I am an old school gamer, no doubt about it. Yet I don't necessarily hate any modern MMOs on principle. In fact I freely admit (and have for years) that WoW is technically the best game ever made IMO. The controls blow away any game I've played (I do have problems with things like GCD and spell-pushback), the fluidity of controlling your avatar is unparalleled, I don't have a problem with the graphics since they are at least crisp and clear, the world design is interesting, so many other things I won't bother to list them.
But I also have problems with things in WoW just like I had problems with things in UO, DAoC, LOTRO, AO, and pretty much every MMO I've ever played.
To me the main difference is that there has been a trade-off over time in the MMO development cycle. Developers now mostly focus on recreating the WoW model with an interesting twist. I can hardly blame them since they are out to make money and this practice has proved successful time and time again in other markets. In the past when the market was young, before there was a gold standard, there was a huge amount of variety in every aspect of MMO's that just doesn't occur any more. How many more cartoonish graphic, two faction, trinity class, quest grind to level cap, group dungeon plus endgame raid, PvP minigame, etc. type games can the genre support?
The problem IMO is that all major MMO games (besides Blizzard games) are funded by venture capitalist investors who know nothing about MMO's other that what can be quantified on a quarterly report. This combined with the fact that the MMO market is still young enough that nobody (with the possible exception of Blizzard) truly understands the driving factors in players subscribing long-term to a game. This gets compounded by the fact that indie companies don't have the resources to produce games at a quality level on par with AAA devs.
I had a little hope for a while that SW:TOR would buck the trend to some degree, but that hope is long gone. It will be a wow-in-space-with-story borefest IMO. My hopes now lie in FFXIV for the short-term since I know that it will be significantly different from this model in areas at least. Long term I am very impressed with the comments of R.A. Salvatore on "Copernicus" (especially in regards to death penalties and risk/reward) and always have high hopes for Warhammer 40k.
Don't get me wrong, I really did enjoy WoW. Hell, I played it 5-6 years on and off from launch and have done everything the game has to offer many times. I'm just ready for a change. The same classes/mechanics/styles in a new skin just isn't going to do it for me. I want innovation, I want new approaches to progression, I want a world that feels more cohesive not just a linear path through zones, I want some company to finally figure out how to design crafting well, I just want something new that isn't a rehash of the same old. IMO it won't be very long before companies realize that there are many players out there who feel the same.
No matter how great WoW was/is it still gets old after six years, I just miss the days when developers tried to innovate from the ground up, not just re-skin a game and add a twist.
Why do we see older games as better? Because they were. They were made for fun and fun to make.
They were not made to maximize profit, they were developed by small studios full of people who did what they did for the joy of it. They didn't figure how many play hours the player would get out of it, or how much of their content should be DLC or "visible, yet available only when unlocked with an expansion." They just thought of something cool and went about their business making it happen.
Those studios are gone.
Now ask yourself why those studios are gone.
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MAKE MONEY
No, actually some are still around in name, but the "better" ones have lost their legacy - Maxis, Rare, Bethesda, DICE, id... the list goes on.
Others have simply vanished, as they could not continue to pump out games for the sake of money. Some of those were Free Radical, Looking Glass, Ion Storm, and Factor 5.
/sarcasm
Nah, they never made anything fun! Not ever worth the money. Deus Ex, Timesplitters, Rogue Squadron, Thief... absolutely shitty games, if you ask me.
You know what I think? I think you're a great consumer! No kidding, here! You think money is God! - and you know what? You're right! Ha-hah! Gotta get to that next level, right?!
Ah hahah haahh, yeah...yeah... I love ya, man. I love ya.
In its day, EQ was similar to WoW (go figure, WoW is just a kiddie version of EQ) in the sense that, it was more linear with a direct focus, and the devs gave the players a bunch of tiny goals to acomplish that made them feel great. However, in EQ, the world itself was much better fleshed out, and there were a lot more gameplay features, class depth, world design, and social structure than anything in WoW.
WoW is to EQ what Farmvile is to WoW. And MMos have just been going downhill since. But sure, the new people don't mind, cause they either weren't around back when MMOs were real MMOs, or they had no interest in those old MMOs, but the new ones are so radically different, they like them for casual fun. Nothing wrong with that... if they had their own genre. But instead, us "old timers" get kicked to the curb and ridiculed for enjoyed depth and socializing in online games.
Have to call a bit of BS here. Name a single class in EQ that has more depth than a single class in WOW? Which class in EQ has more options, more unique spells/abilities, and more variety? Which features does EQ have that WOW doesn't? Also think how many feature WOW has that EQ doesn't. What social structure existed in EQ that doesn't exist in WOW? Curious.
WOW's world design is about 100X more detailed than EQs by the way. An opinion of what you enjoy is one thing, but facts are facts. WOW's world is much more detailed and fleshed out with more attached lore and PURPOSE in its design.
I already know where you mind is though...EQ is a REAL MMO and WOW is just for kids? I already know your answers will be clouded in rose colored delusion=)
Substitute EQ2 for every EQ in the above highlighted text and your arguments utterly fall apart.
EVERY class in EQ2 has far more depth than WoW classes. Incidentally, I played WoW for five full years and have several level 80s and a LOT of 70+. I have played ALL of WoW's classes except the paladin. Can't say I actually "played" a pally since my pally primarily became my bank and I never leveled her past level 25.
For two of the five years I played WoW, I also played EQ2 alongside of it. However, my highest level character in EQ2 is presently level 64. I also have a 54 and a 30.
Anyway....have you looked at the Advancedment System in EQ2? I know you probably haven't. Most people that play WoW don't ever venture outside of that "space" to really look at other games very objectively. As far as "talents" and "talent points" for character customization go, EQ2 has probably 20 times more you can do with your "talents." WoW has 3 "trees" for each class. EQ2 has 2 sub-classes for each archetype, and then FIVE "trees" you can "spec" into, along with 4 additional "trees" of a "secondary" type, and I'm trying to use WoW terminology to describe it, but it's something you'd have to SEE. It is FAR FAR more detailed with many more options. This...is a FACT.
Let me help you out with a few things:
EQ2 has had guild leveling for years. EQ2 had guild banks long before WoW did. EQ2's crafting system....SHAMES WoW's in not only it's depth, but it's usefulness and ability to "earn a living" for your characters. Crafted items are valuable and necessary from level 1 to 90. EQ2 has fantastic housing. EQ2 has very deep lore. EQ2 has a ridiculous number of ways you can advance your character. There are Lore and Legend quests, Heritage Quests, the Collection System which awards both items, combat xp, and AA xp. EQ2 has appearance gear, so people aren't all running around looking just alike. God, I loathe that about WoW. If you're in tier gear....you have no choice but to look JUST LIKE the next person in the same gear. UGH.
About the ONLY thing that WoW has on EQ2 right now....is PvP BGs. I can't even just say PvP, because EQ2's PvP servers are HARDCORE PvP. WoW BG PvP'ers would cry like little children over there. It is cutthroat. However....WoW does have smoothly functioning BGs, which EQ2 can't really claim yet, even though they are trying to implement their version of it.
