Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
New MMO, same old story...
Whipp555
Member Posts: 31
Apologies if this is a repeat of other topics as a new Forum member.
I began MMO playing many years ago (with breaks here and there) and what I want to know is why ...
Around 10 years ago there were a few large scale MMOs and a variety in production you basically had
1/ Ultima Online - 2d isometric very open world very open pvp
2/ Everquest - Wows predecessor
3/ SWG - Sandbox skill style play with diverse engine good graphics
4/ DAOC - Realm vs Realm pvp and a lower fantasy setting.
now many years later we have a great many more games and sequeals and the same companies moving on in the market with of course the almighty WoW sitting on its golden throne.
I am clearly getting older in this time and am curious if its my perception that the launch of games is far less spectacular in recent times that it was when the industry was in its infancy..is it nostalgia or do i remember these old games being diverse experiences and having their own merits..?
Is it the case that I can only now expect cartoon style copies of everquest (wow) for the forseeable future and anything outside of that tends to somehow not manage to even copy properly the games of the past and improve them (DOAC - warhammer)
Should they rename MMORPGs to just Massively multiplayer zombie grinds while we milk your subs..
and finally would anyone reccomend a decent MMO with RPG qualities to an old cynic like me
many thanks for your time.
Comments
You forgot Asheron's Call on your list.
I wonder that sometimes as well. But I try to remind myself that games back in my day were more open-ended and community focused. Asheron's Call had the Patron-Vassal system that actually gave high level characters a reason to help out new players to the game and many other features that we no longer see in MMOs today. We also didn't have "Micro-Transactions" (AKA Cash Shops) and game developers didn't hype their game for years prior to release using lies about what kind of features their game would have. So yeah, I think its pretty safe to say that MMOs were a lot better back in those days, perhaps just because they were more "experimental" at the time which meant the people creating them were more interested in making a good game that would entertain people than they were in turing a profit. Once MMOs became a "proven" way of earning money that was when everyone and their brother (cough Blizzard cough) jumped on the bandwagon to make their own MMO.
Can I recommend a game? One that is out right NOW...? No. They all blow chunks right now.
BUT... keep an eye on Global Agenda. Its going to be more of an FPS game than an RPG (it will have elements of both, but I suspect it will play like a combination of Guild Wars and BF2142) and may not even really qualify as a real MMO depending on how you look at it. But as long as that isn't a deal breaker for you then there is a lot to possibly like about this game. They are developing for the PC ONLY and they have sworn that there will be NO Micro-Transactions, just a regular monthly fee. My only current worry is that they don't have a publisher and I fear that the game might end up being a digital download only thing, with no option to buy a copy of the game in stores.
The History of the Order of The Golden Shields
HOnestly I would say that all the MMOs (including Eq1, SWG, etc) never were able to divert from their MUD predecessors and muds never deviated from the D&D format. We have come a long way in graphics, size and playability but not so far in overall concept
Torrential: DAOC (Pendragon)
Awned: World of Warcraft (Lothar)
Torren: Warhammer Online (Praag)
New post, same old story.
Sadly, there is also alot more smart asses like this one around as well =/
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan
Sadly, there is also alot more smart asses like this one around as well =/
Wow my first flame..and with true irony to well done..
Thanks for the response Raltar I will check out the game but MMOFPS is generally not what im after..I did play FPS games years ago but they get old quite fast is only so often you can get a cheap thrill out of ganking someone and you need a certain mentality that tends to expire with maturity.
It was a smartass answer, certainly. I've already given my thoughts a thousand times in threads like this because one of them shows up every week. I end up saying the exact same thing, but generally I don't even get people trying to argue with what I say, which sucks.
@OP: I know you're new but there is seriously a post just like this every week.
That's sort of insulting as someone who enjoys a good FPS. (I play TF2 often).
Not to mention I know a lot of very mature people who play FPS games, most in their 30's or 40's. If you're growing tired of games thats fine, but it doesn't make them any worse.
Yes, I know what you mean.
