When a game is too old to start playing...

JK-Kanosi · November 2007

I think a game is too old to start playing when the majority of the population has gotten to mid-high level; there aren't a steady flow of new players coming in; the economy caters to the twinks; and when group content has to be ignored, because the veteran players has done it already. What games would you consider too old to start playing?

In my opinion (going down the list):

AO, AL, AC, DAoC, EQ, EQ2, Horizons, FFXI, Lineage II, SWG, UO, WoW

I personally think it is a big waste of money to start a game and find out you have to solo 20-30 levels before you can catch up with the main crowd; in effect, ignoring a lot of good content, because no one will help you. In my opinion, if you cannot play all of the content and feel that the world is populated at all levels, then you are better off waiting for the next MMORPG to come along.

Because of this, I find no games really worth playing on the list right now. The most recent games that came out (Vanguard & LoTRO) both have serious flaws. Vanguards flaw is a poor release, which doomed the game for people that want to experience all the content, but can't since there aren't enough people to group with for it. I think Vanguard is a good game, but I couldn't find groups for the group quests at lower levels, so I quit. LoTRO's flaw was that it was too linear and quest based. Quest based games encourage soloing, not grouping. When you do find a group, it is only for one quest and then they are gone without so much as a good bye. In the old days (DAoC), people would join a group soon after logging in and would stay grouped for several hours. People were respectful, friendly, and helpful. The community of todays MMORPG's are largely anti-social and will only group if they have to. Of course there are exceptions, but I find that this blanket statement fits well. Reason why I bring this up is because if the community of todays MMORPG's were sociable like in the old MMORPG's, games would stay new for a lot longer.

Note: I didn't include all the games that may be too old, since I didn't play every single one of them and because some of them I didn't play longer than a month.

Anyhow, what games would you warn people to stay away from due to there being empty starting areas, an unbalanced economy, and/or low population?

Timberwolf0 · November 2007

Add EVE to the list.

Thomas2641 · November 2007

Originally posted by Timberwolf0

Add EVE to the list.

Don't agree there! In Eve you can specialize your way through ONE field in a couple of months, and then you will be just as good as ANYone in that particular field... the people who have been playing for longer have simply put their points into other fields of specialty, so they can be more diverse, do different things, etc.. But in a couple of months you could be out fighting with these guys who have played for years... of course they have their experience to rely on, but in the end, the skillpoints they have for combat are no more plentiful than yours..

-And am not an Eve fanboy...dont even play eve anylonger.. Like big axes too much

Miexon · November 2007

I agree, EVE can be either. In some instances it will take you a year or so to be as good as an older player but you also can get to a decent level in a few months. Might be looking back into rejoining...

Kyleran · November 2007

Originally posted by Thomas2641

Originally posted by Timberwolf0

Add EVE to the list.

Don't agree there! In Eve you can specialize your way through ONE field in a couple of months, and then you will be just as good as ANYone in that particular field... the people who have been playing for longer have simply put their points into other fields of specialty, so they can be more diverse, do different things, etc.. But in a couple of months you could be out fighting with these guys who have played for years... of course they have their experience to rely on, but in the end, the skillpoints they have for combat are no more plentiful than yours..

-And am not an Eve fanboy...dont even play eve anylonger.. Like big axes too much

/agreed..... in fact, EVE has new players all over the place, joining up with new corporations and forming new alliances.... it certainly doesn't fall in this category... and I should know.... been playing for 6 months now.....

paulscott · November 2007

add any game that has a fake ending to their game, or expansion after expansion(IE increase level). IE: raids.

Skill based games that DON'T hybrid with levels are quite a bit better at making there be no limit on when the game will die. especially if the developers are skilled at maintaining the same maxium power tier from expansion to expansion(EvE, tier 2ing everything, and to a small extent ship classes but that is something that pleases more than it displeases).

Koolhan · November 2007

I would add EVE to the list definitely. It fits the mold more so because of how the "leveling" is set-up. In WoW or something you can play 10 hours straight if you want to be crazy like that and level your toon up fast as hell if you know what you're doing. First 10 hours of EVE and no matter how much you play you are still learning the "learning" skills. You know it's true EVE players.