Another thing....comparing WoW's graphics to EQ (original flavor) is MEANINGLESS. You're comparing a five year old game to a 15 year old game. How does that make even a REMOTE amount of sense? WoW players get TOTALLY bent when people compare today's games like AION graphics to WoW, and yet....they turn around and compare WoW to EQ1?? Why not compare WoW's graphics to the other two MMOs that were released at the SAME time instead? That would be Guild Wars and EQ2. Okay...on THAT note....WoW falls in line DEAD LAST. However...I have to admit, I like the whimsical nature of WoW's graphics. They are an entirely different STYLE than those of GW or EQ2, and the artistic design, imo...is awesome in WoW. So I actually, personally, like WoW's cartoon-like style, but I would not say the gfx are BETTER than either GW or EQ2, and that is a more FAIR comparison than comparing to EQ1.
Anyway....
No one really cares if you love WoW. I'm always happy when people find games they are happy in. BUT....we all have opinions. And some of those that play WoW expect that because THEY think it's the best game in the world, EVERY SINGLE GAMER will agree with them. FFS....are the 12 million people that are still playing WoW NOT enough for you? Do you need MORE people than THAT to validate your choice in games????
Why doesn't everyone just go play what makes them happy and quit arguing about things that are, for the MOST part, entirely subjective??
Why do we see older games as better? Because they were. They were made for fun and fun to make.
They were not made to maximize profit, they were developed by small studios full of people who did what they did for the joy of it. They didn't figure how many play hours the player would get out of it, or how much of their content should be DLC or "visible, yet available only when unlocked with an expansion." They just thought of something cool and went about their business making it happen.
Those studios are gone.
Now ask yourself why those studios are gone.
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MAKE MONEY
No, actually some are still around in name, but the "better" ones have lost their legacy - Maxis, Rare, Bethesda, DICE, id... the list goes on.
Others have simply vanished, as they could not continue to pump out games for the sake of money. Some of those were Free Radical, Looking Glass, Ion Storm, and Factor 5.
/sarcasm
Nah, they never made anything fun! Not ever worth the money. Deus Ex, Timesplitters, Rogue Squadron, Thief... absolutely shitty games, if you ask me.
You know what I think? I think you're a great consumer! No kidding, here! You think money is God! - and you know what? You're right! Ha-hah! Gotta get to that next level, right?!
Ah hahah haahh, yeah...yeah... I love ya, man. I love ya.
/end sarcasm
Too bad your understanding of basic economics is so piss poor. Every business is in business to make money. Those who cannot make money go out of business.
Come on back when you join the rest of us in reality.
Why do we see older games as better? Because they were. They were made for fun and fun to make.
They were not made to maximize profit, they were developed by small studios full of people who did what they did for the joy of it. They didn't figure how many play hours the player would get out of it, or how much of their content should be DLC or "visible, yet available only when unlocked with an expansion." They just thought of something cool and went about their business making it happen.
Those studios are gone.
Now ask yourself why those studios are gone.
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MAKE MONEY
No, actually some are still around in name, but the "better" ones have lost their legacy - Maxis, Rare, Bethesda, DICE, id... the list goes on.
Others have simply vanished, as they could not continue to pump out games for the sake of money. Some of those were Free Radical, Looking Glass, Ion Storm, and Factor 5.
/sarcasm
Nah, they never made anything fun! Not ever worth the money. Deus Ex, Timesplitters, Rogue Squadron, Thief... absolutely shitty games, if you ask me.
You know what I think? I think you're a great consumer! No kidding, here! You think money is God! - and you know what? You're right! Ha-hah! Gotta get to that next level, right?!
Ah hahah haahh, yeah...yeah... I love ya, man. I love ya.
/end sarcasm
Too bad your understanding of basic economics is so piss poor. Every business is in business to make money. Those who cannot make money go out of business.
Come on back when you join the rest of us in reality.
I wonder if any of you really clever people took a moment to consider that many times game companies "aren't around anymore" because they got gobbled up by other companies, either directly by being bought (as Angel Studios, the company I formerly worked for, was) or by having their recognized talent looted by larger companies.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, my friend. When you're ready to cast a rock and talk about the 'piss poor' understanding of economics you are willing to suggest other people possess, take a step back for long enough to recognize that your own limited understanding might easily be the thing that discredits what you say and makes you look like the laughingstock.
The most basic rule of our economic system that is fruitful to examine is that the strongest survive. They [game developers] don't necessarily do that by making better games, either. Making "better games" is not a prerequisite to making money. I highly doubt that there is a significant positive correlation between the two, although it would take a large random sampling of gamers--a very hard to define group--in order to determine the correlation with appreciable accuracy. The strongest survive in part by recognizing talent and buying/using it for their own purposes. As anyone who has worked in the industry will tell you, what inevitably happens within game companies is that the creative direction winds up lodged in the hands of a comparatively few people. This represents human arrogance on the game design level and is something which is prevalent industry-wide. It is the primary reason why you do not see Darwinian principles apply to the games themselves, as they would, for example, if the designers of Everquest or WoW took a moment to realize the logic imperative for using differential server architecture. A system, for example, that varied the penalty for death amongst the different servers such that players could themselves determine what was best and then vote with their playing time. Even now this is done to a certain extent, with PVP only versus PVE servers. PVE servers are currently the larger draw, yet there are too many PVP'ers to ignore that vital component as well. While game development, in my opinion, is not 'stuck' in any way, it would progress much more quickly if the majority of game designers took more thought about approaching 'the game' of game design with the simple principles of evolution in mind.
There is no way to reliably determine which direction game development should take without the collective votes of the players, which are cast based on their playing time. A 'good game' can loosely be defined as a game which people choose to allocate some of their time toward playing. A game is 'better' if more who are aware of its existence choose it, or choose it more frequently or for longer. People choose games based almost entirely on opportunity cost. They'd rather be doing it than their next best available choice. That is basic economics. WIth those tiny bits of information, it is comparatively easy to sketch out the direction in which game development should take:
It can begin simply with the establishment of a platform within a recognized genre. In an MMORG, the 'development' takes place further at every patch. Players cheer or jeer changes, usually cheering some and jeering others. Enough of us recognize this that a term has been coined for it, as in, "dammit, they nerfed [such and such] again." To a certain extent, a game designer needs to keep control of these dynamics such that parts of the game don't get "out of balance"--yet without going too far off on a tangent there tends to be too much made about keeping everything 'in balance.' A game designer's mission ought to be keeping the game as entertaining for his/her players as he/she can, not to try to retain his/her vision of the game for as long as possible and lose as few players over time as he/she can. Contrary to popular belief, once a MMORG is released, it is no longer the sole property of the company which made it. This fact is obvious, for the same reason that a marriage is not a possession that you yourself own. At this point, many of you will say, "well that's flatly not true, Sony or Blizzard or [insert game company here] can eject/ban/replace players as they see fit" to which I will respond "yes, and you can get divorced and then remarried if you like." The problem with that notion is that the person you divorced may not be so willing to marry you a second time, nor are players so willing to invest 100's of hours of their time in an MMORG that is designed by an unreliable developer, or one that doesn't 'agree with' them. So MMORG's are shared possessions upon release. This should be the wake up call game designers need.
