Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Stop confusing old school nostalgia for wanting that same experience again.
tixylix
Member UncommonPosts: 1,288
I'm tired of people saying "old school MMOs suck"... well of course they do, they're based on dated engines, have dated mechanics, they do not play well any more and probably have been ruined by many crap patches any ways. I don't want to play Star Wars Galaxies or EverQuest or Vanilla WoW again, the options are out there to do that and I don't . I don't get why people have to look at everything so black and white, it's like American politics, you have to be one side or the other.
It's the vision those games had which I want today, on a brand new engine that blows me away with modern mechanics etc. When those games came out they looked cutting edge and amazing, however now if an old school style MMO comes out, I don't get excited because it looks really dated already. I cannot get invested in a world that already looks old, I don't want to explore it and if the animations and character models suck, I don't feel invested in my character.
Back then MMOs were going for big open worlds, they were going for playing in groups, a heavy emphasis on exploration, crafting, socialising and just living in a world. That is what the whole genre was created for, I keep saying it but it's THE WORLD!
The problem with modern "MMOs" and I use that term loosely because most are now just online RPGs; they don't do a world and all the content isn't there for fun, it's there to grind through ASAP. If you look at the modern MMO, the world just gets in the way of you wanting to level up fast, then you all moan when there is nothing left to do and leave; this is why none of them last very long any more.
You'll go through a linear path (if you're lucky) and nothing is believable, it all just feels like a ride that was built to push people through. Most don't even have that any more, that was the post WoW MMO for the past 10 years. Which is funny because WoW originally got the world right, because they turned it into what it is today. That is what I come onto, they're all hub games now, WoW is, SWTOR is and all these modern stuff people consider and MMO like Destiny are just pure hub and that is it.
Back then it was Guild Wars and the developer never dreamt about calling it an MMO. All you do now is sit in a hub and warp to boring instances where you grind over and over for no reason, you're not having fun and you've reached the cap, so you just quit the game. Destiny you literally just do the same thing over and over, you defend from waves of enemies constantly while some robot hacks a computer. Why? To get loot you'll never use because there is nothing else to do..
So when I talk about old school MMOs, I'm talking about the vision, I'm not talking about wanting that exact same game again. I just wish'd people would stop being so narrow minded, but it's these people who got the genre to where it is today. This instant gratification, having this notion that there is an end game and they want to race through it. That leads to them being frustrated by having to travel in a world and developers just having instant travel everywhere to cater to them.
I remember when EQ2 was in beta, a lot of those quests were there for fun and you could quest grind through the game. They'd feed you puzzle like text and you had to work it out and explore and do all kinds of things. I remember them introducing a Froglok unlock quest chain type of thing and there were lots of puzzles and fun stuff to do. They used to have roaming grouped mobs and elites everywhere, you were not soloing your way through the game, not even in starter areas. I would have the best time grouping through that, making friends, chatting and being challenged because it was HARD!
Now though when you play EQ2, you run from quest hub to quest hub, get several quests, run out and solo 10 mobs at once and run back. That is what the genre became because people wanted just to get through it so fast and didn't want to group etc etc.
So like I said, it's a vision for the genre, it isn't about wanting those exact same games in HD or whatever.
Comments
They are still out there. Lots of them. I think you are letting yourself be confused by nostalgia and not seeing what's in front of your face.
Uh, no. Please don't paint too broadly with that brush. What you are identifying is a problem with individuals who are content locusts. MMO's are quite abundant, and your jaded group classification to make them RPG's is inaccurate.
I hear what you are saying. I just think you've fallen into a slump and are letting that color your vision for the negative.
By "we", you mean "you". Let's not over-generalize. I'm about as old school as they come for gaming, and I certainly do not miss forced grouping.
If you want to group, you still can. Get in a good guild, form leveling groups, and you are set. All that social factor that is being lamented as lost forever in the mists of time didn't leave. Let's read that again: you can still group and socialize in modern games.
What we simply have now is more freedom so everyone can play how they want. Please don't suggest that grouping was the panacea that made the genre what it was.
I couldn't agree more. I think part of the problem that a lot of these folks have is that unless the system forces them together, they have difficulty connecting with others. Hence the desire to have forced group content again.
In just about every MMO you can easily make friends through the groupfinder (and friendlist afterwards), or through your guild. But it requires an effort.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Yes, there is a bit of generalizing is going on...
But, there is much truth hidden in the OP. The design emphasis has changed over time in general. There *is* more focus on soloability. There is focus on isolating players from the effects of other players by instancing. There is less of a coherent world than there was in older MMO's.
And, yes, I'm generalizing too. But that was the point of the OP... to look at the collection of modern MMO's as a group vs. the group of old school MMO's.
The generalized modern MMO is more hub, more instance, and less open world. To me, megaservers (and the similar cross-realm stuff WoW does) is the antithesis of open world.
I hate it.
- - -
Working full time on the Lost Raven MMO, a PVP sandbox for Space Pirates, Alien Hunters, Rock Jocks, and Fleet Commanders. The server is nearly feature-complete with client code to start soon.
Op has EQ2 right,at launch was the best MMORPG ever made,there was danger everywhere and even though you could solo it was very very hard and gave a sense of danger.
You would travel around and just meet people and team up to do quests.Quests were hidden,there wasn't a single NPC with a feather over their head and you had to mouse over objects incase they started quests.
Also you had to give the right response to NPC's to get the quest off them too,so you read the text (I do this anyway in games at least the first time I do a quest).
Crafting also was hard and you needed to trade with other professions to make your professions finished item,and you could fail to make an item of top quality.all these things are gone now,for me the genre is dead.boring with no sense of accomplishment .
Edit: In before any WS comment,All I had to do was look on you-tube to decide that game wasn't for me and it is NOT what we want in a game.It looked like stupid graphics on a linear solo path to end level to me.
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
Yes, we are all just anti-social misfits struggling to cope with our sad lives, looking for a way to make friends. Please, son, save that Psych 101 analysis for your kids.
I said "we" because myself, the OP and millions of other players who largely no longer play MMOs still like games that require players to group together. Its not about "forced grouping", its about a world that is based on realism and challenge where a sense of community forms organically. You can pretend this exists in modern games, but its painfully obvious to the rest of us just how lacking lobby games are in that regard.
You can't supplant interdependence with convenience and expect it to provide the foundation for a virtual world. Maybe you guys just want to play games, and THATS OKAY. I'm not trying to take away your precious casual games. I can appreciate a few weeks of a themepark as much as the next guy, but it doesn't hold a candle to the classics that were designed around being massively multiplayer.
So avoid lobby games that's what i do now. I play ESO, GW2, LOTR and in all of those games im in guilds that are mature, chatty and full of people willing to help each other - in fact i seek guilds out that are like that because i cant stand the obnoxious false elitism or the jaded. I take responsability for finding groups i feel comfortable in. Take ESO, an entire zone dedicated to group play,350 hours to get to max level followed by AA advancement, that will take years, WVW where its FAR more fun to group and play tactically, raids that are entirely optional, but you need a team to do it.
There are horrendous games out there like WOW that are caught in a cycle of negativity and selfishness, but they are easy to avoid, if its a gear/power treadmill where the whole point of the game is to have more stats than the next man - avoid it.
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
Oldest game i played is WoW and i miss the old version of if.. why? World PvP. they've been taking steps to kill it with each expansion. first there was flying.. then there was lfg tools, then there was phasing and now finally it's garrisons.
everything you need to never be out and about in the world anymore.
I had fun once, it was terrible.
I agree with the OP, the genre has been ruined.
Let me make it more simple... MMOs used to be focused on a guilds experience, now MMOs let you have guilds so you have a chat room, and they're strictly focused on the individual experience. After a while, you get pretty lonely, there's not a whole lot to do with your guild.... other than gankfest or 6 v 1 a difficult solo mob.
