They are as way ad you choose top make them. Judy like before. You can do easy content or harder content just like before. Food and meditate didn't make the game more complicated.
There are tons of choices out there. More sandbox more themepark some hybrids. Hard , easy. Way way way more choices than at any other time in the history of this genre
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I would like a list of these games today that are better virtual worlds please. The non first gen games I have tried, other then Vanguard have been pale cartoony playgrounds. To me a virtual world has at least some feel of reality to it. Games that are too easy, linear, and cartoony do not make a virtual world.
Originally posted by dwolfen66 I would like a list of these games today that are better virtual worlds please. The non first gen games I have tried, other then Vanguard have been pale cartoony playgrounds. To me a virtual world has at least some feel of reality to it. Games that are too easy, linear, and cartoony do not make a virtual world.
Better is subjective.
But there are virtual worlds today. Furthermore most of the MMOs of the past weren't actually virtual worlds either. They were a map w/ some monsters sprinkles around. You had games like UO, SWG, Helbreath, Runescape, etc. Some are still around, some aren't.
Today you also have stuff like Eve, Second Life, Perpetuum, Trove, etc. Whether or not they are 'better' really depends on your point of view on the matter. I.E. Do you consider games like Darkfall a virtual world? Or just a FFA sandbox? What is the difference between a virtual world and a sandbox. Etc.
It's easy to label something with a vague idea, and then state that nothing matches it. It's much harder to think about a practical list of criteria with real world examples and compare them to other real life examples.
- It's true that for a while the shift from pure sandboxes was shifted more towards the themepark, but that pendulum is now swinging back the other way. These things tend to happen in cycles. Usually every 20years or so.
If there is a good game like Vanguard with lots of areas to start in, many races, and classes, the replay ability is great which then makes the world very important. I played that game for 7 years and had at least one of every class to 50 and all but 2 to 55 which was max level. I could not do that in any games since because I could barely stand to play one toon to max level let alone multiple ones.
Also EQ was my first game and did give me that feeling of awe but for me Vanguard surpassed eq in almost every way. The only thing I found better from eq was the fear of dying. No MMO I have heard of even comes close to EQ for that.
To be fair, I haven't tried Darkfall so I cant comment. There are others that I have not tried as well but I have played so many games since Vanguard released that just don't do it for me. Does Darkfall have a realistic looking world with a lot of diversity to it? If so maybe I should try it. As far as Eve, I am not into games that take place in space. I prefer the Sword and Sorcery type game.
I am going to look up some of the other games you listed because I had not heard of some. The older ones yes but not, Second Life, Perpetuem, and Trove.
The type I definitely do not like are games like, Wow, Rifts, Eso, Archage, and many more like them.
To be fair, I haven't tried Darkfall so I cant comment. There are others that I have not tried as well but I have played so many games since Vanguard released that just don't do it for me. Does Darkfall have a realistic looking world with a lot of diversity to it? If so maybe I should try it. As far as Eve, I am not into games that take place in space. I prefer the Sword and Sorcery type game.
I am going to look up some of the other games you listed because I had not heard of some. The older ones yes but not, Second Life, Perpetuem, and Trove.
The type I definitely do not like are games like, Wow, Rifts, Eso, Archage, and many more like them.
Darkfall has a very well designed world. I love how distinct each area is.
When I think of a virtual world, I'm usually more considering how the systems depend on each other. Crafting relies on gather, merchants rely on crafting, combat relies on crafting, etc. Darkfall does that part pretty well, the main problem is the population is pretty low and a game like that needs a health population because almost everything you do in it is player made content. You don't get your friends together and do a pve raid, you get your friends together and raid a player city. If there's nobody in it... welp...
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Why would we want dime of those things? If my opinion many I'd those did not add anything positive to the experience at all. Monks got ripped off. Meditation was a dull period of non gameplay. The food and drink requirement did not add any fun factor just took up bag space. The bonuses that sone food provide still exist today usually in terms of food. Alcohol was sometimes fun and that was fluff. There is a lot of fluff in games which is a good thing.
The exploration and fun hasn't changed. Just your view of them has.
There's the key phrase there, in my opinion.
From my viewpoint they did, they added a level of management to the game play, you had to make sure you had enough, but not too much, and downtime meant you had to learn to maximize your kill rate while minimizing the effects of downtime.
A well coordinated/built 8 man group might be able to pull 5 full spawns before having to rest/recharge, and might bounce back in 2 minutes, vs a PUG that might only kill 2 or 3 spawns before resting maybe 4 or 5 minutes.
It was a different style, and it allowed for lots of social interaction, which I understand most players are not interested in today, but doesn't change the fact few MMORPG's today allow for this. (I happen to be playing one that does, EVE btw)
I agree with you. It adds something to the game and fun for me. Players today want the reward with as little time spent as possible. Games don't need worlds, just lobbies.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I hate the phone.