Their games are not theirs. They are guardians, more or less. As any teacher will tell you, the kids in the class are (or easily can be) 50% in control of the direction of that class. An arrogant teacher will deny this, but even those will recognize the days when kids "couldn't sit still" which are those days where "nothing got done." I know this, since as an league-wide MVP for men's club rugby I was mobbed and overrun by a seventh grade English class despite 'making it clear' to them that no one was to leave until little Johnny took his seat. Gamers take control of these systems on the same day that they decide that playing two (or more) MMORGs at a time and choosing how to allocate your play time amongst them based on the direction the games take serves both them and the games they play better than feeding game design egos by powergaming for 15 hours a day on the one and only game they 'love.' You can't know what's best unless you know the alternative.
You know what was cool about being "back in my days?" No one made these posts. Because "back in my day" we understood that stereotyping a whole group of completely different people didn't make sense.
You know what was cool about being "back in my days?" No one made these posts. Because "back in my day" we understood that stereotyping a whole group of completely different people didn't make sense.
Or maybe back then there was nothing to complain about because the MMos were actually good.
You know what was cool about being "back in my days?" No one made these posts. Because "back in my day" we understood that stereotyping a whole group of completely different people didn't make sense.
You know what was cool about being "back in my days?" No one made these posts. Because "back in my day" we understood that stereotyping a whole group of completely different people didn't make sense.
Or maybe back then there was nothing to complain about because the MMos were actually good.
No joke. The thing that gets me about "these people" that try to bash the BIMDers is they try to throw out "nostalgia" and "rose colored glasses" like they are authorities on the matter. They fail, and badly, to see that we know those games back then weren't perfect. We aren't saying they were. But those games had alot more substance to them than the production line value that is getting Henry Ford'd out to us today in our view. And our view is just as valid as the ones who are throwing out snarky comments at us for having enjoyed and still preferring those style games.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
You know what was cool about being "back in my days?" No one made these posts. Because "back in my day" we understood that stereotyping a whole group of completely different people didn't make sense.
Or maybe back then there was nothing to complain about because the MMos were actually good.
No joke. The thing that gets me about "these people" that try to bash the BIMDers is they try to throw out "nostalgia" and "rose colored glasses" like they are authorities on the matter. They fail, and badly, to see that we know those games back then weren't perfect. We aren't saying they were. But those games had alot more substance to them than the production line value that is getting Henry Ford'd out to us today in our view. And our view is just as valid as the ones who are throwing out snarky comments at us for having enjoyed and still preferring those style games.
Hey, I love old video games. I still play "Master of Magic" and "Realms of Arkania" (that's right, games that were released before most of these kids were born), but I don't delude myself. There really wasn't better production value back then. There were companies and games that had a lot of value, thought, and polish put into them, but there was also a ton of shit. Basically, things haven't changed. Yes, there's better technology now and some gaming innovations, but you probably still have the same ratio of honey to shit as you always did.
As I have posted a few times before the change in games over the past decade is direct and measurable. Its literally, not by imagination and sometimes even by direct quotes from developers themselves, a reduction in content without feature expansions.
its not an imagation. Bethesda has even stated publically that Fallout 3 has less area than Oblvion and Oblivion has less area than Morrowind. Now, with less area does that mean more features have been added instead? No not really.
So with that as an example the only way one can say games have gotten 'better' in the last decade is to make the arguement that less game space, same or less features and more restriction is actually a Gain in gaming experience.
Neverwinter nights to dragon age is another exemple of decline in gameing by the way
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You know what was cool about being "back in my days?" No one made these posts. Because "back in my day" we understood that stereotyping a whole group of completely different people didn't make sense.
Or maybe back then there was nothing to complain about because the MMos were actually good.
No joke. The thing that gets me about "these people" that try to bash the BIMDers is they try to throw out "nostalgia" and "rose colored glasses" like they are authorities on the matter. They fail, and badly, to see that we know those games back then weren't perfect. We aren't saying they were. But those games had alot more substance to them than the production line value that is getting Henry Ford'd out to us today in our view. And our view is just as valid as the ones who are throwing out snarky comments at us for having enjoyed and still preferring those style games.
You OBVIOUSLY missed the memo about "modern day gamers" (i.e. people 18 and under) being the ultimate authority now on what is good in games for everyone. From what I understand, this new generation of gamers, has super extra sensory gamer perception and they KNOW, for a fact, beyond any doubt, what is good gaming for all gamers world-wide. They're really amazing. It's theorized, by most scientists, that they developed these super human powers while playing World of Warcraft instead of graduating from high school. They're doing a lot of costly research on this subject to attempt to figure out how we lowly age 30+ gamers, in particular, can perhaps acquire this same level of gaming knowledge. You really should keep up with the memo board better, Man.
I can't think of anything in life where having more experience in something makes you more credible.
Yes you all sound that stupid, moving on.
The entire PREMISE of arguing about games is ignorant. I agree. And yet...we all still come here to do it. Then on the other hand, LOTS of things that are fun to do, particularly when it comes to hobbies and the love of those hobbies....are logically ignorant foundationally. Just look at other hobbies. You'll find the same ridiculous rambling and rantings going on with them. Did you know there are miniature golf forums? Yeah....miniature golf. Ooo and bowling too. There are pretty much forums with the same type of silly discourse going on, on every subject or hobby you could imagine.
I can't think of anything in life where having more experience in something makes you more credible.
Yes you all sound that stupid, moving on.
The entire PREMISE of arguing about games is ignorant. I agree. And yet...we all still come here to do it. Then on the other hand, LOTS of things that are fun to do, particularly when it comes to hobbies and the love of those hobbies....are logically ignorant foundationally. Just look at other hobbies. You'll find the same ridiculous rambling and rantings going on with them. Did you know there are miniature golf forums? Yeah....miniature golf. Ooo and bowling too. There are pretty much forums with the same type of silly discourse going on, on every subject or hobby you could imagine.
I think (or rather hope) he was being sarcastic because my entire working career has revolved around credibilty based on experience.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. WoW has Mr. T hand grenades, foo. Don't question that, sucka.
2. WoW has a bigger player base and as we all know, what is popular is always what is right.
3. WoW's world design is 100X more detailed than EQ's cough...*BS*...cough. Yeah, my throat has been acting up, I think it's allergies. Of course if I weren't pouring over spreadsheets on "world detail data" in the middle of this grand field of poppies, and if it weren't so darn dry out I'd probably feel a whole lot better. Yep, says it right here at the bottom: final poly comparison WoW: 278,331,465,212 to EQ 2,643,244,104. You better head back to the drawing board, Smed.
4. Gameplay is more challenging=it takes effort to experience content in WoW versus EQ/EQ2. And as we all know the best part of road tripping cross country is the destination, not the journey. It would be a whole lot better if we just had Star Trek transporter beams and could hit a button and be at the Grand Canyon or Arches National Park, look around for a few minutes, call it a day and then hit a button and return to our sofa. Isn't it obvious that having more content that you can play through faster is better, especially considering that that's the way most people are voting when they're encouraged by advertising to do so?