I, like the OP, want a new game that is a real MMORPG.
Miss did have a point... as you have to remember you (rhetorical you) are responsible for what people perceive based on what is said by you. One example being people saying modern games aren't focused on group play, when their mainstay is dungeons, raids or PVP. All group activities. Such ommitions by this crowd of like minded folks leads to such perceptions. IF you can't be honest about the topics you bring up, people are going to have negative perceptions.
to the overall topic.
My problem with this idea of old school worlds is there wasn't much to them, I'm not talking about graphics, tightness of control, or production value, I'm talking types of content, Old school worlds were pretty much the equivalent to SKyrim with all content removed. Nothing but mobs big and small. I can't see myself having any more long-term fun in that than any modern game, as the idea of multi-player isn't as fresh a thing as it was in 99 or 00.
Of course people came together in those games, as without people there wasn't much to it at all. That's what I see in a lot of these old school calls, based on the types of things these people say, it's as if they're saying having content is the problem, get rid of story, get rid of this, get rid of that, so there's nothing left but "me" to play with.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Seriously, how self-centered can you be? No one is including YOU with WE. WE know who WE are, so when someone says WE to something WE agree with WE know it. If YOU don't agree with it then YOU were never meant to be included in WE. Is this seriously that difficult? When we know we belong to a specific group of people, do we have to include a list without your name on it to say we? Stop being petty.
A lot of old school MMO'ers believe that today's MMO are too solo centric and feature anti-community design. We want community fostering designs back, and incentives for grouping not FORCED grouping. Who wants to be "forced" to do anything? Who said that? This thread was made for people like you who continue to want to pigeonhole us into stupid cliches like forced grouping.
Yes you can still group in today's MMO's, yet it is not practical due to the design. Plus there was always something about grouping up with people you never met to tackle quests or xp, making new friends out of it. No one does that anymore because it isn't practical, the games are designed to solo as you level. Gathering 20 quests at a quest hub that can each be done in 5 seconds is not conducive to grouping.
Well said. Pretty sad we cannot wish for ONE freaking old school design in the midst of all their casual MMO's without them all crying about it. It is getting old, seriously.
As if this thread is presented in such a way... the entire premise is to argue about it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You're a bit confused about why many of us played MMOs to begin with. You have heard of the Bartle Test haven't you? I personally have always been more of a killer and achiever. Socializing and crafting in MMOs have always been secondary features to me and although I do enjoy exploration and am even a bit OCD about needing to see the whole world, that's also not the main thing for me.
The PURPOSE of the game is always the most important thing. A big empty open world to hang out in has no appeal for me. It isn't the world but rather what interesting things and challenges exist in that world that do. Second Life and The Sims don't appeal to me in any way. The three-sided conflict in Dark Age of Camelot did.
In the purest sense of why RPGs interested me in the first place long before PCs even existed, it's all about developing a character I roleplay to the best of my abilities in order to vanquish the evil challenges ahead of me. This exists in SP RPGs as well as the online versions they begot, MMORPGs.
I actually have very little in common with those of you who say they want MMOs because of the other things they bring to the table that I consider fluffy snacks... I'm in it for the main course.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I understand why the pro-group crowd would want to disassociate itself from the term "forced grouping." And that is because it really is as bad as it sounds. But if content is gated behind mechanics that requires one to group, then it is "forced grouping." You can scream it ain't so until your face turns blue, but it ain't going to fly.
That said, I was with the OP until he tied in the "grouping" thing again. I really wish these "old school" advocates would stop associating "old school" games with "grouping" because it alienates many of us who agree with the old school concept but not with the "forced group" concept. It also would be really nice if they would stop associating "grouping" with being hard, and "solo" with being easy. I never found group content to be hard. It was just hard to do alone, but it certainly wasn't very hard to complete while in a group. Likewise, "solo" content can be made to be difficult. The only reason it is not, is because the majority of gamers now days can not handle difficult content. Even group activities are dumbed down now days.