I played EVE for two years, so...yeah, I know the game. I'm not bashing it, it is unique, and has some of the best MMO moments ever, and also some of the more tedious ones.

I guess the original topic was about a game being "too old" to start. So maybe a more accurate response would be: Yes and No to EVE. haha

EVE is still evolving, it still can be fresh to new players, but let me ask you....can a new player ever....and I mean EVER hope to get to the level of someone who started a year ago and is still playing? The short answer is "no". Oh, that new player may end up with a couple better skills if he pours all his effort and time into just those(and time is the clincher here), but he will not be able to catch up, ever, no matter what.

Plus I don't know if you noticed, but all of the expansions just keep putting the cherries on top. Heck I lost count, but there must be a hundred cherries stacked all the way to heaven by now. Who flies the carriers? Who flies the Dreadnoughts? Who flies and uses the T2 advanced shit? It's not the 5 month player, it's not even the year old player, he has no hope of doing that, unless he wants to be utterly pathetic at every other skill. It rewards time...it does not neccesarily reward play. In some ways I like the idea, in other ways I don't, it's definitely not perfect, but what is? That's EVE for you.

Promathia · November 2007

Dont know the other games, but due to its job-system, FFXI will always have a steady flow of players leveling low level jobs.

gmmonkey · November 2007

I agree with the op's points. Another thing to add is when the inflation of the ingame economy gets out of control. I disagree about eve being too old. I joined last summer because I had nothing better to play. I was a bit bothered about it being too old. But the nature of eve i.e. the sanbox open play where alot of the content comes from the players reduces that problem. Other mmorpgs that have semi linear instanced type guided play that segregates you from the older players limits the lifespan of the game. You feel as you have to burn through the content to get to where everyones at. That's why level systems suck. With eve you just jump in with the big boys and make your way in the universe. Those that say you can't compete is nonsense. Not any other game I know gives you the opportunity to rise to the top, over people that have been playing 3 years longer than you. I'm a director in one of the corps in triumvirate (one of the strongest pvp alliances in the game, for those that don't play). The best thing is I didn't have to grind every single day to get to the "end game" to catch up with the vets like other older games. Skill, chance and patience will get you there in eve. That's why this game keeps on going. I'd never play these level grinding games if there older than 6 months. It'd feel too much of a race to get to the end game.

Greatness · November 2007

Ya I definitely suggest two things for Lineage 2, you either:

1) Join when Chaotic Throne 1 comes out (supposed to come this December) because the introduction of the new races

or

2) Don't join at all. It takes a LONG time to catch up to everyone else.

Tinybina · November 2007

Originally posted by JK-Kanosi

I think a game is too old to start playing when the majority of the population has gotten to mid-high level; there aren't a steady flow of new players coming in; the economy caters to the twinks; and when group content has to be ignored, because the veteran players has done it already. What games would you consider too old to start playing?
In my opinion (going down the list):
AO, AL, AC, DAoC, EQ, EQ2, Horizons, FFXI, Lineage II, SWG, UO, WoW
I personally think it is a big waste of money to start a game and find out you have to solo 20-30 levels before you can catch up with the main crowd; in effect, ignoring a lot of good content, because no one will help you. In my opinion, if you cannot play all of the content and feel that the world is populated at all levels, then you are better off waiting for the next MMORPG to come along.
Because of this, I find no games really worth playing on the list right now. The most recent games that came out (Vanguard & LoTRO) both have serious flaws. Vanguards flaw is a poor release, which doomed the game for people that want to experience all the content, but can't since there aren't enough people to group with for it. I think Vanguard is a good game, but I couldn't find groups for the group quests at lower levels, so I quit. LoTRO's flaw was that it was too linear and quest based. Quest based games encourage soloing, not grouping. When you do find a group, it is only for one quest and then they are gone without so much as a good bye. In the old days (DAoC), people would join a group soon after logging in and would stay grouped for several hours. People were respectful, friendly, and helpful. The community of todays MMORPG's are largely anti-social and will only group if they have to. Of course there are exceptions, but I find that this blanket statement fits well. Reason why I bring this up is because if the community of todays MMORPG's were sociable like in the old MMORPG's, games would stay new for a lot longer.
Note: I didn't include all the games that may be too old, since I didn't play every single one of them and because some of them I didn't play longer than a month.
Anyhow, what games would you warn people to stay away from due to there being empty starting areas, an unbalanced economy, and/or low population?

