's because they don't offer it or it's because they've changed. Younger ppl I play mmos with still seem to have it. I assume it's my age and experience that has dimished that "longing" I used to get from them.
I agree. I think I just have grown bored of MMO's as a genre (most computer games in fact). It is part of getting older; I don't feel any real urge to play and certainly not in a competitive manner.
Back to books and documentaries most work evenings.
Best post in thread. This person gets perfectly the disconnect between the old and new generation in RPG players and why we will never probably all enjoy the same game. Beautiful summary.
Very incomplete though. He doesn't include those of us, like me, who enjoyed the old school and still enjoy the newer games. As someone who plays computer RPGs since the early days of the Ultima games in the 80s, and who still enjoys many of those "modern" games, I feel left out in that very "black and white" vision of reality.
For comparison's sake, I absolutely love the 60s/early 70s "Ford Mustang" cars, but I'm fully aware that today's car are way superior in every aspect, security, economy, design, etc...
Yeah, I don't hate all modern RPGs either (I actually really like some of them) but they don't capture the "pen and paper feel" the other poster referred to which I also really enjoy so I don't mind the new RPGs existing but I want more old-style RPGs to play as well.
Your second paragraph though: I don't think it's a very good comparison. I'd suggest music or film as a better analogy. Recording equipment and the like gets much more sophisticated but these things are also influenced by mass market tastes. I think it's far too subjective to say new music is superior to old music or new games are superior to old games. I don't know much about cars but I imagine you can measure objective things like speed or fuel economy to say that today's cars are in fact superior. It's much harder to do that with games outside the technical aspects.
I don't know much about cars but I imagine you can measure objective things like speed or fuel economy to say that today's cars are in fact superior. It's much harder to do that with games outside the technical aspects.
You can compare the look of a car to the content of a game. Someone may love it and and others hate it.
But when he was talking about superiority I think he meant more along the lines of graphics, game speed with these graphics(both loading and in general), and other software/hardware upgrage. Similar to how engines nowadays can produce to similar horsepower with much better fuel mileage.
So while the creative aspects will always be subject from now to the end of time, there are definitely aspects that prove superior these days than in the past in everything, especially gaming.
It is like this... The older generation of gamers knows how to earn their keep while the new generation of gamers want quick satisfaction right now. Time has definitely changed but I doubt it is for the better. They'll never learn the true value of things.
I don't know much about cars but I imagine you can measure objective things like speed or fuel economy to say that today's cars are in fact superior. It's much harder to do that with games outside the technical aspects.
You can compare the look of a car to the content of a game. Someone may love it and and others hate it.
But when he was talking about superiority I think he meant more along the lines of graphics, game speed with these graphics(both loading and in general), and other software/hardware upgrage. Similar to how engines nowadays can produce to similar horsepower with much better fuel mileage.
So while the creative aspects will always be subject from now to the end of time, there are definitely aspects that prove superior these days than in the past in everything, especially gaming.
It's a bit different because games invoke emotions based on observable and reoccurring tenets of human nature. Like the idea that completing a difficult task gives most people a sense of accomplishment. Car style as far as I can tell is purely cosmetic.
I don't know much about cars but I imagine you can measure objective things like speed or fuel economy to say that today's cars are in fact superior. It's much harder to do that with games outside the technical aspects.
You can compare the look of a car to the content of a game. Someone may love it and and others hate it.
But when he was talking about superiority I think he meant more along the lines of graphics, game speed with these graphics(both loading and in general), and other software/hardware upgrage. Similar to how engines nowadays can produce to similar horsepower with much better fuel mileage.
So while the creative aspects will always be subject from now to the end of time, there are definitely aspects that prove superior these days than in the past in everything, especially gaming.
It's a bit different because games invoke emotions based on observable and reoccurring tenets of human nature. Like the idea that completing a difficult task gives most people a sense of accomplishment. Car style as far as I can tell is purely cosmetic.
Reasons for what the MMO genre was suppose to be is no longer the question, the question we should be asking us is why aren't Modern MMORPG doing what WOW did back the day.
What is missing, what can be done, and what should change so that the juggernaut of a genre ( MMORPG) can once again take over our lives.
Isn't that simple? Because that is not what the market wants.
I don't want MMORPG to take over my life. I want some good games as entertainment. You overestimate the desire to live in a virtual world. In fact, the whole evolution of MMORPGs from world to games is a testament of that mistaken notion by the early MMO pioneers. They mistakenly thought that most players want one virtual world to live in forever.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Holice Originally posted by iridescence
I don't know much about cars but I imagine you can measure objective things like speed or fuel economy to say that today's cars are in fact superior. It's much harder to do that with games outside the technical aspects.