A better title for this thread would have been "Stop confusing old school nostalgia with grouping for wanting that same experience again." It would have been a much more applicable title.
I'll not play anymore mmos until " We " get an old school mmo.
" We " have a large group that would like at least one that's not tinted by F2P gimmicks, dungeon finders, and easy solo content.
I feel bad for you OP, it seems like it's very hard to get a point across about old school mechanics without everyone thinking 2001.
(OJ)Probably because old school games shared a common thread in types of content or more precisely lack thereof. , Specifics of what is wanted are never really hit on in these threads,just feels and veiled insults which might be part of the problem. Focus less on downing the new generation or their games, and more on what you actually want, I don't see why things wouldn't be different.
(red). I dislike F2P gimmicks as well as dungeon finders myself, I would welcome their passing, this is what i mean above, you offered a specific item to refer to, easy to agree with that. Feelings and/or falsity (there's no more grouping or challenging content in the genre) not so much.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"Forced grouping" is one of those passive-aggressive labels used by people to communicate some perceived injustice, as if they are lobbying for MMORPG social reform. The truth is, massively multiplayer games just aren't meant for those individuals. They should stick to the online solo rpgs.
Moreover, no one is forcing anyone to do anything, because no one is forcing them to play those games. When you go out to a restaurant, do you call their policies "forced seating?" When you play a sport, does it involve "forced running?" Those things are almost as ridiculous as calling interdependence in a massively multiplayer game "forced grouping."
I don't think that's it, I think it's more people who also want a certain type of game (based on mechanics), yet see these types of things bringing it down. As these wants are usually followed with a "why, what happened...etc.?"
There's a difference between interdependence and forced grouping, forced grouping is a game that essentially offers a one way route, grouping. Interdependence is formed through mechanics that bring players together to create a certain type of ebb and flow between players (Player towns, community crafting mechanics, entertainers. etc).
Forced grouping is essentially factors coming together that make grouping the only real efficient way of playing (severe penalty, overpowered mobs> balanced to groups, etc..). In other words interdependence = SWG, Forced grouping EQ or L2..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Right, some people don't want to play massively multiplayer games with a focus on massively multiplayer gameplay. Its irrelevant how other games implement interdependence; if a game is designed around a dangerous world, you either accept the risk and solo, group with other players, or don't play the game. Whining about the design philosophy is pointless, especially today when we can see how poorly online solo rpgs are doing and the long term success of games based around community and grouping.
People play what they have to play.... my question is why does it have to be such an absolute? A game can't offer both? It's just weird to focus so much on exclusion when talking massively multiplayer.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Is it not possible for an MMORPG to meet the "massively multiplayer" critieria without gating content behind a grouping requirement? Is not a game "massively" and "multiplayer" if a "massively mulitplayer" amount of players are simply engaging with each other in "non-grouping" activities such as RPing in cantinas, trading in crafting materials, selling and buying other players crafted items in the AH, engaging and formulating the very critical element of supply and demand in a game's economy, and just generally filling the world with living players?
Does one really need to "group" and fight mobs in order for an MMORPG to meet the criteria for an MMORPG. Some players play MMORPGs strictly to become crafters and/or play the economy game. Long story short, many players enjoy MMORPG's because they may simply enjoy being in a living world with other RL players and doing the "non-fighting" activities offered in the game that contribute to the massively multiplayer aspect of the game. But when they fight, they would rather do so alone.
There is nothing in the definition of an MMORPG that says that a player must group up for it to be considered either "massively" and/or "multiplayer?" It is just a popular excuse adopted by the pro-"forced grouping" crowd to push their agenda.
I see how you are trying to redefine massively multiplayer, but its just not enough. Just because various forms of other multiplayer forms of gameplay exists outside of combat, doesn't really make it OK to go ahead and make the primary form of progression in an MMORPG based around solo gameplay. I realize games do it, and will continue to do it, because it makes money, but lets not try to justify it by creating some bridge between solo progression and massively multiplayer simply because "lot of people are playing at the same time."