Completly agree with you here and this is a major fact why I quit playing WOW (Agian) after a long time away from it..Due to the fact that it would take me forever to compete with the guilds and players (example Team ICE, Blood Legion on my server) as far as a very solid guild for end game gear and PVP.

So far the only MMORPG's that I found that you could jump in at a very late date (1 year or later) were Planetside and City of VIllians/Heros.

Asamof · November 2007

I agree that people need to talk more and socialize. It's not like I'm playing these games soley for the game, I'm playing them because I can talk and make friends with other people. Maybe mmo grouping and working together as players needs to be looked at and redone

Czzarre · November 2007

DAOC does have a /Level that brings you up to 20. This way it removed that MMORPG childhood and brings you straight to adolescence. Also, DAOC has made leveling so quick that it can be done while you PvP.

Also remember, some players enjoy the newbie PvP grounds. in fact, I know a few who play it exclusivly.

Torrential

Phos · November 2007

WoW shouldn't be on the list. There are thousands of lvl 1 characters in the game. I know they're there because they always spam in broken english, trying to sell gold and stuff. Does that count?

lol /sarcasm

Seriously though, I agree with the OP. This goes right to the heart of part of the problem with all the "WoW clone" MMOs. The real culprit here is:
- Level-based advancement
- The entire "end game" philosophy
- No FFA PVP
- No corpse-looting (once someone has "uber gear" and it's "bound" to them, it becomes impossible for the balance of power to ever change. Noobs have to try to find groups to help them grind through "end game instances" to try to get the SAME gear so they can compete. That's ridiculous. Let players corpse-loot each other!!!)
- Other "interaction-breaking" features... listed below:

Many games fail because they are not a real "sandbox" and most MMOs are designed with interaction-breaking features such as:
- instances
- auctionhouses with access to global commerce from one location, eliminating any reason for players to travel or for the need for player merchants who manage a group of vendors and are responsible for creating safe locations for their business. These auctionhouses also eliminate the need for consumers to travel to make purchases, creating opportunities for more "chance encounters," etc.
- The ability to "insta-travel" everywhere. (again, less opportunity for "chance encounters" on the roads or the high-seas, such as planned supply-route ambushes, etc.)

I'm sure there are more "interaction-breaking features" if someone has time to analyze it more.

I know people hate hearing this, and I don't want to start an argument... but it's my opinion that the "care bear"-ification of MMOs has directly led to the very problem discussed in this thread.

- Phos

Rayx0r · November 2007

I guess im the oddball as far as thinking a game is too old to start playing. I constantly go from game to game, and frequently pick up games like Eve, Lineage 2 and DAoC every so often. I have no problem having fun in any of the games that I play.

furthemore, I find a more mature and gaming community who go to great lengths to make newcomers and low level character feel at home. Its always the newer games where the community is full of egotistic noobs who consider themselves vets when the game hasnt even been out for a year. Its like pulling teeth in newly released games to get any sort of assistance. God forbid you have to ask someone for pointers or suggestions in general chat.

I dont mean any offense, but this seems very similiar to not wanting to play a game because you cant achieve something that hasnt already been done. Is this more of a community issue (everyone playing the game in your opinion will be too high to group with/guild with), or the fact that vets have been playing the game and you feel inferior?

Stellos · November 2007

Overall I would agree with the OP. I think some of those games will have decent results for a new player if you play on a newer server though. I started WoW up pretty late and I must say that it was constantly filled with newbies. But then again that was a couple of years ago....

UO would be number one on my list of games too old to play. Most the players there are just there because they can't stand to give up their house full of rare items lol.

Protest · November 2007

Overall I agree with the OP as well, and I disagree with those who feel that EVE should be added to the list. The terrific thing about EVE is that it is loaded with new players and it is consistently growing. I believe that now would be as good a time as any for someone to start out in EVE.