They are as hard as you choose to make them. Just like before.
You need a bigger phone, lol. I'd recommend the S5; fixed my troubles. Only it's a bit of a bitch constantly making sure I have a good size pocket somewhere on my attire to accomodate the bloody thing.
"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
Originally posted by GeezerGamert. How is it that a SPRPG can offer more of a long term experience than these new MMOs?
A better question is, why do some feel something like Skyrim offers a longer term experience than your typical Themepark, when it basically offers the same thing? Why can they sit around and essentially do nothing there, yet not in an MMO when there are actually other players around, and in most cases more game-play options?
Apparently they are not the same thing.
I have over 1,100 hours in skyrim and I still play.
I can't seem to stick with any mmo for even half that time.
Why? Well "duh" the game play is different. How the world is set up to support that game play is also different.
A friend of mine only likes Elder Scrolls video games. He could never get interested in any other video game try as he might.
The other day I was wondering if he might get into MMO's because of the "supposed" huge world. It was then I realized "no, he couldn't" because they never have much to discover (hidden dungeons, temples, caves, etc) and if they are quest based then they often devolve to "run here, get 5, run back ...".
Even Elder Scrolls Online is heavily quest based which is what he usually avoids. The dungeons in ESO, up to this point, aren't that interesting.
So, they are not the same.
You're missing my point, this is about longevity not game-play, as in which lasts longer and offers more. You can finish the stories in SKyrim in days, playing slowly and not rushing, there really isn't much to it after that, if we're talking the base game. ESO is one example of a game that is a lot bigger and offers a lot more hours in content, and that's not even including playing the economy, crafting with a real purpose (other players to buy your stuff), PVP etc....
ANd please don't say dungeons in skyrim are interesting....The only ones that are are tied to quests, the rest are just filler... MOst don't even have worth while loot.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Nostalgia is just a label those who think games today are better than ever apply to anyone who says that anything about games in the past was better. Rather than address the issue, just create a label to stifle the debate.
Completely agree OP, it's the reason I have a really hard time getting into MMO's or if I do that can keep my attention like UO and SWG did.
They felt like 'Worlds' where it wasn't static like MMO worlds are today. Hell, you could eliminate the world from 90% of MMO's and it wouldn't matter since it isn't utilized after you hit max level and all it is is instance this instance that.
You are not accounting for players growing up and newness of MMOs wearing off.
There are games today that are more virtual worlds than any gen 1 game - why aren't you playing them?
Because you changed, the newness awe feeling is gone forever.
An excellent point.
Really it wasn't, but I'd addressed that in another post.
To briefly reiterate: There are many reasons why a person might choose to not play a MMO, even if it seems like something they'd otherwise enjoy. It's not so simple as Kano, and others, try to make it seem. It could have a lot of the features desired, but they might be poorly implemented (or not in a way the person prefers). And so on..
If it were that simple, then the same could be said for themepark MMOs. People would find the one that has all the features they prefer, and then just stay there. But that doesn't happen. People keep moving between them, trying to find the one that really clicks for them, because others they've tried have missed the mark in other ways that also matter to them.
Yes, nostalgia is a valid emotion. No, no one is "looking down at you" for being nostalgic. That said, your argument has two glaring issues:
- part of your nostalgia is novelty, and you seem to be dismissing the effect that has had 15 years and 20-200 MMOs later for most people.
Well, you can't argue for "most people", for starters. You aren't "most people", and you don't represent "most people". Also, you can't say that if someone found a MMO that provided an experience close enough (for them) to something they'd really enjoyed in the past, that they wouldn't enjoy it just as much.
Case in point, I've been told numerous times - more than I can hope to recall - that my longing for the days of FFXI pre-Abyssea is "just a nostalgia trip", that "the game wasn't that good", and that I'm "just seeing through nostalgia goggles". All the usual lazy, canned responses from people who feel they know me better than I know myself, and who can't seem to conceive of the idea that some people might actually really just have enjoyed the game during that time, and nostalgia has nothing to do with it.
Every time those arguments come up, I make the same arguments:
I didn't play the game for almost 8 years - religiously - out of "nostalgia". I kept playing it because I enjoyed doing so, for myriad reasons.
I left the game when SE started changing it too much from the style I'd enjoyed for all that time. It was no longer the game I enjoyed. The changes they made were not an "improvement" to me.
I checked out a private version of XI based on the game up to CoP... with all it was at that time. Level 75 cap, no Abyssea, no power-leveling from 30 to 75, etc. Slower xp, harsher death penalties, tougher fights, no hand-holding, ! or ? markers anywhere. And I've loved it. I'm taking a break from it for now (sucking up too much of my time ). So I can say, with 100% certainty (which I had anyway), it was exactly as I remembered, and it was every bit as enjoyable as I remembered. No "nostalgia goggles", or "flawed memories".