You can compare the look of a car to the content of a game. Someone may love it and and others hate it.
But when he was talking about superiority I think he meant more along the lines of graphics, game speed with these graphics(both loading and in general), and other software/hardware upgrage. Similar to how engines nowadays can produce to similar horsepower with much better fuel mileage.
So while the creative aspects will always be subject from now to the end of time, there are definitely aspects that prove superior these days than in the past in everything, especially gaming.
It's a bit different because games invoke emotions based on observable and reoccurring tenets of human nature. Like the idea that completing a difficult task gives most people a sense of accomplishment. Car style as far as I can tell is purely cosmetic.
What about driving the car?
There are definitely ways to compare cars. I'm taking issue with the guy who was comparing the look of a car to games.
While I've read "most" of the replies here and have seen some good gems of insight, my opinion still hasn't changed. I do enjoy the fact that everyone has a different opinion on the matter though .
It seems what really matters at the end of the day is what next MMO will change the direction of the industry. I'm curious to see if all the "Sandbox" MMOs coming out in the next 3 years will change the industry for the better or if soon to be released MMOs like WildStar will continue the Themepark's powergrip on the genre.
As a Developer however, I still can never agree that a lobby based game of any sort can ever be considered an MMO (aka: Diablo III) .
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Holice Originally posted by iridescence
I don't know much about cars but I imagine you can measure objective things like speed or fuel economy to say that today's cars are in fact superior. It's much harder to do that with games outside the technical aspects.
You can compare the look of a car to the content of a game. Someone may love it and and others hate it.
But when he was talking about superiority I think he meant more along the lines of graphics, game speed with these graphics(both loading and in general), and other software/hardware upgrage. Similar to how engines nowadays can produce to similar horsepower with much better fuel mileage.
So while the creative aspects will always be subject from now to the end of time, there are definitely aspects that prove superior these days than in the past in everything, especially gaming.
It's a bit different because games invoke emotions based on observable and reoccurring tenets of human nature. Like the idea that completing a difficult task gives most people a sense of accomplishment. Car style as far as I can tell is purely cosmetic.
Spoken like a guy who never drove a car for pure pleasure...
I drove this once in my life (and will most likely never drive it again, it was an unique opportunity):
I can assure you it's not just about the looks
Well the topic at hand was about the look of a car so... what exactly are you talking about?
It's not rose tinted glasses (I guess it could be for some). MMOs... heck, games in general, have become much more popular. They're trying to appeal to a more casual kind of gamer. In order to do that they've made the games easier. They've made them more forgiving. Overcoming adversity is a pretty central role in gaming. It's what gives us a sense of accomplishment. This isn't just nostalgia. Games are different. Again, there's a reason why the amount of people playing games I'd going up.
But making a game casual is not the same as "make it easy". It is as silly a notion as making a game hard is the same as getting rid of tutorials and documentation.
It is why participating in these discussions is like pulling teeth: Many people cannot make a distinction between complexity and depth, arduous and hard, casual-friendly and easy.
Except you and I have been through this before and you just end up getting out of dodge. You can't separate complexity from depth and you can't separate ease from casual.
if I recall, our last discussion about games being casual friendly had you claiming that it was all about the length of play sessions. You claimed sc2 was more casual friendly than LoL because the games were shorter. A simply ridiculous claim. Casual friendly games go at least somewhat hand in hand with forgiving gameplay and easy gameplay.
The difference between depth and complexity can be explained through chess and go, which have a very simple set of rules, but the games themselves are incredibly deep.
And the comparison you present between SC2 and LoL doesn't make sense to me. Likely you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I don't remember making a comparison between LoL and SC2, only between MMOs and games similar to LoL and SC2 where you have a matchmaking system to que up, and matches end well within an hour (generally).
This is opposed by the gaming sessions in old school MMORPGs where you had to spend much of your time preparing for the main activity compared to the main activity itself, not to mention those gaming sessions could last many hours.
You can play a match of LoL or SC2 within a half-hour, but you cannot do a dungeon run in some of the older MMORPG within that time, because by the time you are set to go, the half-hour is up. The 30-minute-mark, to which you directed your whole attention to at one point, is arbitrary and unimportant to the point I was trying to make. A game is casual-friendly when you can achieve something meaningful within a relatively short amount of time.
But you started talking about how hard it is to graps SC2's metagame and what not... I get it. It is hard. But so it is hard in nearly every other e-sport game out there! I know what you mean. I've been there myself! There is a huge skill gap between a hardcore e-sports player and a casual player.
These games are still a lot more casual friendly than many of the old school games.
Your point was that casual friendliness is tied to how long it takes to do something, not to difficulty. I brought up the comparison between sc2 and LoL. You agreed that sc2 is more casual friendly than LoL because the matches are shorter. That's what you said. It's a position that almost nobody would take if they had played those two games. LoL is more casual friendly because it is easier mechanically. That's it.
You can't have a casual friendly game that takes a large amount of time. So in that regard you're right to say that it plays a part in what makes a game casual friendly. But you're wrong to say that difficulty doesn't play a part. That's why I deliberately say you can't separate the two.
as far as depth vs complexity, I'd love to hear an example of a game that has depth but no complexity. As I've pointed out before, competitive games can (and should) have simple rules because the complexity comes from the complexity of the human mind which you are playing against.
Like I said, many confuse the terms depth and complexity, accessibility and difficulty. You are one of those people.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Quirhid
It's not rose tinted glasses (I guess it could be for some). MMOs... heck, games in general, have become much more popular. They're trying to appeal to a more casual kind of gamer. In order to do that they've made the games easier. They've made them more forgiving. Overcoming adversity is a pretty central role in gaming. It's what gives us a sense of accomplishment. This isn't just nostalgia. Games are different. Again, there's a reason why the amount of people playing games I'd going up.
But making a game casual is not the same as "make it easy". It is as silly a notion as making a game hard is the same as getting rid of tutorials and documentation.
It is why participating in these discussions is like pulling teeth: Many people cannot make a distinction between complexity and depth, arduous and hard, casual-friendly and easy.
Except you and I have been through this before and you just end up getting out of dodge. You can't separate complexity from depth and you can't separate ease from casual.
if I recall, our last discussion about games being casual friendly had you claiming that it was all about the length of play sessions. You claimed sc2 was more casual friendly than LoL because the games were shorter. A simply ridiculous claim. Casual friendly games go at least somewhat hand in hand with forgiving gameplay and easy gameplay.
The difference between depth and complexity can be explained through chess and go, which have a very simple set of rules, but the games themselves are incredibly deep.
And the comparison you present between SC2 and LoL doesn't make sense to me. Likely you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I don't remember making a comparison between LoL and SC2, only between MMOs and games similar to LoL and SC2 where you have a matchmaking system to que up, and matches end well within an hour (generally).
This is opposed by the gaming sessions in old school MMORPGs where you had to spend much of your time preparing for the main activity compared to the main activity itself, not to mention those gaming sessions could last many hours.
You can play a match of LoL or SC2 within a half-hour, but you cannot do a dungeon run in some of the older MMORPG within that time, because by the time you are set to go, the half-hour is up. The 30-minute-mark, to which you directed your whole attention to at one point, is arbitrary and unimportant to the point I was trying to make. A game is casual-friendly when you can achieve something meaningful within a relatively short amount of time.
But you started talking about how hard it is to graps SC2's metagame and what not... I get it. It is hard. But so it is hard in nearly every other e-sport game out there! I know what you mean. I've been there myself! There is a huge skill gap between a hardcore e-sports player and a casual player.
These games are still a lot more casual friendly than many of the old school games.
Your point was that casual friendliness is tied to how long it takes to do something, not to difficulty. I brought up the comparison between sc2 and LoL. You agreed that sc2 is more casual friendly than LoL because the matches are shorter. That's what you said. It's a position that almost nobody would take if they had played those two games. LoL is more casual friendly because it is easier mechanically. That's it.
You can't have a casual friendly game that takes a large amount of time. So in that regard you're right to say that it plays a part in what makes a game casual friendly. But you're wrong to say that difficulty doesn't play a part. That's why I deliberately say you can't separate the two.
as far as depth vs complexity, I'd love to hear an example of a game that has depth but no complexity. As I've pointed out before, competitive games can (and should) have simple rules because the complexity comes from the complexity of the human mind which you are playing against.
Like I said, many confuse the terms depth and complexity, accessibility and difficulty. You are one of those people.
Actually what you've said is that they're not related... depth/complexity and difficulty/casual friendliness. In fact they are very related. So newer games, in an effort to attract more people (casual players), have made their games easier and more forgiving.
As a Developer however, I still can never agree that a lobby based game of any sort can ever be considered an MMO (aka: Diablo III) .
sure .. but you are only one dude on the internet. Common usage is determined by firms, industry websites and press. While D3 is usually not classified as a MMO (although this site has it under the MMO list), some lobby games like WoT is classified as such by industry firms like newzoo, and many websites.
You're acting like it's just common sense that anyone that was part of the past would have the same interpritation of it. That anyone that played an mmo 10 years ago would have this " understanding" of what they should be and what their intent was. Yet when you look around obviously they/we don't all agree. In fact we often aren't even on in the same book let alone the same page.
MMOs were built to entertain, there was no common " intent" beyond that. Anyone that tells you different is just trying to force their narrow view of them on other people.
I played EQ from launch to Ykesha. Was a fairly dedicated MMO gamer up until I started grad school in 2010. I don't have that kind of time anymore, but I still play games now and again. I'm glad the MMOs of old have evolved and that the genre now isn't what it used to be.
All of the original time sinks -- long travel, spawn camps, heavy death penalties, etc. -- were artificial roadblocks put in to keep people paying and playing longer and longer. They weren't there for "realism". They were there to impede the player and keep you in the game world longer. That's it. In the early days of MMO gaming, it was a niche genre catering to a small subset of gamers. The only way to ensure a constant subscription base was to give people a reason to waste hour upon hour doing mundane things like taking boat rides or meditating to regain mana or camping the same spot over and over and over until that one rare mob spawned. Dangle that fancy weapon or uber item in front of people and put it just out of their reach unless they dedicate their lives to your game, and watch the sub fees roll in.
Now that MMOs are more mainstream and there is a wider audience for them, developers have to come up with more compelling gameplay to keep people interested. They can't just put the same old roadblocks in and expect to make money. Games have to be interesting, not just tedious.
Yes, because having to fire half your dev team, merge servers 3 times within a year of launch, and scale back your content updates, is a sure sign of success? Modern MMOs would kill for the 250k growing subscribers of MMOs passed. There's a reason all the WoW clones are going FTP, no one thinks they're worth paying for.
Old MMOs grew over time, retaining players and attracting new ones, not peaking until years down the line.
Modern MMOs peak on launch day and go sharply downhill after. The companies have to scale back, sometimes in a huge way (Aion, Age of Conan, SWTOR) just to stay out of bankruptcy. For Age of Conan, two of their partner companies got dissolved because of the crippling financial loss and commercial failure that was AoC.
So... GW2 which made $200 Million so far would kill for 250k growing subscribers? GW2 never had subscribers so it can't be counted. No data.
What about WoW with 7.5 Million subs? WoW is an outlier. Always has been.
What about LoTRO / DDO / RIFT? DDO was dead. 100% dead. Nobody played it. That's why it was the game that got played with for FTP. LotRO was barely alive, it certainly didn't have a grown population, and it didn't have more than 250k. Rift has had to merge its servers 3 times and the population is still shrinking.
SWTOR had 500k before it went F2P. Haha, no it didn't. Not even close to that. Most of its servers were empty even after the second server merge in 3 months.
MMOs is a relatively recent genre, lets not rewrite history so soon.
And please do tell which 'old MMOs' had more than 250k? UO / EQ? DAoC, EQ, UO, SWG, FF11, AC
So 500k vs 7.5 Million
Like I said.. LOLWUT Can you name any other new MMOs with 7 million? No? That's right because there aren't any.
WoW clones fail to grow. I'm pretty sure we can call that a fact by now. Not that DDO was a WoW clone, but you're the one who brought that failure into this.
Old MMOs grew for about 4-5 years on average after launch, and had budgets and dev teams about 1/10th the size of modern WoW clones. That's a healthy business right there.
Modern MMOs shrink and shrink and shrink post launch, and start off with marketing budgets bigger than the entire budget of old MMOs. Less stable, less profit, less success, and eventually, less players.
Originally posted by DamonVileYou're acting like it's just common sense that anyone that was part of the past would have the same interpritation of it. That anyone that played an mmo 10 years ago would have this " understanding" of what they should be and what their intent was. Yet when you look around obviously they/we don't all agree. In fact we often aren't even on in the same book let alone the same page.MMOs were built to entertain, there was no common " intent" beyond that. Anyone that tells you different is just trying to force their narrow view of them on other people.
I played EQ from launch to Ykesha. Was a fairly dedicated MMO gamer up until I started grad school in 2010. I don't have that kind of time anymore, but I still play games now and again. I'm glad the MMOs of old have evolved and that the genre now isn't what it used to be.
All of the original time sinks -- long travel, spawn camps, heavy death penalties, etc. -- were artificial roadblocks put in to keep people paying and playing longer and longer. They weren't there for "realism". They were there to impede the player and keep you in the game world longer. That's it. In the early days of MMO gaming, it was a niche genre catering to a small subset of gamers. The only way to ensure a constant subscription base was to give people a reason to waste hour upon hour doing mundane things like taking boat rides or meditating to regain mana or camping the same spot over and over and over until that one rare mob spawned. Dangle that fancy weapon or uber item in front of people and put it just out of their reach unless they dedicate their lives to your game, and watch the sub fees roll in.
Now that MMOs are more mainstream and there is a wider audience for them, developers have to come up with more compelling gameplay to keep people interested. They can't just put the same old roadblocks in and expect to make money. Games have to be interesting, not just tedious.
The problem is modern themepark mmos are the epitome of tedium. They keep people playing with grinds and carrots on sticks.
Originally posted by Holophonist The problem is modern themepark mmos are the epitome of tedium. They keep people playing with grinds and carrots on sticks.
So are the "old school" MMOs that people keep looking at with rose-colored glasses. That's my point.
The old school games were DESIGNED to be tedious and to take a long time to do anything because back then, in the days where your internet service and gameplay could be billed hourly, that was the only way to keep a profit going. Force players to spend hours and hours sitting on a boat or running across large zones to get anywhere or camp until that one rare mob spawns. How is that any different from the modern grind that people complain about now?
If developers want a constant playerbase now, they have to be creative and offer a game experience that people enjoy. It's not enough to just put in a grind.
While I've read "most" of the replies here and have seen some good gems of insight, my opinion still hasn't changed. I do enjoy the fact that everyone has a different opinion on the matter though .
It seems what really matters at the end of the day is what next MMO will change the direction of the industry. I'm curious to see if all the "Sandbox" MMOs coming out in the next 3 years will change the industry for the better or if soon to be released MMOs like WildStar will continue the Themepark's powergrip on the genre.
As a Developer however, I still can never agree that a lobby based game of any sort can ever be considered an MMO (aka: Diablo III) .
Interesting overall!
-Bear
Yes sir Bear you touched on yet another philosophical point. You can clearly see that why we play the games we do are as multifaceted anything found in nature. In general in a good discussion here, but as usually happens here from time to time it rather become muddled in emotional tangles.
Many long-time forum folks that I often read had some I have privately agreed with and others, well maybe not so much have posted here, so I say you hit a homerun as far importance of topic, my friend! Again, I simply stand on my belief that generally it is more where you can discover why gaming designer create what they create.
The future, in my opinion bodes well if you believe in the power of change and how this genre won't look very much like Meridian 59 did, back in the day. That's truly a good thing, I should think. But the point is oft made here and on many a gaming blog that there should be a more improved overall structure in the games we play.
I think we shall find several examples in the near future, but possibly we'll NEVER again see the likes of the mega-game that was WoW. That's ok by me, I don't mind looking around and experiencing different mmo's. I see a future with several good choices, but will those of us here be willing to stay for the long haul? Not sure, but we'll certainly see...
Thank you for your thoughtful thread, sir!
Alyn
All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth John Lennon
Originally posted by Holophonist The problem is modern themepark mmos are the epitome of tedium. They keep people playing with grinds and carrots on sticks.
So are the "old school" MMOs that people keep looking at with rose-colored glasses. That's my point.
The old school games were DESIGNED to be tedious and to take a long time to do anything because back then, in the days where your internet service and gameplay could be billed hourly
That stopped existed around the time EverQuest came out. It wasn't a "scheme", the pace was just different then. Oldschool MMOs gave you more options and tools to have your own fun. Modern MMOs just have you quest grind all day.
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
That stopped existed around the time EverQuest came out. It wasn't a "scheme", the pace was just different then. Oldschool MMOs gave you more options and tools to have your own fun. Modern MMOs just have you quest grind all day.
Really?
Last time i look at WoW, and other modern MMOs, aside from quest grinds, i find
- LFD dungeons
- instanced pvp (bg and arena)
- scenarios
- collecting pets, and combat with them
And when i think back of EQ, it is nothing but mob grind on the same spot.
Modern MMOs have a lot more options for fun to me, then old school mmos.
Originally posted by Holophonist The problem is modern themepark mmos are the epitome of tedium. They keep people playing with grinds and carrots on sticks.
So are the "old school" MMOs that people keep looking at with rose-colored glasses. That's my point.
The old school games were DESIGNED to be tedious and to take a long time to do anything because back then, in the days where your internet service and gameplay could be billed hourly, that was the only way to keep a profit going. Force players to spend hours and hours sitting on a boat or running across large zones to get anywhere or camp until that one rare mob spawns. How is that any different from the modern grind that people complain about now?
If developers want a constant playerbase now, they have to be creative and offer a game experience that people enjoy. It's not enough to just put in a grind.
People would say, and I would agree, that they weren't playing those games because of the grind or the carrot on the end of the stick, but rather because of the day to day gameplay... the "journey".
New games focus on endgame content which people devour quickly so they have to put in a huge grind for obtaining weapons, titles etc.
Originally posted by Tibernicuspa Originally posted by LidaneOriginally posted by HolophonistThe problem is modern themepark mmos are the epitome of tedium. They keep people playing with grinds and carrots on sticks.