The FPS aspect of the game isn't really my favorite part either. What attracts me to the game is their business model. Making a promise to keep the game PC only and not implement micro-transactions is something that no other game developer seems willing to do these days. I don't know if I will like the game or not but so far I am learning to like the developer. I hope they set a good example for all the other game developers out there by showing that you don't need to steal from and disrespect your customers to turn a profit.
And Nadril, maybe the reason why nobody argues with your opinions on these threads is because they are good opinions and people tend to agree with them. IF that is the case then I would much rather hear your opinions than your sarcastic insults. I suspect most others on this forum feel the same way.
The History of the Order of The Golden Shields
The genre is moving forward, that's the first thing I want to say. I know that it may seem that, at times, the genre can be incredibly stagnent but you have to realize, it's young. It's still an infant trying to figure out what exactly it needs to do right, and it also needs to come to terms with what modern players want, or what the audience outside of MMO faithfuls want.
I do think that there are a lot of differences between current modern MMOs such as WoW and older MMOs such as Everquest. You have to remember that Everquest came out in '99 and that WoW came out in '04. That's only 5 years between the two games, roughly the same time between, say, Half-Life and Half-Life 2. Just like in the later games Half Life 2 did not add a ton that was significantly different than Half-Life, but it still was a large step forward. I think that WoW is the same sort of leap from Everquest.
I know your real concern though is how the genre is moving forward. Personally I think it is moving forward for the best. I think that a lot of old memories for games such as Everquest are very much just looking back at fond memories. I have a lot of fond memories of Lineage II but a large part of that game wasn't that great.
Now the past few years have been very disappointing for MMOs, and they have also taught companies some things not to do. There was a lot of pressure I think to create the ultimate game, and I do think that most companies just couldn't deal. Mythic threw in some poor ideas for WAR. (than again I thought they just got lucky with DAoC, they never really understood what made something good I thought). Funcom tried building off of their already aging code which was a terrible idea to begin with.
I think that there is a lot coming out that is for everyone. Aion and Champions Online both look to be A+ products that actually are working and do have content. Mortal Online seems promising for a sandbox game, Jumpgate:Evolution looks like a lot of fun and several of the MMOFPS look great as well.
As far as companies having a trend away from a more "RP" type of game, I do think it is obvious as to why. A large majority of the market doesn't really care about roleplaying in their game. Most people just want to have a game to play, and they want that game to be fun, polished and have enough content to keep them entertained.
Just like a lot of products in any industry I think you will have to look towards more indie outlets for a different experience. That isn't to say that the big companies aren't going to do anything different, I think that they will and they are working on it, but I do think that it is always the indie developers that you want to really look at.
Eh, that's probably a somewhat disconnected thought there. I just meant to say that I think if you're looking for a different sort of experience, perhaps a more artistic one, than you want to look towards indie games.
Personally I play video games for two reasons, either for just having something fun and enjoyable to play or having something that could resemble more of an experience, an artistic one at that. A good example, again, is that you have your big blockbuster games and then you have your indie games, such as braid. Braid was really more than just a fun game for me, it was an experience which couldn't really be replicated.
And really, I understand the want for this sort of experience. My only advice is to keep looking at indie titles. However I think it is sort of silly to think that all of these modern games and MMOs are trash. I think what you need to remember is that these are, indeed, games here.
Sorry if that is sort of rambling on, but I tried mostly to just talk about what you brought up -- which was worded a bit different than some of the posts around here.
Done. ;p
Nadril you make some very good points and arguments there..firstly on FPS ..that really is just me...honestly when I was back in uni id log onto an online FPS and have a great old time I used every trick in the book and was (am) a complete douchbag so much so my guild didnt want me in it anymore despite my amazing CPT record and winning games for them..and today im a total carebear in games..and hate that kind of menaltity a great deal..a classical hyprocrit but more often than not it is someone just younger than me getting their jollies like I did..
However that was when I was playing FPS..and I really dont mind pvp in MMOs ..but the really issue is that boundary between when and MMO becomes and FPS..for example darkfall judging my the feedback from it is trying to be Ultima onlne but with the modern playerbase used to MMOs being as you quaintly put it..devoid of roleplayers and socialites anymore. Today if you make a game like UO would be hoardes just ganking 24 7.
