Just figure it this way. If the game wasn't all about conning you out of your money then the world would be interesting enough that you could exist in it at any level without having the feeling that you had to "PAY" in order to "KEEP UP". They can do this. You know they can. They just dont'.
There definitely aren't games whose game depth surpasses WOW's. When you break down the core game activities into their molecular mechanical parts (things like WOW's combat rotations) and add them all up, you simply can't find a another MMORPG that deep and rewarding of skill.
Going from EQ Gates of Discord, to trying "vanilla" WoW, felt like going from a challenging fantasy world, into a child day care center.
What that articles fails to understand is that world of Warcraft was one of those so called virtual worlds and it felt extremely immersive more so than the zoned mmorpgs filled with loading screens before it.
Now the shity MMOs that followed is the fault of the developers who made those games.
Hmmm thats not entirely correct actually, older mmorpgs like eq1 had much bigger and more dangerous worlds where true team work meant something, so in a way the dangers and frustrations of the world immersed you more.
There were plenty of anti social solo players in the early days, I was one of them. I very much enjoyed going lone wolf.
Yes, but the games weren't designed for anti social players. You had solo combat players but there is a different level to being solo player MMORPG.
Being "social" doesn't mean "grouping with others to kill mobs". That's not social, that's using others to achieve your own goals.
Well, that can be social. My point was more that there was always solo combat MMORPG. Its quite a different thing to have a game designed and encouraged single player style gaming like we have now.
Hmmm when you play a game where your rep might mean you may not get invited into groups because you cannot act like an adult in a game where forced grouping is part of the game then yea id say you would need to be socially acceptable to an extent.
Read the thread, in the end they talk about Crowfall, and how many interesting idea there are...
In a few years, if there are even people caring about Crowfall let me know.
Face it, Wow and Wow clone is what most people wanted. That's why most of the budget went into those games.
Developers are making games for you guys, people just look away, because blaming on the "few" AAA wow clone is easy for them.
But, almost none of the WOW clones were ever successful, long-term. At least, not in paid sub format. Only WOW achieved this.
How do you know they aren't successful. I think people are delusional.
Why do you have to make that much money to be successful. Why do you even need to be paid sub to be successful.
Many of those wow clone are making Eve sales, and people call Eve huge success and other wow clone failure. Obviously, it have something to do with the expense. Some of those Wow clone spend huge budget.
I guess it just depends on how you want to define depth. If you define it as just shear number of things to do, then yes, i would agree with you on WoW. However, i would argue that saying that is depth is like saying that a buffet is s "good restaurant" because it has a ton of options. Well if all of them taste mediocre, its not really a great restaurant.
I think (or at least hope) that people would rather pay a little more for quality over quantity. Then again, the current state of P2W cash shop laden mmo's releasing and doing relatively well tells me otherwise. I hope its just that people are so starved for a good MMO they're willing to try just about anything, but i have suspicions thats its just not the case.
Edit: I wanted to mention i only played up to cataclysm and didn't raid in cata, though i did raid extensively prior to that. I can say personally nothing in WoW ever provided a serious challenge to me. The real challenge was trying to get 24 people of a proper skill level together to do hard mode raids in a massive ocean of mediocrity.
That ocean of mediocrity was created by a faceroll easy leveling and dungeon process. So its not exactly suprising that when those players tried to transition to raiding and were absolutely terrible at it. It's like bringing a new skier to the bunny slopes and then slapping him on a black diamond after he spent all day on the bunny slopes.
Depth is how difficult to master something is. WOW's depth isn't simply a measure of things to do (in fact it takes flak every expansion or two for reducing/simplifying the count of abilities any given class has) but rather a complexity of interactions between those abilities that takes more time to master than other MMORPGs.
But sure, if your motivation for an MMORPG is to provide a shallow relaxation activity then this won't be appealing because pattern mastery won't be your primary motivator. But it's the primary motivator for most players in most games.