So are the "old school" MMOs that people keep looking at with rose-colored glasses. That's my point.The old school games were DESIGNED to be tedious and to take a long time to do anything because back then, in the days where your internet service and gameplay could be billed hourlyThat stopped existed around the time EverQuest came out. It wasn't a "scheme", the pace was just different then. Oldschool MMOs gave you more options and tools to have your own fun. Modern MMOs just have you quest grind all day.
What's the difference between quest grinds and mob grinds?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
I agree. I think I just have grown bored of MMO's as a genre (most computer games in fact). It is part of getting older; I don't feel any real urge to play and certainly not in a competitive manner.
Back to books and documentaries most work evenings.
Yeah, I don't hate all modern RPGs either (I actually really like some of them) but they don't capture the "pen and paper feel" the other poster referred to which I also really enjoy so I don't mind the new RPGs existing but I want more old-style RPGs to play as well.
Your second paragraph though: I don't think it's a very good comparison. I'd suggest music or film as a better analogy. Recording equipment and the like gets much more sophisticated but these things are also influenced by mass market tastes. I think it's far too subjective to say new music is superior to old music or new games are superior to old games. I don't know much about cars but I imagine you can measure objective things like speed or fuel economy to say that today's cars are in fact superior. It's much harder to do that with games outside the technical aspects.
You can compare the look of a car to the content of a game. Someone may love it and and others hate it.
But when he was talking about superiority I think he meant more along the lines of graphics, game speed with these graphics(both loading and in general), and other software/hardware upgrage. Similar to how engines nowadays can produce to similar horsepower with much better fuel mileage.
So while the creative aspects will always be subject from now to the end of time, there are definitely aspects that prove superior these days than in the past in everything, especially gaming.
You can compare the look of a car to the content of a game. Someone may love it and and others hate it.
But when he was talking about superiority I think he meant more along the lines of graphics, game speed with these graphics(both loading and in general), and other software/hardware upgrage. Similar to how engines nowadays can produce to similar horsepower with much better fuel mileage.
So while the creative aspects will always be subject from now to the end of time, there are definitely aspects that prove superior these days than in the past in everything, especially gaming.
It's a bit different because games invoke emotions based on observable and reoccurring tenets of human nature. Like the idea that completing a difficult task gives most people a sense of accomplishment. Car style as far as I can tell is purely cosmetic.What about driving the car?
Isn't that simple? Because that is not what the market wants.
I don't want MMORPG to take over my life. I want some good games as entertainment. You overestimate the desire to live in a virtual world. In fact, the whole evolution of MMORPGs from world to games is a testament of that mistaken notion by the early MMO pioneers. They mistakenly thought that most players want one virtual world to live in forever.
You can compare the look of a car to the content of a game. Someone may love it and and others hate it.
But when he was talking about superiority I think he meant more along the lines of graphics, game speed with these graphics(both loading and in general), and other software/hardware upgrage. Similar to how engines nowadays can produce to similar horsepower with much better fuel mileage.
So while the creative aspects will always be subject from now to the end of time, there are definitely aspects that prove superior these days than in the past in everything, especially gaming.
It's a bit different because games invoke emotions based on observable and reoccurring tenets of human nature. Like the idea that completing a difficult task gives most people a sense of accomplishment. Car style as far as I can tell is purely cosmetic.What about driving the car?
There are definitely ways to compare cars. I'm taking issue with the guy who was comparing the look of a car to games.Wow, this thread blew up quick huh
?
While I've read "most" of the replies here and have seen some good gems of insight, my opinion still hasn't changed. I do enjoy the fact that everyone has a different opinion on the matter though
.
It seems what really matters at the end of the day is what next MMO will change the direction of the industry. I'm curious to see if all the "Sandbox" MMOs coming out in the next 3 years will change the industry for the better or if soon to be released MMOs like WildStar will continue the Themepark's powergrip on the genre.
As a Developer however, I still can never agree that a lobby based game of any sort can ever be considered an MMO (aka: Diablo III)
.
Interesting overall!
-Bear
You can compare the look of a car to the content of a game. Someone may love it and and others hate it.
But when he was talking about superiority I think he meant more along the lines of graphics, game speed with these graphics(both loading and in general), and other software/hardware upgrage. Similar to how engines nowadays can produce to similar horsepower with much better fuel mileage.
So while the creative aspects will always be subject from now to the end of time, there are definitely aspects that prove superior these days than in the past in everything, especially gaming.
It's a bit different because games invoke emotions based on observable and reoccurring tenets of human nature. Like the idea that completing a difficult task gives most people a sense of accomplishment. Car style as far as I can tell is purely cosmetic.Spoken like a guy who never drove a car for pure pleasure...