Lionexx · November 2007

Originally posted by JK-Kanosi

I think a game is too old to start playing when the majority of the population has gotten to mid-high level; there aren't a steady flow of new players coming in; the economy caters to the twinks; and when group content has to be ignored, because the veteran players has done it already. What games would you consider too old to start playing?
In my opinion (going down the list):
AO, AL, AC, DAoC, EQ, EQ2, Horizons, FFXI, Lineage II, SWG, UO, WoW
I personally think it is a big waste of money to start a game and find out you have to solo 20-30 levels before you can catch up with the main crowd; in effect, ignoring a lot of good content, because no one will help you. In my opinion, if you cannot play all of the content and feel that the world is populated at all levels, then you are better off waiting for the next MMORPG to come along.
Because of this, I find no games really worth playing on the list right now. The most recent games that came out (Vanguard & LoTRO) both have serious flaws. Vanguards flaw is a poor release, which doomed the game for people that want to experience all the content, but can't since there aren't enough people to group with for it. I think Vanguard is a good game, but I couldn't find groups for the group quests at lower levels, so I quit. LoTRO's flaw was that it was too linear and quest based. Quest based games encourage soloing, not grouping. When you do find a group, it is only for one quest and then they are gone without so much as a good bye. In the old days (DAoC), people would join a group soon after logging in and would stay grouped for several hours. People were respectful, friendly, and helpful. The community of todays MMORPG's are largely anti-social and will only group if they have to. Of course there are exceptions, but I find that this blanket statement fits well. Reason why I bring this up is because if the community of todays MMORPG's were sociable like in the old MMORPG's, games would stay new for a lot longer.
Note: I didn't include all the games that may be too old, since I didn't play every single one of them and because some of them I didn't play longer than a month.
Anyhow, what games would you warn people to stay away from due to there being empty starting areas, an unbalanced economy, and/or low population?

I agree 100% with this post but a tthe same time its not all true, I will say EQ2 is not one to be ont his list, and with this new x-pack (RoK) It has really boost lower and medium level activity, And their are always low level groups going down.

I disagree with the person that said add EVE to the list, its true that players that have played for years have more skillpoints, but doesn't mean you can't be as good as them in a few months like many others said, they just have more options then you will.

Destroyer200 · November 2007

Originally posted by Asamof

I agree that people need to talk more and socialize. It's not like I'm playing these games soley for the game, I'm playing them because I can talk and make friends with other people. Maybe mmo grouping and working together as players needs to be looked at and redone

Agree, once I start a new game, I will choose a clan to add firstly, to have friends play and talk together.

Tearsnsorrow · November 2007

I agree with the OP, by coincidence I posted a thread in the Wow forum about it becomming almost a solo rpg for newbies. That opinion followed my return to Wow after a long absence.

I had wondered if the game had changed, but from reading the very good replies I got, it seems most of the guild and grouping is still done by the higher (original) players. Leaving the lower levels to just grind up to the higher levels before they could "join in".

A nice illustration of the OP's point I feel.

Hochete · November 2007

I agree mostly, but not with EQ2/WoW, especially WoW. It's constantly growing with more newbies turning up every day, meaning it's still keeping the low-end game viable for new players.

alakram · November 2007

Originally posted by JK-Kanosi

I think a game is too old to start playing when the majority of the population has gotten to mid-high level; there aren't a steady flow of new players coming in; the economy caters to the twinks; and when group content has to be ignored, because the veteran players has done it already. What games would you consider too old to start playing?
In my opinion (going down the list):
AO, AL, AC, DAoC, EQ, EQ2, Horizons, FFXI, Lineage II, SWG, UO, WoW
I personally think it is a big waste of money to start a game and find out you have to solo 20-30 levels before you can catch up with the main crowd; in effect, ignoring a lot of good content, because no one will help you. In my opinion, if you cannot play all of the content and feel that the world is populated at all levels, then you are better off waiting for the next MMORPG to come along.
Because of this, I find no games really worth playing on the list right now. The most recent games that came out (Vanguard & LoTRO) both have serious flaws. Vanguards flaw is a poor release, which doomed the game for people that want to experience all the content, but can't since there aren't enough people to group with for it. I think Vanguard is a good game, but I couldn't find groups for the group quests at lower levels, so I quit. LoTRO's flaw was that it was too linear and quest based. Quest based games encourage soloing, not grouping. When you do find a group, it is only for one quest and then they are gone without so much as a good bye. In the old days (DAoC), people would join a group soon after logging in and would stay grouped for several hours. People were respectful, friendly, and helpful. The community of todays MMORPG's are largely anti-social and will only group if they have to. Of course there are exceptions, but I find that this blanket statement fits well. Reason why I bring this up is because if the community of todays MMORPG's were sociable like in the old MMORPG's, games would stay new for a lot longer.
Note: I didn't include all the games that may be too old, since I didn't play every single one of them and because some of them I didn't play longer than a month.
Anyhow, what games would you warn people to stay away from due to there being empty starting areas, an unbalanced economy, and/or low population?

In my opinion, you are wrong with at least this ones. EQ2 is receiving new players everyday, same for Wow and SWG. And with Anarchy online, well, tried the trial recently and, not being my type of game, I found lots of low level people around, but I dont know how many of them were really newbies. The mmorpg scene is not as bad as you try to see it.

Wizardry · November 2007

Originally posted by JK-Kanosi

I think a game is too old to start playing when the majority of the population has gotten to mid-high level; there aren't a steady flow of new players coming in; the economy caters to the twinks; and when group content has to be ignored, because the veteran players has done it already. What games would you consider too old to start playing?
In my opinion (going down the list):
AO, AL, AC, DAoC, EQ, EQ2, Horizons, FFXI, Lineage II, SWG, UO, WoW
I personally think it is a big waste of money to start a game and find out you have to solo 20-30 levels before you can catch up with the main crowd; in effect, ignoring a lot of good content, because no one will help you. In my opinion, if you cannot play all of the content and feel that the world is populated at all levels, then you are better off waiting for the next MMORPG to come along.
Because of this, I find no games really worth playing on the list right now. The most recent games that came out (Vanguard & LoTRO) both have serious flaws. Vanguards flaw is a poor release, which doomed the game for people that want to experience all the content, but can't since there aren't enough people to group with for it. I think Vanguard is a good game, but I couldn't find groups for the group quests at lower levels, so I quit. LoTRO's flaw was that it was too linear and quest based. Quest based games encourage soloing, not grouping. When you do find a group, it is only for one quest and then they are gone without so much as a good bye. In the old days (DAoC), people would join a group soon after logging in and would stay grouped for several hours. People were respectful, friendly, and helpful. The community of todays MMORPG's are largely anti-social and will only group if they have to. Of course there are exceptions, but I find that this blanket statement fits well. Reason why I bring this up is because if the community of todays MMORPG's were sociable like in the old MMORPG's, games would stay new for a lot longer.
Note: I didn't include all the games that may be too old, since I didn't play every single one of them and because some of them I didn't play longer than a month.
Anyhow, what games would you warn people to stay away from due to there being empty starting areas, an unbalanced economy, and/or low population?

I agree with what you are saying,wich is why i believe games should just have a real END game,then start all over.I don't like the idea of expansion packs,or games going on forever.If the game was fun,you could prolong it a bit by playing a different race/ job.I'd rather see it end then if it was fun you and your friends could start up again in a new adventure,say a part 2 or part3 of the game whatever or a brand new game by the same company you like.

This would keep high level players from being stagnant as they only wish to wait/hang around looking pimp until the expansion/s come out [believe me this happens ALOT].If the game is truly fun,they will start over at level 1 playing a different race/job and experience the game from a different perspective.This would in turn keep the game ACTIVE so that new players would join in and not find noob areas barren.

There is one huge factor that i realise,that makes this hard to do.How would a company keep an old game's servers active,while still maintain a new adventure's servers,this would get costly after awhile.However SOE has done it for years with say EQ and EQ2,so it deff is doable.

Unknown · November 2007

...in fact, EVE has new players all over the place...

Yes, it does - the problem is that most of them don't stay long. Eve has the highest churn rate, by far, of any MMO. There is ONE guy that has played continously since launch. But check EQ1, UO, EQ2, WOW, and many other games and you will find a lot that have been around since day 1. According to CCP's own figures, the average sub time per account is less than 6 months.

Eve, unfortunately, lacks depth despite it's high ratings here. Once you get past the rather steep learning curve, there really is not much (if anything) new or exciting past the first month or two.

And with the skill system in EVE, there is no possibility of anyone new EVER catching up.

As far as other games that fall into this category, I would eliminate most from the OP's list except for DAOC and EQ1, and add EVE Online. Oddly enough for some, AC is still a better game after 7+ years than many of the new games - just too bad that they elected put their money into Fantasy Clone Game #973..er LOTRO instead of doing something with AC.

Ozmodan · November 2007

Completely disagree with that statement. Most of those are are quite playable even now. Some like SWG you have to find a populated server, easy to find when you ask on the boards. Do some research first before coming here whining on the boards.

As to those persons mentioning Eve, that is beyond ludicrous. Eve is one of the best games for starting up in even if some of the older players having a lot of experience. You can be quite competitive in 3 months. Obviously someone who does not understand the game at all. You never have the need to catch up, just specialize and you will be fine. Before commenting on a game you should at least make some attempt at understanding it. Just remember it is not an easy environment, it does have it's harsh realities which does of course lead to some turnover.

Unknown · November 2007

Originally posted by JK-Kanosi

I think a game is too old to start playing when the majority of the population has gotten to mid-high level; there aren't a steady flow of new players coming in; the economy caters to the twinks; and when group content has to be ignored, because the veteran players has done it already.
Ahhh but you are fogetting about many, many, other things about old games. Everything you said is true. But there is far more...
"Glorified Chat Room" is an often used synonym for mmorpgs. Before the majority of vet players did it all, it was the social ineraction that kept them intrested in the game. After the vets have done it all, it is the social interaction that keeps them with the game. So even if the old mmorpg is full of vets who have done it all, if a new player shows manners he or she can make friends with numerous vet players, and have fun playing. The new player will feel very little shellshock from the twinks, the skewed economy, and lfg.
This has been proven from the fact that UO, EQ1, AC1, and AO, are all still around, and yes, even thriving. DAoC, and EvE, are starting to enter "old game" status.
What games would you consider too old to start playing?
Absolutly none. And since all new games take from old games, technically, there are no old games. Play AO and you will ace WoW. Play EQ and you will ace DAoC, VG. Vets from old games laugh at the new games, because they are all mirrors of the old games.
And believe it or not, the majority of old games are either as fun, or MORE fun, than the new games. Proof? UO had a re-surge, and was doing better than 95% of all new mmorpgs. (When UO re-surged back to 300k accounts some time back.)
In my opinion (going down the list):
AO, AL, AC, DAoC, EQ, EQ2, Horizons, FFXI, Lineage II, SWG, UO, WoW
I personally think it is a big waste of money to start a game and find out you have to solo 20-30 levels before you can catch up with the main crowd; in effect, ignoring a lot of good content, because no one will help you. In my opinion, if you cannot play all of the content and feel that the world is populated at all levels, then you are better off waiting for the next MMORPG to come along.
All your points are valid ONLY for.... Level Based mmorpgs. For example, EQ, DAoC. In Skill Based mmorpgs, your points have far less support. For example, the original SWG aka cSWG, AC1, and EvE. In those mmorpgs, a new player has little trouble finding a group, a guild to join, ... and after 1 month of playing roughly 4 hours each session, can mix it up with the vet players.
The issue is not the age of the mmorpg, but the game features, the way the game was created from day of release.
BTW, what game is "AL" ???
Because of this, I find no games really worth playing on the list right now. The most recent games that came out (Vanguard & LoTRO) both have serious flaws. Vanguards flaw is a poor release, which doomed the game for people that want to experience all the content, but can't since there aren't enough people to group with for it. I think Vanguard is a good game, but I couldn't find groups for the group quests at lower levels, so I quit.
There you go, you have made the subject of your thread moot. You did not dislike VG because of its age. You disliked VG because of it's game features. You said it had a "poor release", and it has "serioius flaws".
LoTRO's flaw was that it was too linear and quest based. Quest based games encourage soloing, not grouping. When you do find a group, it is only for one quest and then they are gone without so much as a good bye.
..And you disliked LotRO aka MEO (to us forum vets LOL) not because of its age, but because of its game features. In this case, it seems LotRO is simply not the mmorpg for you. You tried it, disliked it. No problems there.... you now need to try out some other mmorpgs, or even stand alone games.
In the old days (DAoC), people would join a group soon after logging in and would stay grouped for several hours.
Your thread is about does the age of a mmorpg make it unplayable for a new player. To us vet mmorpg players DAoC does not extend back to the "old days". It came out with the start of a newer generation of mmorpgs (3rd generation). (We are now up to the 4th generation.) DAoC is getting there though, it soon will be oldish enough to be lumped as a classic mmorpg, alongside M59, UO, EQ1, and AC1.
People were respectful, friendly, and helpful. The community of todays MMORPG's are largely anti-social and will only group if they have to. Of course there are exceptions, but I find that this blanket statement fits well. Reason why I bring this up is because if the community of todays MMORPG's were sociable like in the old MMORPG's, games would stay new for a lot longer.
Now you are getting off subject. You are now talking about the manners of players in new mmorpgs, vs the manners of players in older mmorpgs. I do agree this point of yours is valid, but it's still off the main subject of your thread, which is "does the age of a mmorpg make it harder for a new player to start playing, to still have fun?".
Also many of the modern "anti-social" mmorpgs are built that way. If the game DEVs make a mmorpg that caters to soloing over grouping, that caters to grinding over rpging, then that is the behavior they will encourage the most.
Note: I didn't include all the games that may be too old, since I didn't play every single one of them and because some of them I didn't play longer than a month.
Old mmorpg list: M59, UO, AC1, EQ1, As3, RS, SfP, and IMHO AO now goes into that list since every single new mmorpg has gutting AO like crazy heh.
Anyhow, what games would you warn people to stay away from due to there being empty starting areas, an unbalanced economy, and/or low population?

