I appreciate your nod of approval. However, reading through this post, there seems to be a few that think it is not dying and is just fine as is. That's there opinion anyways, and they are entitled to it.
But if some here are just going to clearly...well, you know. Again, ignore it or block them.
Remember not to block people simply for disagreeing, as that creates echo chambers. Block should be reserved for people who fail to see logic, reason, or evidence. If you block people for disagreeing, all you get is an endless echo of self-affirmation, and your ideas never receive appropriate criticism, which could make them better.
Hopefully you wanted discussion (as you said in the OP).
I've leveled some pretty valid, logical criticisms against early MMORPGs' mechanics, which pretty clearly illustrate why the genre shifted significantly away from its early stumblings, and ended up some place far more enjoyable to most players.
By illustrating why the genre shifted from "stumblings", you mean you've pointed outthings that you don't like, but that many players still enjoy, which were replaced by other things that appeal to more people.
What you still seem to be completely unaware of, is that those changes are not better by virtue of how many people like them. To oldschool EQ players, those changes prevent many of us from enjoying mmorpgs at all.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with players wanting to see many of these features and mechanics in other games. We don't care if making a game more like Everquest isn't appealing to you. We are glad that there are games you enjoy, perhaps with a little humility and compassion, you might eventually learn to appreciate us have games we enjoy too.
There is nothing he said that constitutes this reply, he's not trying to deny you a game. No one is.
The best thing to do when presenting what you want in games (if you don't want people chiming in as they have) is do not even mention other game types, leave them out of the discussion entirely, then you have no real retaliation coming at you. The discussion is less likely to devolve into a pissing match about which designs are better. It's also best to avoid saying things like True MMORPG's, Real MMORPG's, Real MMO fans, Mouth breathers, dumbed down, crap, etc...
Very few threads started on this topic avoid these things I mentioned above, in turn most devolve to this general ongoing fight.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Distopia Very few threads started on this topic avoid these things I mentioned above, in turn most devolve to this general ongoing fight.
Good point. I find myself using comparisons which are seemingly apples:apples but as soon as I assume someone else's position on a subject realize the detail in question is more about personal preference and framed within a context of an entirely different game experience.
It doesn't help either when we throw around derogatory generalizations about the people who have those preferences. Yet I do understand the sentiments expressed by it. For the most part I don't think we're trying to belittle the fans of one side or the other, but vent our frustrations at the target of audience.
Business and media have been focusing on the masses now more than ever before and it's gotten out of hand. It's like there is no room for niche anymore, and any discussion outside of main-stream trends are often met with "Well you're wrong look what is popular". So the niche attacks what is popular. MMORPGs remind me a lot of American Politics. And Everquest players are basically libertarians.
Originally posted by Distopia Very few threads started on this topic avoid these things I mentioned above, in turn most devolve to this general ongoing fight.
Good point. I find myself using comparisons which are seemingly apples:apples but as soon as I assume someone else's position on a subject realize the detail in question is more about personal preference and framed within a context of an entirely different game experience.
It doesn't help either when we throw around derogatory generalizations about the people who have those preferences. Yet I do understand the sentiments expressed by it. For the most part I don't think we're trying to belittle the fans of one side or the other, but vent our frustrations at the target of audience.
Business and media have been focusing on the masses now more than ever before and it's gotten out of hand. It's like there is no room for niche anymore, and any discussion outside of main-stream trends are often met with "Well you're wrong look what is popular". So the niche attacks what is popular. MMORPGs remind me a lot of American Politics. And Everquest players are basically libertarians.
All very true, it just really shows people have strong feelings about the games they like, which is great, but often forgotten in the heat of making a point. What seems harmless can come off as highly insulting to another because they have passion for what may be being criticized, or be counted in those playing it, if something derogatory is said about them.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I appreciate your nod of approval. However, reading through this post, there seems to be a few that think it is not dying and is just fine as is. That's there opinion anyways, and they are entitled to it.
But if some here are just going to clearly...well, you know. Again, ignore it or block them.
Remember not to block people simply for disagreeing, as that creates echo chambers. Block should be reserved for people who fail to see logic, reason, or evidence. If you block people for disagreeing, all you get is an endless echo of self-affirmation, and your ideas never receive appropriate criticism, which could make them better.
Hopefully you wanted discussion (as you said in the OP).
I've leveled some pretty valid, logical criticisms against early MMORPGs' mechanics, which pretty clearly illustrate why the genre shifted significantly away from its early stumblings, and ended up some place far more enjoyable to most players.
By illustrating why the genre shifted from "stumblings", you mean you've pointed outthings that you don't like, but that many players still enjoy, which were replaced by other things that appeal to more people.
What you still seem to be completely unaware of, is that those changes are not better by virtue of how many people like them. To oldschool EQ players, those changes prevent many of us from enjoying mmorpgs at all.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with players wanting to see many of these features and mechanics in other games. We don't care if making a game more like Everquest isn't appealing to you. We are glad that there are games you enjoy, perhaps with a little humility and compassion, you might eventually learn to appreciate us have games we enjoy too.