So WOW is that quality-over-quantity game, and yes players absolutely would pay for another WOW-quality game.
Though I'd agree with the general take on raiding. That's why I've always wanted very difficult small-scale group content in my RPGs (they don't even have to be MMORPGs.) I'm not really interested in "management skill" challenges (assembling 24 non-bad players) but love teamplay and love a good personal skill challenge. WOW has provided that better than any other MMORPG I've found (and if you've found any MMORPGs that challenge personal skill to a higher degree, feel free to mention them as that's the primary thing I look for in my MMORPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Where I disagree with the article is that combat and killing are not the problem. You could build the progression and achievement around other things, like crafting. Minecraft like games show you how easily it would have been to have substituted crafting for combat.This is not a question of game design as much as the direction gaming companies have now taken, a gradual change of direction which started over 15 years ago. For ages we have had gaming companies led by suits not the pioneers who were gaming fans which started the MMO genre.
The article also lays too much blame on WoW. The bringing in of gameplay elements from solo gaming was a mostly unfortunate process which seemed to have the principle "if it works well in big selling solo games, it will work well in MMO's". This process continues to this day.
Overall a great article for anyone wondering what the hell went wrong?
Overall a great article for anyone wondering what the hell went wrong?
What went wrong is a sizable group of veterans formed their tastes early and were unwilling or unable to adapt as the industry changed around them. That process continues, as you say, to this day.
They speculate (constantly) that the industry should shift into reverse and come back to pick them up. They back-seat drive the game developers incessantly.
Is that any other consumer product that faces this unrealistic expectation? "My fifty dollars invested says you will remain static forever and ever amen. I don't like change!!!"
Or are we content to let next year's car models roll out, with or without our stamp of approval?
I think majority of players above show only half of the truth behind the statement. The main part of the MMOs is the community interaction BUT no MMO (to my knowledge) have adapted to the most basic change in the players life styles and that is the so called " mobile " revolution.
My point is before we used to look forward to the time we can put in front of the PC exploring/expiriencing the MMO worlds of past but now this time is shared if not dominated by our mobile devices and neither of these MMO developers have acknowledged that so on my PC i don't put the same amount of time as i used to due to my mobile devices and the fact there are only 24h in a day, so we are basicly trying to fit changed/evolved gaming habits in to an old envelope and expect better results i hope most of you would agree that they spend less time on PC due to the mobile devices (phones/notepads etc.) and that is cutting out from the time we used to spend on gaming
If we are to experience the immersion of the old MMOs future developers need to start thinking more realistic about their players game play times and develop multy platform titles not just a single title played on many platforms as that really caps the game performance but maybe share some of the fuinctions (chat,trade, curtain subsystems ) trough multitude of devices.
Though I'd agree with the general take on raiding. That's why I've always wanted very difficult small-scale group content in my RPGs (they don't even have to be MMORPGs.) I'm not really interested in "management skill" challenges (assembling 24 non-bad players) but love teamplay and love a good personal skill challenge. WOW has provided that better than any other MMORPG I've found (and if you've found any MMORPGs that challenge personal skill to a higher degree, feel free to mention them as that's the primary thing I look for in my MMORPGs.)
I never played WoW so can't compare directly myself, but when LotRO launched we had a lot of raiders from our WoW guild come over and join us.
The majority of those who raided in both WoW and LotRO claimed that the endgame combat of LotRO was deeper and more challenging than WoW. It wasn't that the individual classes were necessarily more difficult to play (I don't think lotro's rotations were as convoluted as wow's) but the emphasis on teamplay and interdependancy seemed to be a lot higher in LotRO. Apart from the original raid, helegrod, all following raids were 12 person so there was less need to faff about gathering 24 players.
Ofc, this comparison is a bit meaningless now as lotro has been dumbed down a hell of a lot over the years and I dont think they even make raids any more.
Like you, I also value deep / complex combat mechanics and strong teamplay very highly and is one of the biggest things I look for in a new game. LotRO remains the best MMO I've played for endgame PvE mechanics, even if it never had that much endgame content.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Overall a great article for anyone wondering what the hell went wrong?
What went wrong is a sizable group of veterans formed their tastes early and were unwilling or unable to adapt as the industry changed around them. That process continues, as you say, to this day.
They speculate (constantly) that the industry should shift into reverse and come back to pick them up. They back-seat drive the game developers incessantly.
Is that any other consumer product that faces this unrealistic expectation? "My fifty dollars invested says you will remain static forever and ever amen. I don't like change!!!"
Or are we content to let next year's car models roll out, with or without our stamp of approval?
First, all consumer products face the same expectations. We're all looking for the "perfect" book / film / steak / beer and we all express our opinions and regrets.
Second, MMORPGs aren't a product, they are a service. This is a really key difference. With a product, once I've purchased it then its mine to do with as I please. With things like books and films, once I've purchased I can re-use it to my hearts content. I regularly get disappointed with the poor quality of modern cookie-cutter films, but the difference is I can still go back and re-watch old films which did it better.
Being a service, you can't do that with MMORPGs. Each update to the service is irreversible, so not only do we get annoyed with the poor quality of new MMORPGs, we're also unable to go back and enjoy the MMORPGs that we used to when we were younger.
Finally, there is the matter of choice. With your car example, consumers have a choice of 1000s of new cars to choose from so there is a high probability of the consumer being able to find something to meet their needs. With films, there are 100s released every year, again increasing the chance of finding a good one. Same with single player games. MMORPGs are different. If we're lucky, we get 1 or 2 AAA MMORPGs a year, 3 or 4 mid-tier MMORPGs and 5-20 crappy eastern / browser MMORPGs. It means that the chances of us finding one we like is very slim, let alone finding the perfect one.
Vets like myself don't want the industry to reverse, we're astute enough to realise that would be a mistake. What we ( I ) want is to take the older design philosophies and merge them with modern technology and the lessons learnt over the last decade, essentially, finding the nice middle ground between old and new.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Overall a great article for anyone wondering what the hell went wrong?
What went wrong is a sizable group of veterans formed their tastes early and were unwilling or unable to adapt as the industry changed around them. That process continues, as you say, to this day.
They speculate (constantly) that the industry should shift into reverse and come back to pick them up. They back-seat drive the game developers incessantly.
Is that any other consumer product that faces this unrealistic expectation? "My fifty dollars invested says you will remain static forever and ever amen. I don't like change!!!"
Or are we content to let next year's car models roll out, with or without our stamp of approval?
I really enjoy drinking soda the old school way, made with pure cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. Too bad they don't do that anymore.
Oh wait, enough people asked for it, and it came back.
Let's not forget New Coke, radio knob car controls and a host of items that return by popular demand.
Sure, its expected that the return of old school MMOS would have some change and improvement, but in the "right" ways.
Unlike many products, MMORPGs were actually simplified to make them "better" as opposed to cell phones and automobiles that continue to increase in complexity and design.
So yes, we want the complexity brought back, but it certainly can be improved upon.
Are you sure its "me" who is being inflexible and displaying limited vision here?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Unlike many products, MMORPGs were actually simplified to make them "better" as opposed to cell phones and automobiles that continue to increase in complexity and design.
Seeing as the older cars/phones where harder to drive/use than the newer models, I'm glad they're not like many products today as am I getting challenged a lot more in a single play session in newer MMO's than I ever did in older ones. You can keep your easy old MMOs thank you.
Back in my early gaming days i would play mmorpgs solo usually ambush people spit in their face and run off alone. Good times. I don't think that things have changed from before.. it's just more people playing games these days than before and majority is kids like i used to be back then.
What that articles fails to understand is that world of Warcraft was one of those so called virtual worlds and it felt extremely immersive more so than the zoned mmorpgs filled with loading screens before it.
Now the shity MMOs that followed is the fault of the developers who made those games.
Agreed. You could actually navigate by landmarks in vanilla WoW. Still can in many zones, new and old. You really couldn't do that with EQ, and UO's isometric perspective made it impossible.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
Overall a great article for anyone wondering what the hell went wrong?
What went wrong is a sizable group of veterans formed their tastes early and were unwilling or unable to adapt as the industry changed around them. That process continues, as you say, to this day.
They speculate (constantly) that the industry should shift into reverse and come back to pick them up. They back-seat drive the game developers incessantly.
Is that any other consumer product that faces this unrealistic expectation? "My fifty dollars invested says you will remain static forever and ever amen. I don't like change!!!"
Or are we content to let next year's car models roll out, with or without our stamp of approval?
I really enjoy drinking soda the old school way, made with pure cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. Too bad they don't do that anymore.
Oh wait, enough people asked for it, and it came back.
Let's not forget New Coke, radio knob car controls and a host of items that return by popular demand.
Sure, its expected that the return of old school MMOS would have some change and improvement, but in the "right" ways.
Unlike many products, MMORPGs were actually simplified to make them "better" as opposed to cell phones and automobiles that continue to increase in complexity and design.
So yes, we want the complexity brought back, but it certainly can be improved upon.
Are you sure its "me" who is being inflexible and displaying limited vision here?
I agree except for one point.
MMOs have gotten more complex behind the scenes, but easier for the player. That is the same as with other modern products. Their construction is more complex, but the product is easy enough to use for anyone. It's like going from a mechanical stick shift car to something with computer controlled breaking system and a GPS.
Some people like the hardships involved in the old way and continue to use said products.
For me the main component that is missing in modern games is immersion. Some people seemed to be able to zone out the GPS tracking systems, the markers, the flashing lights, the real money transactions, etc. and enjoy the game.
It's hard to say exactly what I need to get immersed.
The main key is to provoke emotions of varying different ranges (fear, isolation, happiness, revulsion, loss, etc.). I don't feel any emotions playing the current games out there. I believe this is because they are not designed to provoke emotions. They are designed to be numbers games only. I like to play numbers games, but not when it's impossible to win because of balance and the lack of any real meaningful choice.
I feel for a game to be fun for me it has to be made with some measure of irrationalism. That is it needs to be made by people who care more about having fun then making money and catering to as many people as possible.
If you read most of the comments from people who say they are developers they will always point out they are making the game based on what their customers want. That was not so much the game when games first started. The developers made the games they thought would be enjoyable for people in their own circle who also enjoyed the same things. That is not the case anymore.
When you have games made by logical people with making money as their first priority this is generally what you get IMO. A fairly dull product that is very politically correct and full of helpers. There is a good reason gamers were elitist to an extent in the old days IMO. IT was to stop people from coming in and causing the industry to go the way it has.
Overall a great article for anyone wondering what the hell went wrong?
What went wrong is a sizable group of veterans formed their tastes early and were unwilling or unable to adapt as the industry changed around them. That process continues, as you say, to this day.
They speculate (constantly) that the industry should shift into reverse and come back to pick them up. They back-seat drive the game developers incessantly.
Is that any other consumer product that faces this unrealistic expectation? "My fifty dollars invested says you will remain static forever and ever amen. I don't like change!!!"
Or are we content to let next year's car models roll out, with or without our stamp of approval?Others have
Others have eloquently defended our position. I will only say, you seem to be suggesting that we want it all back? Lock stock and barrel. I have only ever argued for a hybrid, a MMO which takes the best of old school and keeps the best of new school.
So for example; no casino gameplay but nothing wrong with a more "arcade style" combat. Likewise no permadeath but gameplay activities which made players want to be in social hubs would be good.
