The snakes had a poison bite that could easily kill you if you had not way to heal yourself.
And that is HARD in your book? Jeez, I'm glad that my definition of hard doesn't rely on some random mechanism you can do nothing against unless you're of the right race/class combo.
I would say that yes it does, because getting poisoned in a game now would be fairly meaningless. The effect would likely just disappear after combat. That was just one of the many factors to consider in terms of deciding what you were and weren't going to be able to fight. Basically you had to figure out different things through trial and error. It may not be much, but it is a lot more then you really have to do in games now. Classes weren't able to solo by default in the game. You had to figure out which ones could and what they were able to defeat. You couldn't just stroll in as any class and easily win.
Streamlining is only a bad thing when it takes depth out of game mechanics (such as combat, skill trees, or customization). When the only thing being removed by streamlining is inconvenience, casualization is a good thing.
You couldn't just stroll in as any class and easily win.
Being able to play any class equally doesn't mean an easy win. It just means good balance. Games where support classes have to go through hell and back while other classes can just do fine without much trouble are the shining example of balance failures, and EQ1 was definitely one of them.
I have a different opinion on that. I feel that any class can solo fairly easily without much thought. The games usually direct you on a specific path and tell you when to use what abilities. There is little need to figure out anything. All you have to do is execute what you are told to do.
In EQ every class had an importance of some sort. Some could solo and others were stronger in groups. All you had to do was figure out what you wanted to do in the game. The game never told you this. You figured it out by trial and error. I don't believe the game ever intended for soloing. That was something certain classes were just good at. IMO that was part of the fun of the game. There were so many things the players just came up with on their own that the developers never intended. Things that made the game more interesting if you invested enough time to see what creative things other players were coming up with.
In games now there is only one way to play them and that is the way the developer intends you to play. That is really what kills the fun for me in many regards. I feel like I'm just going through a path that a developer setup for me to follow and there is really little in terms of diverging from the path. Sure I could do quests solo, I could go group in a dungeon, or I could raid, but all of those events are heavily restricted so that players can only do specific things. I can't sell buffs, teleports, meet up with random people deep in a dungeon, share a camp with someone who wanders along, setup a bazaar outside, explore unintended uses for my class, experience things like players setting up spawn checks, etc. These are all things I learned from watching and talking to other players in game. Things I don't need to do in current MMOs as there is not really any room for any real creativity and learning IMO.
Umm there are tons of games with looting corpses, building your character how you want, great housing and everything old games had. Try stuff like Albion Online, Shards, Shroud of the Avatar and many more of these "sandbox" or "hardcore" MMORPGs.
Sick of people talking about the great old days, games nowadays have all that those had and more.
Nope, new games are missing longevity.
No, just no. Way to massively simplify things just to support your own views. Khameleon mentions games that have more substance and depth your precious old games ever did and you blindly dismiss it. it is easy to say these games are lacking longevity if you are not even looking for it, how shallow.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes, just yes. And it is that simple. Games used to be designed for a prolonged experience with slow small steady rewards over time. Now, it's all about instant gratification quick and easy rewards given for nothing more than logging in. As if that was even an exaggeration now. It isn't. There's no need to keep logging into a game for 12 months when I have everything out of it after 2.
Mmhh personal experience doesn't mean everyone else is like you. 11+ years in the same game, still counting.
I'm not really talking about my personal experience. I am focusing on the design. Games 15 years ago we meant to take longer than today. I've started playing Vanilla WoW recently. No, I'm not on it for hours at a time like I was back in the day, but I log in for 2-3 hours 2-3 evenings a week. My Hunter is still only level 10. If I play like this, it's going to take a very long time to reach 60. Where as if I re sub to WoW now, and start a brand new Hunter, I know I can reach lvl 100 in a fraction of the time it will take Vanilla to reach 60 given the exact same level of dedication. This isn't really subjective or about personal experience.
Everything about WoW took longer back then.
The argument now is that not enough people would be willing to go through all that in a new game again. But I have to ask....Where is the evidence of that? Not one of these WoW-Clones we have seen has replicated the Vanilla Formula. In fact, we've seen newer theme parks with better designs than others and they tend to be more successful.
EDIT: Now, as for my personal experience...........I'm also not calling for games to simply "drag the experience out" What I am calling for is removing the freebies and instant gratifications.
Remember in Vanilla how you couldn't even equip a weapon unless you trained in it. Then you couldn't even use it properly until you skilled up? EVERYTHING in Vanilla WoW was earned. Nothing was given for granted. It meant something back then to level up a trade skill alng side your main levels. My Vanilla Hunter made very good use of Leather Working all during the leveling process. I used my gear I made. By WoTLK, Trade Skills were meant to be put off until 80, then drop the gathering prof to level 2 crafts so you can get your raid bonuses.
I'd rather it was meaningful for it's original purpose. These are the things I am talking about.
You couldn't just stroll in as any class and easily win.
Being able to play any class equally doesn't mean an easy win. It just means good balance. Games where support classes have to go through hell and back while other classes can just do fine without much trouble are the shining example of balance failures, and EQ1 was definitely one of them.
I would say that yes it does, because getting poisoned in a game now would be fairly meaningless.
There's nothing hard in getting poisoned on a class without the right spells. It's just inevitable. Hard would be having to use specific skills at the right time to avoid it to happen, like modern games do with e.g. interrupt mechanisms. That requires skill. Not dying because a snake poisoned you just because your class can get rid of poisons isn't hard, it's just button mashing... which is the definition of the tedious EQ1 leveling.
I'm going to concur with this. When a developer explicitly describes a certain class as "being exceptional at PvP," for example (and this is often the case with assassin classes), that developer is making it abundantly clear that they are incompetent.
On the other subject, all difficulty and depth is rooted in choice. A deep skill tree is one that offers compelling choices. Deep combat - whether action or tab target - is combat that places an importance on choice. Skills need to offer crucial utility that the player must choose when and how to utilize. The choice of positioning has to be important. Targeting out certain enemies has to be compelling. And, unfortunately, that is where most MMOs fail to be difficult and fail to be deep.
Yeah the original idea of having enemies that were basically gestalt in comparison to the characters was to encourage group play, not make the game harder as some people think. MMORPGs in the traditional sense came from table top games that had enemies meant to be tackled by groups of players. The trouble that MMORPGs ran into was that it often ended up being more efficient to grind the enemies than get rewarded for adventures to gain experience points, or the game simply didn't award experience for completing an adventure.
I don't think there was anything wrong with pre-lfg group play forcing people to socially interact with one another and enter a commitment to play for x amount of time. It's just what we had to work with at the time was utterly boring tripe that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy these days.
Also, games are going through a lot of evolution with swapping and borrowing systems from one another right now. The big sweep that has happened (which is hitting both single player and multiplayer titles) is the inclusion of social modules. People like to show off and share with one another, and that is a very powerful hook that easily covers for poor game design. MMOs are in a dying state at the moment because many are shit designed mouse traps that completely relied on social modules to keep afloat.
Colt,
The problem is that Pre-LFG group play was much better then than what LFG group game play is today. Yes it's faster to get a group today, but its encouraged 2 major problems. #1 people to be completed ass holes and waste your time in groups just because they can. #2 Gear Treadmills because Developers figure to make you run X amount of dungeons to get tokens so you can buy your gear vs dungeons Augmenting some of the max level lowest level of gear for end game.
While Pre-LFG had its issues. Developers went all out stupid with LFG vs Party Finders like what FFXIV has today, or even WOW. These are 100 time better Party finder tools than what LFG is today because you can find people with the same goals vs people with different goals one might be just to troll you today because they are bored.
In what world do you live in that stronger NPCS isn't part of a harder difficulty?
NPCs which require 3 people to kill instead of 1 aren't harder. They just require more people.
Just balance NPCs to do a higher damage/health damage ratio to you than you will ever be able to do to it no matter how skilled you are, and taaadaaa!!! you have EQ's leveling. That definitely doesn't make them harder.
Yes, that is difficulty. Almost any RPG game that come across difficulty is based on harder NPCs. What do higher levels on Diablo do? They get more HP and do more damage. What do Elite mobs do on any game? More damage and More HP. Name me a RPG where difficulty isn't a numbers game?
And you've again simplified and ignored everything else mentioned on why it was harder. I mentioned a lot more than that. If you're talking players skill, I would still say EQ had more because you were often forced to play your class correctly or die.
No, it wasn't as simple as bringing along more players. Do a camp with 3 warriors. Do a "hard" camp with players that don't know what their doing. All NPC weren't created equal in EQ. All locations were not created equal EQ. You go into Blackburrow Den it was more difficult than most places in any modern game party or not. Variables out of your control adds more difficulty.
I'm not really talking about my personal experience. I am focusing on the design. Games 15 years ago we meant to take longer than today. I've started playing Vanilla WoW recently. No, I'm not on it for hours at a time like I was back in the day, but I log in for 2-3 hours 2-3 evenings a week. My Hunter is still only level 10. If I play like this, it's going to take a very long time to reach 60. Where as if I re sub to WoW now, and start a brand new Hunter, I know I can reach lvl 100 in a fraction of the time it will take Vanilla to reach 60 given the exact same level of dedication. This isn't really subjective or about personal experience.
I joined WoW on release day, Nov. 23, 2004. Before the end December, I was max level and joining my first UBRS raid (yeah, it was a raid back then), it was during my xmas break on my balance/resto druid. End January, fully equipped (and those who played back then know what it took, it was tedious but definitely not harder than today), I was raiding Molten Core.
The hard parts where exactly at the same places they are nowadays. Encounters, bosses. And not dumb anti-level mechanics that just slowed you down and made it tedious.
As I said, I'm playing Vanilla WoW now and no, it's not all a bed of roses. There is a lot wrong with it.......A LOT! I am not asking for all those bad mechanics to be re implemented, but maybe a shift from the lobby based instant gaming to move back into the RPG of it. And yes, I am aware, that may not even be possible anymore.
Also, your point centers around raiding. This was my issue with Instant Gratification is best illustrated with Timeless Isle, Once that patch was introduced, they pretty much made all pre-raid content obsolete and meaningless. So, if I wasn't a raider as many players aren't, what was there left to do at 90 once I hit 90, went to TI got my free chest Epic gear? Heroics? For what? Everything left after that point was in raids. They took everything that should be worth doing out of the game. You no longer had to play for it, they simply gave it to you for nothing. But then what?
I couldn't raid due to a split work shift. So I canceled. There was literally nothing for me to do anymore.
Maybe I am the only one that gets the feeling in today's MMOs that there is only one specific way to play. Perhaps some people enjoy following specific paths laid out by the developer. I can't enjoy that type of game though. Especially in an MMO. I need to have that discovery of learning new things through use and the freedom to do things that weren't intended. If I can only follow a specific path set before me then I just can't enjoy the experience for some reason.
The problem is that Pre-LFG group play was much better then than what LFG group game play is today. Yes it's faster to get a group today, but its encouraged 2 major problems. #1 people to be completed ass holes and waste your time in groups just because they can.
Before, people were elitist assholes selecting people in their group based on their equipment and not their skill. Do you really think that was better?
Too many people complain about elitism. When there is a lot of time investment at stake in a game then people are going to get made when other people can't execute. Being unable to execute your role in a group was far more likely to get you kicked and often having to execute in a certain way and at the right time was more important than your equipment. I think a lot of people are offended when they just aren't good enough to participate in certain content. I was always a solo person and didn't really care that much. I wasn't playing the game to raid. I was playing for the interaction with other players, the roleplaying experience, and to see what limits I could push soling in a game that wasn't meant for soloing.
Too many people complain about elitism. When there is a lot of time investment at stake in a game then people are going to get made when other people can't execute. Being unable to execute your role in a group was far more likely to get you kicked and often having to execute in a certain way and at the right time was more important than your equipment. I think a lot of people are offended when they just aren't good enough to participate in certain content. I was always a solo person and didn't really care that much. I wasn't playing the game to raid. I was playing for the interaction with other players, the roleplaying experience, and to see what limits I could push soling in a game that wasn't meant for soloing.
"Too many people complain about elitism" ... because elitism is prevalent and make games less fun?
Whatever the reason is .... people don't like to be on the receiving end of it and soloing certainly is a solution.
Too many people complain about elitism. When there is a lot of time investment at stake in a game then people are going to get made when other people can't execute. Being unable to execute your role in a group was far more likely to get you kicked and often having to execute in a certain way and at the right time was more important than your equipment. I think a lot of people are offended when they just aren't good enough to participate in certain content. I was always a solo person and didn't really care that much. I wasn't playing the game to raid. I was playing for the interaction with other players, the roleplaying experience, and to see what limits I could push soling in a game that wasn't meant for soloing.
"Too many people complain about elitism" ... because elitism is prevalent and make games less fun?
Whatever the reason is .... people don't like to be on the receiving end of it and soloing certainly is a solution.
True, but you can solo fine in a persistent world without completing all the content. In fact it was more fun in EQ because of the game not being intended for soloing because it increased the difficulty of soloing to a high level and taking on things in dungeons. I wouldn't call it elitism so much as needing to have people competent enough to complete the content due to the high amounts of experience lost when dying and he time requirement to gain experience. That makes the stakes higher and people more grumpy from investing so much time into it. Of course they only want people who will listen and execute properly.
The problem is that Pre-LFG group play was much better then than what LFG group game play is today. Yes it's faster to get a group today, but its encouraged 2 major problems. #1 people to be completed ass holes and waste your time in groups just because they can.
Before, people were elitist assholes selecting people in their group based on their equipment and not their skill. Do you really think that was better?
In this thread I have been arguing on older games being better (in some ways). This would not be one of them.