There is nothing he said that constitutes this reply, he's not trying to deny you a game. No one is.
The best thing to do when presenting what you want in games (if you don't want people chiming in as they have) is do not even mention other game types, leave them out of the discussion entirely, then you have no real retaliation coming at you. The discussion is less likely to devolve into a pissing match about which designs are better. It's also best to avoid saying things like True MMORPG's, Real MMORPG's, Real MMO fans, Mouth breathers, dumbed down, crap, etc...
Very few threads started on this topic avoid these things I mentioned above, in turn most devolve to this general ongoing fight.
He has spent the last week trying to step on every reason we liked EverQuest while pushing his pro-modern bias. Every time a point was made that explained why we enjoy an old game, he dismissed it and tried to explain it away patronizingly as if we were wrong and misguided. Even when his opinions are completely refuted, he still goes on saying the exact same things with incoherent fervor. Its one thing to have an opinion, but he has completely dumped on this thread, turning it from one of positive discussion of what used to be good about MMORPGs to why we should forget about those things and accept games made for the masses.
Originally posted by Distopia Very few threads started on this topic avoid these things I mentioned above, in turn most devolve to this general ongoing fight.
Good point. I find myself using comparisons which are seemingly apples:apples but as soon as I assume someone else's position on a subject realize the detail in question is more about personal preference and framed within a context of an entirely different game experience.
It doesn't help either when we throw around derogatory generalizations about the people who have those preferences. Yet I do understand the sentiments expressed by it. For the most part I don't think we're trying to belittle the fans of one side or the other, but vent our frustrations at the target of audience.
Business and media have been focusing on the masses now more than ever before and it's gotten out of hand. It's like there is no room for niche anymore, and any discussion outside of main-stream trends are often met with "Well you're wrong look what is popular". So the niche attacks what is popular. MMORPGs remind me a lot of American Politics. And Everquest players are basically libertarians.
Unless you want to fund this hypothetical game on your own, youre stuck with things that actually can sustain themselves financially. Games dont pop out of thin air and run on air.
Youre not talking about niche. Youre talking about niche of niche of niche.
EvE is niche and doing just fine.
I can see UO type of game succeed. I can see SWG type of game succeed.
EQ. ill go probabilistic, its not impossible, but youre better off playing lottery, win and spend winnings (and hope its enough) on making such game
Originally posted by Distopia Very few threads started on this topic avoid these things I mentioned above, in turn most devolve to this general ongoing fight.
Good point. I find myself using comparisons which are seemingly apples:apples but as soon as I assume someone else's position on a subject realize the detail in question is more about personal preference and framed within a context of an entirely different game experience.
It doesn't help either when we throw around derogatory generalizations about the people who have those preferences. Yet I do understand the sentiments expressed by it. For the most part I don't think we're trying to belittle the fans of one side or the other, but vent our frustrations at the target of audience.
Business and media have been focusing on the masses now more than ever before and it's gotten out of hand. It's like there is no room for niche anymore, and any discussion outside of main-stream trends are often met with "Well you're wrong look what is popular". So the niche attacks what is popular. MMORPGs remind me a lot of American Politics. And Everquest players are basically libertarians.
Unless you want to fund this hypothetical game on your own, youre stuck with things that actually can sustain themselves financially. Games dont pop out of thin air and run on air.
Youre not talking about niche. Youre talking about niche of niche of niche.
EvE is niche and doing just fine.
I can see UO type of game succeed. I can see SWG type of game succeed.
EQ. ill go probabilistic, its not impossible, but youre better off playing lottery, win and spend winnings (and hope its enough) on making such game
To go back a little on the original discussion. I do wonder how much each of our perceptions of EQ was colored by when we started the game, how we were introduced to it, and which class(s) / spheres we focused on.
I started during Velious, so had the benefit of a well established economy / high-end player base. I did not have to camp and wait in line for the items I wanted. I bought them for years. It was not easy, and took a lot of focus to make the kind of cash people were asking for. But it got me well geared. Just took a lot of patience for people and haggling. Also I was on a server where inflation was out of control, so I had to integrate myself into the economy first.
I was introduced by a friend who played in the same room as myself. We started new accounts and characters together. He guided me and we duo'd and grouped together through dungeons, camps, etc. He was always about showing me new places and getting us to experience new things. It was a fucking blast. We played like heroin addicts for a solid couple of months. Like unhealthy amounts of playing.
Took some experimentation but landed on him playing a ranger, myself a druid. I did do the runs from Qeynos->Freeport, and did do the difficult runs to most everywhere on the landscape. But eventually, as a druid, was given a means to run fast, and port often. So my perceptions of travel are probably highly skewed. I had a lucrative ability to port people and I ported So many people. Never charged or asked for a gold piece, went out of my way to help people, and it paid off. This had the side effect of exposing me to auctions regularly, so with the cash I got from ports I could play the market prices to expand it.