None. The only reason I would warn any player to avoid a mmorpg would be if I knew it was going to be shut down soon... Do a search of my name, and maybe some of my wars in the AC2 threads are still around.

Or if I knew a mmorpg was full of scammers, con artists, and the game DEVs were doing little about it. (One of the downfalls of the very first major mmorpg to turn to vaporware - "Dawn".)

Or if I knew a mmorpg really was not fun. That there was zero fun for none of the various player playstyles.

Other than that, it does not matter if a mmorpg feels near empty, or the economy is skewed.... as long as there's no danger of it getting shut down. All mmorpgs have forums. Some ideas on how a new player can have fun in an old mmorpg:

1. Browse the official forums. Post. Make friends on the forums. You will find players on whatever server you create your character on.

2. Browse fan site forums. Do the same, especially if it seems to be a guld that caters to your playstyle.

3. Always show good manners whenever meeting other players in game. Every character has a reputation that follows their name. Even if the other player shows bad manners, don't sink down to their level.

4. Identify your main playstyle. Then seek an old mmorpg that is closest to it. If you like to explore, I suggest AO. If you like to PvP, I suggest DAoC, and AC1 pvp servers. Unfortunatly, the majority of old mmorpgs(6 years and older) catered more to grouping, and PvE playstyles. It might be better for a new player to seek a newer mmorpg just for the fact that more playstyles are catered to in most newer mmorpgs. (I still LOVE how in WoW you can get experience just for exploring!!!

Current best PvP mmorpg: AO, then EvE, then DAoC

Current best PvE mmorpg: WoW, then EQ2, then SfP (only mmorpg with permadeath!)

Current best explorer's mmropg: WoW, AO, EQ2

Howdy, Stranger!

When a game is too old to start playing...

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

When a game is too old to start playing...

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV