Originally posted by delete5230 levels, leveling...
Stopped reading here.Levels make us play with few people in our own level range. We are not part of community before we hit cap. The whole world is gated by level, we are not part of the world either. We are not part of guild because we are different level, we cant play with friends...Levels = the best way to kill community, not to bring it back.
Levels are "iffy", depending heavily on how the game handles them. They certainly can be a divisive factor, interrupting community by separating players into levels/zones.
However, "Mentoring" type mechanics (like CoH's mentor/sidekick feature) can minimize that effect.
Then you have GW2's "Let's negate character levels by having zone levels" mechanic, which is one of the reasons I left that MMO. There was just no feeling of character progression for me. After beating a particularly nasty boss in one zone, I suddenly lost all "power" by entering a lower level zone, where common mobs became a challenge again.
In some cases, outleveling a "friend" would cause alternate characters to be created, just to adventure with friends. But this was not a viable option to many players who just wanted one character in the game (and maybe a mule or two).
Levels, by themselves, are not community breaking. It is more how they are handled by each game
- 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
As it stands, every mmo for the past 5 years are made for no community....yet they tell you to play togeather. well that's nice when developers are all sitting next to each other in the SAME ROOM !....THEY HAVE THERE HEAD UP THERE BUTT
Here's the thing, though. This thread should be named 'how to bring back oldschool MMOs', not 'how to bring back community'.
OP, you're essentially making the same mistake as most gamers when it comes to this topic. You are equating the social aspect of gaming with a feature list, which is a mistake.
If you are truly interested in bringing back community, you really only need 2 things:
1) A fanbase willing to commit to a game and involve others within the same game. (communication, hosting events, etc.)
2) A developer willing to support such a community and put in the time and effort required to nurture one. (host / plug community members, reward community events, interact with your own community, etc.)
That's it.
If mechanics were actually a factor we wouldn't have the largest gaming communities spanned over highly diverse gameplay. Indeed most of the largest gaming communities are not revolved around MMOs. The only exception being with Blizzard. You have huge communities revolving around various MOBAs, Minecraft, TF2, CS:GO, etc. All very different games. All highly instanced (even Minecraft). You also have communities that form around non-game related things. (like music, tv, film, literature, food, etc. etc. etc.).
In short, it's the interaction between people that forms a community. It doesn't matter about the mechanics, or even the topic. All that matters is that they are all interested in the same thing and to bound around that unifying factor. Whether it be the same game, the same genre, the same medium, the same food, the same books, the same viewpoints, w/e.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard I haven't notice we lost "community". Each time I log into one of the games I play, I interact with dozens of other players, including total strangers.
Maybe the people claiming that community is dead should question their own playstyle instead of the genre. Maybe they are just unable to socialize if not forced to by the game.
I agree. Even in SWToR there's plenty of socializing going on and generally a good community.
Yeah this is about the OP. If your not friendly with people why should they be to you. I always say hi to people questing near me or in general. And maybe it also depends on what game your playing. In AA people ae just aholes. In wow it used to be like that but the community is alot older now so friendlier. Just saying hi can lead to teaming up if your questing in the same area.
This is pretty much true. Most MMOs still have some mechanics in place to be social, even though they are not as easily done as before. My experience has been somewhat less stellar than Jean-Luc's, though.
The problem I have is 2-fold: 1) Mega-servers: They lump ALL players together, so there is no "RP server" or other types to group "like-minded players" together for their shared experience.
2) Silence speaks volumes: I, too, will attempt conversations when I group, or just in passing. It is getting more rare to get responses these days. It is even more common to get replies like "Shut up and DPS/Tank/Heal!" in games with those kinds of mechanics or just "Shut Up!" in more 1 character can do everything MMOs. Most of the time, though, my comments are met with silence.
Personally, I have given up trying, which is more my fault (with help from other players) than any MMOs. I am not a naturally gregarious person, though
- 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
The arguements re horizontal v vertical is certainly not semantics. Vertical = more power relative to everything else in the game, including other players, horizontal = more variety of skills that introduce variation. Both are progression, that's not what the difference is, vertical creates power differences that ruins gameplay, horizontal does not. Vertical power based games have more problems that creates social issues (gear snobbery, unbalanced gameplay, greed) which you don't get in horizontal games.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
But Pepeq is correct, socialization mechanics have largely been eliminated from MMORPG's by popular demand. People are more like Narius and less like you.
Or they socialize heavily in real life, so they have no need for further socialization in their games. (heck, perhaps they are looking for some respite from people by this point)
But there are those of us who did (and still would) socialize more if presented the opportunity, however not likely game developers are going to spend much time catering to this niche.
Yeh, pretty much this. I talk to colleagues almost all day, and spend time with wife & kids at home. Last week I was in SF for a meeting and Xmas party with a bunch of fun execs, and we talked about wine, food, and everything under the sun.
So no .. i am not looking to socialize in games. And as you said, I may be activate wanting some solo time. Apparently devs understand this.
1) This was done in vanilla WoW, there was a wide range of levels between mobs and quests in almost every zone. You wanted to come back for higher lvl quest, and maybe even help some lower lvl player while doing so. This is so much better design than 'mentoring', which is an artificial way to keep characters close to same levels.
However, i disagree with the requirement of having to take ALL quests when entering the zone. Quests shouldn't be something you just pick up. They should relate to something you have already done, like a follow up for a previously done quest, or start from an item you loot from a mob, or have something to do with your class or profession. This would increase replay value, since eventually the journey is over and it's time to reroll another character. I guess we all know how boring it is if quests remain the same on your second run, or the third. There could be even random quests with random rewards at the end..
2) The slower you level, the longer the content lasts, and the longer your gear stays up to date. Almost in every modern MMO you outlevel content in a blink of an eye, just by playing casually..
3) Agreed. The best dynamic events are those that happen once a week or once a month, and need lots of players and coordination. (see world dragons in vanilla WoW)
4) Game shouldn't be hard per se, but it should require a player to upgrade gear, skills, etc. and eventually end up a brick wall if player can't / refuse do so. There should be lots of soloable stuff, but a game should require a player to participate group content as well. If you can't / want to, maybe MMOs aren't for you in the first place.
5) Agreed! Dungeons should be dangerous places where a player shouldn't go alone, ever. Spamming dungeon finders dilutes the whole idea of dungeons, and breaks immersion. A dungeon should be an ultimate test for teamwork and group play, and it also should be something that players wanted to do to gear up, and make further content easier to solo. Also, getting loot from dungeons should be the way to gear up for PvP. MMOs are not MOBAs, you shouldn't be rewarded with gear by zerging other players in instanced battlegrounds. Yes, you hear me, you should do PvE to be better in PvP. That's how MMORPGs should work.
6) Agreed! Story should be something you figure out by doing quests, reading in-game books, and talking NPCs. That's one part of an RPG; having a mysteries in the world and discovering what's going on. STORY DRIVEN QUESTING DOES NOT MAKE AN RPG, it makes an interactive cartoon.
7) Sure does. Gives you a sense of being part of something bigger. Instanced zones makes you feel like you were playing an arcade game with 'stage complete' text and fireworks in the end.
If you want to play a single player game, by all means do so. They are fun and you won't be bothered by other people. If you want, however, play an MMORPG, you should prepare to play with other people and talk to them in order to get anywhere in the game. Players are what makes a community, but a game design should support them to do so, and give them a meaning and tools to create an in-game community.
The main reason old school MMO's had better communities is players relied on each other for everything. Trading, crafting, questing, grinding, buffing, etc. You literally could not sustain your toon without socializing. So basically if you wanted to be a jerk you paid the price in solitude and therefore the game was OVER for you unless you grouped with like minded individuals. Either way you were out of our hair so good riddance.
Archeage almost got us back to this, too bad they were more concerned about cash shops than they were a long lasting MMO with community.
No auction house, no solo quest grinding, no dungeon finders (replace with LFG finder), unique buffs to each class that greatly enhance other toons....just a few examples.
This topic could be summed up in only one sentence:
Make grouping appealing again.
How to do that? Remove solostuff that is as rewarding as group stuff. AT ALL LEVELS, not only at max. Make soloing possible, but give HUGE advantages to grouping. More xp, more loot, more fun. Remove quests, almost all together. ect. ect.
Actually... make Everquest one all over again. It had all that was needed to support community and made people WANT to group. Which game did that in the past 10 years? Usually soloing is just faster and almost exactly as rewarding, if not more.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Originally posted by Bladestrom GW1 is an example of an extremely long lasting community that had a game that was based on horizontal progression.
Thank you. I am downloading it right now. It is with a free trial, so I can see for myself. If Guild Wars 1 is in fact of "Horizontal" progression, then you are the first one to actually be able to name one game that is. The last person that I had this "Levels VS Levelless" debate with called me "mentally handicapped" and told me "Monster Hunter" was such proof. A little bit of research showed that claim to be false. Characters still had ranks and the quests themselves had levels... in which case, wrong answer. And if Guild Wars 1 is such a "Horizontal" progression MMORPG, then there is no need to explain it's long standing within the the industry. Although I have never played it or GW2, I have certainly seen and heard of it. Who knows, I might even like their version of a Necromancer
The problem you'll find w/ the horizontal vs. vertical progression debate is that you have to go back pretty far in time to find an example for horiztonal progression (within the same genre) for most games. MMOs especially have been designed around a skinnerbox model for over a decade now. If you're unfamiliar w/ the term you can google it, but the short version is it's designed based off of a false sense of 'fun', based around a sense of accomplishment triggered & exploited through calculated (and ever decreasing) RNG / odds. The most common example being rare drops in loot tables.
Horizontal progression games don't need to do this, because there is no power scaling (vertical progression = you're character is gaining more and more power as you play the game. horizontal = even lvl of power amongst player, and outcome is largely determined by game knowledge and skill). However, because it matters less with horizontal progression games it also means that developers have to work smarter. If they're game isn't well designed people don't play it. However, a poorly designed vertical progression game will still attract players, because it exploits a primitive part of the human psyche.
- That said, just because there are few examples of MMOs with horiztonal progression does not mean it can't work. It's been shown in other genres that it can. You can also look at some of the earlier SRPGs and see examples of both working (zelda = horizontal, final fantasy = vertical). It just requires less lazy design work.
1) Much LARGER Zones that cover a wider range of levels.
When you first enter a zone, you should be able to take ALL the quest. That way when you see someone doing something you can play with them ( no two quest hubs ).
2) Slow leveling.
More people in your level range to make friends with. Gaining levels every hour causes friends to out level each other. This would greatly help Guilds to play together too.
3) Do away with dynamic events.
This is like poison to mmos....No one talks !
4) Make the game harder with some easy content for when you feel like soloing.
5) No Looking for Dungeon or cross realm finders.
Yes, encourage players to use social panels, give a good tutorial about this subject. and developer focuse on making it work.
6) No story lines and videos.
Were talking about mmos not single player games, if you like 10 min videos then play off line games.
7) Seamless worlds.
This helps.
As it stands, every mmo for the past 5 years are made for no community....yet they tell you to play togeather. well that's nice when developers are all sitting next to each other in the SAME ROOM !....THEY HAVE THERE HEAD UP THERE BUTT
Zone size, Seamless worlds(know those dynamic events you hate so much? open world dungeons are no different), Leveling Speed and Cutscenes are not what make a mmo community. If you think those things will attribute to an MMO community then you literally are ignorant to anything about what goes into making a tight nit mmo community.
The only things on your list that would help building a community like that is no cross server dungeon finder. Dungeon finder itself isn't bad, just if it pulls from other servers it can be. Dynamic events is an arguable point but people not talking in dynamic events isn't because of dynamic events, its because the community or rather the players themselves are anti-social in that if you're not in their guild or don't have something for them to trade, then why should they talk to you?
Gw1 is vertical until you reach level 20 and get the high level gear. It takes a couple months tops to get there - there is 9 years of content. GW1 is well known and recognised as a horizontal progression game, players and dev alike.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I don't think we can ever get community back until people start to look at these games as roleplaying games again. If it is just about combat--and only about combat--there's really no point in community beyond a matchmaking service.
You need to have interpersonal, character-driven drama and player-acted plot lines to justify the community which will enact them. For if there is nothing else in the game but machine-driven combat all the time...there's really no point to a vibrant community.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Zelda = Vertical. I played the first and second and third Zelda's... they were vertical since the first game. Sure, it may have "find" more hps, and defense, and damage output... but nevertheless, it is vertical progression by way of finding items.
Guild Wars 1 is still vertical so far (that is even with dismissing the leveling aspect)... so you put points into skills to build them... same as skill building which again becomes semantics.
A true horizontal MMORPG will have you begin at "end game"... as if you begin at say level 100 as an example, just, they will have no such numeric level shown. Skills would be found (guild wars 1 so far has this skills aspect in part), but not built up through vertical progression as GW1 also has.
Now, once you reach "last level" (level 20?), is there any more skill points to build up skills? If so, it is absolutely still vertical... if not, it was absolutely vertical even getting to that point. What is the progression if not? So far it seems like a good game for it's time like many games (and no, that is not knocking it), but I must wonder if one reason it is as active as it is (guestimating at least 25%+ population in GW1) is to gain GW2 bonuses.
The only "horizontal" games i have seen so far are fps, mario bros and sonic the hedgehog, et al. I am just not seeing GW1 in that "horizontal" progress category, even while dismissing the actual leveling part.
So far, we are still at semantics.
I think you might be misunderstand what makes a game horizontal vs. vertical. Supermario bros isn't really either to be honest. It's a bad example. It would be like saying a golfing game is horizontal. The only real progression in both games is how many levels you beat. That's really it. If you want to use a platformer as an example of horizontal, a better example would be with any of the mega man games. This is because when talking about horizontal vs. vertical you are talking about character progression types, not game progression types. Mario has basically zero character progression, it's all story / lvl progression (in the sense of stages).
With megaman (similar to zelda) you are acquiring new tools to help you with different parts of the game. With megaman you acquire the abilities of the bosses you defeat, which can help when fighting the other bosses.
With zelda you acquire new tools, that can help with boss fights or unlock new areas.
Both games are horizontal because they don't have levels, and the focus is on acquiring more tools, rather than getting stronger. While it's true your health pool gets larger in both games, you're strength gain is somewhat limited. By contrast look at any of the final fantasy games. The differnce between a lvl 1 character and a lvl 99 char is astronomical. You don't just have more abilities, you get significantly more stats, larger health pools / more damage, and take significantly less damage from creatures of lower lvl.
In zelda / megaman you can still get destroyed by those early enemies if you aren't careful / aren't paying attention. It might take them more hits, but it's still very doable. In games like final fantasy you are basically invincible to lower lvl enemies once you've gained enough power.
- As for GW1, it's already been mentioned (in this post) that the only vertical progression in that game is basically in the tutorial / learning process of the game. The max lvl is 20 (which actually does take that long, but if you're finding it slow you can always ask for help). Once you hit lvl 20, there is still 90%+ of the game to do. And you will have but a small fraction of all the available skills in the game.
This is why GW1 is known to be 'horizontal' progression. The early parts may seem vertical, but they are limited, a tutorial. The entire rest of the game you go through by acquiring more tools, and by trying to use them effectively to defeat enemies.
*** I can't stress this enough, but the main difference between horizontal and vertical progression, is that with horizontal you are primarily acquiring tools (new abilties / ways to handle different situations). With vertical you are primarily acquiring power (you are getting significantly stronger, while not necessarily doing anything differently).
Originally posted by Bladestrom Gw1 is vertical until you reach level 20 and get the high level gear. It takes a couple months tops to get there - there is 9 years of content. GW1 is well known and recognised as a horizontal progression game, players and dev alike.
It only takes a couple months if you are going through the game at a snail's pace.
Especially if you have access to any of the expansions, it can be done in a day / weekend (depending on if you're limited to prophecies or not).
A true horizontal MMORPG will have you begin at "end game"... as if you begin at say level 100 as an example, just, they will have no such numeric level shown. Skills would be found (guild wars 1 so far has this skills aspect in part), but not built up through vertical progression as GW1 also has.
1) The whole concept of 'endgame' is a biproduct of vertical progression games. It's a term used to refer to the point in the game when you've acquired all your power and now need something to do.
Horizontal based games don't have that, because there isn't the same 'rush through the grind' so to speak. The gameplay is the gameplay and you either like it or you don't. Playing the game and acquiring new options is the whole appeal behind such a design.
Now, once you reach "last level" (level 20?), is there any more skill points to build up skills? If so, it is absolutely still vertical... if not, it was absolutely vertical even getting to that point. What is the progression if not? So far it seems like a good game for it's time like many games (and no, that is not knocking it), but I must wonder if one reason it is as active as it is (guestimating at least 25%+ population in GW1) is to gain GW2 bonuses.
Regardless of your level, you have to buy, win (quest reward for example), or capture (skill capture signet) new skills. This can be done from quests, from trainers in various cities scattered around the world (some hidden, some not). Having the right skills drastically changes what type of build you're able to make. And thus how flexible your character will be at dealing with different encounters.
Such a system cannot be considered vertical, if you are to understand the meaning of the two terms. Literally the only vertical portion of gw1 is the intro lvls (lvl 1-20). Which are there as a tutorial. After you hit 20 there is a power plateau. You're character doesn't really get much / any stronger after that point. The entire rest of the game revolves around how well you play that character(s) and how smart you are with your builds. There are 1000+ skills in the game to obtain, so there is a ton of customization. lvls 1-20 make up roughly ~10% of the entire game. Possibly even less.
- As for the hall of monuments stuff (the gw2 bonus') most people who know about them have already done them. Most people still playing GW1 are those either unhappy w/ gw2, or just super big fans of the original (or are like yourself and heard about it but never tried).
The only "horizontal" games i have seen so far are fps, mario bros and sonic the hedgehog, et al. I am just not seeing GW1 in that "horizontal" progress category, even while dismissing the actual leveling part.
Again, no offense, but I think you are confused as to the difference between horizontal and vertical progression. Most FPS games (with the exception of CS:GO) have been vertical progression for years now. They didn't use to be, but have become so as they've been adopting more and more MMO features.
With COD and Battlefield you now 'lvl-up' which gives you access to better and better weapons and perks. Max lvl players do have a power advantage over lower lvl players.
Perhaps if you are confused over the difference within games, ask yourself what most of the gameplay revolves around (lvls? or no?) If you are constantly gaining lvls on your character within a game, you are most likely playing on vertical progression. If the gameplay revolves primarily around gaining more options / tools / customization / flexibility / versatility on your character, you are most likely playing a game that has horiztonal progression.
So far, we are still at semantics.
Answering the rest of your post since my last response was starting to become a wall.
Originally posted by aesperus Both games are horizontal because they don't have levels
No levels does not necessarily mean horizontal.
The keyword is progression. Whether there are levels, story, w/e makes no difference.
Simple clear out of the terms being used here:
Design can be either vertical or horizontal.
Vertical design: 1) inherits a progression - the design is made to lead a player from pre-determined point A to pre-determined point B 2) progression can be either linear or non-linear
Horizontal design is the opposite: 1) lacks any progression 2) there are no pre-determined objectives 3) content is accesible with no particular order
Often made mistakes:
1) Interchanging terms design and feature. 2) False premise that design is determined by features - ie. type of character progression, FFAPVP, instances, etc.
However it seems many not all, feel anti social behavior with newer players is at fault. This is totally untrue !
Game design is at fault - Developers are under complete control of how an mmo can be played. This is not to say that developers can't give back freedom, BUT THEY CHOSE TO TAKE IT AWAY !
Now we have :
- They will tell the story for the player.
- They will set groups for you ( Dungeon finders and dynamic events ).
- They control the extreme easy, hard and everything in between.
- They will set the path of progression.
Players will follow what's handed them !
Some, can over ride developers obstacles. But let me ask you, how can you over come.
1) Faster leveling, and out leveling ?
2) Friends and Guild mates following game design and go off on there own, LFD with strangers and soloing dynamic events ?
3) I'm on part 47 and your on part 61 of the story line ?
4) I'm at quest hub 27-30, your at quest hub 33-36 ?
I'll be honest, I really don't see how people can keep playable friends in games like Elders Scrolls Online with a mega server. And FF14 with 250 part storyline that HAS TO BE DONE, along with constant in your face Dynamic events. Or RIFT where you move to an entirely new zone every 4 levels.
Comments
However, "Mentoring" type mechanics (like CoH's mentor/sidekick feature) can minimize that effect.
Then you have GW2's "Let's negate character levels by having zone levels" mechanic, which is one of the reasons I left that MMO. There was just no feeling of character progression for me. After beating a particularly nasty boss in one zone, I suddenly lost all "power" by entering a lower level zone, where common mobs became a challenge again.
In some cases, outleveling a "friend" would cause alternate characters to be created, just to adventure with friends. But this was not a viable option to many players who just wanted one character in the game (and maybe a mule or two).
Levels, by themselves, are not community breaking. It is more how they are handled by each game
- 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
Here's the thing, though. This thread should be named 'how to bring back oldschool MMOs', not 'how to bring back community'.
OP, you're essentially making the same mistake as most gamers when it comes to this topic. You are equating the social aspect of gaming with a feature list, which is a mistake.
If you are truly interested in bringing back community, you really only need 2 things:
1) A fanbase willing to commit to a game and involve others within the same game. (communication, hosting events, etc.)
2) A developer willing to support such a community and put in the time and effort required to nurture one. (host / plug community members, reward community events, interact with your own community, etc.)
That's it.
If mechanics were actually a factor we wouldn't have the largest gaming communities spanned over highly diverse gameplay. Indeed most of the largest gaming communities are not revolved around MMOs. The only exception being with Blizzard. You have huge communities revolving around various MOBAs, Minecraft, TF2, CS:GO, etc. All very different games. All highly instanced (even Minecraft). You also have communities that form around non-game related things. (like music, tv, film, literature, food, etc. etc. etc.).
In short, it's the interaction between people that forms a community. It doesn't matter about the mechanics, or even the topic. All that matters is that they are all interested in the same thing and to bound around that unifying factor. Whether it be the same game, the same genre, the same medium, the same food, the same books, the same viewpoints, w/e.
The problem I have is 2-fold:
1) Mega-servers:
They lump ALL players together, so there is no "RP server" or other types to group "like-minded players" together for their shared experience.
2) Silence speaks volumes:
I, too, will attempt conversations when I group, or just in passing. It is getting more rare to get responses these days. It is even more common to get replies like "Shut up and DPS/Tank/Heal!" in games with those kinds of mechanics or just "Shut Up!" in more 1 character can do everything MMOs. Most of the time, though, my comments are met with silence.
Personally, I have given up trying, which is more my fault (with help from other players) than any MMOs. I am not a naturally gregarious person, though
- 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
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Yeh, pretty much this. I talk to colleagues almost all day, and spend time with wife & kids at home. Last week I was in SF for a meeting and Xmas party with a bunch of fun execs, and we talked about wine, food, and everything under the sun.
So no .. i am not looking to socialize in games. And as you said, I may be activate wanting some solo time. Apparently devs understand this.
1) This was done in vanilla WoW, there was a wide range of levels between mobs and quests in almost every zone. You wanted to come back for higher lvl quest, and maybe even help some lower lvl player while doing so. This is so much better design than 'mentoring', which is an artificial way to keep characters close to same levels.
However, i disagree with the requirement of having to take ALL quests when entering the zone. Quests shouldn't be something you just pick up. They should relate to something you have already done, like a follow up for a previously done quest, or start from an item you loot from a mob, or have something to do with your class or profession. This would increase replay value, since eventually the journey is over and it's time to reroll another character. I guess we all know how boring it is if quests remain the same on your second run, or the third. There could be even random quests with random rewards at the end..
2) The slower you level, the longer the content lasts, and the longer your gear stays up to date. Almost in every modern MMO you outlevel content in a blink of an eye, just by playing casually..
3) Agreed. The best dynamic events are those that happen once a week or once a month, and need lots of players and coordination. (see world dragons in vanilla WoW)
4) Game shouldn't be hard per se, but it should require a player to upgrade gear, skills, etc. and eventually end up a brick wall if player can't / refuse do so. There should be lots of soloable stuff, but a game should require a player to participate group content as well. If you can't / want to, maybe MMOs aren't for you in the first place.
5) Agreed! Dungeons should be dangerous places where a player shouldn't go alone, ever. Spamming dungeon finders dilutes the whole idea of dungeons, and breaks immersion. A dungeon should be an ultimate test for teamwork and group play, and it also should be something that players wanted to do to gear up, and make further content easier to solo. Also, getting loot from dungeons should be the way to gear up for PvP. MMOs are not MOBAs, you shouldn't be rewarded with gear by zerging other players in instanced battlegrounds. Yes, you hear me, you should do PvE to be better in PvP. That's how MMORPGs should work.
6) Agreed! Story should be something you figure out by doing quests, reading in-game books, and talking NPCs. That's one part of an RPG; having a mysteries in the world and discovering what's going on. STORY DRIVEN QUESTING DOES NOT MAKE AN RPG, it makes an interactive cartoon.
7) Sure does. Gives you a sense of being part of something bigger. Instanced zones makes you feel like you were playing an arcade game with 'stage complete' text and fireworks in the end.
If you want to play a single player game, by all means do so. They are fun and you won't be bothered by other people. If you want, however, play an MMORPG, you should prepare to play with other people and talk to them in order to get anywhere in the game. Players are what makes a community, but a game design should support them to do so, and give them a meaning and tools to create an in-game community.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
The main reason old school MMO's had better communities is players relied on each other for everything. Trading, crafting, questing, grinding, buffing, etc. You literally could not sustain your toon without socializing. So basically if you wanted to be a jerk you paid the price in solitude and therefore the game was OVER for you unless you grouped with like minded individuals. Either way you were out of our hair so good riddance.
Archeage almost got us back to this, too bad they were more concerned about cash shops than they were a long lasting MMO with community.
No auction house, no solo quest grinding, no dungeon finders (replace with LFG finder), unique buffs to each class that greatly enhance other toons....just a few examples.
People who don't want, don't play it.
1. Dial-up
2. Elimination of 99% of social media outlets
3. Novelty and wonder in the ability to chat with people from around the globe
This topic could be summed up in only one sentence:
Make grouping appealing again.
How to do that? Remove solostuff that is as rewarding as group stuff. AT ALL LEVELS, not only at max. Make soloing possible, but give HUGE advantages to grouping. More xp, more loot, more fun. Remove quests, almost all together. ect. ect.
Actually... make Everquest one all over again. It had all that was needed to support community and made people WANT to group. Which game did that in the past 10 years? Usually soloing is just faster and almost exactly as rewarding, if not more.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
The problem you'll find w/ the horizontal vs. vertical progression debate is that you have to go back pretty far in time to find an example for horiztonal progression (within the same genre) for most games. MMOs especially have been designed around a skinnerbox model for over a decade now. If you're unfamiliar w/ the term you can google it, but the short version is it's designed based off of a false sense of 'fun', based around a sense of accomplishment triggered & exploited through calculated (and ever decreasing) RNG / odds. The most common example being rare drops in loot tables.
Horizontal progression games don't need to do this, because there is no power scaling (vertical progression = you're character is gaining more and more power as you play the game. horizontal = even lvl of power amongst player, and outcome is largely determined by game knowledge and skill). However, because it matters less with horizontal progression games it also means that developers have to work smarter. If they're game isn't well designed people don't play it. However, a poorly designed vertical progression game will still attract players, because it exploits a primitive part of the human psyche.
- That said, just because there are few examples of MMOs with horiztonal progression does not mean it can't work. It's been shown in other genres that it can. You can also look at some of the earlier SRPGs and see examples of both working (zelda = horizontal, final fantasy = vertical). It just requires less lazy design work.
Zone size, Seamless worlds(know those dynamic events you hate so much? open world dungeons are no different), Leveling Speed and Cutscenes are not what make a mmo community. If you think those things will attribute to an MMO community then you literally are ignorant to anything about what goes into making a tight nit mmo community.
The only things on your list that would help building a community like that is no cross server dungeon finder. Dungeon finder itself isn't bad, just if it pulls from other servers it can be. Dynamic events is an arguable point but people not talking in dynamic events isn't because of dynamic events, its because the community or rather the players themselves are anti-social in that if you're not in their guild or don't have something for them to trade, then why should they talk to you?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I don't think we can ever get community back until people start to look at these games as roleplaying games again. If it is just about combat--and only about combat--there's really no point in community beyond a matchmaking service.
You need to have interpersonal, character-driven drama and player-acted plot lines to justify the community which will enact them. For if there is nothing else in the game but machine-driven combat all the time...there's really no point to a vibrant community.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I think you might be misunderstand what makes a game horizontal vs. vertical. Supermario bros isn't really either to be honest. It's a bad example. It would be like saying a golfing game is horizontal. The only real progression in both games is how many levels you beat. That's really it. If you want to use a platformer as an example of horizontal, a better example would be with any of the mega man games. This is because when talking about horizontal vs. vertical you are talking about character progression types, not game progression types. Mario has basically zero character progression, it's all story / lvl progression (in the sense of stages).
With megaman (similar to zelda) you are acquiring new tools to help you with different parts of the game. With megaman you acquire the abilities of the bosses you defeat, which can help when fighting the other bosses.
With zelda you acquire new tools, that can help with boss fights or unlock new areas.
Both games are horizontal because they don't have levels, and the focus is on acquiring more tools, rather than getting stronger. While it's true your health pool gets larger in both games, you're strength gain is somewhat limited. By contrast look at any of the final fantasy games. The differnce between a lvl 1 character and a lvl 99 char is astronomical. You don't just have more abilities, you get significantly more stats, larger health pools / more damage, and take significantly less damage from creatures of lower lvl.
In zelda / megaman you can still get destroyed by those early enemies if you aren't careful / aren't paying attention. It might take them more hits, but it's still very doable. In games like final fantasy you are basically invincible to lower lvl enemies once you've gained enough power.
- As for GW1, it's already been mentioned (in this post) that the only vertical progression in that game is basically in the tutorial / learning process of the game. The max lvl is 20 (which actually does take that long, but if you're finding it slow you can always ask for help). Once you hit lvl 20, there is still 90%+ of the game to do. And you will have but a small fraction of all the available skills in the game.
This is why GW1 is known to be 'horizontal' progression. The early parts may seem vertical, but they are limited, a tutorial. The entire rest of the game you go through by acquiring more tools, and by trying to use them effectively to defeat enemies.
*** I can't stress this enough, but the main difference between horizontal and vertical progression, is that with horizontal you are primarily acquiring tools (new abilties / ways to handle different situations). With vertical you are primarily acquiring power (you are getting significantly stronger, while not necessarily doing anything differently).
It only takes a couple months if you are going through the game at a snail's pace.
Especially if you have access to any of the expansions, it can be done in a day / weekend (depending on if you're limited to prophecies or not).
Answering the rest of your post since my last response was starting to become a wall.
No levels does not necessarily mean horizontal.
The keyword is progression. Whether there are levels, story, w/e makes no difference.
Simple clear out of the terms being used here:
Design can be either vertical or horizontal.
Vertical design:
1) inherits a progression - the design is made to lead a player from pre-determined point A to pre-determined point B
2) progression can be either linear or non-linear
Horizontal design is the opposite:
1) lacks any progression
2) there are no pre-determined objectives
3) content is accesible with no particular order
Often made mistakes:
1) Interchanging terms design and feature.
2) False premise that design is determined by features - ie. type of character progression, FFAPVP, instances, etc.
Lots of good stuff here.
However it seems many not all, feel anti social behavior with newer players is at fault. This is totally untrue !
Game design is at fault - Developers are under complete control of how an mmo can be played. This is not to say that developers can't give back freedom, BUT THEY CHOSE TO TAKE IT AWAY !
Now we have :
- They will tell the story for the player.
- They will set groups for you ( Dungeon finders and dynamic events ).
- They control the extreme easy, hard and everything in between.
- They will set the path of progression.
Players will follow what's handed them !
Some, can over ride developers obstacles. But let me ask you, how can you over come.
1) Faster leveling, and out leveling ?
2) Friends and Guild mates following game design and go off on there own, LFD with strangers and soloing dynamic events ?
3) I'm on part 47 and your on part 61 of the story line ?
4) I'm at quest hub 27-30, your at quest hub 33-36 ?
I'll be honest, I really don't see how people can keep playable friends in games like Elders Scrolls Online with a mega server. And FF14 with 250 part storyline that HAS TO BE DONE, along with constant in your face Dynamic events. Or RIFT where you move to an entirely new zone every 4 levels.
Playable friends is the key word !