To me, LFG is a mixed bag. It's got it's pros and cons, but I think overall it's better. Yes, you can say that group content was much more social back then.........Assuming you actually got to do it. I recall my fair share of days spamming chat begging for tanks and healers. Builing groups that would break down in the process. Get one tank lose the healer, Ge the healer, lose a DPS.
How many times did we just say "Fuck it" and log off? Too many. The option of being able to do the dungeon at all outweighs any other negatives. Since that itself was THE single biggest negative of not having a group finder.
Just look at GW2. ANET thought any 5 players should be able to run. They assumed finding groups for dungeons would be much easier in that game since there would be no "LF Tank or LF Healer". They were wrong. They found out they really do need the finder.
I am not talking about what games still exist. I am talking about how 10 years ago and earlier, the time that a player would spend in a given game consecutively, was measured in moths (years?) where as now, it's weeks.....if that.
It's probably true that the handful of MMORPGs released in the last 4 years had lower player retention than the best of the MMORPGs that came before.
However player retention definitely wasn't all that different back then, and in fact poor retention would've been among the top 3 factors of why games like EQ never surpassed 450k subscribers. (Those factors being the subscription cost itself, the not-quite-grown MMORPG market, and poor player retention.)
It's just that players aren't really aware of this because even though quite a lot of people tried EQ, a lot of those players ditched it in the first week and players have no ability to see just how many players do that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am not talking about what games still exist. I am talking about how 10 years ago and earlier, the time that a player would spend in a given game consecutively, was measured in moths (years?) where as now, it's weeks.....if that.
It's probably true that the handful of MMORPGs released in the last 4 years had lower player retention than the best of the MMORPGs that came before.
However player retention definitely wasn't all that different back then, and in fact poor retention would've been among the top 3 factors of why games like EQ never surpassed 450k subscribers. (Those factors being the subscription cost itself, the not-quite-grown MMORPG market, and poor player retention.)
It's just that players aren't really aware of this because even though quite a lot of people tried EQ, a lot of those players ditched it in the first week and players have no ability to see just how many players do that.
It would be interesting to compare the average player retention rates from games back then vs now. But I guess that's something that will remain unavailable. Still, I suppose I can't really argue with you on that.
If I had to try to re-summarize what I am saying. It would be this.Games like WoW do not, and never have lacked for playable content. What they do lack is any reason to play through the vast majority of it.
Too many people complain about elitism. When there is a lot of time investment at stake in a game then people are going to get made when other people can't execute. Being unable to execute your role in a group was far more likely to get you kicked and often having to execute in a certain way and at the right time was more important than your equipment. I think a lot of people are offended when they just aren't good enough to participate in certain content. I was always a solo person and didn't really care that much. I wasn't playing the game to raid. I was playing for the interaction with other players, the roleplaying experience, and to see what limits I could push soling in a game that wasn't meant for soloing.
"Too many people complain about elitism" ... because elitism is prevalent and make games less fun?
Whatever the reason is .... people don't like to be on the receiving end of it and soloing certainly is a solution.
True, but you can solo fine in a persistent world without completing all the content. In fact it was more fun in EQ because of the game not being intended for soloing because it increased the difficulty of soloing to a high level and taking on things in dungeons. I wouldn't call it elitism so much as needing to have people competent enough to complete the content due to the high amounts of experience lost when dying and he time requirement to gain experience. That makes the stakes higher and people more grumpy from investing so much time into it. Of course they only want people who will listen and execute properly.
No one is disagreeing of WHY elitism exists .. whether it is incentives, fear of losing process, or people are just a-holes.
But again, solo-ing is a solution for that. No one needs to tolerate others if they don't feel like it. Whether a game should make it easier or harder to solo is up to the dev to decide what kind of audience do they want.
Too many people complain about elitism. When there is a lot of time investment at stake in a game then people are going to get made when other people can't execute. Being unable to execute your role in a group was far more likely to get you kicked and often having to execute in a certain way and at the right time was more important than your equipment. I think a lot of people are offended when they just aren't good enough to participate in certain content. I was always a solo person and didn't really care that much. I wasn't playing the game to raid. I was playing for the interaction with other players, the roleplaying experience, and to see what limits I could push soling in a game that wasn't meant for soloing.
"Too many people complain about elitism" ... because elitism is prevalent and make games less fun?
Whatever the reason is .... people don't like to be on the receiving end of it and soloing certainly is a solution.
True, but you can solo fine in a persistent world without completing all the content. In fact it was more fun in EQ because of the game not being intended for soloing because it increased the difficulty of soloing to a high level and taking on things in dungeons. I wouldn't call it elitism so much as needing to have people competent enough to complete the content due to the high amounts of experience lost when dying and he time requirement to gain experience. That makes the stakes higher and people more grumpy from investing so much time into it. Of course they only want people who will listen and execute properly.