Some people think this is stupid, how could you enjoy being a taxi driver and property flipper? Well I was pretty low level during this phase. This is how I met people, got groups, and made in game friendships in the beginning. You have to understand, druids were a great solo class sure, but damn you had to prove yourself to people if you wanted to keep grouping up.
I'm trying to shorten this post up because there is a lot to say, but I was there during the 2001-2004 boom, and I probably played a very different game in the beginning compared to someone who was say a Rogue or Warrior in 1999. So it goes back to the question of context. I liked the fact we could all have very different experiences and also share many of the same challenges.
I tend to agree with you. Context can be a very powerful factor which influences our perception of something and our experiences.
Playing with friends is one big factor in my opinion. I have played many games which I would probably not have enjoyed nearly as much if I didn't play them with real life friends. Or I might have not played said game for such a long time.
Another big factor is when you join a game. Someone joining EQ now will have a very different perception of the game then someone who joined in 1999 or 2001-2004 such as yourself. Also if you pick a class that does not fit your playstyle (e.g. me thinking warrior would be a good fit) then that will also affect your experience.
What's more, I strongly believe that our prior experience with games plays a huge role in our experience with a potential game. For example, it's very likely that people would fall in love with their first MMORPG simply because they have never experienced a MMORPG before. Can you imagine coming from a FPS/RPG/RTS and suddenly being dropped off in a world which is probably 10 times bigger than anything you have seen in an RPG, more open with thousands of players playing. Every single feature of that MMORPG would appear novel and exciting because you have never seen anything like it before. At that point the possibilities of the game seem infinite. And you suddenly are seeing the game not as a game but an alternative world where you can immerse yourself.
I think that last factor was also very powerful around the early years of the MMORPG genre. People who played EQ for the first time probably never experienced anything like it so they were blown away from all the mechanics they have never seen like a massive persistent world, thousands of players playing at the same time, raids, lots of progression systems, the idea of constant content generation through new patches and expansions and the idea of no end to the game.
This also happened to people who played WoW back in 2004. Prior to WoW the genre was very obscure and very few gamers knew muh about it. Then all of sudden you have a MMORPG become the most popular game in those years and everyone and their dog was playing it. So then all those WoW players would compare every single other MMORPG to it for good or bad as that is their point of reference. When they switch to another MMORPG, none of the core features (persistent massive world, tons of content, classes, raids, progression systems, content patches etc.) of a MMORPG would appear as something novel so they would not be impressed as much by them.
Repeat the process of switching to new MMORPGs and then this burnout fatigue starts to appear which affects our perception of MMORPGs and our desire to play them drops off. And MMORPGs are very susceptible to perceptions as they are grind heavy and you need to feel like your progress is meaningful. As soon as you start thinking that "all this is pointless and not fun" then you probably quit.
I am well aware that I am super biased by WOW because it was my first real MMORPG which I played for long. I was in awe by so many of its features, features which are MMORPG standard. But even though I know that WoW didn't introduce them I simply can't ignore my feelings to the game which made it all appear so magical. At this point there is no way an MMORPG can have the same impact on me. It's simply not possible even if it's super innovative. I have experienced the first high of plaing an MMO for the first time and nothing can replicate that even if it is 100 times better than my first MMORPG - WoW.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
How about we find how to make certain mechanics more intrinsically valuable for both of you?
Right, that's the absolute best move for people fond of early MMORPGs. The traits of how most people generally enjoy games aren't going to change, and developers aren't willing to shun those players, but that doesn't mean people can't discuss designs which make the game more enjoyable for both types of players.
We know a lot about the way most players have fun though, and if an idea is in full opposition to that, then it may be unworkable -- at least in expensive MMORPGs. But a lot of things are workable, even within that constraint.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
By illustrating why the genre shifted from "stumblings", you mean you've pointed outthings that you don't like, but that many players still enjoy, which were replaced by other things that appeal to more people.
What you still seem to be completely unaware of, is that those changes are not better by virtue of how many people like them. To oldschool EQ players, those changes prevent many of us from enjoying mmorpgs at all.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with players wanting to see many of these features and mechanics in other games. We don't care if making a game more like Everquest isn't appealing to you. We are glad that there are games you enjoy, perhaps with a little humility and compassion, you might eventually learn to appreciate us have games we enjoy too.
No, it was a new genre. It stumbled. It didn't launch directly into the stratosphere.
Nobody can blame it. That's just how innovation works; a distinctly new thing is invented and while it's awesome, it also kinda sucks. There are reasons we don't use Wright Flyers anymore. We give the Wright Brothers respect as innovators, but we're very aware of the specific ways their early designs were flawed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
By illustrating why the genre shifted from "stumblings", you mean you've pointed outthings that you don't like, but that many players still enjoy, which were replaced by other things that appeal to more people.
What you still seem to be completely unaware of, is that those changes are not better by virtue of how many people like them. To oldschool EQ players, those changes prevent many of us from enjoying mmorpgs at all.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with players wanting to see many of these features and mechanics in other games. We don't care if making a game more like Everquest isn't appealing to you. We are glad that there are games you enjoy, perhaps with a little humility and compassion, you might eventually learn to appreciate us have games we enjoy too.
No, it was a new genre. It stumbled. It didn't launch directly into the stratosphere.
Nobody can blame it. That's just how innovation works; a distinctly new thing is invented and while it's awesome, it also kinda sucks. There are reasons we don't use Wright Flyers anymore. We give the Wright Brothers respect as innovators, but we're very aware of the specific ways their early designs were flawed.
I'm in agreement with Dull on this one.. and Axe, what you are implying is one style is an UPGRADE to an older one, and in my opinion it isn't.. No offense, but you seem to confuse apples with oranges.. Yes, planes have upgraded from technology, and so has the phone, and sports like Football.. What you seem to be missing here is that some of us like and prefer face to face communication, and you are saying.. NO NO.. FACEBOOK and TWITTER are upgrades.. That sir is a wrong assumption and are unrelated..
There is a reason that pro baseball refuses to upgrade.. (hint: it's better for the sport to NOT to).. In older games I like to micro manage my character from everything from food/drink requirements to weight limits, etc etc.. To me playing a RPG was more then just what was going on during the 5 second whack a mole combat.. There is everything in between including traveling..
Originally posted by Distopia Very few threads started on this topic avoid these things I mentioned above, in turn most devolve to this general ongoing fight.
Good point. I find myself using comparisons which are seemingly apples:apples but as soon as I assume someone else's position on a subject realize the detail in question is more about personal preference and framed within a context of an entirely different game experience.
It doesn't help either when we throw around derogatory generalizations about the people who have those preferences. Yet I do understand the sentiments expressed by it. For the most part I don't think we're trying to belittle the fans of one side or the other, but vent our frustrations at the target of audience.
Business and media have been focusing on the masses now more than ever before and it's gotten out of hand. It's like there is no room for niche anymore, and any discussion outside of main-stream trends are often met with "Well you're wrong look what is popular". So the niche attacks what is popular. MMORPGs remind me a lot of American Politics. And Everquest players are basically libertarians.
Unless you want to fund this hypothetical game on your own, youre stuck with things that actually can sustain themselves financially. Games dont pop out of thin air and run on air.
Youre not talking about niche. Youre talking about niche of niche of niche.
EvE is niche and doing just fine.
I can see UO type of game succeed. I can see SWG type of game succeed.
EQ. ill go probabilistic, its not impossible, but youre better off playing lottery, win and spend winnings (and hope its enough) on making such game
Case in point.
People are knocking your premise of thread being for pro-EQ comments because the very nature of your post title is challenging the people who you believe are trolling.
It's not a knock on you, but rather that this is not the first nor the 1000th elequently spoken post on why games should be made like old school MMOs. Eventually people are going to be frustrated and just flat out tell you why... and people don't like to be told why. They just like people agreeing with them, and the 'trolls' see this EVERY time...
He has spent the last week trying to step on every reason we liked EverQuest while pushing his pro-modern bias. Every time a point was made that explained why we enjoy an old game, he dismissed it and tried to explain it away patronizingly as if we were wrong and misguided. Even when his opinions are completely refuted, he still goes on saying the exact same things with incoherent fervor. Its one thing to have an opinion, but he has completely dumped on this thread, turning it from one of positive discussion of what used to be good about MMORPGs to why we should forget about those things and accept games made for the masses.
So spare me.
Actually the couple times my posts have been refuted in the forums recently I came right out and admitted they had made a good point. For a long time nobody was able to come up with a reason to do slow travel -- the reasons people said they wanted slow travel were just as possible with fast travel -- and then finally someone (the OP I think?) pointed out the social element, and I said out it was a valid point. You can't achieve socialization to the same degree in a fast travel game, in spite of the mountain of other advantages fast travel provides.
I've never claimed someone's gaming preferences are wrong. Opinions are subjective. If you say you had fun, you probably had fun.
But we can understand the positives/negatives of any given feature by thinking through them, and we can objectively know how many people have certain subjective opinions, and even get at the underlying motivation of most players. And with this knowledge we can say whether certain things are generally good design ideas or not, and spreading this knowledge will help players have realistic expectations when it comes to games -- because a lot of people have very unrealistic expectations and it leads to frustration.
Echo chambers are actually pretty dangerous things, so I'm sorry if you expected a thread full of only positive posts. The reality is that logical criticism is a healthy process.
Also, if something seemed incoherent to you, I'd be glad to help you with whatever that was. My "fervor" is really only about education and truth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I appreciate your nod of approval. However, reading through this post, there seems to be a few that think it is not dying and is just fine as is. That's there opinion anyways, and they are entitled to it.
But if some here are just going to clearly...well, you know. Again, ignore it or block them.
Remember not to block people simply for disagreeing, as that creates echo chambers. Block should be reserved for people who fail to see logic, reason, or evidence. If you block people for disagreeing, all you get is an endless echo of self-affirmation, and your ideas never receive appropriate criticism, which could make them better.
Hopefully you wanted discussion (as you said in the OP).
I've leveled some pretty valid, logical criticisms against early MMORPGs' mechanics, which pretty clearly illustrate why the genre shifted significantly away from its early stumblings, and ended up some place far more enjoyable to most players.
That was never the point in the first place. There is still a market for virtual worlds. No one has contested that the genre has headed in other directions. I strongly believe we are a money making market worthy of pursuit.
Originally posted by fivoroth Repeat the process of switching to new MMORPGs and then this burnout fatigue starts to appear which affects our perception of MMORPGs and our desire to play them drops off. And MMORPGs are very susceptible to perceptions as they are grind heavy and you need to feel like your progress is meaningful. As soon as you start thinking that "all this is pointless and not fun" then you probably quit.
That's the thing, for some of us it isn't fatigue. I described my first MMO experience but had a really good time in two others following that. I started WoW a few months after release and in it's original form was actually quite a good game. I still felt they could have leaned toward more difficult content and slowed the combat down a tinge to make some of the combat aspects outside of DPS more relevant -- but it was still fun.
The problem started when they moved in the exact opposite direction and started to make everything even easier. Follow this with a slew of changes to 'steamline balance' for PvP. Overhauling the talent trees and homogenizing stats. Basically removing any semblance of choice and difficulty (except raiding). Blizzard just wanted to funnel everyone into a single direction. The game was basically solo or raid. That's it. I didn't quit because of burn out, i quit because the game made too many choices for me.
The second game I really enjoyed was Vanguard: SoH -- but the critical mass needed to push the game forward was thwarted by a rushed release, poorly optimized engine, and shit management. It got purchased by SoE which had zero vested interest in seeing it succeed so it was shelved into life support mode almost immediately.
But naysayers will tell you it's not possible anymore because no one wants X/Y/Z. Yet there are threads scattered all over the internet asking for exactly this. Maybe someone that isn't a former drug addict with the worst PR in gaming history will give this a try eventually.
That was never the point in the first place. There is still a market for virtual worlds. No one has contested that the genre has headed in other directions. I strongly believe we are a money making market worthy of pursuit.
I'd agree with that. Especially if the players of that particular niche understand that as a niche audience they're not going to end up with a mega-blockbuster budget game. Doesn't mean the game will necessarily look bad (EVE looks fantastic) but just means that deliberate concessions will have to be made to produce it with a tighter budget.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I would agree with that ^^ avoid trying to implement every feature under the sun and aim for your chosen demographic carefully on a budget where 500k subs is a total result.
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 it's even budget, eve again is the primary example, it's focused, they don't try to aim for all audiences and as a result it is polished and complex.
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
These last four posts (Bladestrom, VengeSunsoar, and Axehilt specifically) have been spot on.
As new genres evolve into existence (such as MOBAs) it is my hope that development of MMORPGs will return to the passionate niche from whence it came. As such, I am simultaneously intrigued and terrified by crowd funding. Time will tell whether it becomes a savior of the genre's roots or a disaster that poisons those roots beyond saving.
The genre and crowdfunding are in a weird position where the financing method has had very little time to cuts its teeth in the industry while simultaneously playing a vital role in the development direction of an entire genre of gaming.
I always find it odd that developers want players to see all the content they create but don't care if worlds and zones they create become unused due to the server maturing. To me I would want to use and resuse all content and world areas. Even games like EQ you could return to some old zones because it had mixed level content. Its also isolates the community more because you're neatly funneled through the world with old areas becoming newbie and forcing developers to instance everything to avoid end game overpopulation.
I believe that quest should be few, deep, long and not tied to progression. Generic task that are given as quest should be automated procedural generated at points that can randomly appear on flagged on proper npcs. Not need to waste recources to make new generic crap people mindlessly click and kill through.
Progression shouldn't invalidate the world totally. Levels generally are just escalation of numbers multipliers. Instead of 10 hp and 10 damage you have 100 hp and do 100 damage but the enemies your level also scale. Levels like that make old content too easy or useless. That's why I would stay away from levels. You can just have abilities gain and become more effecient in the usage. That way the 30 level 30 foot demon doesn't die when you fart on them because you're level 50.
I would design the world based around difficulty that require skill, knowledge and properly equipped characters, not levels that don't really change anything but numbers. Meaning if I create Hell as a hard area it would always be a hard area even after 25 expansions.
Originally posted by fivoroth Repeat the process of switching to new MMORPGs and then this burnout fatigue starts to appear which affects our perception of MMORPGs and our desire to play them drops off. And MMORPGs are very susceptible to perceptions as they are grind heavy and you need to feel like your progress is meaningful. As soon as you start thinking that "all this is pointless and not fun" then you probably quit.
That's the thing, for some of us it isn't fatigue. I described my first MMO experience but had a really good time in two others following that. I started WoW a few months after release and in it's original form was actually quite a good game. I still felt they could have leaned toward more difficult content and slowed the combat down a tinge to make some of the combat aspects outside of DPS more relevant -- but it was still fun.
The problem started when they moved in the exact opposite direction and started to make everything even easier. Follow this with a slew of changes to 'steamline balance' for PvP. Overhauling the talent trees and homogenizing stats. Basically removing any semblance of choice and difficulty (except raiding). Blizzard just wanted to funnel everyone into a single direction. The game was basically solo or raid. That's it. I didn't quit because of burn out, i quit because the game made too many choices for me.
The second game I really enjoyed was Vanguard: SoH -- but the critical mass needed to push the game forward was thwarted by a rushed release, poorly optimized engine, and shit management. It got purchased by SoE which had zero vested interest in seeing it succeed so it was shelved into life support mode almost immediately.
But naysayers will tell you it's not possible anymore because no one wants X/Y/Z. Yet there are threads scattered all over the internet asking for exactly this. Maybe someone that isn't a former drug addict with the worst PR in gaming history will give this a try eventually.
I didn't phrase it well enough. In my opinion the burnout fatigue starts to appear when you have played quite a few MMOs. When you are playing your 5th or 10th MMO then it all starts to seem identical.
I don't like any of the current MMOs out on the market. Whether that's due to the actual quality of MMOs or due to me having tried quite a lot of them and simply being burnt out on the whole genre, I don't know. But then again MMORPGs at the moment the only games that I am still even remotely interested in. I might be getting bored with the whole gaming genre as I don't like non-MMORPG games too. I spent more time writing on these forums than playing any games
To me none of it sounds exciting. I don't feel like playing the current generation of MMOs which are all about questing to level up and then raid at max level. But at the same time I don't feel like playing any MMOs which are modelled around the old model of EQ like MMOs.
I want to play something which is completely brand new and different. Obviously keep the persistent world but all the rest of the features, I wouldn't mind changing. If it is yet another themepark game similar to WoW or another so proclaimed sandbox ala Skyrim with skills levelling, I will probably pass.
I just want this genre to come up with something brand new. I don't want the genre to go back in time. I want it to leap forward.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Comments
There is nothing he said that constitutes this reply, he's not trying to deny you a game. No one is.
The best thing to do when presenting what you want in games (if you don't want people chiming in as they have) is do not even mention other game types, leave them out of the discussion entirely, then you have no real retaliation coming at you. The discussion is less likely to devolve into a pissing match about which designs are better. It's also best to avoid saying things like True MMORPG's, Real MMORPG's, Real MMO fans, Mouth breathers, dumbed down, crap, etc...
Very few threads started on this topic avoid these things I mentioned above, in turn most devolve to this general ongoing fight.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Good point. I find myself using comparisons which are seemingly apples:apples but as soon as I assume someone else's position on a subject realize the detail in question is more about personal preference and framed within a context of an entirely different game experience.
It doesn't help either when we throw around derogatory generalizations about the people who have those preferences. Yet I do understand the sentiments expressed by it. For the most part I don't think we're trying to belittle the fans of one side or the other, but vent our frustrations at the target of audience.
Business and media have been focusing on the masses now more than ever before and it's gotten out of hand. It's like there is no room for niche anymore, and any discussion outside of main-stream trends are often met with "Well you're wrong look what is popular". So the niche attacks what is popular. MMORPGs remind me a lot of American Politics. And Everquest players are basically libertarians.
All very true, it just really shows people have strong feelings about the games they like, which is great, but often forgotten in the heat of making a point. What seems harmless can come off as highly insulting to another because they have passion for what may be being criticized, or be counted in those playing it, if something derogatory is said about them.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
He has spent the last week trying to step on every reason we liked EverQuest while pushing his pro-modern bias. Every time a point was made that explained why we enjoy an old game, he dismissed it and tried to explain it away patronizingly as if we were wrong and misguided. Even when his opinions are completely refuted, he still goes on saying the exact same things with incoherent fervor. Its one thing to have an opinion, but he has completely dumped on this thread, turning it from one of positive discussion of what used to be good about MMORPGs to why we should forget about those things and accept games made for the masses.
So spare me.
Unless you want to fund this hypothetical game on your own, youre stuck with things that actually can sustain themselves financially. Games dont pop out of thin air and run on air.
Youre not talking about niche. Youre talking about niche of niche of niche.
EvE is niche and doing just fine.
I can see UO type of game succeed. I can see SWG type of game succeed.
EQ. ill go probabilistic, its not impossible, but youre better off playing lottery, win and spend winnings (and hope its enough) on making such game
Case in point.
I tend to agree with you. Context can be a very powerful factor which influences our perception of something and our experiences.
Playing with friends is one big factor in my opinion. I have played many games which I would probably not have enjoyed nearly as much if I didn't play them with real life friends. Or I might have not played said game for such a long time.
Another big factor is when you join a game. Someone joining EQ now will have a very different perception of the game then someone who joined in 1999 or 2001-2004 such as yourself. Also if you pick a class that does not fit your playstyle (e.g. me thinking warrior would be a good fit) then that will also affect your experience.
What's more, I strongly believe that our prior experience with games plays a huge role in our experience with a potential game. For example, it's very likely that people would fall in love with their first MMORPG simply because they have never experienced a MMORPG before. Can you imagine coming from a FPS/RPG/RTS and suddenly being dropped off in a world which is probably 10 times bigger than anything you have seen in an RPG, more open with thousands of players playing. Every single feature of that MMORPG would appear novel and exciting because you have never seen anything like it before. At that point the possibilities of the game seem infinite. And you suddenly are seeing the game not as a game but an alternative world where you can immerse yourself.
I think that last factor was also very powerful around the early years of the MMORPG genre. People who played EQ for the first time probably never experienced anything like it so they were blown away from all the mechanics they have never seen like a massive persistent world, thousands of players playing at the same time, raids, lots of progression systems, the idea of constant content generation through new patches and expansions and the idea of no end to the game.
This also happened to people who played WoW back in 2004. Prior to WoW the genre was very obscure and very few gamers knew muh about it. Then all of sudden you have a MMORPG become the most popular game in those years and everyone and their dog was playing it. So then all those WoW players would compare every single other MMORPG to it for good or bad as that is their point of reference. When they switch to another MMORPG, none of the core features (persistent massive world, tons of content, classes, raids, progression systems, content patches etc.) of a MMORPG would appear as something novel so they would not be impressed as much by them.
Repeat the process of switching to new MMORPGs and then this burnout fatigue starts to appear which affects our perception of MMORPGs and our desire to play them drops off. And MMORPGs are very susceptible to perceptions as they are grind heavy and you need to feel like your progress is meaningful. As soon as you start thinking that "all this is pointless and not fun" then you probably quit.
I am well aware that I am super biased by WOW because it was my first real MMORPG which I played for long. I was in awe by so many of its features, features which are MMORPG standard. But even though I know that WoW didn't introduce them I simply can't ignore my feelings to the game which made it all appear so magical. At this point there is no way an MMORPG can have the same impact on me. It's simply not possible even if it's super innovative. I have experienced the first high of plaing an MMO for the first time and nothing can replicate that even if it is 100 times better than my first MMORPG - WoW.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Right, that's the absolute best move for people fond of early MMORPGs. The traits of how most people generally enjoy games aren't going to change, and developers aren't willing to shun those players, but that doesn't mean people can't discuss designs which make the game more enjoyable for both types of players.
We know a lot about the way most players have fun though, and if an idea is in full opposition to that, then it may be unworkable -- at least in expensive MMORPGs. But a lot of things are workable, even within that constraint.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, it was a new genre. It stumbled. It didn't launch directly into the stratosphere.
Nobody can blame it. That's just how innovation works; a distinctly new thing is invented and while it's awesome, it also kinda sucks. There are reasons we don't use Wright Flyers anymore. We give the Wright Brothers respect as innovators, but we're very aware of the specific ways their early designs were flawed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm in agreement with Dull on this one.. and Axe, what you are implying is one style is an UPGRADE to an older one, and in my opinion it isn't.. No offense, but you seem to confuse apples with oranges.. Yes, planes have upgraded from technology, and so has the phone, and sports like Football.. What you seem to be missing here is that some of us like and prefer face to face communication, and you are saying.. NO NO.. FACEBOOK and TWITTER are upgrades.. That sir is a wrong assumption and are unrelated..
There is a reason that pro baseball refuses to upgrade.. (hint: it's better for the sport to NOT to).. In older games I like to micro manage my character from everything from food/drink requirements to weight limits, etc etc.. To me playing a RPG was more then just what was going on during the 5 second whack a mole combat.. There is everything in between including traveling..
People are knocking your premise of thread being for pro-EQ comments because the very nature of your post title is challenging the people who you believe are trolling.
It's not a knock on you, but rather that this is not the first nor the 1000th elequently spoken post on why games should be made like old school MMOs. Eventually people are going to be frustrated and just flat out tell you why... and people don't like to be told why. They just like people agreeing with them, and the 'trolls' see this EVERY time...
Actually the couple times my posts have been refuted in the forums recently I came right out and admitted they had made a good point. For a long time nobody was able to come up with a reason to do slow travel -- the reasons people said they wanted slow travel were just as possible with fast travel -- and then finally someone (the OP I think?) pointed out the social element, and I said out it was a valid point. You can't achieve socialization to the same degree in a fast travel game, in spite of the mountain of other advantages fast travel provides.
I've never claimed someone's gaming preferences are wrong. Opinions are subjective. If you say you had fun, you probably had fun.
But we can understand the positives/negatives of any given feature by thinking through them, and we can objectively know how many people have certain subjective opinions, and even get at the underlying motivation of most players. And with this knowledge we can say whether certain things are generally good design ideas or not, and spreading this knowledge will help players have realistic expectations when it comes to games -- because a lot of people have very unrealistic expectations and it leads to frustration.
Echo chambers are actually pretty dangerous things, so I'm sorry if you expected a thread full of only positive posts. The reality is that logical criticism is a healthy process.
Also, if something seemed incoherent to you, I'd be glad to help you with whatever that was. My "fervor" is really only about education and truth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
By never speaking of it again, in any form or manner on any forum... the debate itself is what is keeping it alive.
That was never the point in the first place. There is still a market for virtual worlds. No one has contested that the genre has headed in other directions. I strongly believe we are a money making market worthy of pursuit.
That's the thing, for some of us it isn't fatigue. I described my first MMO experience but had a really good time in two others following that. I started WoW a few months after release and in it's original form was actually quite a good game. I still felt they could have leaned toward more difficult content and slowed the combat down a tinge to make some of the combat aspects outside of DPS more relevant -- but it was still fun.
The problem started when they moved in the exact opposite direction and started to make everything even easier. Follow this with a slew of changes to 'steamline balance' for PvP. Overhauling the talent trees and homogenizing stats. Basically removing any semblance of choice and difficulty (except raiding). Blizzard just wanted to funnel everyone into a single direction. The game was basically solo or raid. That's it. I didn't quit because of burn out, i quit because the game made too many choices for me.
The second game I really enjoyed was Vanguard: SoH -- but the critical mass needed to push the game forward was thwarted by a rushed release, poorly optimized engine, and shit management. It got purchased by SoE which had zero vested interest in seeing it succeed so it was shelved into life support mode almost immediately.
But naysayers will tell you it's not possible anymore because no one wants X/Y/Z. Yet there are threads scattered all over the internet asking for exactly this. Maybe someone that isn't a former drug addict with the worst PR in gaming history will give this a try eventually.
I'd agree with that. Especially if the players of that particular niche understand that as a niche audience they're not going to end up with a mega-blockbuster budget game. Doesn't mean the game will necessarily look bad (EVE looks fantastic) but just means that deliberate concessions will have to be made to produce it with a tighter budget.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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
But definitely budget features based on your target audience.
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
As new genres evolve into existence (such as MOBAs) it is my hope that development of MMORPGs will return to the passionate niche from whence it came. As such, I am simultaneously intrigued and terrified by crowd funding. Time will tell whether it becomes a savior of the genre's roots or a disaster that poisons those roots beyond saving.
The genre and crowdfunding are in a weird position where the financing method has had very little time to cuts its teeth in the industry while simultaneously playing a vital role in the development direction of an entire genre of gaming.
I always find it odd that developers want players to see all the content they create but don't care if worlds and zones they create become unused due to the server maturing. To me I would want to use and resuse all content and world areas. Even games like EQ you could return to some old zones because it had mixed level content. Its also isolates the community more because you're neatly funneled through the world with old areas becoming newbie and forcing developers to instance everything to avoid end game overpopulation.
I believe that quest should be few, deep, long and not tied to progression. Generic task that are given as quest should be automated procedural generated at points that can randomly appear on flagged on proper npcs. Not need to waste recources to make new generic crap people mindlessly click and kill through.
Progression shouldn't invalidate the world totally. Levels generally are just escalation of numbers multipliers. Instead of 10 hp and 10 damage you have 100 hp and do 100 damage but the enemies your level also scale. Levels like that make old content too easy or useless. That's why I would stay away from levels. You can just have abilities gain and become more effecient in the usage. That way the 30 level 30 foot demon doesn't die when you fart on them because you're level 50.
I would design the world based around difficulty that require skill, knowledge and properly equipped characters, not levels that don't really change anything but numbers. Meaning if I create Hell as a hard area it would always be a hard area even after 25 expansions.
Playing : DayZ
Played : EVE, GW, SB, DF, AoC, WoW, WaR, L1, L2, Rift, AA, WS
Loved: DAoC, EVE, SB, old WoW, L2, GW2, EQ1-2
I didn't phrase it well enough. In my opinion the burnout fatigue starts to appear when you have played quite a few MMOs. When you are playing your 5th or 10th MMO then it all starts to seem identical.
I don't like any of the current MMOs out on the market. Whether that's due to the actual quality of MMOs or due to me having tried quite a lot of them and simply being burnt out on the whole genre, I don't know. But then again MMORPGs at the moment the only games that I am still even remotely interested in. I might be getting bored with the whole gaming genre as I don't like non-MMORPG games too. I spent more time writing on these forums than playing any games
To me none of it sounds exciting. I don't feel like playing the current generation of MMOs which are all about questing to level up and then raid at max level. But at the same time I don't feel like playing any MMOs which are modelled around the old model of EQ like MMOs.
I want to play something which is completely brand new and different. Obviously keep the persistent world but all the rest of the features, I wouldn't mind changing. If it is yet another themepark game similar to WoW or another so proclaimed sandbox ala Skyrim with skills levelling, I will probably pass.
I just want this genre to come up with something brand new. I don't want the genre to go back in time. I want it to leap forward.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.