You seem to have a hell of a time differentiating between life accomplishments and those done in games. Here, from thefreedictionary.com:
ac·com·plish·ment
n.
1. The act of accomplishing or the state of being accomplished; completion.
2. Something completed successfully; an achievement.
3. An acquired skill or expertise: a singer known for his accomplishment in vocal technique.
4. Social poise and grace.
So yeah, an accomplishment in life is much more important that anything done in a video game (clue: we all understand this if we're old enough to type a post up for an internet forum), but even something as simple as completing a jigsaw puzzle is an accomplishment. So maybe we can now move from the subtle insults you throw at people every time someone uses "game" and "accomplishment" in the same sentence. You're schtick is getting old, buddy.
You can argue semantics all day, but the truth is it's all relative.
Obviously nariusseldon's ambitions exist beyond the game. Playing it is merely a means to an end (to relax / relieve stress / etc.) So for him, it isn't an accomplishment. Other people play for different reasons. So someone trying do get all achievements, or to perfect a strat for an upcoming tournament, would get accomplishment out of a game.
It's all a matter of perspective.
(furthermore the 1st definition is by far the worst to use as an example of that list. Sorry, it just bugs me when people use a word as its own definition.)
You seem to have a hell of a time differentiating between life accomplishments and those done in games. Here, from thefreedictionary.com:
ac·com·plish·ment
n.
1. The act of accomplishing or the state of being accomplished; completion.
2. Something completed successfully; an achievement.
3. An acquired skill or expertise: a singer known for his accomplishment in vocal technique.
4. Social poise and grace.
So yeah, an accomplishment in life is much more important that anything done in a video game (clue: we all understand this if we're old enough to type a post up for an internet forum), but even something as simple as completing a jigsaw puzzle is an accomplishment. So maybe we can now move from the subtle insults you throw at people every time someone uses "game" and "accomplishment" in the same sentence. You're schtick is getting old, buddy.
You can argue semantics all day, but the truth is it's all relative.
Obviously nariusseldon's ambitions exist beyond the game. Playing it is merely a means to an end (to relax / relieve stress / etc.) So for him, it isn't an accomplishment. Other people play for different reasons. So someone trying do get all achievements, or to perfect a strat for an upcoming tournament, would get accomplishment out of a game.
It's all a matter of perspective.
(furthermore the 1st definition is by far the worst to use as an example of that list. Sorry, it just bugs me when people use a word as its own definition.)
Exactly.
And people are free to place different values on different accomplishment. To me, "accomplish" something in a game is just not valuable for me. I only use games as entertainment .... may be the actual activity is different .. but "finishing a game" (or whatever i do in a game) does NOT give me more sense of accomplishment than watching a movie.
But again, that is just my personal value. Yours may vary.
You seem to have a hell of a time differentiating between life accomplishments and those done in games. Here, from thefreedictionary.com:
ac·com·plish·ment
n.
1. The act of accomplishing or the state of being accomplished; completion.
2. Something completed successfully; an achievement.
3. An acquired skill or expertise: a singer known for his accomplishment in vocal technique.
4. Social poise and grace.
So yeah, an accomplishment in life is much more important that anything done in a video game (clue: we all understand this if we're old enough to type a post up for an internet forum), but even something as simple as completing a jigsaw puzzle is an accomplishment. So maybe we can now move from the subtle insults you throw at people every time someone uses "game" and "accomplishment" in the same sentence. You're schtick is getting old, buddy.
You can argue semantics all day, but the truth is it's all relative.
Obviously nariusseldon's ambitions exist beyond the game. Playing it is merely a means to an end (to relax / relieve stress / etc.) So for him, it isn't an accomplishment. Other people play for different reasons. So someone trying do get all achievements, or to perfect a strat for an upcoming tournament, would get accomplishment out of a game.
It's all a matter of perspective.
(furthermore the 1st definition is by far the worst to use as an example of that list. Sorry, it just bugs me when people use a word as its own definition.)
Exactly.
And people are free to place different values on different accomplishment. To me, "accomplish" something in a game is just not valuable for me. I only use games as entertainment .... may be the actual activity is different .. but "finishing a game" (or whatever i do in a game) does NOT give me more sense of accomplishment than watching a movie.
But again, that is just my personal value. Yours may vary.