Conan in theory im sure the developer perceived that..as many might..people will group up with friends to prevent isolated ganking and it will add to the thrill of the world being at risk even while Pveing..but looking out for each other ..as im sure darkfall are expecting to occur..as did occur in UO...but they forget to make any incentive to actually group in the first place with the lackluster Pve content and being far to easy to solo generally..
Basically I have no doubt in my mind a major company could develop a true MMO..one with the nuts and bolts of a working world and leaving much of the rest to the playerbase..cities and crafting and so on. ..and find a huge niche of players just waiting for it to arrive like me...
and finally the ..I just play MMOs to have some fun..well in fact being immersed into a fantasy escapist world is FUN..its just a differnt kind ..but then we live in a generation where most of our peers havent read a book and grew up on TV so maybe it is the end for the RPG in time...
Nadril, while I would agree that a lot of what you said was "true" from a purely technical point of view, I don't think that any of what you talked about proves that the industry is moving "foreward" or becoming better. Saying that the difference between Everquest and WoW is like the difference between Half-Life 1 and Half-Life 2 may be one way to prove there has been movement, but if that movement was in a "foreward" direction is still up for debate. I would say that the majority of the movement has been backwards and sideways at the same time. Or we could say that this movement takes place in a 3D enviroment and some of the movement was down and to the left. It moved, but did it move in the RIGHT direction?
^This is the main part of your speech where I disagree.^
First off, let me say that I have no fond memories of games like Everquest or Lineage, those games were crap. You mentioned how "indie" develoeprs are going to be the ones to deliver the games we are looking for. That isn't a recent development. I've always beleived that small to medium sized game develoeprs produce better games than the goliath developers like Sony and EA.
The game that I have fond memories of is Asheron's Call. And as I've pointed out in this thread and others on this site, that game had many great features that we no longer see in MMORPGs today and I cannot understand why that is. As an example of what I'm talking about, see my post on Best and Worst MMO Communities. Asheron's Call had the "allegiance" system that allowed lower level players to become the "vassal" of a higher level "patron" player. This system really helped the community of the game grow in the early days of the game because there was actually a system in place to encourage experienced players to help those who were new to the game. As one person pointed out, it really made you feel like a part of something, a family. Everquest did not do this. No other game I have seen since has even attempted this. Some people have said that AO has some mechanic to encourage high level players to help lower level ones, but I can tell you that I have tried AO on three non-consecutive occasions and nobody ever offered to help me the way that they did in AC.
Furthermore, look at the way that Turbine, the creators of Asheron's Call, have changed over the years. They started with Asherons' Call, a completely original game with many original features. Then they went on to making Asheron's Call 2 which has very little in common with the original Asherons' Call. They ditched the open-ended skill system for a much more generic class based system that forced players to progress up a linear skill tree. They lost focus on the open exploration aspect of the game and placed much more emphasis on quests. And they apparently were on shrooms when they decided it would be a good idea not to put any NPCs in the game. The end result was a product that was totally unattractive to their original audience and had very little in common with the game it was supposedly a sequel of. After that they compltely stopped making original games, only developing licensed games like LOTRO and DDO, both of which have once again deviated greatly from the open-ended experience of Asherons' Call.
Now obviously Turbine has "moved" over the years. Things have clearly changed. But have they moved "foreward" and have things changed for the better or for the worse? I don't know how you feel about it but I can tell you that my vote is not for better, its for worse. I would much rather have a game like Asheron's Call with a huge open world, a skill based (not class based) character development system and an emphasis on community (as opposed to an emphasis on raiding for high-end gear) than any of the types of games we have today.
There was another thread here on the forums recently that was similar in theme to this one and the discussion more or less went the same way. That thread had this great poster in it and everything he said echoed the way I felt exactly. He talked about Asheron's Call and the way it compares to "modren" MMOs we have today. Here is one of his favorite quotes of mine:
"Evolution implies that there is an improvement. I look back on Asheron's Call and I see an incredible ingame story that progresses every month and players participate in it together, I see a death penalty that hurts but not so much that you might consider quiting when you die, quests that are actually quests rather than kill/gather tasks, there is much focus on content of all types, exploring is viable, being a trader/crafter is viable, going out and fighting is viable, straight up questing is viable, even PvP only is a viable means to play the game. If you compare that to a modern game like World of Warcraft where there is only one thing to do in the game, and that is to advance by doing raids or PvPing and replace your current items with better ones, I would call that devolution. You've literally taken out much of the content that made the MMORPGs of old fun to many different kinds of people and gave us the variety that prevented us from getting bored and replaced that with what might as well be an addictive substance such as heroin. It takes an extremely weak mind to fall victim to that trap, and a majority of the population of the world are extremely weak willed unfortunately. The only kind of person a modern MMORPG will appeal to is someone who hates their life and wants to make the time pass quickly, or someone who doesn't know what the genre has to offer and has offered in the past. The former will go from MMORPG to MMORPG while under the illusion that they're having fun, the latter will come here and complain about how MMORPGs suck and how they should have x feature that existed in one of the old awesome games like UO or Asheron's Call."
There was another fantastic quote I saw recently that I wanted to post here but I can't find it right now. It also discussed the way "modern" MMOs choice to emphasise gear and "end-game" content has harmed the community. It was a wonderful quote and I doubt I can reproduce it proplerly but it more or less said that in WoW the entire game has been so focused on gear and other self-serving goals that any time people have to group they are doing it only because they have to and it is like forcing a bunch of loaners to work togeather.
Now am I saying that games like WoW and such that have quests and zones and instances and classes are all HORRIBLE becauswe they have different features than Asheron's Call? No, I'm not saying that at all. I have played and enjoyed a lot of games that have been released over the last few years. Some of them are very good. But if the games are "good" or not isn't the question. The question is have the games changed in a way that constitutes "foreward" progress or shows that the industry as a whole is "better" now than it was in the past. And simply put, I don't think it is.
Now some people may prefer the games we have today which are "easier" and more comfortable for "casual" gamers. Okay, thats fine. Those of you who feel this way may simply disagree with me and there isn't anything I can do to change that. Fine.
But the features of the games themselves isn't the only thing about the industry that has changed. Its also the way that the industry conducts its business that has changed. Back in the old days of games like Asheron's Call we didn't have things like Cash Shops (AKA "Micro-Transactions" which is the politically correct term the industry has coined in an attempt to distract people from the negative connotations that are associated with cash shops) and games weren't usually released in a buggy half-finished state. We also see a lot of games that get dumbed down (on either a technological level or a gameplay complexity level) so that they can be co-developed for consoles as well as the inital release on PC. This is the reason we get over-hyped goliaths like Age of Conan which turn out to be massive dissapointments. I don't consider any of this to be "foreward" progress.
And thats a large part of the reason that the only game I can actually recommend right now is Global Agenda. Is it going to be the next Asheron's Call and give birth to a high quality community? No, probably not. But it has promised not to use "Micro-Transactions" or try to port the game to a console. Thats a HELL of a lot more than any other developer has done for me lately. It isn't "foreward" progress. Its more like a promise not to slide backwards any further into the greedy self-serving depravity that this industry has become known for. Its the first tiny glimmer of hope I have seen in years.
The History of the Order of The Golden Shields
It is. I think that from one point of view you can clearly see them evolving. UI's become more streamlined, games become easier to get into and there are the (very obvious) modern touches to it.
I do understand that you're mostly talking about features, not polish, here... which is an interesting point up to debate.
Fair call. I never played Asheron's Call but I've also heard stories about it as well. I still think that a large part of players with fond memories of EQ though are just blocking out the boring parts. Players always mentioning having fun groups, or talkative groups. However I've had plenty of very fun and enjoyable group experiences in all sort of games, even in WoW where I had a good group who were fun to talk to. I think that this sort of thing can happen in every game, and that old EQ players often ignore the mechanics behind it all.
Turbine has probably both regressed and moved forward, like you stated. I think that they certainly have some smoother mechanics in place for LoTRO and there are a few MMO "norms" now that are taken for granted. I understand though that it regressed from what AC was.
It's a good quote. One of the issues I think that happens is just with the rising costs of development in the industry. This is something that effects the movie industry as well I think. The fact is these days it costs a lot more money to make a solid MMO offering than it did even 7 or 8 years ago. The amount of resources it takes to make, say, even a dungeon is large -- and as technology has increased funny enough also the time to create certain art assets has as well. A new set of armor needs to be able to fit any player race and size, and could take a long amount of development time.
I think that part of the issue is just that there is no way is it possible to have this huge amount of content that the older games had, or to keep up certain things. The best thing to look at is to look at older RPG's versus new ones. Baldur's Gate II was often touted as a 150-200 hour adventure. Bioware's more recent offering, Mass Effect, took around 40 hours to complete. These are single player games so they are different, but I think the point stands. It also gets into the next point...
I think developers have gone towards an "end game" model due to this. Having an end game means that content is a lot easier to focus at one spot, and new content is pretty easy to add into the existing game. In WoW they can add a new tier of gameplay, or in other games they can add another battleground, another high level zone or dungeon.
One of the big challenges is that devlopers have noticed that players will not really go for the idea of leveling being the entire game. I think they have realized that having the majority of your games experience based off of just killing various monsters (no matter what else is around it) is an old thing and should be phased out. It would explain why these games have the leveling period as simply a time to "learn" your class, the game world and more. The end game is what they consider, possibly, the "real" game -- or the part of it that isn't as boring. This is flawed thinking certainly, but I do think that if a leveling experience is made enjoyable then they should keep it.
The big question. The problem with MMOs is that, like I said, they are very reliant on having a lot of content -- which in these days is a very difficult task to do. I do think that we have moved forward, and that modern MMOs are (for the most part) better than our older counterparts. There very may well be examples, games that were ahead of their time such as AC, but I think that WoW is forward moving from Everquest, for example.
However I also think that a lot of this hangs on the next few years. I think that in these next few years we'll see some major changes in the industry, and we're already starting to see some new and fresh ideas from developers. It's tough to say if we can even bring another experience to the table though like AC, especially with the larger size of MMO communities now.
The recent wave of buggy releases I do agree is very backwards moving. I think it was simply a down period in the genre, and that in the next few years we'll have some games which will (hopefully) change all of that.
I didn't really want to mention it, but Aion is at least proving that you can have an MMO release that is not buggy as fuck. Even though it did release first in Korea (and it wasn't really buggy there) it will be a huge change for gamers, I think, who have come to almost expect the early bugs and issues with a game.
Micro-Transactions if used correctly are just another revenue model. I think that having MT's for things such as server transfers, name changes or the like is perfectly fine -- and should be in any major MMO release. I'm not a fan of actual MT (such as buying items, even cosmetic) in retail games that you're already spending a monthly fee on.
On one hand, I can see that with the increase in development costs it may be necessary. On the other hand it does feel wrong, although a lot of the industry feels like it is going that way with the idea of DLC.
Well I certainly dont look back to Everquest without remembering the bad points to it...I did actually try AC also for a few days but wasnt really impressed at the time due to my EQ addiction..the thing that really kept me in EQ was in fact my guild..we met up from countries across europe from the UK to Estonia even..all met up and socialised had fun..it was just fun raiding with them we were the kind of guild just below the elite guilds but still able to pull off a raid .
Over the course of time EQ changed from a full fleshed out world into cynaical extra tier raids..new gear ..carrot and stick approach that keeps people in WoW ever since..you were ELITE but now you arnt because you need to do MEGA ELITE tier..this caused problems for my guild in that many wanted to split off from our casual member base and form the required new effieicent raid model and formalised loot tables and so on that appeared..and so ended my love affair with EQ...WOW..and any game that is to close to it.. but it was ok because I now really got into SWG:..and loved it..so it didnt matter about EQ and WOW because there were alternatives viable immersive community ones.....and we know what happend next.
Games are improving in some aspects..im quite sure had AoC been released in 1999 it would have beaten the hell out of EQ and AC ..but its because when I now play AoC i have all my EQ experience to ..mow through the game in 20 minutes flat and people want new content ASAP NOW! that MMO companises struggle...
As i mentioned in another post..EQ 1 on launch got bottlenecked towards the beginning of 2000 with most of its playerbase in the top lvls fighting for every single mob spawn in the world..they were camped and overcamped to the point of 6 hour waiting lists to go into dungeons...it was utter dogpoo as an experience..this never happens to me in something liek AoC they tried to instance it and make it streamlined for all..as a result the game lasts 20 hours..because im not spending 100 camping and running to my corpse anymore...so yes its progress in that sense
where the modern MMO fails is making serious innovation..every MMO of the generation early 2000 had some unique ideas and could offer very differnt experiences..as i initially put in this post..but rather than build on the good and add more and deeper experiences to appeal to a wide market...they chose the approach to focus on very few elements and streamline everyone into playing this one way instead..and thats what I dislike
What made EQ successful was something no modern MMO will have the luxey of unless they bring forward genuine innovation...if you didnt like the many issues EQ had and you wanted to play a similar game to EQ...tough shit..there was nowhere to go. Today if warhammer isnt quite as good as warcraft...you quit and head back simple as that..its unforgiving and in a way ensures innovation is a very risky business...
But for all of EQs faults at the time ..compared to what else you could play in spring of 1999..you loaded up EQ and it was just....oh my god..this is amazing ..it was a fantasy rpers wet dream a full 3d world to explore and adventure in with others..that didnt look all that bad compared to 1player games of its time. It was simply incredible a feeling im sure not to get again but thats just life
^Here is the main problem I see in your logic.^
You admit that Asheron's Call was "ahead of its time" and that the "recent" rash of buggy/unfinished games is "backwards moving" as you put it (which, by the way, is not a "recent" problem at all, when I refrenced buggy and unfinished games I was talking about games as far back as the 2003 release of Shadowbane). But you once again use the analogy that WoW is better than Everquest as proof of evolution in the industry. One game that isn't very good being slightly better than another game which wasn't very good just isn't enough proof for me.
Let me put it to you like this: Lets say I have a frog and a human. In this analogy the frog is Everquest and the human is Asheron's Call (because Asheron's Call was ahead of its time). The frog "evolves" into an iguana and the human "evolves" into a snake. In this analogy the iguana is WoW and the Snake is... whatever other game you want it to be, it doesn't really matter. The fact is that I started with a human and now I have no human, I only have lizards. One lizard "evolved" upward from an amphibian but the other regressed backwards from a human. Plus I have a couple of hundred other frogs (all the other half-assed MMOs out there right now) that have showed up to capitalize on the situation. This is not what I define as progress.
In some ways the industry has become "better" at some things. It has become better at appealing to a larger audience by dumbing the games down for casual gamers. It has become better at earning revenue by introducing things like "Micro-Transactions" to suck more money out of people. But none of these "improvements" have resulted in a better product for the consumer.
The History of the Order of The Golden Shields
It was only one example. I think games such as City of Heroes, EVE Online, LoTRO and even some more indie titles such as Ryzom are a testament to products that are, in general, better than older ones. I think that there are exceptions to the rule (such as AC) but in average I feel like they have improved.
The real question is have they improved enough, or in the right way. I think it is obvious that, mechanics wise, games have improved.
However I think the best way I can sum up what I think is this. Currently, MMOs have improved as games. This is meaning that as a product you can just play, have a bit of fun and not really care about the world -- as it isn't that important to a number of players. HOWEVER I think that the current generation of MMOs have regressed in regards to creating an experience. I think that they have moved backwards, and away, from trying to create such a living, breathing world and instead have focused on what makes a game fun.
This is really where the core of the issue is I think. You have one set of MMO players who want an experience. They want to live in the world, they want to immerse themselves in it and feel like they really are in another place.
Your other core group, however, are those who are playing MMOs for a different reason. They just want to get on, level up, chill with friends and in general just have a bit of a fun time. (I'm not trying to say that the people in the first set don't find what they do fun, I'm just trying to say the way they have it is different). This group of players doesn't really care for the story as much as long as the game provides enough content for them to play.
I personally find myself in a bit of both groups. I certainly would not shun an MMO that was more of an experience but as I get older I find myself drawn to more of just games, not simulations. (if that makes sense at all). I find that I would rather just chill on vent with a bunch of friends in my guild, roam around the game world and PvP. I don't want to worry about the impact that it'll cause on the world, I just want to have a game I can have a bit of fun in.
Obviously I think you're probably the opposite of me. Both have their own styles, it just so happens that the group I'm in tends to be the majority. That's why I think that waiting for an indie title is your best bet.
That doesn't make any sense here. This is a situation where an "expetion to the rule" doesn't apply. Either a given game design is the pinnacle of achievement or it isn't. This is the reason why I gave you the whole "Frog vs Human" analogy. If I have a frog (Everquest) and a Human (Asheron's Call) but I trade them for an Iguana (WoW) and Snake (LoTRO) then that is not progress, it is regression. Once you have created a human you don't want to go back to making lizards, you want to create more humans or something smarter than a human. The games we have today are not smarter than the games we had before, thus they are not "evolved" compared to what we had before.
You went on to say that games had improved because they do a better job of giving you something you can "just play" but in your very next sentence you contradicted yourself by admitting they have regressed by offering less of an experience. This sounds like double talk to me but I think the point you were trying to make is that the new MMOs are more appealing to casual gamers and are thus "better" than the other games which did not appeal to casual gamers as much. This is very close to what I said in my last post where I pointed out that MMOs have become better at appealing to a larger audience, but I also stated very clearly that this change had NOT resulted in a better product for the consumer. An analogy to use here would be to compare Chess and Monopoly. Monopoly may be a newer game which is easier for "casual" players to learn to play, but that doesn't by default make it better than Chess, a game which has survived for much longer and requires more intelligence to learn.
You then finished up your speech by trying to devide all gamers into one of two groups. Yet you yourself admitted you fit into neither group. Trust me, I have tired to figure out how to devide gamers into nice neat little groups before but it ended badly for me. If you ask ten gamers what they want from a game you will get ten different anwsers. You can't do this. It simply will not work. If you try to create a game thinking it will appeal to a specific group of people (reguardless of if that group is the minority or the majority) you will still end up with a huge array of different people playing it and each with a seperate opinion of it. If you try to make a game that appeals to everyone it will just be a watered down mess. This is why "theme park" style games where the player is guided through the game and told what to do every step of the way are hard to create content for. This is why you NEED to create a game like Asheron's Call with a truly open-ended experience. Leave the experience the player gets out of the game up to the player himself. Some people may be either too lazy or too stupid to figure it out on their own but I honestly think the community as a whole will be better off without those people. Those of us willing to explore the world, discover what it has to offer and take what we want will do just fine on our own.
The History of the Order of The Golden Shields
I didn't mean to try and say that games have, on the whole, evolved. I was trying to say that they have gone both ways. Forward in some and backwards in others. It is all up to your preference on if you think they are better or not.
That's really all I was trying to express. Current MMOs feel like they are just taking another direction than older ones, and that direction is something that some players may love and some will hate.
Even though I hate using those terms, developers are more set on developing "theme-park" MMOs than "sandbox" MMOs currently. They both have and lack features the other doesn't, and I don't think neither is necessarily a 'better' way to do something, just different. To a player who enjoys "theme-park" MMOs than the genre is evolving. To a player who enjoys "sandbox" MMOs than the genre is stagnant or even devolving (although there are games such as EVE and Ryzom which still offer a good sandbox experience).
While op makes an interesting point there are several things to consider. Wack a mole is wack a mole no matter what universe you play in. There are time sinks and simular things that make them seem very alike. There comes a point and time after years when a player has reached end game in one or more of them very few surprises are left.
We know the here is expansion , here is another area to hunt play in see. Once we have been there done that it is just plain ole fashion burn out. The end result is people take breaks from this fourm and from mmorpgs. There is nada wrong with taking breaks till something more interesting comes along.
I do not think any of us are more interested in elfs trolls any more. Many of us do not rush to end game since many have nada to do except raid.....
Of course the fact that those of us that have been around since eq and daoc have aged have alot to do with it as well.
It is ok to put the key board down. Do something different for a while till another game that comes out may look like fun.