People can shake their heads and say, "no no... that's not how it is at all, it's just nostalgia, bro", all they want... They can shove it. I know myself. I know what I enjoy. I know why I enjoy it. I don't need random arm-chair psychics on the internet telling me what I do or don't like, simply because they're too self-absorbed and close-minded to accept that not everyone thinks like they do.
What should really happen, is people should stick to what they know - their own points-of-view and memories - and stop trying to tell others what they do or don't remember, or what they did or didn't like.
- As DMKano pointed out, the feature on your list exist in current MMOs, but you won't acknowledge them.
But so what? That doesn't disprove their position, and their views don't require yours or Kano's "validation" to be relevant. Again, maybe they're not playing those games for other reasons, unrelated to the feature list.
Again, it's not as simple as "this game has all the game systems I like. Therefor I would like it and should be playing it". You and Kano don't seem to understand that.
My favorite cake is chocolate. That doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy every one I eat, simply because I like that kind. It might be a poor recipe. It might be stale. The baker might have screwed it up, or altered it in some way that I don't like. I might even get one from my favorite local baker, and find it's "off" for some reason. And so on. There are things that can go wrong with a cake recipe, that have nothing to do with what flavor it is.
Likewise, there are many aspects of a MMORPG that can make it unenjoyable for someone, which have nothing to do with it otherwise being in line with what they enjoy.
It's safe to say that almost every poster here that is pining for "that feeling of wonder" and "that feeling you're in a living breathing world" should probably look elsewhere for their entertainment because they'll never find it in MMOs. That's not to say it doesn't exist in MMOs, just that those people, specifically, will never find it.
That's just horribly cynical and, again, amazingly presumptuous. Why are you so keen to declare what other people are feeling and thinking, and what they should or shouldn't be doing? What makes you such an authority on these matters? So far as I can tell, you're just a person posting on a gaming forum, like everyone else here.
To me there's a clear separation between the "sense-of-wonder" I had when starting off in MMO's and the type of game play that I'm nostalgic for.
I know I can never recapture that "sense-of-wonder". You cannot lose your virginity more than once.
But the game play is another matter. MMO's have moved away from attempting real-world simulations and instead are focusing on providing action-based entertainment in conveniently sized packages. The gamer demographics have changed dramatically since 2002, and the new trends cater to that changed set of player demands.
"Back in the old days" things like so-called RP-servers were actually a thing. That's because the amount of players supporting those features were a significantly large % of the player base. In today's massive MMO player base, the % of players supporting RP activities is simply not a significant factor compared to their representation in the populations of UO and EQ in the early days.
MMO's no longer have "downtime", penalties or many "fluff" activities. Those features don't appeal to the mainstream. More importantly, those features can't be sold to the mainstream. All features in a game cost money and time to implement, so naturally those that don't generate revenue will be increasingly sidelined.
"A new crowd has arrived, and the old place just isn't what it used to be"
It is not only nostalgia. Back then, when UO was released, MMORPGs were new, exciting and had huge potential as not just games but virtual worlds. That is now all but ruined by big business with cash shops and linear single player story lines.
Originally posted by Yamota It is not only nostalgia. Back then, when UO was released, MMORPGs were new, exciting and had huge potential as not just games but virtual worlds. That is now all but ruined by big business with cash shops and linear single player story lines.
hmm ... "ruined" is a matter of perspective. I think they become better games going from unwieldy virtual worlds to fun linear single player stories lines.
Originally posted by Kyleran DMKano refused to name even one MMORPG that contained the OP's desired features, can you provide the list of titles you feel contain the designs of old in a more modern day format?
Still no "Grand List" is seen...
There may be a list that has this feature or that feature, but I do not believe any list exists that includes more than 2 or 3 features.
Usually, I get thrown "A Tale In The Desert" as a "crafting/non-combat MMO". OK, what else does it offer?
People have this tendency to focus on ONE thing and forget about anything else. It gets really ridiculous. I appreciate their intent, but they really miss the mark.
- 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
Originally posted by Kyleran DMKano refused to name even one MMORPG that contained the OP's desired features, can you provide the list of titles you feel contain the designs of old in a more modern day format?
Still no "Grand List" is seen...
There may be a list that has this feature or that feature, but I do not believe any list exists that includes more than 2 or 3 features.
Usually, I get thrown "A Tale In The Desert" as a "crafting/non-combat MMO". OK, what else does it offer?
People have this tendency to focus on ONE thing and forget about anything else. It gets really ridiculous. I appreciate their intent, but they really miss the mark.
Well, as someone mentioned above, it's not just a bunch of features, how they are woven together and interact forms the game play experience that we are looking for, and I'm pretty sure there are very few out there right now.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
People these days always go "That is just Nostalgia, you wouldn't want to play that today" and while it is true, I wouldn't want to play that exact same game again, it doesn't make my feelings any less valid. I have nostalgia for amazing titles I once loved, I do not have nostalgia for crap ones, so there has to be something that offered that is still valid today.
When I look back at my nostalgia for EverQuest, I can list the things I loved that it was doing or trying to do that I miss from today. That is the key really, it is often used as an emotion of stuff that you miss which aren't being offered today.
- The sense of wonder
- Innovation
- A dangerous world
- Risk/reward
- Difficulty
- Big open (attempting to be at least) seamless world
- The world feeling big without fast travel
- Having to wait to achieve things, not having instant gratification and a checklist of things to do constantly. Todays MMOs are just boring quest grinds, but back in the day it offered a much more emergent experience, one where the players made their own dynamic stories, no just a linear quest system and following a path through the whole game.
etc etc.
The MMO genre was started to create online worlds, I remember thinking when playing SWG Pre CU "if they can deliver this now, I cannot wait in 10 years time to have much more world simulation going on" and it never happened. Instead the MMO genre died and it has been replaced by hub games and WoW clones, I'm going to call them WoW clones, because WoW turned the genre into what it is today. EverQuest before WoW was a very different game, it wasn't till after did SOE turn it into WoW, now ppl play that game and claim it was original... no EQ is nothing more than a wannabe WoW now.
My Nostalgia for the past is valid, those were the games I wanted to continue to play. Sadly though all the ones I loved are now ruined, but even if they weren't, you cannot play the same game all your life, you do eventually get bored no matter how good it is. So saying "well why did you quit then?"... well many reasons, but you have to stop a great game at some time even if it stays great.
I don't claim I want the same exact experience, I want new graphics, new innovations, I do want quests (but ones which are fun and not there to just be a grind ) and I do want new flashy combat as playing EQs combat now is just so bad. However I want the MMO to have the properties of the things that I miss and consider to be the genre. It's like I want an overworld based JRPG like what FFVII offered, I don't want what the modern day JRPG has become. Just because I have Nostalgia for FF7, doesn't mean my opinion is invalid and what we have today is much better... because it isn't.
I'm just bored of people saying to me that my opinions are invalid because they're based on Nostalgia. What we have today isn't even an MMO in my eyes... frigging Destiny is in mmorpg.coms MMO of the year poll..... wtf? The online part is a 3D lobby like Phantasy Star Online or Guild Wars, only with way less people. The actual game was just a coop game you played with your friends.
I want to be transported into an online world that makes me want to explore it and gives me a sense of awe. I don't want a big map that shows me where everything is, I want to explore it for myself and never know what is coming up next. Dayz has proved to me that I can still have that experience, while it isn't an MMO, it is the closest any game has gotten to making me feel like I did when I first started playing EQ and SWG etc in the last 10 years! It proves to me what can still be done with a big open world and without all the hand holding and other BS.
No one seems to want to put money into the genre any more after WoW clone failure after WoW clone failure for the past 10 years. Like why was the genre blamed as being dangerous to invest into? Why wasn't making bad MMOs blamed? Why wasn't creating the same exact experience each time blamed? "Log in, make a character and then grind boring kill 10 rats quests until you hit the cap and then do instances and BGs until you get bored".. pretty much sums up what the genre has been.
Back with UO,EQ, DAOC, SWG, PS, EVE and even WoW from a period of the late 97 - 04, it really was the golden age of the genre. Each MMO was vastly different from the other because no set standard was made yet. There was this strive for innovation of evolution and it was about developers building their dream. Now it is big corps who just want to emulate WoW and wont fund development unless the game looks exactly like it.
It is not valid because you don't look at things objectively. This is the key to seeing what makes money and what doesn't. Looking at things through rose-colored glasses doesn't do anything except people looking to the past.
One needs to learn from the past and move forward - you post does not do that.
Originally posted by botrytis It is not valid because you don't look at things objectively. This is the key to seeing what makes money and what doesn't. Looking at things through rose-colored glasses doesn't do anything except people looking to the past.One needs to learn from the past and move forward - you post does not do that.
So you poo-poo the OP's opinion because *you* happen to think the listed features were bad/terrible?
So, innovation, dangerous worlds, risk/reward ratios. difficulty, big open worlds, no fast travel, and waiting for rewards are just "things of the past" and players should just move forward.
Superb.
- 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
People these days always go "That is just Nostalgia, you wouldn't want to play that today" and while it is true, I wouldn't want to play that exact same game again, it doesn't make my feelings any less valid. I have nostalgia for amazing titles I once loved, I do not have nostalgia for crap ones, so there has to be something that offered that is still valid today.
When I look back at my nostalgia for EverQuest, I can list the things I loved that it was doing or trying to do that I miss from today. That is the key really, it is often used as an emotion of stuff that you miss which aren't being offered today.
- The sense of wonder
- Innovation
- A dangerous world
- Risk/reward
- Difficulty
- Big open (attempting to be at least) seamless world
- The world feeling big without fast travel
Do you know why you had a sense of wonder with EQ? Because back then there was very little to compare it to. It was an entirely new experience for the majority of people going into it. Now, there's heavy saturation in the game market and there's already been the "greats" that people have in the past that they've played. So even when a new game arises nowadays, they compare it to things they've already experienced and that sense of wonder just never really lasts more than the first couple weeks of playing a new mmo.
Again, back when EQ was made, there was hardly anything like it back then. The mmo industry was just being born in those times. So no shit it had innovation. That's like saying the Atari had the most innovation of all gaming systems or something. Also innovation means taking a chance. Taking a chance means potentially wasting millions of dollars. It's easy to understand why many people avoid to much innovation.
Yes EQ was dangerous, i'd argue there are still games that have dangerous worlds. One i would name is WildStar and oldschool FFXI. And honestly, the only reason EQ's world was dangerous is it was a game built around group play. It wasn't meant for solo play so if you tried to solo, you could very very easily get overwhelmed and end up dying and was forced to do the dreaded corpse run.
I honestly don't remember all that much risk/reward in EQ. I'd argue you're reaching with this one.
Difficulty, EQ was not hard i'm sorry but it wasn't. The same people who say it was are the same people who say Vanilla WoW raids were hard. The only Vanilla WoW raid that was actually difficult was Naxx. What EQ had was tedious features/mechanics. Not difficulty.
Yes EQ was relatively big and open and definitely was seamless with no instancing. This is where people usually will point out rose colored glasses. There is nothing fun about having nothing but open world dungeons which will just turn into a zerg fest with the boss dying in seconds due to so many people bombarding it trying to farm loot.
I'd argue any game world would feel large with no instant modes of travel. I'd also argue if you want to simulate this feeling, you can easily forego methods of instant travel and stick to whatever ground mount you have in any game and other slower methods of travel like ships. Sure, you can hearth stone from anywhere in the world back to Ogrimmar, but why not experience the game the way you want to and hop on your mount from the cave you just exited from in Silithus, and make your way through the desert to the jungle surrounding Un'goro Crater, swiftly passing any mob stupid enough to try to chase after you into the arid temperature of Tanaris heading towards the docks of the goblin town to see if the boat to Ratchet is there and deciding if its worth it to wait for the next boat or if your mount is feeling up to a run through Thousand Needles and Dustwallow Marsh before finally being in the homestretch as Durotar is within sight along with the massive walls of Ogrimmar.
People these days always go "That is just Nostalgia, you wouldn't want to play that today" and while it is true, I wouldn't want to play that exact same game again, it doesn't make my feelings any less valid. I have nostalgia for amazing titles I once loved, I do not have nostalgia for crap ones, so there has to be something that offered that is still valid today.
When I look back at my nostalgia for EverQuest, I can list the things I loved that it was doing or trying to do that I miss from today. That is the key really, it is often used as an emotion of stuff that you miss which aren't being offered today.
- The sense of wonder
- Innovation
- A dangerous world
- Risk/reward
- Difficulty
- Big open (attempting to be at least) seamless world
- The world feeling big without fast travel
Do you know why you had a sense of wonder with EQ? Because back then there was very little to compare it to. It was an entirely new experience for the majority of people going into it. Now, there's heavy saturation in the game market and there's already been the "greats" that people have in the past that they've played. So even when a new game arises nowadays, they compare it to things they've already experienced and that sense of wonder just never really lasts more than the first couple weeks of playing a new mmo.
Again, back when EQ was made, there was hardly anything like it back then. The mmo industry was just being born in those times. So no shit it had innovation. That's like saying the Atari had the most innovation of all gaming systems or something. Also innovation means taking a chance. Taking a chance means potentially wasting millions of dollars. It's easy to understand why many people avoid to much innovation.
Yes EQ was dangerous, i'd argue there are still games that have dangerous worlds. One i would name is WildStar and oldschool FFXI. And honestly, the only reason EQ's world was dangerous is it was a game built around group play. It wasn't meant for solo play so if you tried to solo, you could very very easily get overwhelmed and end up dying and was forced to do the dreaded corpse run.
I honestly don't remember all that much risk/reward in EQ. I'd argue you're reaching with this one.
Difficulty, EQ was not hard i'm sorry but it wasn't. The same people who say it was are the same people who say Vanilla WoW raids were hard. The only Vanilla WoW raid that was actually difficult was Naxx. What EQ had was tedious features/mechanics. Not difficulty.
Naxx was not vanilla WoW by the way. Naxx was not even part of WOW at that time. You had Onyxia, AQ, BWL and the likes but Naxx was not even in the game.
I can see your point here, but what people was finding hard was the leveling process, but again high level players where buffing the lower players adn they where able to level up fast because of it but otherwise the leveling process was hell. Druid thorn was so OP for low level players
Yes EQ was relatively big and open and definitely was seamless with no instancing. This is where people usually will point out rose colored glasses. There is nothing fun about having nothing but open world dungeons which will just turn into a zerg fest with the boss dying in seconds due to so many people bombarding it trying to farm loot.
I'd argue any game world would feel large with no instant modes of travel. I'd also argue if you want to simulate this feeling, you can easily forego methods of instant travel and stick to whatever ground mount you have in any game and other slower methods of travel like ships. Sure, you can hearth stone from anywhere in the world back to Ogrimmar, but why not experience the game the way you want to and hop on your mount from the cave you just exited from in Silithus, and make your way through the desert to the jungle surrounding Un'goro Crater, swiftly passing any mob stupid enough to try to chase after you into the arid temperature of Tanaris heading towards the docks of the goblin town to see if the boat to Ratchet is there and deciding if its worth it to wait for the next boat or if your mount is feeling up to a run through Thousand Needles and Dustwallow Marsh before finally being in the homestretch as Durotar is within sight along with the massive walls of Ogrimmar.
True if any game as instant everything there would not be anything to do. This is the problem today in mmorpg's. People want max level right away and do raids or arenas all day. But the problem is 1 week after they have reach max level they have nothing to do and cry like little girls in forums about how there is nothing to do in there favorite mmo's. You can't have a mmorpg without levels otherwise you can only repeat the same things over and over, and if you let them level up so fast they park the toon at max level and re-level another toon right away just to get tired and the leveling process, the raids and the arenas. So what can the dev do to please the players? Nothing really technology does not exist yet to have raids made on the fly or multiple type of arenas on the fly and gear on the fly. And if you take away flying fom rthem to slow them down they cry again like little girls.
Seriously if everything is instant in any games it gets boring fast. What people need to do is stop leveling multiple characters in such a small amount of time. Like in EQ or in Vanilla WoW, the reason why those version of the games where so good is the fact that it took you so long to level up and be good at your character that you had to feel a connection with your character. That is what i think is missing today in mmorpg, we play them like if it is just another game we buy at 60$, play the game to finish the story and park it on the shelf like a console game. But in reality it is not that type of game. We lost are view on what a mmorpg is.
Originally posted by botrytis It is not valid because you don't look at things objectively. This is the key to seeing what makes money and what doesn't. Looking at things through rose-colored glasses doesn't do anything except people looking to the past.
One needs to learn from the past and move forward - you post does not do that.
So you poo-poo the OP's opinion because *you* happen to think the listed features were bad/terrible?
So, innovation, dangerous worlds, risk/reward ratios. difficulty, big open worlds, no fast travel, and waiting for rewards are just "things of the past" and players should just move forward.
Superb.
And maybe some of us who remember the intricacies of the old style game play and the complexities of the different levels aren't looking for a game that appeals to millions. If someone were to invest in a game that honors the designs of the early MMOs, I would not expect a game to try to appeal to a 6 figure population at best. I'd go as far as to say, the main reason why the genre is in an identity crisis is because the genre was never designed to deliver the game that "the millions" want. So we get these short term online hybrid games that really have no need to even be online for what those "millions" actually even do in them.
I just want a game that plays and feels like they used to. That's all.
For those who think that nostalgia is rose colored glasses and only looking at the past without looking ahead..........
Originally posted by ArazaleDifficulty, EQ was not hard i'm sorry but it wasn't. The same people who say it was are the same people who say Vanilla WoW raids were hard. The only Vanilla WoW raid that was actually difficult was Naxx. What EQ had was tedious features/mechanics. Not difficulty.
Naxx was not vanilla WoW by the way. Naxx was not even part of WOW at that time. You had Onyxia, AQ, BWL and the likes but Naxx was not even in the game.
I can see your point here, but what people was finding hard was the leveling process, but again high level players where buffing the lower players adn they where able to level up fast because of it but otherwise the leveling process was hell. Druid thorn was so OP for low level players
Naxx actually was in vanilla WoW. There was this huge Naxx invasion event that lead up to a precursor of it appearing and something like only a handful of guilds world wide were able to full clear it before Burning Crusade. The first full clear of Naxx came a full 2 and a half months after it was released by an EU guild Nihilium July 6th, 2006. Burning Crusade released just 7 months later.
People who didn't play vanilla usually don't know that Naxx that was released in WotLK was simply a re-release of the raid from vanilla WoW. Here's a WoWwiki link for proof.
It is not valid because you don't look at things objectively. This is the key to seeing what makes money and what doesn't. Looking at things through rose-colored glasses doesn't do anything except people looking to the past.