I feel the same. I don't get a sense of accomplishment while gaming, some do though. Some people get it from vacuuming their carpets. Personally, I don't give a fuck; it does not affect my life in any way.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
You clearly didn't ever camp a 12 hour stretch overnight or whatever in EQ, when you definitely would never have been on under normal circumstances.
I started with AC and moved then to DAOC, never done an overnight, but I have raided into the wee hours. I see what you are getting at, but even if I agreed, I would say time wealthy is more in line with gaming ethos than cash wealthy.
To go back to the OP's question; it is not just MMO's, it is gaming that has lost its ambition, at least in the big gaming houses. Repeating past success is the norm, you can get away with resting on your laurels if that's what everyone else is doing. Those who are trying to do something new are indies and suffer from a lack of budget.
Have you looked at any indie games, or games from smaller companies lately?
Sherlock Holmes Crime & Punishment - AAA products of a point & click adventure with new novel deduction gameplay. I would call that ambitious (though some complain the game is not that challenging .. but that is not the point).
Divinity Origin Sin
Dark Souls 2 - where challenge is the selling point
Gone Home - a FP "drama" ... there is no violence, no puzzle, no traditional gameplay elementss.
Incredible Adv of Van Helsing - indie quirky steampunk ARPG with almost Diablo level of polish (worse combat, but better characters).
.. there is plenty of ambition going around ....
There are exceptions Nari, I am talking about the baulk of the industry. Last year you were one of those who touted Divinity as an answer to MMO woes (I have a rather good memory), look how that turned out.
Dark Souls 2 is easier than DS1, direction of travel anyone? As for the others I have yet to play them.
You clearly didn't ever camp a 12 hour stretch overnight or whatever in EQ, when you definitely would never have been on under normal circumstances.
I started with AC and moved then to DAOC, never done an overnight, but I have raided into the wee hours. I see what you are getting at, but even if I agreed, I would say time wealthy is more in line with gaming ethos than cash wealthy.
To go back to the OP's question; it is not just MMO's, it is gaming that has lost its ambition, at least in the big gaming houses. Repeating past success is the norm, you can get away with resting on your laurels if that's what everyone else is doing. Those who are trying to do something new are indies and suffer from a lack of budget.
Have you looked at any indie games, or games from smaller companies lately?
Sherlock Holmes Crime & Punishment - AAA products of a point & click adventure with new novel deduction gameplay. I would call that ambitious (though some complain the game is not that challenging .. but that is not the point).
Divinity Origin Sin
Dark Souls 2 - where challenge is the selling point
Gone Home - a FP "drama" ... there is no violence, no puzzle, no traditional gameplay elementss.
Incredible Adv of Van Helsing - indie quirky steampunk ARPG with almost Diablo level of polish (worse combat, but better characters).
.. there is plenty of ambition going around ....
There are exceptions Nari, I am talking about the baulk of the industry. Last year you were one of those who touted Divinity as an answer to MMO woes (I have a rather good memory), look how that turned out.
Dark Souls 2 is easier than DS1, direction of travel anyone? As for the others I have yet to play them.
Go to steam and look at the NUMBER of indie games. If you talk about money, yes .. the bulk of the industry is about Call of Duty and Diablo. A Call of Duty probably made 1000 times of most indie games. But that is not the point. The point is that the industry has way more choices than before.
The ONLY reason why big AAA games are dominating revenue is because people like them. And even those, you can't say there is no ambition.
Look at Titanfall ... a totally new type of online, pvp only game. In fact, i hate their "innovation" because there is no single player campaign, but you can't claim they are just doing another CoD.
...Well that sort of PvP was first championed by Battlefield at least until they felt they needed to be like CoD. The number of Indie games is irrelevant if the quality is not there. That's like the argument, 'we have tons of MMOs so the genre must be doing really well'. I do agree there are some great indie games out there though.
But if we can only rely on innovation and ambition from low budget companies that is not healthy for gaming at all.
...Well that sort of PvP was first championed by Battlefield at least until they felt they needed to be like CoD. The number of Indie games is irrelevant if the quality is not there. That's like the argument, 'we have tons of MMOs so the genre must be doing really well'. I do agree there are some great indie games out there though.
But if we can only rely on innovation and ambition from low budget companies that is not healthy for gaming at all.
There are plenty of evidence that the quality is there. Lower budget != lower quality. Just look at Van Helsing .. you can do almost Diablo polish with quirky new stuff (heck, they even have a tower defense game inside the game) on a shoe string budget.