I drove this once in my life (and will most likely never drive it again, it was an unique opportunity):
I can assure you it's not just about the looks
Well the topic at hand was about the look of a car so... what exactly are you talking about?Like I said, many confuse the terms depth and complexity, accessibility and difficulty. You are one of those people.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But making a game casual is not the same as "make it easy". It is as silly a notion as making a game hard is the same as getting rid of tutorials and documentation.
It is why participating in these discussions is like pulling teeth: Many people cannot make a distinction between complexity and depth, arduous and hard, casual-friendly and easy.
Except you and I have been through this before and you just end up getting out of dodge. You can't separate complexity from depth and you can't separate ease from casual.if I recall, our last discussion about games being casual friendly had you claiming that it was all about the length of play sessions. You claimed sc2 was more casual friendly than LoL because the games were shorter. A simply ridiculous claim. Casual friendly games go at least somewhat hand in hand with forgiving gameplay and easy gameplay.
The difference between depth and complexity can be explained through chess and go, which have a very simple set of rules, but the games themselves are incredibly deep.
And the comparison you present between SC2 and LoL doesn't make sense to me. Likely you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I don't remember making a comparison between LoL and SC2, only between MMOs and games similar to LoL and SC2 where you have a matchmaking system to que up, and matches end well within an hour (generally).
This is opposed by the gaming sessions in old school MMORPGs where you had to spend much of your time preparing for the main activity compared to the main activity itself, not to mention those gaming sessions could last many hours.
You can play a match of LoL or SC2 within a half-hour, but you cannot do a dungeon run in some of the older MMORPG within that time, because by the time you are set to go, the half-hour is up. The 30-minute-mark, to which you directed your whole attention to at one point, is arbitrary and unimportant to the point I was trying to make. A game is casual-friendly when you can achieve something meaningful within a relatively short amount of time.
But you started talking about how hard it is to graps SC2's metagame and what not... I get it. It is hard. But so it is hard in nearly every other e-sport game out there! I know what you mean. I've been there myself! There is a huge skill gap between a hardcore e-sports player and a casual player.
These games are still a lot more casual friendly than many of the old school games.
Your point was that casual friendliness is tied to how long it takes to do something, not to difficulty. I brought up the comparison between sc2 and LoL. You agreed that sc2 is more casual friendly than LoL because the matches are shorter. That's what you said. It's a position that almost nobody would take if they had played those two games. LoL is more casual friendly because it is easier mechanically. That's it.You can't have a casual friendly game that takes a large amount of time. So in that regard you're right to say that it plays a part in what makes a game casual friendly. But you're wrong to say that difficulty doesn't play a part. That's why I deliberately say you can't separate the two.
as far as depth vs complexity, I'd love to hear an example of a game that has depth but no complexity. As I've pointed out before, competitive games can (and should) have simple rules because the complexity comes from the complexity of the human mind which you are playing against.
Like I said, many confuse the terms depth and complexity, accessibility and difficulty. You are one of those people.
Actually what you've said is that they're not related... depth/complexity and difficulty/casual friendliness. In fact they are very related. So newer games, in an effort to attract more people (casual players), have made their games easier and more forgiving.sure .. but you are only one dude on the internet. Common usage is determined by firms, industry websites and press. While D3 is usually not classified as a MMO (although this site has it under the MMO list), some lobby games like WoT is classified as such by industry firms like newzoo, and many websites.
I played EQ from launch to Ykesha. Was a fairly dedicated MMO gamer up until I started grad school in 2010. I don't have that kind of time anymore, but I still play games now and again. I'm glad the MMOs of old have evolved and that the genre now isn't what it used to be.
All of the original time sinks -- long travel, spawn camps, heavy death penalties, etc. -- were artificial roadblocks put in to keep people paying and playing longer and longer. They weren't there for "realism". They were there to impede the player and keep you in the game world longer. That's it. In the early days of MMO gaming, it was a niche genre catering to a small subset of gamers. The only way to ensure a constant subscription base was to give people a reason to waste hour upon hour doing mundane things like taking boat rides or meditating to regain mana or camping the same spot over and over and over until that one rare mob spawned. Dangle that fancy weapon or uber item in front of people and put it just out of their reach unless they dedicate their lives to your game, and watch the sub fees roll in.
Now that MMOs are more mainstream and there is a wider audience for them, developers have to come up with more compelling gameplay to keep people interested. They can't just put the same old roadblocks in and expect to make money. Games have to be interesting, not just tedious.
WoW clones fail to grow. I'm pretty sure we can call that a fact by now. Not that DDO was a WoW clone, but you're the one who brought that failure into this.
Old MMOs grew for about 4-5 years on average after launch, and had budgets and dev teams about 1/10th the size of modern WoW clones. That's a healthy business right there.
Modern MMOs shrink and shrink and shrink post launch, and start off with marketing budgets bigger than the entire budget of old MMOs. Less stable, less profit, less success, and eventually, less players.
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
I played EQ from launch to Ykesha. Was a fairly dedicated MMO gamer up until I started grad school in 2010. I don't have that kind of time anymore, but I still play games now and again. I'm glad the MMOs of old have evolved and that the genre now isn't what it used to be.
All of the original time sinks -- long travel, spawn camps, heavy death penalties, etc. -- were artificial roadblocks put in to keep people paying and playing longer and longer. They weren't there for "realism". They were there to impede the player and keep you in the game world longer. That's it. In the early days of MMO gaming, it was a niche genre catering to a small subset of gamers. The only way to ensure a constant subscription base was to give people a reason to waste hour upon hour doing mundane things like taking boat rides or meditating to regain mana or camping the same spot over and over and over until that one rare mob spawned. Dangle that fancy weapon or uber item in front of people and put it just out of their reach unless they dedicate their lives to your game, and watch the sub fees roll in.
Now that MMOs are more mainstream and there is a wider audience for them, developers have to come up with more compelling gameplay to keep people interested. They can't just put the same old roadblocks in and expect to make money. Games have to be interesting, not just tedious.
The problem is modern themepark mmos are the epitome of tedium. They keep people playing with grinds and carrots on sticks.So are the "old school" MMOs that people keep looking at with rose-colored glasses. That's my point.
The old school games were DESIGNED to be tedious and to take a long time to do anything because back then, in the days where your internet service and gameplay could be billed hourly, that was the only way to keep a profit going. Force players to spend hours and hours sitting on a boat or running across large zones to get anywhere or camp until that one rare mob spawns. How is that any different from the modern grind that people complain about now?
If developers want a constant playerbase now, they have to be creative and offer a game experience that people enjoy. It's not enough to just put in a grind.
Thanks, OP, for a refreshing rant! And you are of course right!
Yes sir Bear you touched on yet another philosophical point. You can clearly see that why we play the games we do are as multifaceted anything found in nature. In general in a good discussion here, but as usually happens here from time to time it rather become muddled in emotional tangles.
Many long-time forum folks that I often read had some I have privately agreed with and others, well maybe not so much have posted here, so I say you hit a homerun as far importance of topic, my friend! Again, I simply stand on my belief that generally it is more where you can discover why gaming designer create what they create.
The future, in my opinion bodes well if you believe in the power of change and how this genre won't look very much like Meridian 59 did, back in the day. That's truly a good thing, I should think. But the point is oft made here and on many a gaming blog that there should be a more improved overall structure in the games we play.
I think we shall find several examples in the near future, but possibly we'll NEVER again see the likes of the mega-game that was WoW. That's ok by me, I don't mind looking around and experiencing different mmo's. I see a future with several good choices, but will those of us here be willing to stay for the long haul? Not sure, but we'll certainly see...
Thank you for your thoughtful thread, sir!
Alyn
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
That stopped existed around the time EverQuest came out. It wasn't a "scheme", the pace was just different then. Oldschool MMOs gave you more options and tools to have your own fun. Modern MMOs just have you quest grind all day.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.Really?
Last time i look at WoW, and other modern MMOs, aside from quest grinds, i find
- LFD dungeons
- instanced pvp (bg and arena)
- scenarios
- collecting pets, and combat with them
And when i think back of EQ, it is nothing but mob grind on the same spot.
Modern MMOs have a lot more options for fun to me, then old school mmos.
So are the "old school" MMOs that people keep looking at with rose-colored glasses. That's my point.
The old school games were DESIGNED to be tedious and to take a long time to do anything because back then, in the days where your internet service and gameplay could be billed hourly, that was the only way to keep a profit going. Force players to spend hours and hours sitting on a boat or running across large zones to get anywhere or camp until that one rare mob spawns. How is that any different from the modern grind that people complain about now?
If developers want a constant playerbase now, they have to be creative and offer a game experience that people enjoy. It's not enough to just put in a grind.
People would say, and I would agree, that they weren't playing those games because of the grind or the carrot on the end of the stick, but rather because of the day to day gameplay... the "journey".New games focus on endgame content which people devour quickly so they have to put in a huge grind for obtaining weapons, titles etc.
That stopped existed around the time EverQuest came out. It wasn't a "scheme", the pace was just different then. Oldschool MMOs gave you more options and tools to have your own fun. Modern MMOs just have you quest grind all day.
What's the difference between quest grinds and mob grinds?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.