I am not sure you will see many on here that wants to see EQ 1.0 or UO 1.0 without any change what so ever, just souped-up graphics.
Others have eloquently defended our position. I will only say, you seem to be suggesting that we want it all back? Lock stock and barrel. I have only ever argued for a hybrid, a MMO which takes the best of old school and keeps the best of new school.
So for example; no casino gameplay but nothing wrong with a more "arcade style" combat. Likewise no permadeath but gameplay activities which made players want to be in social hubs would be good.
I am not sure you will see many on here that wants to see EQ 1.0 or UO 1.0 without any change what so ever, just souped-up graphics.
The problem is developers aren't swayed by eloquence speeches rooted in emotion and nostalgia.
They're swayed by the business case. While not every case for a business is visible in the historic data, when it comes to things which have already been tried we have a pretty good sense of what will work and what won't.
On top of that the vocal minority lacks one clear vision of what it is they actually want. And many of the individual ideas presented which are clear are also clearly bad ideas (sometimes there's good evidence that they've been tried and failed, and/or sometimes there's strong understanding of what makes games fun and the idea is the exact opposite of that.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Others have eloquently defended our position. I will only say, you seem to be suggesting that we want it all back? Lock stock and barrel. I have only ever argued for a hybrid, a MMO which takes the best of old school and keeps the best of new school.
So for example; no casino gameplay but nothing wrong with a more "arcade style" combat. Likewise no permadeath but gameplay activities which made players want to be in social hubs would be good.
I am not sure you will see many on here that wants to see EQ 1.0 or UO 1.0 without any change what so ever, just souped-up graphics.
The problem is developers aren't swayed by eloquence speeches rooted in emotion and nostalgia.
They're swayed by the business case. While not every case for a business is visible in the historic data, when it comes to things which have already been tried we have a pretty good sense of what will work and what won't.
On top of that the vocal minority lacks one clear vision of what it is they actually want. And many of the individual ideas presented which are clear are also clearly bad ideas (sometimes there's good evidence that they've been tried and failed, and/or sometimes there's strong understanding of what makes games fun and the idea is the exact opposite of that.)
On the flip side it sounds like you (as a developer) care more about how many people you can bring in to play with your game mechanics and statistics then actually making a game you think is fun. You haven't show much emotional investment in any ideas you mention. It is simple about statistics. When a game is made via statistics it's likely to be about statistics. It's no wonder players are more concerned with how good their gear is and getting to the end game. If your content is made via numbers and not emotional investment how can people enjoy it much? I guess a lot do, but then again there are a lot of people who are easy to manipulate. We have seen it for years in all industries.
I would think a good developer would want to make a game others think is fun. Metrics are the best tool to tell you what others find fun.
They are the same thing.
That is an easy cop out IMO. Anyone who is interested in making money can say that to get away with focusing on making as much money as possible above all else. IMO a good developer is one who cares about their game, invests in it, and if they make some money that's great. The goal is not to achieve as large an audience as possible and in doing so have to sacrifice a lot to reach said goal. I've actually seen this in just about everything in life now. The best work is often the most selfish in terms of making something you like. Any time you have to compromise for other people then your work is cheapened more and more. The focus should always be to make what you believe is fun and then hopefully others will also like it as well. That's how games started out. That's how I feel anyway. I suppose some people feel like they are great for focusing on what the masses seem to be enticed by. The problem is in that scenario the person making the game loses sight of their vision and focuses only on what will bring in the most people.
I think the goal is not just to make a game you think is fun but others do as well. Metrics are the best known way to get information. You might think it's s cop out. I think it's the best way to get information to design a great game.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Hmmm thats not entirely correct actually, older mmorpgs like eq1 had much bigger and more dangerous worlds where true team work meant something, so in a way the dangers and frustrations of the world immersed you more.
How do you know they aren't successful. I think people are delusional.
Why do you have to make that much money to be successful. Why do you even need to be paid sub to be successful.
Many of those wow clone are making Eve sales, and people call Eve huge success and other wow clone failure. Obviously, it have something to do with the expense. Some of those Wow clone spend huge budget.
But sure, if your motivation for an MMORPG is to provide a shallow relaxation activity then this won't be appealing because pattern mastery won't be your primary motivator. But it's the primary motivator for most players in most games.
So WOW is that quality-over-quantity game, and yes players absolutely would pay for another WOW-quality game.
Though I'd agree with the general take on raiding. That's why I've always wanted very difficult small-scale group content in my RPGs (they don't even have to be MMORPGs.) I'm not really interested in "management skill" challenges (assembling 24 non-bad players) but love teamplay and love a good personal skill challenge. WOW has provided that better than any other MMORPG I've found (and if you've found any MMORPGs that challenge personal skill to a higher degree, feel free to mention them as that's the primary thing I look for in my MMORPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Where I disagree with the article is that combat and killing are not the problem. You could build the progression and achievement around other things, like crafting. Minecraft like games show you how easily it would have been to have substituted crafting for combat.This is not a question of game design as much as the direction gaming companies have now taken, a gradual change of direction which started over 15 years ago. For ages we have had gaming companies led by suits not the pioneers who were gaming fans which started the MMO genre.
The article also lays too much blame on WoW. The bringing in of gameplay elements from solo gaming was a mostly unfortunate process which seemed to have the principle "if it works well in big selling solo games, it will work well in MMO's". This process continues to this day.
Overall a great article for anyone wondering what the hell went wrong?
They speculate (constantly) that the industry should shift into reverse and come back to pick them up. They back-seat drive the game developers incessantly.
Is that any other consumer product that faces this unrealistic expectation? "My fifty dollars invested says you will remain static forever and ever amen. I don't like change!!!"
Or are we content to let next year's car models roll out, with or without our stamp of approval?
My point is before we used to look forward to the time we can put in front of the PC exploring/expiriencing the MMO worlds of past but now this time is shared if not dominated by our mobile devices and neither of these MMO developers have acknowledged that so on my PC i don't put the same amount of time as i used to due to my mobile devices and the fact there are only 24h in a day, so we are basicly trying to fit changed/evolved gaming habits in to an old envelope and expect better results
i hope most of you would agree that they spend less time on PC due to the mobile devices (phones/notepads etc.) and that is cutting out from the time we used to spend on gaming
If we are to experience the immersion of the old MMOs future developers need to start thinking more realistic about their players game play times and develop multy platform titles not just a single title played on many platforms as that really caps the game performance but maybe share some of the fuinctions (chat,trade, curtain subsystems ) trough multitude of devices.
The majority of those who raided in both WoW and LotRO claimed that the endgame combat of LotRO was deeper and more challenging than WoW. It wasn't that the individual classes were necessarily more difficult to play (I don't think lotro's rotations were as convoluted as wow's) but the emphasis on teamplay and interdependancy seemed to be a lot higher in LotRO. Apart from the original raid, helegrod, all following raids were 12 person so there was less need to faff about gathering 24 players.
Ofc, this comparison is a bit meaningless now as lotro has been dumbed down a hell of a lot over the years and I dont think they even make raids any more.
Like you, I also value deep / complex combat mechanics and strong teamplay very highly and is one of the biggest things I look for in a new game. LotRO remains the best MMO I've played for endgame PvE mechanics, even if it never had that much endgame content.
First, all consumer products face the same expectations. We're all looking for the "perfect" book / film / steak / beer and we all express our opinions and regrets.
Second, MMORPGs aren't a product, they are a service. This is a really key difference. With a product, once I've purchased it then its mine to do with as I please. With things like books and films, once I've purchased I can re-use it to my hearts content. I regularly get disappointed with the poor quality of modern cookie-cutter films, but the difference is I can still go back and re-watch old films which did it better.