No one is disagreeing of WHY elitism exists .. whether it is incentives, fear of losing process, or people are just a-holes.
But again, solo-ing is a solution for that. No one needs to tolerate others if they don't feel like it. Whether a game should make it easier or harder to solo is up to the dev to decide what kind of audience do they want.
My main point here is that if you have a competitive game where only some people can be at the top there will be elitism. If you eliminate elitism you are basically eliminating any real competition between players.
The problem is that Pre-LFG group play was much better then than what LFG group game play is today. Yes it's faster to get a group today, but its encouraged 2 major problems. #1 people to be completed ass holes and waste your time in groups just because they can.
Before, people were elitist assholes selecting people in their group based on their equipment and not their skill. Do you really think that was better?
In this thread I have been arguing on older games being better (in some ways). This would not be one of them.
To me, LFG is a mixed bag. It's got it's pros and cons, but I think overall it's better. Yes, you can say that group content was much more social back then.........Assuming you actually got to do it. I recall my fair share of days spamming chat begging for tanks and healers. Builing groups that would break down in the process. Get one tank lose the healer, Ge the healer, lose a DPS.
How many times did we just say "Fuck it" and log off? Too many. The option of being able to do the dungeon at all outweighs any other negatives. Since that itself was THE single biggest negative of not having a group finder.
Just look at GW2. ANET thought any 5 players should be able to run. They assumed finding groups for dungeons would be much easier in that game since there would be no "LF Tank or LF Healer". They were wrong. They found out they really do need the finder.
I think even bigger problem is if it's too easy to get groups for dungeons. Just look at what has happened to WoW. Players are able to skip most of the content by spamming dungeon finder several times a row. They don't even need to quest anymore.
Regarding GW2 i can't say much about it since i've never played it, but if you design your game well and give your players a good reason to run dungeons, they will find groups in one way or the other. But if you make it a mini-game within a casual mmorpg that doesn't hinder your progression even if you skip it, why bother unless it's made easy enough for everyone to do it.
Yeah the original idea of having enemies that were basically gestalt in comparison to the characters was to encourage group play, not make the game harder as some people think. MMORPGs in the traditional sense came from table top games that had enemies meant to be tackled by groups of players. The trouble that MMORPGs ran into was that it often ended up being more efficient to grind the enemies than get rewarded for adventures to gain experience points, or the game simply didn't award experience for completing an adventure.
I don't think there was anything wrong with pre-lfg group play forcing people to socially interact with one another and enter a commitment to play for x amount of time. It's just what we had to work with at the time was utterly boring tripe that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy these days.
Also, games are going through a lot of evolution with swapping and borrowing systems from one another right now. The big sweep that has happened (which is hitting both single player and multiplayer titles) is the inclusion of social modules. People like to show off and share with one another, and that is a very powerful hook that easily covers for poor game design. MMOs are in a dying state at the moment because many are shit designed mouse traps that completely relied on social modules to keep afloat.
Colt,
The problem is that Pre-LFG group play was much better then than what LFG group game play is today. Yes it's faster to get a group today, but its encouraged 2 major problems. #1 people to be completed ass holes and waste your time in groups just because they can. #2 Gear Treadmills because Developers figure to make you run X amount of dungeons to get tokens so you can buy your gear vs dungeons Augmenting some of the max level lowest level of gear for end game.
While Pre-LFG had its issues. Developers went all out stupid with LFG vs Party Finders like what FFXIV has today, or even WOW. These are 100 time better Party finder tools than what LFG is today because you can find people with the same goals vs people with different goals one might be just to troll you today because they are bored.
The issue with LFG is kind of two fold, actually. The fact is it never belonged in the kinds of social RPGs that were around at the time of it's inception, but there was basically no other kind of game that the system belonged in, so the developers moved ahead to see if LFG would "improve" the game. And really it did... assuming we are all marketing executives who want to see dollar signs painted across the walls and watch Rome burn in the process.
We've all seen what LFG enables at this point. It's basically a system to let people who are too busy to be bothered to say hello jump into a dungeon or other group content like it is a single player game, then vanish into the night like batman when it is all over. That's great and all if the objective was to make a single player game that has a social module in it, but it is completely the wrong direction for a game that is supposed to be built around community building and adventuring.
There hasn't been a real MMORPG released since probably 2005-2006. The majority of games claiming to be MMOs are really social games that stole systems from the classic game we all grew up to love.
It would be interesting to compare the average player retention rates from games back then vs now. But I guess that's something that will remain unavailable. Still, I suppose I can't really argue with you on that.
You would have to be specific on those comparisons.
Let's say the retention rates were better. Were they then better because the games were better or because the players were more invested or a different type of player? Or were they better because there were no better/other games so not a lot of choice?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
That's great and all if the objective was to make a single player game that has a social module in it, but it is completely the wrong direction for a game that is supposed to be built around community building and adventuring.
It's a great tool for people wanting to do group activities without the need to be social. IMO LFG is the greatest tool for players who just want to play games with others over being social/making friends.
I'll communicate tactics/strategies whilst grouped. What I don't do it is chat nonsense with others whilst grouped.
I'm glad I don't have to make friends with others just to play a game.
While EQ1 is still limping along, we can't call it healthy. Some of its original contemporaries are, too; others are not.
Its prime "Evil Empire" competition could not possibly have survived a decade, right? Yet it has.
We'll find out in five or eight years if this mystical "longevity" exists, for any of the newer titles. Some of them have already exceeded their "Its Dead" doomsayers predictions by several years. But wait, they don't count, they're just clinging to life...
But does "clinging to life 'cause we've still got a fragment of our peak population" prove anything useful?
(P.S. Offer your populace "rares/uniques", and they'll hang on to protect their Sunk Cost Fallacy "valuables" (virtually) forever. Does that mean the game's better?)
I am not talking about what games still exist. I am talking about how 10 years ago and earlier, the time that a player would spend in a given game consecutively, was measured in moths (years?) where as now, it's weeks.....if that.
That's not necessarily a commentary on the quality of a game. For me it's a comment on how many interesting titles were available and also how I used to play. I could easily play one or two games exclusively, but experience has shown me that is not in my best interest. I would miss out on so many other interesting titles and experiences for no real gain. What good is sticking to one game exclusively? None as far as I can see.
But at the same time, the games themselves promote that. There's no doubt, there were fewer titles, thus fewer interesting titles, but today, I can play a game for a short time, as I usually do, jump over to another for a bit and catch up on that, then I can play a 3rd before circling back to the 1st.
It's not necessarily how I want them to be, it's just how they are. Next week, I'm considering jumping back into SWTOR. Not sure. Maybe WoW or even HoT. It won't be all 3 though.
However, what if there was a game that was still able to capture your full attention for a longer period? Not saying you'd be playing differently. But I would.
My main point here is that if you have a competitive game where only some people can be at the top there will be elitism. If you eliminate elitism you are basically eliminating any real competition between players.
Not if people can solo. Look at solo greater rifts leaderboard on D3 (and yes, it is close enough, and can be implemented in a MMO, although some here most likely will argue it is not).
You solo .. so there is no elitism (of who can play in my group) but you still are competing with everyone in the game.
You point is actually, "If you eliminate elitism you are basically eliminating any real competition between GROUPS."
Yeah the original idea of having enemies that were basically gestalt in comparison to the characters was to encourage group play, not make the game harder as some people think. MMORPGs in the traditional sense came from table top games that had enemies meant to be tackled by groups of players. The trouble that MMORPGs ran into was that it often ended up being more efficient to grind the enemies than get rewarded for adventures to gain experience points, or the game simply didn't award experience for completing an adventure.
I don't think there was anything wrong with pre-lfg group play forcing people to socially interact with one another and enter a commitment to play for x amount of time. It's just what we had to work with at the time was utterly boring tripe that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy these days.
Also, games are going through a lot of evolution with swapping and borrowing systems from one another right now. The big sweep that has happened (which is hitting both single player and multiplayer titles) is the inclusion of social modules. People like to show off and share with one another, and that is a very powerful hook that easily covers for poor game design. MMOs are in a dying state at the moment because many are shit designed mouse traps that completely relied on social modules to keep afloat.
Colt,
The problem is that Pre-LFG group play was much better then than what LFG group game play is today. Yes it's faster to get a group today, but its encouraged 2 major problems. #1 people to be completed ass holes and waste your time in groups just because they can. #2 Gear Treadmills because Developers figure to make you run X amount of dungeons to get tokens so you can buy your gear vs dungeons Augmenting some of the max level lowest level of gear for end game.
While Pre-LFG had its issues. Developers went all out stupid with LFG vs Party Finders like what FFXIV has today, or even WOW. These are 100 time better Party finder tools than what LFG is today because you can find people with the same goals vs people with different goals one might be just to troll you today because they are bored.
The issue with LFG is kind of two fold, actually. The fact is it never belonged in the kinds of social RPGs that were around at the time of it's inception, but there was basically no other kind of game that the system belonged in, so the developers moved ahead to see if LFG would "improve" the game. And really it did... assuming we are all marketing executives who want to see dollar signs painted across the walls and watch Rome burn in the process.
We've all seen what LFG enables at this point. It's basically a system to let people who are too busy to be bothered to say hello jump into a dungeon or other group content like it is a single player game, then vanish into the night like batman when it is all over. That's great and all if the objective was to make a single player game that has a social module in it, but it is completely the wrong direction for a game that is supposed to be built around community building and adventuring.
There hasn't been a real MMORPG released since probably 2005-2006. The majority of games claiming to be MMOs are really social games that stole systems from the classic game we all grew up to love.
The LFG group finder feature was implemented to facilitate grouping for group encounters, not to promote community. Promoting community is the role of the player base. Why is it that so-called social people blame a game feature as a culprit of community building when it should be that social players' responsibility to fulfill that objective not the game?
In other words, if you are so social then why not open your mouth and promote socialization by opening your mouth and just socialize with others instead of blaming a convenient game feature to prevent you from doing so? This is why many describe th mentality furthered by the pro-socialization crowd as "forced grouping." And that is because you want a feature that many consider to be a convenience done away simply so that players are "forced" to do what players should be doing naturally, irrespective of game features.
If you want socialization, then promote it by you, yourself, being social and talking, or having the initiative by building your own groups, amassing a healthy friend's list that enjoy grouping with you, etc. The real issue here is not that these people want to be social, what they really want is to have the game force others to be social with them. Because if you are truly social, you don't need a game developer to help you to build social relationships ... you just build them.
Comments
In EQ every class had an importance of some sort. Some could solo and others were stronger in groups. All you had to do was figure out what you wanted to do in the game. The game never told you this. You figured it out by trial and error. I don't believe the game ever intended for soloing. That was something certain classes were just good at. IMO that was part of the fun of the game. There were so many things the players just came up with on their own that the developers never intended. Things that made the game more interesting if you invested enough time to see what creative things other players were coming up with.
In games now there is only one way to play them and that is the way the developer intends you to play. That is really what kills the fun for me in many regards. I feel like I'm just going through a path that a developer setup for me to follow and there is really little in terms of diverging from the path. Sure I could do quests solo, I could go group in a dungeon, or I could raid, but all of those events are heavily restricted so that players can only do specific things. I can't sell buffs, teleports, meet up with random people deep in a dungeon, share a camp with someone who wanders along, setup a bazaar outside, explore unintended uses for my class, experience things like players setting up spawn checks, etc. These are all things I learned from watching and talking to other players in game. Things I don't need to do in current MMOs as there is not really any room for any real creativity and learning IMO.
Everything about WoW took longer back then.
The argument now is that not enough people would be willing to go through all that in a new game again. But I have to ask....Where is the evidence of that? Not one of these WoW-Clones we have seen has replicated the Vanilla Formula. In fact, we've seen newer theme parks with better designs than others and they tend to be more successful.
EDIT:
Now, as for my personal experience...........I'm also not calling for games to simply "drag the experience out" What I am calling for is removing the freebies and instant gratifications.
Remember in Vanilla how you couldn't even equip a weapon unless you trained in it. Then you couldn't even use it properly until you skilled up? EVERYTHING in Vanilla WoW was earned. Nothing was given for granted. It meant something back then to level up a trade skill alng side your main levels. My Vanilla Hunter made very good use of Leather Working all during the leveling process. I used my gear I made. By WoTLK, Trade Skills were meant to be put off until 80, then drop the gathering prof to level 2 crafts so you can get your raid bonuses.
I'd rather it was meaningful for it's original purpose. These are the things I am talking about.
On the other subject, all difficulty and depth is rooted in choice. A deep skill tree is one that offers compelling choices. Deep combat - whether action or tab target - is combat that places an importance on choice. Skills need to offer crucial utility that the player must choose when and how to utilize. The choice of positioning has to be important. Targeting out certain enemies has to be compelling. And, unfortunately, that is where most MMOs fail to be difficult and fail to be deep.
The problem is that Pre-LFG group play was much better then than what LFG group game play is today. Yes it's faster to get a group today, but its encouraged 2 major problems. #1 people to be completed ass holes and waste your time in groups just because they can. #2 Gear Treadmills because Developers figure to make you run X amount of dungeons to get tokens so you can buy your gear vs dungeons Augmenting some of the max level lowest level of gear for end game.
While Pre-LFG had its issues. Developers went all out stupid with LFG vs Party Finders like what FFXIV has today, or even WOW. These are 100 time better Party finder tools than what LFG is today because you can find people with the same goals vs people with different goals one might be just to troll you today because they are bored.
And you've again simplified and ignored everything else mentioned on why it was harder. I mentioned a lot more than that. If you're talking players skill, I would still say EQ had more because you were often forced to play your class correctly or die.
No, it wasn't as simple as bringing along more players. Do a camp with 3 warriors. Do a "hard" camp with players that don't know what their doing. All NPC weren't created equal in EQ. All locations were not created equal EQ. You go into Blackburrow Den it was more difficult than most places in any modern game party or not. Variables out of your control adds more difficulty.
Also, your point centers around raiding. This was my issue with Instant Gratification is best illustrated with Timeless Isle, Once that patch was introduced, they pretty much made all pre-raid content obsolete and meaningless. So, if I wasn't a raider as many players aren't, what was there left to do at 90 once I hit 90, went to TI got my free chest Epic gear? Heroics? For what? Everything left after that point was in raids. They took everything that should be worth doing out of the game. You no longer had to play for it, they simply gave it to you for nothing. But then what?
I couldn't raid due to a split work shift. So I canceled. There was literally nothing for me to do anymore.
Whatever the reason is .... people don't like to be on the receiving end of it and soloing certainly is a solution.
To me, LFG is a mixed bag. It's got it's pros and cons, but I think overall it's better. Yes, you can say that group content was much more social back then.........Assuming you actually got to do it. I recall my fair share of days spamming chat begging for tanks and healers. Builing groups that would break down in the process. Get one tank lose the healer, Ge the healer, lose a DPS.
How many times did we just say "Fuck it" and log off? Too many. The option of being able to do the dungeon at all outweighs any other negatives. Since that itself was THE single biggest negative of not having a group finder.
Just look at GW2. ANET thought any 5 players should be able to run. They assumed finding groups for dungeons would be much easier in that game since there would be no "LF Tank or LF Healer". They were wrong. They found out they really do need the finder.
However player retention definitely wasn't all that different back then, and in fact poor retention would've been among the top 3 factors of why games like EQ never surpassed 450k subscribers. (Those factors being the subscription cost itself, the not-quite-grown MMORPG market, and poor player retention.)
It's just that players aren't really aware of this because even though quite a lot of people tried EQ, a lot of those players ditched it in the first week and players have no ability to see just how many players do that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But again, solo-ing is a solution for that. No one needs to tolerate others if they don't feel like it. Whether a game should make it easier or harder to solo is up to the dev to decide what kind of audience do they want.
Regarding GW2 i can't say much about it since i've never played it, but if you design your game well and give your players a good reason to run dungeons, they will find groups in one way or the other. But if you make it a mini-game within a casual mmorpg that doesn't hinder your progression even if you skip it, why bother unless it's made easy enough for everyone to do it.
We've all seen what LFG enables at this point. It's basically a system to let people who are too busy to be bothered to say hello jump into a dungeon or other group content like it is a single player game, then vanish into the night like batman when it is all over. That's great and all if the objective was to make a single player game that has a social module in it, but it is completely the wrong direction for a game that is supposed to be built around community building and adventuring.
There hasn't been a real MMORPG released since probably 2005-2006. The majority of games claiming to be MMOs are really social games that stole systems from the classic game we all grew up to love.
Let's say the retention rates were better. Were they then better because the games were better or because the players were more invested or a different type of player? Or were they better because there were no better/other games so not a lot of choice?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I'll communicate tactics/strategies whilst grouped. What I don't do it is chat nonsense with others whilst grouped.
I'm glad I don't have to make friends with others just to play a game.
Socialising should be done outside of grouping.
It's not necessarily how I want them to be, it's just how they are. Next week, I'm considering jumping back into SWTOR. Not sure. Maybe WoW or even HoT. It won't be all 3 though.
However, what if there was a game that was still able to capture your full attention for a longer period? Not saying you'd be playing differently. But I would.
You solo .. so there is no elitism (of who can play in my group) but you still are competing with everyone in the game.
You point is actually, "If you eliminate elitism you are basically eliminating any real competition between GROUPS."
The LFG group finder feature was implemented to facilitate grouping for group encounters, not to promote community. Promoting community is the role of the player base. Why is it that so-called social people blame a game feature as a culprit of community building when it should be that social players' responsibility to fulfill that objective not the game?
In other words, if you are so social then why not open your mouth and promote socialization by opening your mouth and just socialize with others instead of blaming a convenient game feature to prevent you from doing so? This is why many describe th mentality furthered by the pro-socialization crowd as "forced grouping." And that is because you want a feature that many consider to be a convenience done away simply so that players are "forced" to do what players should be doing naturally, irrespective of game features.
If you want socialization, then promote it by you, yourself, being social and talking, or having the initiative by building your own groups, amassing a healthy friend's list that enjoy grouping with you, etc. The real issue here is not that these people want to be social, what they really want is to have the game force others to be social with them. Because if you are truly social, you don't need a game developer to help you to build social relationships ... you just build them.