One needs to learn from the past and move forward - you post does not do that.
What kind of soul-less and frankly weird player would judge the quality of a game based on how much money it makes? Candy Crush, Farmville, slot machines all make a ton of money but are you actually going to try to say those are great games?
And a lot of the WoW clones even fail as great money makers.
Comments
There are tons of choices out there. More sandbox more themepark some hybrids. Hard , easy. Way way way more choices than at any other time in the history of this genre
They are as hard as you choose to make them. Just like before.
Better is subjective.
But there are virtual worlds today. Furthermore most of the MMOs of the past weren't actually virtual worlds either. They were a map w/ some monsters sprinkles around. You had games like UO, SWG, Helbreath, Runescape, etc. Some are still around, some aren't.
Today you also have stuff like Eve, Second Life, Perpetuum, Trove, etc. Whether or not they are 'better' really depends on your point of view on the matter. I.E. Do you consider games like Darkfall a virtual world? Or just a FFA sandbox? What is the difference between a virtual world and a sandbox. Etc.
It's easy to label something with a vague idea, and then state that nothing matches it. It's much harder to think about a practical list of criteria with real world examples and compare them to other real life examples.
- It's true that for a while the shift from pure sandboxes was shifted more towards the themepark, but that pendulum is now swinging back the other way. These things tend to happen in cycles. Usually every 20years or so.
If there is a good game like Vanguard with lots of areas to start in, many races, and classes, the replay ability is great which then makes the world very important. I played that game for 7 years and had at least one of every class to 50 and all but 2 to 55 which was max level. I could not do that in any games since because I could barely stand to play one toon to max level let alone multiple ones.
Also EQ was my first game and did give me that feeling of awe but for me Vanguard surpassed eq in almost every way. The only thing I found better from eq was the fear of dying. No MMO I have heard of even comes close to EQ for that.
To be fair, I haven't tried Darkfall so I cant comment. There are others that I have not tried as well but I have played so many games since Vanguard released that just don't do it for me. Does Darkfall have a realistic looking world with a lot of diversity to it? If so maybe I should try it. As far as Eve, I am not into games that take place in space. I prefer the Sword and Sorcery type game.
I am going to look up some of the other games you listed because I had not heard of some. The older ones yes but not, Second Life, Perpetuem, and Trove.
The type I definitely do not like are games like, Wow, Rifts, Eso, Archage, and many more like them.
Darkfall has a very well designed world. I love how distinct each area is.
When I think of a virtual world, I'm usually more considering how the systems depend on each other. Crafting relies on gather, merchants rely on crafting, combat relies on crafting, etc. Darkfall does that part pretty well, the main problem is the population is pretty low and a game like that needs a health population because almost everything you do in it is player made content. You don't get your friends together and do a pve raid, you get your friends together and raid a player city. If there's nobody in it... welp...
I agree with you. It adds something to the game and fun for me. Players today want the reward with as little time spent as possible. Games don't need worlds, just lobbies.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
You need a bigger phone, lol. I'd recommend the S5; fixed my troubles. Only it's a bit of a bitch constantly making sure I have a good size pocket somewhere on my attire to accomodate the bloody thing.
"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're missing my point, this is about longevity not game-play, as in which lasts longer and offers more. You can finish the stories in SKyrim in days, playing slowly and not rushing, there really isn't much to it after that, if we're talking the base game. ESO is one example of a game that is a lot bigger and offers a lot more hours in content, and that's not even including playing the economy, crafting with a real purpose (other players to buy your stuff), PVP etc....
ANd please don't say dungeons in skyrim are interesting....The only ones that are are tied to quests, the rest are just filler... MOst don't even have worth while loot.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
To me there's a clear separation between the "sense-of-wonder" I had when starting off in MMO's and the type of game play that I'm nostalgic for.
I know I can never recapture that "sense-of-wonder". You cannot lose your virginity more than once.
But the game play is another matter. MMO's have moved away from attempting real-world simulations and instead are focusing on providing action-based entertainment in conveniently sized packages. The gamer demographics have changed dramatically since 2002, and the new trends cater to that changed set of player demands.
"Back in the old days" things like so-called RP-servers were actually a thing. That's because the amount of players supporting those features were a significantly large % of the player base. In today's massive MMO player base, the % of players supporting RP activities is simply not a significant factor compared to their representation in the populations of UO and EQ in the early days.
MMO's no longer have "downtime", penalties or many "fluff" activities. Those features don't appeal to the mainstream. More importantly, those features can't be sold to the mainstream. All features in a game cost money and time to implement, so naturally those that don't generate revenue will be increasingly sidelined.
"A new crowd has arrived, and the old place just isn't what it used to be"
My gaming blog
hmm ... "ruined" is a matter of perspective. I think they become better games going from unwieldy virtual worlds to fun linear single player stories lines.