This isn't an apple to an orange comparison, people. You're comparing whole worlds which are as different as comparing books. You're essentially comparing the Harry Potter series to The Lord of the Rings. How is that reasonable? Yes, Harry Potter made a fat lot of cash super fast, and if making cash is the gold standard of how good something is then J.K. Rowling is the Crown Queen of the fantasy genre and WoW is King of MMORGs. If getting kids to read is the standard, she did a good job there, too, as does WoW. If establishing races to see how fast junior could race through 1000 pages of fluff (relative to, say for example, the material in Moby Dick) then it's J.K. all the way and it's WoW's 3 day race to level 80 and Epic gear. You just can't compare a fingerpainting class to technical drawing no matter how fun it is to get your hands and face smeared in purple paint, and doing so marks you a WoWer because you're coming from a position where understanding is not a prerequisite to entertainment. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that WoWers will call WoW the best for the same reason that a puppy will consider chewing a shoe the best. Nothing more complicated needs to exist to entertain the puppy. It's Miller High Life vs. a fine wine any day. Ain't the objective to get drunk, Huck?
I agree with this post except for using Rowling as an equivalent to WOW. The woman has got more depth in her writing than 90% of authors out there.
You OBVIOUSLY missed the memo about "modern day gamers" (i.e. people 18 and under) being the ultimate authority now on what is good in games for everyone. From what I understand, this new generation of gamers, has super extra sensory gamer perception and they KNOW, for a fact, beyond any doubt, what is good gaming for all gamers world-wide. They're really amazing. It's theorized, by most scientists, that they developed these super human powers while playing World of Warcraft instead of graduating from high school. They're doing a lot of costly research on this subject to attempt to figure out how we lowly age 30+ gamers, in particular, can perhaps acquire this same level of gaming knowledge. You really should keep up with the memo board better, Man.
LOL! Hope you have on your flame retardant gear on...although I feel ya myself.
You know what was cool about being "back in my days?" No one made these posts. Because "back in my day" we understood that stereotyping a whole group of completely different people didn't make sense.
Or maybe back then there was nothing to complain about because the MMos were actually good.
No joke. The thing that gets me about "these people" that try to bash the BIMDers is they try to throw out "nostalgia" and "rose colored glasses" like they are authorities on the matter. They fail, and badly, to see that we know those games back then weren't perfect. We aren't saying they were. But those games had alot more substance to them than the production line value that is getting Henry Ford'd out to us today in our view. And our view is just as valid as the ones who are throwing out snarky comments at us for having enjoyed and still preferring those style games.
Hey, I love old video games. I still play "Master of Magic" and "Realms of Arkania" (that's right, games that were released before most of these kids were born), but I don't delude myself. There really wasn't better production value back then. There were companies and games that had a lot of value, thought, and polish put into them, but there was also a ton of shit. Basically, things haven't changed. Yes, there's better technology now and some gaming innovations, but you probably still have the same ratio of honey to shit as you always did.
My personal opinion, purely based on my experience with MMOs, is that now, they are less about being worlds and more about instant gratification.
Take an old MMO like UO, for example. There were a lot of things to do. You could be a crafter, a gatherer or a pirate, a thielf, a PK or an anti-PK. You can build homes, tame and sell animals, explore non-instanced dungeons. There were even some puzzles. Factions could take over cities and battle over their control. There was not visible instancing and almost everything you did could potentially change the game world.
It was really the closest thing you can get when trying to emulate a real world. Did it have it's flaws? Of course! It was one of the first MMOs ever and mistakes were made, and lots of them. But the world in UO felt alive. EVE Online also did a pretty good job in that area... Maybe that's why it's growing, despite it's age?
Now take WoW, a relatively modern game and one with a formula (borrowed from EQ) that is being emulated by most new MMOs. What can you really do in that game? Raid and do instances. Yes, there is PvP but it's instanced and has no effect on the world apart from being a way to get new gear. Even world PvP is meaningless and does nothing besides annoying questing newbs. The whole game revolves around gathering gear.
Sure, it's a great game for casuals to log in, run a few quests and/or instances and feel like they've accomplished something. But if you look deeper, there is no substance to WoW. It's all about conditioning (B.F. Skinner would be proud. Pavlov too, I guess.) the players to keep coming back for more. That's why people keep playing WoW. It's designed in a way as to offer little bits of rewards for certain repetitive actions and keeps you playing and paying. That's why so many people are hooked on WoW. They are basically stuck in Skinner's operant conditioning chamber and keep pressing their buttons, hopping for a reward to drop down.
Sorry about the long post, sometimes it's hard to put thoughts into words but that's how I feel. I have nothing against modern MMOs and I do play them, but once you realize that they are build mostly around cvonditioning you to expect a reward, you realize just how shallow they are.
You OBVIOUSLY missed the memo about "modern day gamers" (i.e. people 18 and under) being the ultimate authority now on what is good in games for everyone. From what I understand, this new generation of gamers, has super extra sensory gamer perception and they KNOW, for a fact, beyond any doubt, what is good gaming for all gamers world-wide. They're really amazing. It's theorized, by most scientists, that they developed these super human powers while playing World of Warcraft instead of graduating from high school. They're doing a lot of costly research on this subject to attempt to figure out how we lowly age 30+ gamers, in particular, can perhaps acquire this same level of gaming knowledge. You really should keep up with the memo board better, Man.
LOL! Hope you have on your flame retardant gear...although I feel ya myself.
I really loved the sarcasm and irony in this post. Very clever. However, I think we can all agree on one thing: An MMO need as many subscribers it can possibly get for it to near or equal its potential.
I'm not so bothered by the 18 and under crowd because I simply acknowledge that they don't know any better, and in time, will eventually fall in to society on a normative level.
What my biggest concern is the actual 30+ age group where they SHOULD know better, yet are acting more childish and consequently negatively impact any given MMO even more.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ "Your pride, good sir, far exceeds your worth." -x3r0h
Oldest mmorpg.com member with the least amount of post counts. That counts for something, right?
Well OP sorry to tell you but I'm not comparing new mmo to what I thought old MMO's were, I comparing the new mmo's to what old mmo's actually are. How do I do this you ask? I'm still playing the MMO I first loved, FFXI. Yes it has changed a bit, in the last 8 years but still the core gameplay is still there. Did you ever think that some people do actually Like and Remember what Old mmo's were like?
You know what was cool about being "back in my days?" No one made these posts. Because "back in my day" we understood that stereotyping a whole group of completely different people didn't make sense.
Or maybe back then there was nothing to complain about because the MMos were actually good.
No joke. The thing that gets me about "these people" that try to bash the BIMDers is they try to throw out "nostalgia" and "rose colored glasses" like they are authorities on the matter. They fail, and badly, to see that we know those games back then weren't perfect. We aren't saying they were. But those games had alot more substance to them than the production line value that is getting Henry Ford'd out to us today in our view. And our view is just as valid as the ones who are throwing out snarky comments at us for having enjoyed and still preferring those style games.
Hey, I love old video games. I still play "Master of Magic" and "Realms of Arkania" (that's right, games that were released before most of these kids were born), but I don't delude myself. There really wasn't better production value back then. There were companies and games that had a lot of value, thought, and polish put into them, but there was also a ton of shit. Basically, things haven't changed. Yes, there's better technology now and some gaming innovations, but you probably still have the same ratio of honey to shit as you always did.
My personal opinion, purely based on my experience with MMOs, is that now, they are less about being worlds and more about instant gratification.
Take an old MMO like UO, for example. There were a lot of things to do. You could be a crafter, a gatherer or a pirate, a thielf, a PK or an anti-PK. You can build homes, tame and sell animals, explore non-instanced dungeons. There were even some puzzles. Factions could take over cities and battle over their control. There was not visible instancing and almost everything you did could potentially change the game world.
It was really the closest thing you can get when trying to emulate a real world. Did it have it's flaws? Of course! It was one of the first MMOs ever and mistakes were made, and lots of them. But the world in UO felt alive. EVE Online also did a pretty good job in that area... Maybe that's why it's growing, despite it's age?
Now take WoW, a relatively modern game and one with a formula (borrowed from EQ) that is being emulated by most new MMOs. What can you really do in that game? Raid and do instances. Yes, there is PvP but it's instanced and has no effect on the world apart from being a way to get new gear. Even world PvP is meaningless and does nothing besides annoying questing newbs. The whole game revolves around gathering gear.
Sure, it's a great game for casuals to log in, run a few quests and/or instances and feel like they've accomplished something. But if you look deeper, there is no substance to WoW. It's all about conditioning (B.F. Skinner would be proud. Pavlov too, I guess.) the players to keep coming back for more. That's why people keep playing WoW. It's designed in a way as to offer little bits of rewards for certain actions and that's what keeps you playing. That's why so many people are hooked on WoW because they are stuck in Skinner's operant conditioning chamber and keep pressing their buttons, hopping for a reward to drop down.
Sorry about the long post, sometimes it's hard to put thoughts into words but that's how I feel. I have nothing against modern MMOs and I do play them, once you realize that they are build mostly around cvonditioning you to expect a reward, you realize just how shallow they are.
I think thats what a lot of people dont get when we 'old timers' talk about the difference between then and now. Its not that the games were made flawlessly back then, its that they were made with a somewhat broader sense of being.
In games like UO you didnt really have to 'do' anything. You could log in, crawl through a dungeon or pvp, craft, harvest or even host a freaking tea party with your player built town. There wasnt any one specific 'right' way to play the game and you didnt have to progress through zone after zone in search of the next big thing.
EQ came out and gave the players a progression system. People had to progress and levelup to be able to move on to the next feature of the game. In some instances they rewarded you with a 'shiny' be it via a quest chain or boss take down. Those who put in the effort got the shiny. It was a bit different than UO, but still fun none the less.
More games came out after that, each offering something different.
Then WoW came out. WoW took what EQ started, streamlined it and released a game that offered the more casual crowd their chance at doing what others could with less of a daily time investment. It wasnt a bad idea, in fact it was a great idea. It brought a new wave of people into the genre. The problem is all the dev companies decided that this sort of game is what everyone wants. Sadly the rest of us are left with games that feel too easy or shallow (not that a game has to be OMFG hard, but a little challenge - a little risk would be welcome. After all, whats the point in getting a reward for no effort?). For everything WoW offers it still feels small, lifeless and as though something is missing.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
1. WoW has Mr. T hand grenades, foo. Don't question that, sucka.
2. WoW has a bigger player base and as we all know, what is popular is always what is right.
3. WoW's world design is 100X more detailed than EQ's cough...*BS*...cough. Yeah, my throat has been acting up, I think it's allergies. Of course if I weren't pouring over spreadsheets on "world detail data" in the middle of this grand field of poppies, and if it weren't so darn dry out I'd probably feel a whole lot better. Yep, says it right here at the bottom: final poly comparison WoW: 278,331,465,212 to EQ 2,643,244,104. You better head back to the drawing board, Smed.
4. Gameplay is more challenging=it takes effort to experience content in WoW versus EQ/EQ2. And as we all know the best part of road tripping cross country is the destination, not the journey. It would be a whole lot better if we just had Star Trek transporter beams and could hit a button and be at the Grand Canyon or Arches National Park, look around for a few minutes, call it a day and then hit a button and return to our sofa. Isn't it obvious that having more content that you can play through faster is better, especially considering that that's the way most people are voting when they're encouraged by advertising to do so?
This isn't an apple to an orange comparison, people. You're comparing whole worlds which are as different as comparing books. You're essentially comparing the Harry Potter series to The Lord of the Rings. How is that reasonable? Yes, Harry Potter made a fat lot of cash super fast, and if making cash is the gold standard of how good something is then J.K. Rowling is the Crown Queen of the fantasy genre and WoW is King of MMORGs. If getting kids to read is the standard, she did a good job there, too, as does WoW. If establishing races to see how fast junior could race through 1000 pages of fluff (relative to, say for example, the material in Moby Dick) then it's J.K. all the way and it's WoW's 3 day race to level 80 and Epic gear. You just can't compare a fingerpainting class to technical drawing no matter how fun it is to get your hands and face smeared in purple paint, and doing so marks you a WoWer because you're coming from a position where understanding is not a prerequisite to entertainment. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that WoWers will call WoW the best for the same reason that a puppy will consider chewing a shoe the best. Nothing more complicated needs to exist to entertain the puppy. It's Miller High Life vs. a fine wine any day. Ain't the objective to get drunk, Huck?
Reading through most of the stuff in this thread, I just couldn't help but +1 this thread, even if some of it is a bit off.
I get so extremely sick of the daily retort to any arguments against WoW being that "it's makes the most money!" or "it has the most players!". Blah blah blah. Far too often you have people who simply do not understand, such as camp11111 who'll endlessly quote financial reports, or (and I haven't seen him in a while) Zorndorf who'd send you to xfire 100 times before ever even considering that entertainment is about more than what the vast majority has clung to.
Anyway, nice post.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
Then WoW came out. WoW took what EQ started, streamlined it and released a game that offered the more casual crowd their chance at doing what others could with less of a daily time investment. It wasnt a bad idea, in fact it was a great idea. It brought a new wave of people into the genre. The problem is all the dev companies decided that this sort of game is what everyone wants. Sadly the rest of us are left with games that feel too easy or shallow (not that a game has to be OMFG hard, but a little challenge - a little risk would be welcome. After all, whats the point in getting a reward for no effort?). For everything WoW offers it still feels small, lifeless and as though something is missing.
With no effort???
Say that when you are all decked in 277 gear and clear Lich King on hard mode. No noe has the right to say otherwise before that.
Then WoW came out. WoW took what EQ started, streamlined it and released a game that offered the more casual crowd their chance at doing what others could with less of a daily time investment. It wasnt a bad idea, in fact it was a great idea. It brought a new wave of people into the genre. The problem is all the dev companies decided that this sort of game is what everyone wants. Sadly the rest of us are left with games that feel too easy or shallow (not that a game has to be OMFG hard, but a little challenge - a little risk would be welcome. After all, whats the point in getting a reward for no effort?). For everything WoW offers it still feels small, lifeless and as though something is missing.
With no effort???
Say that when you are all decked in 277 gear and clear Lich King on hard mode. No noe has the right to say otherwise before that.
Heck, try beating 10man ICC on normal mode and then complain.
Comments
I am an old school gamer, no doubt about it. Yet I don't necessarily hate any modern MMOs on principle. In fact I freely admit (and have for years) that WoW is technically the best game ever made IMO. The controls blow away any game I've played (I do have problems with things like GCD and spell-pushback), the fluidity of controlling your avatar is unparalleled, I don't have a problem with the graphics since they are at least crisp and clear, the world design is interesting, so many other things I won't bother to list them.
But I also have problems with things in WoW just like I had problems with things in UO, DAoC, LOTRO, AO, and pretty much every MMO I've ever played.
To me the main difference is that there has been a trade-off over time in the MMO development cycle. Developers now mostly focus on recreating the WoW model with an interesting twist. I can hardly blame them since they are out to make money and this practice has proved successful time and time again in other markets. In the past when the market was young, before there was a gold standard, there was a huge amount of variety in every aspect of MMO's that just doesn't occur any more. How many more cartoonish graphic, two faction, trinity class, quest grind to level cap, group dungeon plus endgame raid, PvP minigame, etc. type games can the genre support?
The problem IMO is that all major MMO games (besides Blizzard games) are funded by venture capitalist investors who know nothing about MMO's other that what can be quantified on a quarterly report. This combined with the fact that the MMO market is still young enough that nobody (with the possible exception of Blizzard) truly understands the driving factors in players subscribing long-term to a game. This gets compounded by the fact that indie companies don't have the resources to produce games at a quality level on par with AAA devs.
I had a little hope for a while that SW:TOR would buck the trend to some degree, but that hope is long gone. It will be a wow-in-space-with-story borefest IMO. My hopes now lie in FFXIV for the short-term since I know that it will be significantly different from this model in areas at least. Long term I am very impressed with the comments of R.A. Salvatore on "Copernicus" (especially in regards to death penalties and risk/reward) and always have high hopes for Warhammer 40k.
Don't get me wrong, I really did enjoy WoW. Hell, I played it 5-6 years on and off from launch and have done everything the game has to offer many times. I'm just ready for a change. The same classes/mechanics/styles in a new skin just isn't going to do it for me. I want innovation, I want new approaches to progression, I want a world that feels more cohesive not just a linear path through zones, I want some company to finally figure out how to design crafting well, I just want something new that isn't a rehash of the same old. IMO it won't be very long before companies realize that there are many players out there who feel the same.
No matter how great WoW was/is it still gets old after six years, I just miss the days when developers tried to innovate from the ground up, not just re-skin a game and add a twist.
Now ask yourself why those studios are gone.
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MAKE MONEY
No, actually some are still around in name, but the "better" ones have lost their legacy - Maxis, Rare, Bethesda, DICE, id... the list goes on.
Others have simply vanished, as they could not continue to pump out games for the sake of money. Some of those were Free Radical, Looking Glass, Ion Storm, and Factor 5.
/sarcasm
Nah, they never made anything fun! Not ever worth the money. Deus Ex, Timesplitters, Rogue Squadron, Thief... absolutely shitty games, if you ask me.
You know what I think? I think you're a great consumer! No kidding, here! You think money is God! - and you know what? You're right! Ha-hah! Gotta get to that next level, right?!
Ah hahah haahh, yeah...yeah... I love ya, man. I love ya.
/end sarcasm
In its day, EQ was similar to WoW (go figure, WoW is just a kiddie version of EQ) in the sense that, it was more linear with a direct focus, and the devs gave the players a bunch of tiny goals to acomplish that made them feel great. However, in EQ, the world itself was much better fleshed out, and there were a lot more gameplay features, class depth, world design, and social structure than anything in WoW.
WoW is to EQ what Farmvile is to WoW. And MMos have just been going downhill since. But sure, the new people don't mind, cause they either weren't around back when MMOs were real MMOs, or they had no interest in those old MMOs, but the new ones are so radically different, they like them for casual fun. Nothing wrong with that... if they had their own genre. But instead, us "old timers" get kicked to the curb and ridiculed for enjoyed depth and socializing in online games.
Have to call a bit of BS here. Name a single class in EQ that has more depth than a single class in WOW? Which class in EQ has more options, more unique spells/abilities, and more variety? Which features does EQ have that WOW doesn't? Also think how many feature WOW has that EQ doesn't. What social structure existed in EQ that doesn't exist in WOW? Curious.
WOW's world design is about 100X more detailed than EQs by the way. An opinion of what you enjoy is one thing, but facts are facts. WOW's world is much more detailed and fleshed out with more attached lore and PURPOSE in its design.
I already know where you mind is though...EQ is a REAL MMO and WOW is just for kids? I already know your answers will be clouded in rose colored delusion=)
Substitute EQ2 for every EQ in the above highlighted text and your arguments utterly fall apart.
EVERY class in EQ2 has far more depth than WoW classes. Incidentally, I played WoW for five full years and have several level 80s and a LOT of 70+. I have played ALL of WoW's classes except the paladin. Can't say I actually "played" a pally since my pally primarily became my bank and I never leveled her past level 25.
For two of the five years I played WoW, I also played EQ2 alongside of it. However, my highest level character in EQ2 is presently level 64. I also have a 54 and a 30.
Anyway....have you looked at the Advancedment System in EQ2? I know you probably haven't. Most people that play WoW don't ever venture outside of that "space" to really look at other games very objectively. As far as "talents" and "talent points" for character customization go, EQ2 has probably 20 times more you can do with your "talents." WoW has 3 "trees" for each class. EQ2 has 2 sub-classes for each archetype, and then FIVE "trees" you can "spec" into, along with 4 additional "trees" of a "secondary" type, and I'm trying to use WoW terminology to describe it, but it's something you'd have to SEE. It is FAR FAR more detailed with many more options. This...is a FACT.
Let me help you out with a few things:
EQ2 has had guild leveling for years. EQ2 had guild banks long before WoW did. EQ2's crafting system....SHAMES WoW's in not only it's depth, but it's usefulness and ability to "earn a living" for your characters. Crafted items are valuable and necessary from level 1 to 90. EQ2 has fantastic housing. EQ2 has very deep lore. EQ2 has a ridiculous number of ways you can advance your character. There are Lore and Legend quests, Heritage Quests, the Collection System which awards both items, combat xp, and AA xp. EQ2 has appearance gear, so people aren't all running around looking just alike. God, I loathe that about WoW. If you're in tier gear....you have no choice but to look JUST LIKE the next person in the same gear. UGH.
About the ONLY thing that WoW has on EQ2 right now....is PvP BGs. I can't even just say PvP, because EQ2's PvP servers are HARDCORE PvP. WoW BG PvP'ers would cry like little children over there. It is cutthroat. However....WoW does have smoothly functioning BGs, which EQ2 can't really claim yet, even though they are trying to implement their version of it.
Another thing....comparing WoW's graphics to EQ (original flavor) is MEANINGLESS. You're comparing a five year old game to a 15 year old game. How does that make even a REMOTE amount of sense? WoW players get TOTALLY bent when people compare today's games like AION graphics to WoW, and yet....they turn around and compare WoW to EQ1?? Why not compare WoW's graphics to the other two MMOs that were released at the SAME time instead? That would be Guild Wars and EQ2. Okay...on THAT note....WoW falls in line DEAD LAST. However...I have to admit, I like the whimsical nature of WoW's graphics. They are an entirely different STYLE than those of GW or EQ2, and the artistic design, imo...is awesome in WoW. So I actually, personally, like WoW's cartoon-like style, but I would not say the gfx are BETTER than either GW or EQ2, and that is a more FAIR comparison than comparing to EQ1.
Anyway....
No one really cares if you love WoW. I'm always happy when people find games they are happy in. BUT....we all have opinions. And some of those that play WoW expect that because THEY think it's the best game in the world, EVERY SINGLE GAMER will agree with them. FFS....are the 12 million people that are still playing WoW NOT enough for you? Do you need MORE people than THAT to validate your choice in games????
Why doesn't everyone just go play what makes them happy and quit arguing about things that are, for the MOST part, entirely subjective??
I just don't GET it.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Now ask yourself why those studios are gone.
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MAKE MONEY
No, actually some are still around in name, but the "better" ones have lost their legacy - Maxis, Rare, Bethesda, DICE, id... the list goes on.
Others have simply vanished, as they could not continue to pump out games for the sake of money. Some of those were Free Radical, Looking Glass, Ion Storm, and Factor 5.
/sarcasm
Nah, they never made anything fun! Not ever worth the money. Deus Ex, Timesplitters, Rogue Squadron, Thief... absolutely shitty games, if you ask me.
You know what I think? I think you're a great consumer! No kidding, here! You think money is God! - and you know what? You're right! Ha-hah! Gotta get to that next level, right?!
Ah hahah haahh, yeah...yeah... I love ya, man. I love ya.
/end sarcasm
Too bad your understanding of basic economics is so piss poor. Every business is in business to make money. Those who cannot make money go out of business.
Come on back when you join the rest of us in reality.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Now ask yourself why those studios are gone.
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MAKE MONEY
No, actually some are still around in name, but the "better" ones have lost their legacy - Maxis, Rare, Bethesda, DICE, id... the list goes on.
Others have simply vanished, as they could not continue to pump out games for the sake of money. Some of those were Free Radical, Looking Glass, Ion Storm, and Factor 5.
/sarcasm
Nah, they never made anything fun! Not ever worth the money. Deus Ex, Timesplitters, Rogue Squadron, Thief... absolutely shitty games, if you ask me.
You know what I think? I think you're a great consumer! No kidding, here! You think money is God! - and you know what? You're right! Ha-hah! Gotta get to that next level, right?!
Ah hahah haahh, yeah...yeah... I love ya, man. I love ya.
/end sarcasm
Too bad your understanding of basic economics is so piss poor. Every business is in business to make money. Those who cannot make money go out of business.
Come on back when you join the rest of us in reality.
I wonder if any of you really clever people took a moment to consider that many times game companies "aren't around anymore" because they got gobbled up by other companies, either directly by being bought (as Angel Studios, the company I formerly worked for, was) or by having their recognized talent looted by larger companies.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, my friend. When you're ready to cast a rock and talk about the 'piss poor' understanding of economics you are willing to suggest other people possess, take a step back for long enough to recognize that your own limited understanding might easily be the thing that discredits what you say and makes you look like the laughingstock.
The most basic rule of our economic system that is fruitful to examine is that the strongest survive. They [game developers] don't necessarily do that by making better games, either. Making "better games" is not a prerequisite to making money. I highly doubt that there is a significant positive correlation between the two, although it would take a large random sampling of gamers--a very hard to define group--in order to determine the correlation with appreciable accuracy. The strongest survive in part by recognizing talent and buying/using it for their own purposes. As anyone who has worked in the industry will tell you, what inevitably happens within game companies is that the creative direction winds up lodged in the hands of a comparatively few people. This represents human arrogance on the game design level and is something which is prevalent industry-wide. It is the primary reason why you do not see Darwinian principles apply to the games themselves, as they would, for example, if the designers of Everquest or WoW took a moment to realize the logic imperative for using differential server architecture. A system, for example, that varied the penalty for death amongst the different servers such that players could themselves determine what was best and then vote with their playing time. Even now this is done to a certain extent, with PVP only versus PVE servers. PVE servers are currently the larger draw, yet there are too many PVP'ers to ignore that vital component as well. While game development, in my opinion, is not 'stuck' in any way, it would progress much more quickly if the majority of game designers took more thought about approaching 'the game' of game design with the simple principles of evolution in mind.
There is no way to reliably determine which direction game development should take without the collective votes of the players, which are cast based on their playing time. A 'good game' can loosely be defined as a game which people choose to allocate some of their time toward playing. A game is 'better' if more who are aware of its existence choose it, or choose it more frequently or for longer. People choose games based almost entirely on opportunity cost. They'd rather be doing it than their next best available choice. That is basic economics. WIth those tiny bits of information, it is comparatively easy to sketch out the direction in which game development should take:
It can begin simply with the establishment of a platform within a recognized genre. In an MMORG, the 'development' takes place further at every patch. Players cheer or jeer changes, usually cheering some and jeering others. Enough of us recognize this that a term has been coined for it, as in, "dammit, they nerfed [such and such] again." To a certain extent, a game designer needs to keep control of these dynamics such that parts of the game don't get "out of balance"--yet without going too far off on a tangent there tends to be too much made about keeping everything 'in balance.' A game designer's mission ought to be keeping the game as entertaining for his/her players as he/she can, not to try to retain his/her vision of the game for as long as possible and lose as few players over time as he/she can. Contrary to popular belief, once a MMORG is released, it is no longer the sole property of the company which made it. This fact is obvious, for the same reason that a marriage is not a possession that you yourself own. At this point, many of you will say, "well that's flatly not true, Sony or Blizzard or [insert game company here] can eject/ban/replace players as they see fit" to which I will respond "yes, and you can get divorced and then remarried if you like." The problem with that notion is that the person you divorced may not be so willing to marry you a second time, nor are players so willing to invest 100's of hours of their time in an MMORG that is designed by an unreliable developer, or one that doesn't 'agree with' them. So MMORG's are shared possessions upon release. This should be the wake up call game designers need.
Their games are not theirs. They are guardians, more or less. As any teacher will tell you, the kids in the class are (or easily can be) 50% in control of the direction of that class. An arrogant teacher will deny this, but even those will recognize the days when kids "couldn't sit still" which are those days where "nothing got done." I know this, since as an league-wide MVP for men's club rugby I was mobbed and overrun by a seventh grade English class despite 'making it clear' to them that no one was to leave until little Johnny took his seat. Gamers take control of these systems on the same day that they decide that playing two (or more) MMORGs at a time and choosing how to allocate your play time amongst them based on the direction the games take serves both them and the games they play better than feeding game design egos by powergaming for 15 hours a day on the one and only game they 'love.' You can't know what's best unless you know the alternative.
You know what was cool about being "back in my days?" No one made these posts. Because "back in my day" we understood that stereotyping a whole group of completely different people didn't make sense.
Or maybe back then there was nothing to complain about because the MMos were actually good.
That's not true. You know you judged people :P
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
No joke. The thing that gets me about "these people" that try to bash the BIMDers is they try to throw out "nostalgia" and "rose colored glasses" like they are authorities on the matter. They fail, and badly, to see that we know those games back then weren't perfect. We aren't saying they were. But those games had alot more substance to them than the production line value that is getting Henry Ford'd out to us today in our view. And our view is just as valid as the ones who are throwing out snarky comments at us for having enjoyed and still preferring those style games.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Hey, I love old video games. I still play "Master of Magic" and "Realms of Arkania" (that's right, games that were released before most of these kids were born), but I don't delude myself. There really wasn't better production value back then. There were companies and games that had a lot of value, thought, and polish put into them, but there was also a ton of shit. Basically, things haven't changed. Yes, there's better technology now and some gaming innovations, but you probably still have the same ratio of honey to shit as you always did.
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
As I have posted a few times before the change in games over the past decade is direct and measurable. Its literally, not by imagination and sometimes even by direct quotes from developers themselves, a reduction in content without feature expansions.
its not an imagation. Bethesda has even stated publically that Fallout 3 has less area than Oblvion and Oblivion has less area than Morrowind. Now, with less area does that mean more features have been added instead? No not really.
So with that as an example the only way one can say games have gotten 'better' in the last decade is to make the arguement that less game space, same or less features and more restriction is actually a Gain in gaming experience.
Neverwinter nights to dragon age is another exemple of decline in gameing by the way
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You OBVIOUSLY missed the memo about "modern day gamers" (i.e. people 18 and under) being the ultimate authority now on what is good in games for everyone. From what I understand, this new generation of gamers, has super extra sensory gamer perception and they KNOW, for a fact, beyond any doubt, what is good gaming for all gamers world-wide. They're really amazing. It's theorized, by most scientists, that they developed these super human powers while playing World of Warcraft instead of graduating from high school. They're doing a lot of costly research on this subject to attempt to figure out how we lowly age 30+ gamers, in particular, can perhaps acquire this same level of gaming knowledge. You really should keep up with the memo board better, Man.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I can't think of anything in life where having more experience in something makes you more credible.
Yes you all sound that stupid, moving on.
The entire PREMISE of arguing about games is ignorant. I agree. And yet...we all still come here to do it. Then on the other hand, LOTS of things that are fun to do, particularly when it comes to hobbies and the love of those hobbies....are logically ignorant foundationally. Just look at other hobbies. You'll find the same ridiculous rambling and rantings going on with them. Did you know there are miniature golf forums? Yeah....miniature golf. Ooo and bowling too. There are pretty much forums with the same type of silly discourse going on, on every subject or hobby you could imagine.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I think (or rather hope) he was being sarcastic because my entire working career has revolved around credibilty based on experience.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I agree with this post except for using Rowling as an equivalent to WOW. The woman has got more depth in her writing than 90% of authors out there.
Anyways, ignore this basically pointless post.
LOL! Hope you have on your flame retardant gear on...although I feel ya myself.
My personal opinion, purely based on my experience with MMOs, is that now, they are less about being worlds and more about instant gratification.
Take an old MMO like UO, for example. There were a lot of things to do. You could be a crafter, a gatherer or a pirate, a thielf, a PK or an anti-PK. You can build homes, tame and sell animals, explore non-instanced dungeons. There were even some puzzles. Factions could take over cities and battle over their control. There was not visible instancing and almost everything you did could potentially change the game world.
It was really the closest thing you can get when trying to emulate a real world. Did it have it's flaws? Of course! It was one of the first MMOs ever and mistakes were made, and lots of them. But the world in UO felt alive. EVE Online also did a pretty good job in that area... Maybe that's why it's growing, despite it's age?
Now take WoW, a relatively modern game and one with a formula (borrowed from EQ) that is being emulated by most new MMOs. What can you really do in that game? Raid and do instances. Yes, there is PvP but it's instanced and has no effect on the world apart from being a way to get new gear. Even world PvP is meaningless and does nothing besides annoying questing newbs. The whole game revolves around gathering gear.
Sure, it's a great game for casuals to log in, run a few quests and/or instances and feel like they've accomplished something. But if you look deeper, there is no substance to WoW. It's all about conditioning (B.F. Skinner would be proud. Pavlov too, I guess.) the players to keep coming back for more. That's why people keep playing WoW. It's designed in a way as to offer little bits of rewards for certain repetitive actions and keeps you playing and paying. That's why so many people are hooked on WoW. They are basically stuck in Skinner's operant conditioning chamber and keep pressing their buttons, hopping for a reward to drop down.
Sorry about the long post, sometimes it's hard to put thoughts into words but that's how I feel. I have nothing against modern MMOs and I do play them, but once you realize that they are build mostly around cvonditioning you to expect a reward, you realize just how shallow they are.
I really loved the sarcasm and irony in this post. Very clever. However, I think we can all agree on one thing: An MMO need as many subscribers it can possibly get for it to near or equal its potential.
I'm not so bothered by the 18 and under crowd because I simply acknowledge that they don't know any better, and in time, will eventually fall in to society on a normative level.
What my biggest concern is the actual 30+ age group where they SHOULD know better, yet are acting more childish and consequently negatively impact any given MMO even more.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
"Your pride, good sir, far exceeds your worth." -x3r0h
Oldest mmorpg.com member with the least amount of post counts. That counts for something, right?
Liked that post as well.
Lots of dripping sarcasm.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
Well OP sorry to tell you but I'm not comparing new mmo to what I thought old MMO's were, I comparing the new mmo's to what old mmo's actually are. How do I do this you ask? I'm still playing the MMO I first loved, FFXI. Yes it has changed a bit, in the last 8 years but still the core gameplay is still there. Did you ever think that some people do actually Like and Remember what Old mmo's were like?
I think thats what a lot of people dont get when we 'old timers' talk about the difference between then and now. Its not that the games were made flawlessly back then, its that they were made with a somewhat broader sense of being.
In games like UO you didnt really have to 'do' anything. You could log in, crawl through a dungeon or pvp, craft, harvest or even host a freaking tea party with your player built town. There wasnt any one specific 'right' way to play the game and you didnt have to progress through zone after zone in search of the next big thing.
EQ came out and gave the players a progression system. People had to progress and levelup to be able to move on to the next feature of the game. In some instances they rewarded you with a 'shiny' be it via a quest chain or boss take down. Those who put in the effort got the shiny. It was a bit different than UO, but still fun none the less.
More games came out after that, each offering something different.
Then WoW came out. WoW took what EQ started, streamlined it and released a game that offered the more casual crowd their chance at doing what others could with less of a daily time investment. It wasnt a bad idea, in fact it was a great idea. It brought a new wave of people into the genre. The problem is all the dev companies decided that this sort of game is what everyone wants. Sadly the rest of us are left with games that feel too easy or shallow (not that a game has to be OMFG hard, but a little challenge - a little risk would be welcome. After all, whats the point in getting a reward for no effort?). For everything WoW offers it still feels small, lifeless and as though something is missing.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Reading through most of the stuff in this thread, I just couldn't help but +1 this thread, even if some of it is a bit off.
I get so extremely sick of the daily retort to any arguments against WoW being that "it's makes the most money!" or "it has the most players!". Blah blah blah. Far too often you have people who simply do not understand, such as camp11111 who'll endlessly quote financial reports, or (and I haven't seen him in a while) Zorndorf who'd send you to xfire 100 times before ever even considering that entertainment is about more than what the vast majority has clung to.
Anyway, nice post.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
With no effort???
Say that when you are all decked in 277 gear and clear Lich King on hard mode. No noe has the right to say otherwise before that.
Heck, try beating 10man ICC on normal mode and then complain.