There are many many other examples. Shadowrun returns, sherlock holmes, Telltale point & click adventures ....
Challenge can/is alive and well in many games, you just have to look to find it, if that's your bag.
So YOU are the confused one.
Challenge to you is clicking faster.
Challenge to me is thinking about what abilities to use and how and when.
Actually, no. Not at all. In fact, my days of clicking fast are far being me. I am not "schooled" quite often by my kids in many of these twitch games that are out there.
Basically, your counter-argument, though, is that you're idea of a challenge is re-creating your macro for a set of specific fights? Because that's what you're suggesting. You're saying that your idea of challenge is thinking about what abilities to use and when, but you're hardly ever afforded that opportunity. Even in games with the most choice, your rotation is boiled down to something simple.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was saying that challenge is clicking faster, but I hope that my ill-conceived assumptions about your idea of a challenge are equally incorrect.
I always thought ambition meant moving forward and experimenting with new designs and feature and not go back to copy pasting stuff from EQ and UO.
From this topic however it seems that being ambitious means going backwards.
Funny thing is, the genre as a whole has been stagnant for 10 years. It's been copying and pasting designs and features from Wow. I understand your point but if that's the case, than I would prefer movement than stagnation.
To the op's point, I'm not sure if ambition is the issue or not. I will admit that I love EQ and reinstalled it this past weekend because I haven't been able to find something to keep me happy in the "standard" MMO space recently.
I use "Standard" to differentiate between normal MMO's (GW1/2, DAoC, EQ, Wow, Eve) and the others (Moba's, RPG's, ARPG's etc)
I've been playing Neverwinter, although without others to play with it gets boring. I've revisited Tera recently and did a 14-day trial of FF14 as well. They all seem rather the same, primarily solo quest grinding, some dynamic events, dungeon group content and raiding end game content with some PVP sprinkled in.
A lot of AAA titles have been going this route, which is basically the WOW route as we all know. In my opinion there is light on the horizon, as there are a lot of indie projects and even some AAA titles in development now that are trying some new things. Some of them have very ambitious ideas, even if it's only with a certain system in their game or the whole game itself. Camelot Unchained, offering a complete pvp leveling experience. (Not completely ground breaking but I would argue no one has done it "right" yet, but purely opinion on my part) EQ:next, offering emergent AI, Albion Online, offering classes based on equipped gear, Shards online, offering player run worlds, etc. Please let me know if some of these have been done before but TMK, these are all relatively new ideas/systems.
So I think there is still some ambition left in the industry but I would agree, that the majority of game studios are re-hashing a lot of the same ideas. I find the above argument some what funny as well, about moving backwards to EQ and UO, because we've been moving back towards Wow, Dota or Diablo for the past 10 years, but as soon as some folks talk about wanting some other systems from the EQ/UO days folks talk about not wanting to move backwards.
As I said we haven't moved period in the past couple years. Although you don't hear folks saying those things about every Moba that comes out or Diablo clone. Maybe those players haven't become as jaded as some of the "standard" (look at previous definition above) MMO players have. Although I wonder how long that will last, especially with the striking similarities between some of the games, specifically Moba's, but that's a topic for another time.
I think the genre is in a state of flux. There will always be those games that follow the "cookie-cutter" MMO design of whatever game is hot. It's been wow for 10 years, so that's what we've gotten. Recently though, I think a lot of games have been seeing some what of a player retention issue. That's not to say that games are empty, far from it, the genre as a whole is doing well, but I think dev's at very least are seeing a lot more of the "Play for 3 months, leave game" scenario for players and are considering how to either change the game to keep players or to try and create that new experience that will hopefully hold players for longer.
Some of them are trying out new ideas, like I listed above, to try and get something fresh in the market. Whether or not these ideas will work or are going to operate as well as advertised remains to be seen. However as long as gamers voice their concerns as well as their likes/dislikes, I think it will help keep the industry in a forward momentum. Even if that means there are lulls at times or even instances of re-kindling old ideas.
Funny thing is, the genre as a whole has been stagnant for 10 years. It's been copying and pasting designs and features from Wow. I understand your point but if that's the case, than I would prefer movement than stagnation.
To the op's point, I'm not sure if ambition is the issue or not. I will admit that I love EQ and reinstalled it this past weekend because I haven't been able to find something to keep me happy in the "standard" MMO space recently.
I use "Standard" to differentiate between normal MMO's (GW1/2, DAoC, EQ, Wow, Eve) and the others (Moba's, RPG's, ARPG's etc)
How can it not be stagnant if you only look at "standard" (or better "old") MMORPGs. If old is what you want, stagnant is what you get.
In fact, the market is vibrant with MOBAs, instanced games like WoT and Warframe, and other online games with some MMO features.
Funny thing is, the genre as a whole has been stagnant for 10 years. It's been copying and pasting designs and features from Wow. I understand your point but if that's the case, than I would prefer movement than stagnation.
To the op's point, I'm not sure if ambition is the issue or not. I will admit that I love EQ and reinstalled it this past weekend because I haven't been able to find something to keep me happy in the "standard" MMO space recently.
I use "Standard" to differentiate between normal MMO's (GW1/2, DAoC, EQ, Wow, Eve) and the others (Moba's, RPG's, ARPG's etc)
How can it not be stagnant if you only look at "standard" (or better "old") MMORPGs. If old is what you want, stagnant is what you get.
In fact, the market is vibrant with MOBAs, instanced games like WoT and Warframe, and other online games with some MMO features.
1. Moba's aren't MMO's
2. Instanced games aren't always MMO's
That was my point. I was referring to "standard" MMO's, meaning whats considered a typically MMO. Mobas are Mobas, they are their own genre. Same with WoT and Warframe, their own genre.
Not to mention, you spelled it out, "other online games with MMO features", which is every type of game you brought up. They may have MMO features but that doesn't make them an MMO.
Comments
You can argue semantics all day, but the truth is it's all relative.
Obviously nariusseldon's ambitions exist beyond the game. Playing it is merely a means to an end (to relax / relieve stress / etc.) So for him, it isn't an accomplishment. Other people play for different reasons. So someone trying do get all achievements, or to perfect a strat for an upcoming tournament, would get accomplishment out of a game.
It's all a matter of perspective.
(furthermore the 1st definition is by far the worst to use as an example of that list. Sorry, it just bugs me when people use a word as its own definition.)
I always thought ambition meant moving forward and experimenting with new designs and feature and not go back to copy pasting stuff from EQ and UO.
From this topic however it seems that being ambitious means going backwards.
Exactly.
And people are free to place different values on different accomplishment. To me, "accomplish" something in a game is just not valuable for me. I only use games as entertainment .... may be the actual activity is different .. but "finishing a game" (or whatever i do in a game) does NOT give me more sense of accomplishment than watching a movie.
But again, that is just my personal value. Yours may vary.
I feel the same. I don't get a sense of accomplishment while gaming, some do though. Some people get it from vacuuming their carpets. Personally, I don't give a fuck; it does not affect my life in any way.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
There are exceptions Nari, I am talking about the baulk of the industry. Last year you were one of those who touted Divinity as an answer to MMO woes (I have a rather good memory), look how that turned out.
Dark Souls 2 is easier than DS1, direction of travel anyone? As for the others I have yet to play them.
Go to steam and look at the NUMBER of indie games. If you talk about money, yes .. the bulk of the industry is about Call of Duty and Diablo. A Call of Duty probably made 1000 times of most indie games. But that is not the point. The point is that the industry has way more choices than before.
The ONLY reason why big AAA games are dominating revenue is because people like them. And even those, you can't say there is no ambition.
Look at Titanfall ... a totally new type of online, pvp only game. In fact, i hate their "innovation" because there is no single player campaign, but you can't claim they are just doing another CoD.
...Well that sort of PvP was first championed by Battlefield at least until they felt they needed to be like CoD. The number of Indie games is irrelevant if the quality is not there. That's like the argument, 'we have tons of MMOs so the genre must be doing really well'. I do agree there are some great indie games out there though.
But if we can only rely on innovation and ambition from low budget companies that is not healthy for gaming at all.
Which is exactly what I didnt demand.
So YOU are the confused one.
Challenge to you is clicking faster.
Challenge to me is thinking about what abilities to use and how and when.
Not !!!!
There are plenty of evidence that the quality is there. Lower budget != lower quality. Just look at Van Helsing .. you can do almost Diablo polish with quirky new stuff (heck, they even have a tower defense game inside the game) on a shoe string budget.
There are many many other examples. Shadowrun returns, sherlock holmes, Telltale point & click adventures ....
Actually, no. Not at all. In fact, my days of clicking fast are far being me. I am not "schooled" quite often by my kids in many of these twitch games that are out there.
Basically, your counter-argument, though, is that you're idea of a challenge is re-creating your macro for a set of specific fights? Because that's what you're suggesting. You're saying that your idea of challenge is thinking about what abilities to use and when, but you're hardly ever afforded that opportunity. Even in games with the most choice, your rotation is boiled down to something simple.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was saying that challenge is clicking faster, but I hope that my ill-conceived assumptions about your idea of a challenge are equally incorrect.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Funny thing is, the genre as a whole has been stagnant for 10 years. It's been copying and pasting designs and features from Wow. I understand your point but if that's the case, than I would prefer movement than stagnation.
To the op's point, I'm not sure if ambition is the issue or not. I will admit that I love EQ and reinstalled it this past weekend because I haven't been able to find something to keep me happy in the "standard" MMO space recently.
I use "Standard" to differentiate between normal MMO's (GW1/2, DAoC, EQ, Wow, Eve) and the others (Moba's, RPG's, ARPG's etc)
I've been playing Neverwinter, although without others to play with it gets boring. I've revisited Tera recently and did a 14-day trial of FF14 as well. They all seem rather the same, primarily solo quest grinding, some dynamic events, dungeon group content and raiding end game content with some PVP sprinkled in.
A lot of AAA titles have been going this route, which is basically the WOW route as we all know. In my opinion there is light on the horizon, as there are a lot of indie projects and even some AAA titles in development now that are trying some new things. Some of them have very ambitious ideas, even if it's only with a certain system in their game or the whole game itself. Camelot Unchained, offering a complete pvp leveling experience. (Not completely ground breaking but I would argue no one has done it "right" yet, but purely opinion on my part) EQ:next, offering emergent AI, Albion Online, offering classes based on equipped gear, Shards online, offering player run worlds, etc. Please let me know if some of these have been done before but TMK, these are all relatively new ideas/systems.
So I think there is still some ambition left in the industry but I would agree, that the majority of game studios are re-hashing a lot of the same ideas. I find the above argument some what funny as well, about moving backwards to EQ and UO, because we've been moving back towards Wow, Dota or Diablo for the past 10 years, but as soon as some folks talk about wanting some other systems from the EQ/UO days folks talk about not wanting to move backwards.
As I said we haven't moved period in the past couple years. Although you don't hear folks saying those things about every Moba that comes out or Diablo clone. Maybe those players haven't become as jaded as some of the "standard" (look at previous definition above) MMO players have. Although I wonder how long that will last, especially with the striking similarities between some of the games, specifically Moba's, but that's a topic for another time.
I think the genre is in a state of flux. There will always be those games that follow the "cookie-cutter" MMO design of whatever game is hot. It's been wow for 10 years, so that's what we've gotten. Recently though, I think a lot of games have been seeing some what of a player retention issue. That's not to say that games are empty, far from it, the genre as a whole is doing well, but I think dev's at very least are seeing a lot more of the "Play for 3 months, leave game" scenario for players and are considering how to either change the game to keep players or to try and create that new experience that will hopefully hold players for longer.
Some of them are trying out new ideas, like I listed above, to try and get something fresh in the market. Whether or not these ideas will work or are going to operate as well as advertised remains to be seen. However as long as gamers voice their concerns as well as their likes/dislikes, I think it will help keep the industry in a forward momentum. Even if that means there are lulls at times or even instances of re-kindling old ideas.
How can it not be stagnant if you only look at "standard" (or better "old") MMORPGs. If old is what you want, stagnant is what you get.
In fact, the market is vibrant with MOBAs, instanced games like WoT and Warframe, and other online games with some MMO features.
1. Moba's aren't MMO's
2. Instanced games aren't always MMO's
That was my point. I was referring to "standard" MMO's, meaning whats considered a typically MMO. Mobas are Mobas, they are their own genre. Same with WoT and Warframe, their own genre.
MMO's are Neverwinter, GW1/2, Lineage 1/2, Eve, Wow, EQ I/II, Shadowbane, SWG, TSW, ESO, AA, Wildstar, yada yada yada....
Not to mention, you spelled it out, "other online games with MMO features", which is every type of game you brought up. They may have MMO features but that doesn't make them an MMO.