There may be a list that has this feature or that feature, but I do not believe any list exists that includes more than 2 or 3 features.
Usually, I get thrown "A Tale In The Desert" as a "crafting/non-combat MMO". OK, what else does it offer?
People have this tendency to focus on ONE thing and forget about anything else. It gets really ridiculous. I appreciate their intent, but they really miss the mark.
- 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
Well, as someone mentioned above, it's not just a bunch of features, how they are woven together and interact forms the game play experience that we are looking for, and I'm pretty sure there are very few out there right now.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It is not valid because you don't look at things objectively. This is the key to seeing what makes money and what doesn't. Looking at things through rose-colored glasses doesn't do anything except people looking to the past.
One needs to learn from the past and move forward - you post does not do that.
So, innovation, dangerous worlds, risk/reward ratios. difficulty, big open worlds, no fast travel, and waiting for rewards are just "things of the past" and players should just move forward.
Superb.
- 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
Do you know why you had a sense of wonder with EQ? Because back then there was very little to compare it to. It was an entirely new experience for the majority of people going into it. Now, there's heavy saturation in the game market and there's already been the "greats" that people have in the past that they've played. So even when a new game arises nowadays, they compare it to things they've already experienced and that sense of wonder just never really lasts more than the first couple weeks of playing a new mmo.
Again, back when EQ was made, there was hardly anything like it back then. The mmo industry was just being born in those times. So no shit it had innovation. That's like saying the Atari had the most innovation of all gaming systems or something. Also innovation means taking a chance. Taking a chance means potentially wasting millions of dollars. It's easy to understand why many people avoid to much innovation.
Yes EQ was dangerous, i'd argue there are still games that have dangerous worlds. One i would name is WildStar and oldschool FFXI. And honestly, the only reason EQ's world was dangerous is it was a game built around group play. It wasn't meant for solo play so if you tried to solo, you could very very easily get overwhelmed and end up dying and was forced to do the dreaded corpse run.
I honestly don't remember all that much risk/reward in EQ. I'd argue you're reaching with this one.
Difficulty, EQ was not hard i'm sorry but it wasn't. The same people who say it was are the same people who say Vanilla WoW raids were hard. The only Vanilla WoW raid that was actually difficult was Naxx. What EQ had was tedious features/mechanics. Not difficulty.
Yes EQ was relatively big and open and definitely was seamless with no instancing. This is where people usually will point out rose colored glasses. There is nothing fun about having nothing but open world dungeons which will just turn into a zerg fest with the boss dying in seconds due to so many people bombarding it trying to farm loot.
I'd argue any game world would feel large with no instant modes of travel. I'd also argue if you want to simulate this feeling, you can easily forego methods of instant travel and stick to whatever ground mount you have in any game and other slower methods of travel like ships. Sure, you can hearth stone from anywhere in the world back to Ogrimmar, but why not experience the game the way you want to and hop on your mount from the cave you just exited from in Silithus, and make your way through the desert to the jungle surrounding Un'goro Crater, swiftly passing any mob stupid enough to try to chase after you into the arid temperature of Tanaris heading towards the docks of the goblin town to see if the boat to Ratchet is there and deciding if its worth it to wait for the next boat or if your mount is feeling up to a run through Thousand Needles and Dustwallow Marsh before finally being in the homestretch as Durotar is within sight along with the massive walls of Ogrimmar.
And maybe some of us who remember the intricacies of the old style game play and the complexities of the different levels aren't looking for a game that appeals to millions. If someone were to invest in a game that honors the designs of the early MMOs, I would not expect a game to try to appeal to a 6 figure population at best. I'd go as far as to say, the main reason why the genre is in an identity crisis is because the genre was never designed to deliver the game that "the millions" want. So we get these short term online hybrid games that really have no need to even be online for what those "millions" actually even do in them.
I just want a game that plays and feels like they used to. That's all.
For those who think that nostalgia is rose colored glasses and only looking at the past without looking ahead..........
Nostalgia?
Nostalgia?
Nostalgia?
Naxx actually was in vanilla WoW. There was this huge Naxx invasion event that lead up to a precursor of it appearing and something like only a handful of guilds world wide were able to full clear it before Burning Crusade. The first full clear of Naxx came a full 2 and a half months after it was released by an EU guild Nihilium July 6th, 2006. Burning Crusade released just 7 months later.
People who didn't play vanilla usually don't know that Naxx that was released in WotLK was simply a re-release of the raid from vanilla WoW. Here's a WoWwiki link for proof.
What kind of soul-less and frankly weird player would judge the quality of a game based on how much money it makes? Candy Crush, Farmville, slot machines all make a ton of money but are you actually going to try to say those are great games?
And a lot of the WoW clones even fail as great money makers.