Being a service, you can't do that with MMORPGs. Each update to the service is irreversible, so not only do we get annoyed with the poor quality of new MMORPGs, we're also unable to go back and enjoy the MMORPGs that we used to when we were younger.
Finally, there is the matter of choice. With your car example, consumers have a choice of 1000s of new cars to choose from so there is a high probability of the consumer being able to find something to meet their needs. With films, there are 100s released every year, again increasing the chance of finding a good one. Same with single player games. MMORPGs are different. If we're lucky, we get 1 or 2 AAA MMORPGs a year, 3 or 4 mid-tier MMORPGs and 5-20 crappy eastern / browser MMORPGs. It means that the chances of us finding one we like is very slim, let alone finding the perfect one.
Vets like myself don't want the industry to reverse, we're astute enough to realise that would be a mistake. What we ( I ) want is to take the older design philosophies and merge them with modern technology and the lessons learnt over the last decade, essentially, finding the nice middle ground between old and new.
Oh wait, enough people asked for it, and it came back.
Let's not forget New Coke, radio knob car controls and a host of items that return by popular demand.
Sure, its expected that the return of old school MMOS would have some change and improvement, but in the "right" ways.
Unlike many products, MMORPGs were actually simplified to make them "better" as opposed to cell phones and automobiles that continue to increase in complexity and design.
So yes, we want the complexity brought back, but it certainly can be improved upon.
Are you sure its "me" who is being inflexible and displaying limited vision here?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
MMOs have gotten more complex behind the scenes, but easier for the player. That is the same as with other modern products. Their construction is more complex, but the product is easy enough to use for anyone. It's like going from a mechanical stick shift car to something with computer controlled breaking system and a GPS.
Some people like the hardships involved in the old way and continue to use said products.
For me the main component that is missing in modern games is immersion. Some people seemed to be able to zone out the GPS tracking systems, the markers, the flashing lights, the real money transactions, etc. and enjoy the game.
It's hard to say exactly what I need to get immersed.
The main key is to provoke emotions of varying different ranges (fear, isolation, happiness, revulsion, loss, etc.). I don't feel any emotions playing the current games out there. I believe this is because they are not designed to provoke emotions. They are designed to be numbers games only. I like to play numbers games, but not when it's impossible to win because of balance and the lack of any real meaningful choice.
I feel for a game to be fun for me it has to be made with some measure of irrationalism. That is it needs to be made by people who care more about having fun then making money and catering to as many people as possible.
If you read most of the comments from people who say they are developers they will always point out they are making the game based on what their customers want. That was not so much the game when games first started. The developers made the games they thought would be enjoyable for people in their own circle who also enjoyed the same things. That is not the case anymore.
When you have games made by logical people with making money as their first priority this is generally what you get IMO. A fairly dull product that is very politically correct and full of helpers. There is a good reason gamers were elitist to an extent in the old days IMO. IT was to stop people from coming in and causing the industry to go the way it has.
Others have eloquently defended our position. I will only say, you seem to be suggesting that we want it all back? Lock stock and barrel. I have only ever argued for a hybrid, a MMO which takes the best of old school and keeps the best of new school.
So for example; no casino gameplay but nothing wrong with a more "arcade style" combat. Likewise no permadeath but gameplay activities which made players want to be in social hubs would be good.
I am not sure you will see many on here that wants to see EQ 1.0 or UO 1.0 without any change what so ever, just souped-up graphics.
They're swayed by the business case. While not every case for a business is visible in the historic data, when it comes to things which have already been tried we have a pretty good sense of what will work and what won't.
On top of that the vocal minority lacks one clear vision of what it is they actually want. And many of the individual ideas presented which are clear are also clearly bad ideas (sometimes there's good evidence that they've been tried and failed, and/or sometimes there's strong understanding of what makes games fun and the idea is the exact opposite of that.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They are the same thing.
Just look at all the iPhone buyers out there.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon