Players aren't stupid even if their attention span sometimes is low
We see this kind of broad denouncement of human beings quite often ("ADD kids" etc), but its a mistake to blame the players for decisions made by the management and simple market forces. And it needs to stop, it's my grandpa saying "These damn kids are no good and society is doomed"--every grandpa for several thousand years has asserted exactly the same thing.
What's happened to games? Well, a greatly expanded audience that's not entirely a bunch of first-gen gamers (consisting largely of first-gen computer owners--the geeks). Many of them had technical skills that led them into computers at the birthing stage, and they were busily expanding the capabilities of the machines and programming, naturally. Atypical human beings, a specialized subset, more technically saavy than the general public.
The games they designed were often for e-peenery (if you'll excuse the expression). Overly complex, harder than they needed to be, lots of artificial gates and barriers and sheer time checks to limit the "winners" to others just like themselves. Five percenters.
As the internet boomed and "regular people" filled the market, many of those games' producers noticed that they had a very real problem. A player retention rate growing weaker; they'd designed a bunch of games that were not new player friendly, with learning curves too steep, barriers too high, time checks too lengthy.
Their attention spans aren't low, they're just regular people with regular lives. The dread (horrors) "Casuals".
Market forces take over at that point--you can't keep designing for atypical human beings (some now in their 50s!) if you want to sell a lot of games.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I know some very smart people who play MMO, one guy who worked as an engineer was horrible at the game, he could try to understand it if he wanted, but it was just a game to him so he didn't care. He left our game for a much simpler game, and he's right, because his game was much more fun. I don't play games because I want to be challenged, I don't care, I want to have fun! that is all really for me
If there's challenge or difficulty that's fine, but I don't go look for it. I played EQ by accident more than anything, I never enjoyed the challenge, I enjoyed the world and the people. I never went like this: "I have died 10 times already, this game is awesome". I would have had my fun without dying also.
I play games to get rid of stress, not to add stress, you know.
Diffrent people diffrent things stress you and diffrent are fun or boring.
For some people, challange = fun, easy = boring and NOT fun
same with for some people, simpe = fun and for some simple = boring and not fun
I like to think in games. Not always but 80% of time I play games I need to think in. Sometimes I just want to go and kick ass, but that's rare.
Players aren't stupid even if their attention span sometimes is low
We see this kind of broad denouncement of human beings quite often ("ADD kids" etc), but its a mistake to blame the players for decisions made by the management and simple market forces. And it needs to stop, it's my grandpa saying "These damn kids are no good and society is doomed"--every grandpa for several thousand years has asserted exactly the same thing.
What's happened to games? Well, a greatly expanded audience that's not entirely a bunch of first-gen gamers (consisting largely of first-gen computer owners--the geeks). Many of them had technical skills that led them into computers at the birthing stage, and they were busily expanding the capabilities of the machines and programming, naturally. Atypical human beings, a specialized subset, more technically saavy than the general public.
The games they designed were often for e-peenery (if you'll excuse the expression). Overly complex, harder than they needed to be, lots of artificial gates and barriers and sheer time checks to limit the "winners" to others just like themselves. Five percenters.
As the internet boomed and "regular people" filled the market, many of those games' producers noticed that they had a very real problem. A player retention rate growing weaker; they'd designed a bunch of games that were not new player friendly, with learning curves too steep, barriers too high, time checks too lengthy.
Their attention spans aren't low, they're just regular people with regular lives. The dread (horrors) "Casuals".
Market forces take over at that point--you can't keep designing for atypical human beings (some now in their 50s!) if you want to sell a lot of games.
What?!?
The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).
Actually, I think I'd easily fit in the 'casual' mold, but I don't think our demographic is the "problem". But when a game proves me it has depth and is worth looking into, I'll stick with it, regardless of having to solve difficult puzzles or calculating my percents. And I think there are more players like myself who feel this way about video games, among other things. The problem is those "casuals" or even "players" simply don't care or are misinformed; they'd rather have a new, better improved WoW than something original and deep, such as The Chronicles of Spellborn. That's how people work; most, while not always retarded, don't want to give a shit unless their friends give a shit. Shooters for example. Why do you think these games work so well? You pick a gun and shoot people. When I ask someone "What's the story behind Battlefield?" I always get a reply of: "I don't know, Russians?" These games will always prevail, because they're succesful that way. Does succes always equal good? Sometimes, was Big Brother an awful show? But luckily there's a handful of "casuals" like myself who still care for greatness, and that includes video games. As long as the balance remains, what gives?
The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).
No, e-peenery simply became much more visible, once the devs realized the competitive egos of "pros" allows them to sell more games with leader boards and by giving them measuring sticks (like the Armory). It's always been there.
Pandering to the egos of players who view themselves as "pro" is enormously profitable. Ask any FPS game.
Keep villifying the players; it's a simplistic view but if it works for you, enjoy.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Mainstreaming MMOs of course is what threw the genre under the rails. Society caters to and promotes the ADD mentality, so how can MMOs not follow suit?
I don't want to get into the complex and seemingly prejorative issue of the average adult IQ, but I will say that catering to the masses promotes simplicity versus intricate content.
I would agree with this, personally. I definitely think it's a social issue, but that's why I was asking for differing opinions. In general, this is a difficult thing to judge. Is the population of gamers who really want easy access, mash-a-button games truly larger than those of us who want complex, virtual worlds? Are they just louder? I imagine they have good reasons for wanting games to be created in this manner, that is to say oversimplified, though I also imagine many of them would take some form of insult at saying that what they liked about easy games is their oversimplification.
Absolutely right, you know theres always the ADD guy who text messages while driving and gets people killed stoping halfway in traffic because gasp he had a panic attack because he didn't use his taxpayer supplied meds. They dont want any real competition, they want quests that point arrows in the right direction, they want instant teleportation to towns and raids and dont want pkers bothering them while they AFK on trade chat. Also talents and skills are too much trouble, they all use cookie cutter builds from websites because they stink at doing their own theorycraft, when talking about themselves they use the term Everyone often. As an excuse for their dense mind.
The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).
No, e-peenery simply became much more visible, once the devs realized the competitive egos of "pros" allows them to sell more games with leader boards and by giving them measuring sticks (like the Armory). It's always been there.
Pandering to the egos of players who view themselves as "pro" is enormously profitable. Ask any FPS game.
Keep villifying the players; it's a simplistic view but if it works for you, enjoy.
That is why we prosecute both the dealers and the users...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Yeah, that is the big problems theese days the way I see it. All kinds of games, not just MMO's try their stab at the mainstream market of casual players and this is what you get when they do that....
They dont want any real competition, they want quests that point arrows in the right direction, they want instant teleportation to towns and raids and dont want pkers bothering them while they AFK on trade chat. Also talents and skills are too much trouble, they all use cookie cutter builds from websites because they stink at doing their own theorycraft, when talking about themselves they use the term Everyone often. As an excuse for their dense mind.
How does convenience ruin the competition for you? What games are missing at this point are immersion and depth, it has nothing to do with how fast we can go from A to B or how we compete with others, for crying out loud. It's people like you who are dense. Not they.
That is why we prosecute both the dealers and the users...
True, it is an oddly symbiotic relationship. But the Suits make the final call, so I tend to reserve my ire for them.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).
No, e-peenery simply became much more visible, once the devs realized the competitive egos of "pros" allows them to sell more games with leader boards and by giving them measuring sticks (like the Armory). It's always been there.
Pandering to the egos of players who view themselves as "pro" is enormously profitable. Ask any FPS game.
Keep villifying the players; it's a simplistic view but if it works for you, enjoy.
See, I was on board with your reply here until the last comment. I am capable of seeing both sides of an issue.
Sorry...but the playerbase IS worse...but of course, that is also because it is bigger. More people, more possibility of idiots. Players are just as much to blame for the current path of MMO's as the dev's are. After all...they wouldn't make the game with certain features if they weren't desired by their users.
The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).
No, e-peenery simply became much more visible, once the devs realized the competitive egos of "pros" allows them to sell more games with leader boards and by giving them measuring sticks (like the Armory). It's always been there.
Pandering to the egos of players who view themselves as "pro" is enormously profitable. Ask any FPS game.
Keep villifying the players; it's a simplistic view but if it works for you, enjoy.
See, I was on board with your reply here until the last comment. I am capable of seeing both sides of an issue.
Sorry...but the playerbase IS worse...but of course, that is also because it is bigger. More people, more possibility of idiots. Players are just as much to blame for the current path of MMO's as the dev's are. After all...they wouldn't make the game with certain features if they weren't desired by their users.
A child asks for a case of beer, a handful of pornos, and a pack of smokes...
...if an adult gives that to the child, it is primarily the child's fault?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
You guys are missing something. Games in the modern world are designed as crack. It is essentially all Diablo's fault. People love loot drops. They also love slot machines. Mainly because these are the same thing functionally. Simplistic games with mechanics based on modern psychology in order to addict players are the model of today. Oldschool mmo's did not work that way.
Its rather ridiculous, if I run a sports book I go to prison but if Bigpoint sells a space drone for 1k$ thats just business. Capitalists are fucking morons who don't understand that just because you can make money doesn't make it okay to fuck people up in the head. We are cracking down on intra-family abuse but businesses exploiting abusive power dynamics get a cookie for their high sub numbers and sales of totally useless bullshit. We used to make fun of people who shelled out 200$ for designer jeans and tops, but thats nothing compared to 1k$ for a useless virtual item in a game that the majority of the world has never even heard of.
I went with common meals - it does not mean those are the only choices. A person could start with dessert, have a salad, and go. There is a variety available - a complex selection. Even in the way the meals are prepared - how is the steak going to be cooked - how is it going to be seasoned - what side will there be? Even the baked potato - plain, sour cream and chives, cheese, brocolli, etc, etc, etc.
I used to go to Olive Garden... I did not order anything standard - I customized my selection, although the items were not listed on the menu in the way that I ordered them - they were available in the way I ordered them. Those options would not exist if I were to go a taco stand. The taco stand is very limited. It's meant for a quick grab of a meal, not unlike the hot dog cart, etc, etc.
Different people are looking for different things. In general, one used to be able to assume that those looking to play MMORPGs were looking for something. That has changed over the years as people have come into various restaurants so they could order off the taco stand menu...
...it's not considered a good thing by those that used to enjoy the genre for being what it was. The people that are more than happy to eat from the taco stand everywhere they go might appear happy with it - but in general, they're not the people that stay around in a MMORPG anyway - they move along to the next taco stand.
No doubt the developers invited all these folks to come play - no doubt as the years have progessed - they've designed and redesigned to attract them.
Does not change that some of us do not want to eat at taco stands...
Even going back to your example of Chess. Yes, somebody can go to the dollar store and pick up the game. They can go home and play it with their significant other, their parents, kids, friends, etc, etc. Just a little friendly game. But you also have local Chess clubs. Additional features/systems are in place. It is more complex. You have school tournaments, city tournaments, state tournaments, regional tournaments, national tournaments, international tournaments... each increasingly more complex because of the additional requirements/features/systems.
The MMO was on the far end of the spectrum in complexity for computer gaming... now, not so much.
They were virtual worlds - complex systems. Now they're little action game lobbies.
I find it odd that you point the simplicity of the rules for Chess, when it is considered a very complex game. Sure, there are only twenty first moves, but there are well over a thousand common openings. The manner in which you can move those sixteen pieces, where there are six different piece types - is a complex system.
You clearly don't understand complexity vs. depth.
Chess is not complicated. It is deep.
Chess Clubs just play Chess. Simple, 1-page-of-rules Chess.
How can a game be considered complicated when its rules fit on one single page!? It's deep, not complicated. Emergent depth occurs because the simple rules which are in place create a very dynamic gameplay where the best decision is not obvious.
When you ordered a baked potato you didn't order every single option available. You kept it simple, to the 2-3 key additional ingredients which justified their presence enough to be tasty.
Would you really ever eat a baked potato with sour cream, bacon bits, pepper, salt, chedder, baked beans, ham, prawns, coleslaw, mushrooms, tuna, cream cheese and chives, sausage and beans, honey mustard chicken, gouda, and avocado? Individually many of those would be delicious on a baked potato. But once things become too complex, the end result is a disaster -- and the ideal count is almost always going to be a simple 2-3 key additional ingredients.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You clearly don't understand complexity vs. depth.
Chess is not complicated. It is deep.
Chess Clubs just play Chess. Simple, 1-page-of-rules Chess.
How can a game be considered complicated when its rules fit on one single page!? It's deep, not complicated. Emergent depth occurs because the simple rules which are in place create a very dynamic gameplay where the best decision is not obvious.
Thank you!
this had to be said. Wish more people understood that complexity doesn't equal depth. And too much complexity is just atrocious.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Wasting your time and energy trying to get most of this new generation of MMO gamers to understand there are different genres for a reason.
Its not restricted to MMO gamers. The RPG genra in general is in a simplification mode. Look at Skyrim and what they took out of the character creation and leveling process. Even standard non open world RPG's of today are simplified. It boils down to "Do you want to raise your magic or melee damage and magic or melee defense.". The good thing about a good RPG is so long as the story is there the gameplay isnt as important. FF7 for example. One of the most popular RPG's of all time (agree or disagree you cant deny the number of copies sold and its popularity even today) was a verry simple game at its base. One thing it did verry well was add a layer of depth if you really wanted to delve that far into the game but it wasnt required to really enjoy the storyline.
They dont want any real competition, they want quests that point arrows in the right direction, they want instant teleportation to towns and raids and dont want pkers bothering them while they AFK on trade chat. Also talents and skills are too much trouble, they all use cookie cutter builds from websites because they stink at doing their own theorycraft, when talking about themselves they use the term Everyone often. As an excuse for their dense mind.
How does convenience ruin the competition for you? What games are missing at this point are immersion and depth, it has nothing to do with how fast we can go from A to B or how we compete with others, for crying out loud. It's people like you who are dense. Not they.
There IS a differnece between convenience and stupified. Convenience is a town auction house, stupidity is a 6 talent , talent tree. After WOW releases MOP WOW will officially be less complicated than Diablo 2. Thats not convenience thats idiotproofing.
Wasting your time and energy trying to get most of this new generation of MMO gamers to understand there are different genres for a reason.
I'm not sure its a waste of time trying to understand the perspective of other human beings, though I will admit that I expect most anyone who would post in this thread to reply somewhat like you have (not that its a bad thing, but you could provide an opinion to add some weight to your statement).
I'll just be repeating myself for the umpteenth time, but...if you insist.
I always see the debates on here between the two different groups. Those who have played MMORPG's from the beginning (UO/EQ...or even before this with Meridian 59 and other MUD's), and those post-WoW.
Those that started at the beginning were mainly those that played MUD's and pen & paper RPG's such as Rifts, D&D, etc. MMORPG's were a very small and niche community. Sub numbers were considered successful when in as low as the 150K range. However, the communites were pretty tight knit. Sure, there were some idiots, but most straightened up failry quickly because the community sat them straight. They would adjust accordingly or be blackballed off the server because they couldn't get groups/Guilds, etc. People were helpful and friendly. Most kept to names that fit with the world in which they were playing, and RPing was even MUCH larger than it is now (also brought on by the fact the large % of players again were from P & P games).
The worlds were open for exploration, quests were quests (Especially EQ Epic weapon quests) where they were LONG and took you to multiple places at times to complete. There was no world AH, very little instant travel, no stat boards, and as far as I personally could see from most...no rush to get to "end game" (A term that didn't even exist then). it was like escaping reality and living another life, in another world, in another time period. Even if only for a few hours a day, and it was a BLAST!
Now mind you I WILL say, even as an EQ player, that EQ DID usher in the beginning of easy-mode via the Planes of Power expansion. With it it introduced a hub to travel to multiple locations nearly instantly and shrank the world size significantly. Even with EQ's world being HUGE as it was. HOWEVER...
The drastic shift towards easy-mode, and the all around extinction of what made MMORPG's stand out as a genre all of it's own was the introduction of WoW. Yes, I played WoW....from release up until the Burning Crusade's expansion. At that point I had played EQ for 5 years and was ready to try something new for a bit. I will say, it was fun...hence I wouldn't of played it as long as I said I did. But over that time playing it, I could see an obvious push more and more towards dumbing it down to push the sub numbers. And with that push, could see the decline in the quality of the community...which is what lead me away from the game in the end...along with it getting seriously boring because of the lack of a challenge. Anyways, that is a little background.
MMORPG's were first created to be live action pen and paper style RPG's for players. They were all of the things stated in the first paragraph. THIS is why they had monthly subs. They took time, effort, and team work. It is what set them apart from console gaming.
MMORPG's now are super fast paced. You can cap in a month, sometimes less, then sit in a capital city spamming for raid groups and/or complaining there isn't enough content. Instances nearly dominate the worlds and instant travel is common...shrinking the world and making some areas useless or ghost regions void of nealry anyone. World AH's also shrink the world, making manual travel nearly pointless. Emphasis on stats seems to make a lot of players elitist psychopaths...or for some reason stuck up (Thinking they are better than other players), souring the communities.
Just WAY too much emphasis on, and a mentality of "GO GO GO! NOW NOW NOW!". This isn't what MMORPG's are suppose to be about. Again, it's why they had monthly subs...they took time. And again, this is what set them apart as a seperate genre from console gaming...where fast paced instant gratification was the design model from the beginning. Yes, I am aware things change...but MMO's are dying due to the sweeping changes taking place now, not changing them simply to be a better, upgraded version from the previous one. They are becoming console single player RPG's more and more, and less open worlds with teeming economies and communities that interact.
Of course though...I am sure this is (In my own speculation and opinion) a product of the difference in the times as well...
Then?: The internet was in it's infancy and most of us played EQ/UO on dial-up. MMORPG's were new too, so they were very crude (To today's standards). Again, most players were pen and paper types, so travel,quests, etc taking time didn't bother us much. patience was much more common.
Now?: We live in a rat race world full of instant this and instant that. Not to mention a massive technology boom. So, MMORPG's reflect that with the GO GO GO! NOW NOW NOW! mentality. Funny enough though, those that complain about people like me wanting it to shift more back towards more open world travel, WAY less dumbed down features (Give it challenge), longer quests that chain more, less instancing and instant travel, no world chat, and regional bazaars, etc are the same people (For the most part) that complain that they level too fast and have nothing to do at their beloved "end game" lol. Know why most post-WoW players don't want monthly subs? Because they don't want to pay a monthly fee to sit in their cpaital cities screaming their isn't enough to do for $15 a month!
I guess this is all in trying to say, YET AGAIN, that MMORPG's were a different genre from console games for a reason. And now they are nothing more than glorified RPG console games.
P.S. A response I see a lot, and even see in this thread..is "People don't have a lto fo time to devote to games liek this. They want to have fun with the time they do have." I can understand this...but um...then WHY aren't you playing console games? Where quick fun is the common goal? MMORPG's were meant to take time.
Another difference I guess between me and the larger majority fo the community. I find even the little accomplishments gratifying and fun (Gaining half a level, killing that tough mob, traversing a dangerous area unscaved)...where as most now need big shinies right away with as little effort put forth or they feel they have been slighted.
Bravo, sir! Bravo!
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Wasting your time and energy trying to get most of this new generation of MMO gamers to understand there are different genres for a reason.
I'm not sure its a waste of time trying to understand the perspective of other human beings, though I will admit that I expect most anyone who would post in this thread to reply somewhat like you have (not that its a bad thing, but you could provide an opinion to add some weight to your statement).
I'll just be repeating myself for the umpteenth time, but...if you insist.
I always see the debates on here between the two different groups. Those who have played MMORPG's from the beginning (UO/EQ...or even before this with Meridian 59 and other MUD's), and those post-WoW.
Those that started at the beginning were mainly those that played MUD's and pen & paper RPG's such as Rifts, D&D, etc. MMORPG's were a very small and niche community. Sub numbers were considered successful when in as low as the 150K range. However, the communites were pretty tight knit. Sure, there were some idiots, but most straightened up failry quickly because the community sat them straight. They would adjust accordingly or be blackballed off the server because they couldn't get groups/Guilds, etc. People were helpful and friendly. Most kept to names that fit with the world in which they were playing, and RPing was even MUCH larger than it is now (also brought on by the fact the large % of players again were from P & P games).
The worlds were open for exploration, quests were quests (Especially EQ Epic weapon quests) where they were LONG and took you to multiple places at times to complete. There was no world AH, very little instant travel, no stat boards, and as far as I personally could see from most...no rush to get to "end game" (A term that didn't even exist then). it was like escaping reality and living another life, in another world, in another time period. Even if only for a few hours a day, and it was a BLAST!
Now mind you I WILL say, even as an EQ player, that EQ DID usher in the beginning of easy-mode via the Planes of Power expansion. With it it introduced a hub to travel to multiple locations nearly instantly and shrank the world size significantly. Even with EQ's world being HUGE as it was. HOWEVER...
The drastic shift towards easy-mode, and the all around extinction of what made MMORPG's stand out as a genre all of it's own was the introduction of WoW. Yes, I played WoW....from release up until the Burning Crusade's expansion. At that point I had played EQ for 5 years and was ready to try something new for a bit. I will say, it was fun...hence I wouldn't of played it as long as I said I did. But over that time playing it, I could see an obvious push more and more towards dumbing it down to push the sub numbers. And with that push, could see the decline in the quality of the community...which is what lead me away from the game in the end...along with it getting seriously boring because of the lack of a challenge. Anyways, that is a little background.
MMORPG's were first created to be live action pen and paper style RPG's for players. They were all of the things stated in the first paragraph. THIS is why they had monthly subs. They took time, effort, and team work. It is what set them apart from console gaming.
MMORPG's now are super fast paced. You can cap in a month, sometimes less, then sit in a capital city spamming for raid groups and/or complaining there isn't enough content. Instances nearly dominate the worlds and instant travel is common...shrinking the world and making some areas useless or ghost regions void of nealry anyone. World AH's also shrink the world, making manual travel nearly pointless. Emphasis on stats seems to make a lot of players elitist psychopaths...or for some reason stuck up (Thinking they are better than other players), souring the communities.
Just WAY too much emphasis on, and a mentality of "GO GO GO! NOW NOW NOW!". This isn't what MMORPG's are suppose to be about. Again, it's why they had monthly subs...they took time. And again, this is what set them apart as a seperate genre from console gaming...where fast paced instant gratification was the design model from the beginning. Yes, I am aware things change...but MMO's are dying due to the sweeping changes taking place now, not changing them simply to be a better, upgraded version from the previous one. They are becoming console single player RPG's more and more, and less open worlds with teeming economies and communities that interact.
Of course though...I am sure this is (In my own speculation and opinion) a product of the difference in the times as well...
Then?: The internet was in it's infancy and most of us played EQ/UO on dial-up. MMORPG's were new too, so they were very crude (To today's standards). Again, most players were pen and paper types, so travel,quests, etc taking time didn't bother us much. patience was much more common.
Now?: We live in a rat race world full of instant this and instant that. Not to mention a massive technology boom. So, MMORPG's reflect that with the GO GO GO! NOW NOW NOW! mentality. Funny enough though, those that complain about people like me wanting it to shift more back towards more open world travel, WAY less dumbed down features (Give it challenge), longer quests that chain more, less instancing and instant travel, no world chat, and regional bazaars, etc are the same people (For the most part) that complain that they level too fast and have nothing to do at their beloved "end game" lol. Know why most post-WoW players don't want monthly subs? Because they don't want to pay a monthly fee to sit in their cpaital cities screaming their isn't enough to do for $15 a month!
I guess this is all in trying to say, YET AGAIN, that MMORPG's were a different genre from console games for a reason. And now they are nothing more than glorified RPG console games.
P.S. A response I see a lot, and even see in this thread..is "People don't have a lto fo time to devote to games liek this. They want to have fun with the time they do have." I can understand this...but um...then WHY aren't you playing console games? Where quick fun is the common goal? MMORPG's were meant to take time.
Another difference I guess between me and the larger majority fo the community. I find even the little accomplishments gratifying and fun (Gaining half a level, killing that tough mob, traversing a dangerous area unscaved)...where as most now need big shinies right away with as little effort put forth or they feel they have been slighted.
Well said! I hope the proponents of easy mode take time to read and think about what you have written.
I think there are more people that share your views out there than you know. Not on this forum perhaps, but I see them everytime I start a new game. They are out there, along with me, seeking a return to challenging, group oriented games, usually to be let down.
They dont want any real competition, they want quests that point arrows in the right direction, they want instant teleportation to towns and raids and dont want pkers bothering them while they AFK on trade chat. Also talents and skills are too much trouble, they all use cookie cutter builds from websites because they stink at doing their own theorycraft, when talking about themselves they use the term Everyone often. As an excuse for their dense mind.
How does convenience ruin the competition for you? What games are missing at this point are immersion and depth, it has nothing to do with how fast we can go from A to B or how we compete with others, for crying out loud. It's people like you who are dense. Not they.
There IS a differnece between convenience and stupified. Convenience is a town auction house, stupidity is a 6 talent , talent tree. After WOW releases MOP WOW will officially be less complicated than Diablo 2. Thats not convenience thats idiotproofing.
Numbers aren't everything. You have to look at how the game is balanced too. If a character has 3 skills to choose from, but only one is usable, then the character has only one skill in it. Or if skill A does the same thing as skill B then they are both one and the same skill.
Having seemingly a lot of skills is not depth. Thats an illusion of depth. What many games are trying to do is to make all the skills, all the choices viable - not just present you with a lot of choices where only a handful are good ones. So you get fewer choices, but more good ones.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Not everyone has 100 hrs a week to spend studying up on everythign to in an mmo. Lets face facts mmos are games. Games should be first and foremost fun and enteratining.
That is a really moot argument imho. Let's take a look at Skyrim for example. I can spend just an hour in the game, basically achieve nothing epic (running some errands and explore a lost cave), yet I feel satisfied after I gotta go to work and am looking for more. At same time, I can run two dungeons in WoW and what I got are yet few more items everyone else is wearing, I am judging from experince and the feeling of satisfaction is lot less.
You could argue that you can't quite compare single player vs MMO, but I think you can compare the design and approach to the satisfaction of the player after the gameplay session. MMOs lately shifted to much into the "best bang for the buck" (most epics per hour) mindset, which is extremely wrong. It is possible to give player satisfaction of the gameplay session and feeling of achievement without having to shower him in epics in each dungeons, but such an approach is lot more difficult to design.
Another issue is the very core of the endgame, where the only thing to do is killing PvE bosses and casuals feel left out of it since they dont have as much time to grind the gear as more hardcore players do. More trivial, yet rewarding tasks would be much appriciated, which casuals could engage in, but also the mindset of the people would need a slight change, you can't expect to spend 10 times less on a game and yet achieve as much as somone who spends 10 times more then you. But you should not be completely left out either.
I have to agree however, that complexity!=difficulty. I would want to see a simple game which is difficult, rather then a game with complex systems but simple gamepaly such as Mortal Online. The systems are confusing and userundfriendly but are hardly difficult once you go spreadsheet on them. Imho simplification of ingame mechanics is something to welcome, as long as difficulty of the game doesnt take a hit.
The problem with your logic is that; Tedious game design does not make something challenging. There is a difference here. Streamlining an expierence so that more people can enjoy it is a good thing. MMOS are social games for the most part. What good is it if no one plays it?
Oversimplification? Streamlining? Developers for years now have stripped gameplay down to the most minimal aspects. If I ask about a title, "What's to do outside combat?" and you pause and shift around uncomfortably and confused, then that title has some problems. Crafting has completely gone downhill, for instance. It's excessively simple to the point item variety is lacking. Then there's the point where alot of MMORPGs are loot-based, i.e. go out and fight for your gear. So loot-based MMORPGs essentially negate the need for crafted goods.
So again, you're stuck at nothing to do but swing your sword some more.
Today's MMORPGs have taken "streamlining" to the most extreme extent possible. They took that huge pine tree and stripped it down to a single toothpick.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Oversimplification? Streamlining? Developers for years now have stripped gameplay down to the most minimal aspects. If I ask about a title, "What's to do outside combat?" and you pause and shift around uncomfortably and confused, then that title has some problems. Crafting has completely gone downhill, for instance. It's excessively simple to the point item variety is lacking. Then there's the point where alot of MMORPGs are loot-based, i.e. go out and fight for your gear. So loot-based MMORPGs essentially negate the need for crafted goods.
So again, you're stuck at nothing to do but swing your sword some more.
Today's MMORPGs have taken "streamlining" to the most extreme extent possible. They took that huge pine tree and stripped it down to a single toothpick.
Developers are only focusing on what 90% of the people do 90% of the time anyway. What is wrong with that? Those games are better than ever, more focused than ever. The only objective measurement, sub and sales numbers, show growth. MMORPGs are doing good. Nobody's going to pay attention to few purists whining in forums.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You clearly don't understand complexity vs. depth.
Chess is not complicated. It is deep.
Chess Clubs just play Chess. Simple, 1-page-of-rules Chess.
How can a game be considered complicated when its rules fit on one single page!? It's deep, not complicated. Emergent depth occurs because the simple rules which are in place create a very dynamic gameplay where the best decision is not obvious.
Thank you!
this had to be said. Wish more people understood that complexity doesn't equal depth. And too much complexity is just atrocious.
But what is too much complexity? Some people think EVE is too complex, but for me I thought it was about right.
The real problem is that things can be deep and or complex and yet still not be very fun, since fun is mostly a subjective factor.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
We see this kind of broad denouncement of human beings quite often ("ADD kids" etc), but its a mistake to blame the players for decisions made by the management and simple market forces. And it needs to stop, it's my grandpa saying "These damn kids are no good and society is doomed"--every grandpa for several thousand years has asserted exactly the same thing.
What's happened to games? Well, a greatly expanded audience that's not entirely a bunch of first-gen gamers (consisting largely of first-gen computer owners--the geeks). Many of them had technical skills that led them into computers at the birthing stage, and they were busily expanding the capabilities of the machines and programming, naturally. Atypical human beings, a specialized subset, more technically saavy than the general public.
The games they designed were often for e-peenery (if you'll excuse the expression). Overly complex, harder than they needed to be, lots of artificial gates and barriers and sheer time checks to limit the "winners" to others just like themselves. Five percenters.
As the internet boomed and "regular people" filled the market, many of those games' producers noticed that they had a very real problem. A player retention rate growing weaker; they'd designed a bunch of games that were not new player friendly, with learning curves too steep, barriers too high, time checks too lengthy.
Their attention spans aren't low, they're just regular people with regular lives. The dread (horrors) "Casuals".
Market forces take over at that point--you can't keep designing for atypical human beings (some now in their 50s!) if you want to sell a lot of games.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Diffrent people diffrent things stress you and diffrent are fun or boring.
For some people, challange = fun, easy = boring and NOT fun
same with for some people, simpe = fun and for some simple = boring and not fun
I like to think in games. Not always but 80% of time I play games I need to think in. Sometimes I just want to go and kick ass, but that's rare.
What?!?
The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).
Actually, I think I'd easily fit in the 'casual' mold, but I don't think our demographic is the "problem". But when a game proves me it has depth and is worth looking into, I'll stick with it, regardless of having to solve difficult puzzles or calculating my percents. And I think there are more players like myself who feel this way about video games, among other things. The problem is those "casuals" or even "players" simply don't care or are misinformed; they'd rather have a new, better improved WoW than something original and deep, such as The Chronicles of Spellborn. That's how people work; most, while not always retarded, don't want to give a shit unless their friends give a shit. Shooters for example. Why do you think these games work so well? You pick a gun and shoot people. When I ask someone "What's the story behind Battlefield?" I always get a reply of: "I don't know, Russians?" These games will always prevail, because they're succesful that way. Does succes always equal good? Sometimes, was Big Brother an awful show? But luckily there's a handful of "casuals" like myself who still care for greatness, and that includes video games. As long as the balance remains, what gives?
No, e-peenery simply became much more visible, once the devs realized the competitive egos of "pros" allows them to sell more games with leader boards and by giving them measuring sticks (like the Armory). It's always been there.
Pandering to the egos of players who view themselves as "pro" is enormously profitable. Ask any FPS game.
Keep villifying the players; it's a simplistic view but if it works for you, enjoy.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Absolutely right, you know theres always the ADD guy who text messages while driving and gets people killed stoping halfway in traffic because gasp he had a panic attack because he didn't use his taxpayer supplied meds. They dont want any real competition, they want quests that point arrows in the right direction, they want instant teleportation to towns and raids and dont want pkers bothering them while they AFK on trade chat. Also talents and skills are too much trouble, they all use cookie cutter builds from websites because they stink at doing their own theorycraft, when talking about themselves they use the term Everyone often. As an excuse for their dense mind.
That is why we prosecute both the dealers and the users...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
In reply to the OP:
Yeah, that is the big problems theese days the way I see it. All kinds of games, not just MMO's try their stab at the mainstream market of casual players and this is what you get when they do that....
Buy Neverwinter Nights 1 here! | Unofficial NWN1 homepage | NWN1 guild on X-Fire
How does convenience ruin the competition for you? What games are missing at this point are immersion and depth, it has nothing to do with how fast we can go from A to B or how we compete with others, for crying out loud. It's people like you who are dense. Not they.
True, it is an oddly symbiotic relationship. But the Suits make the final call, so I tend to reserve my ire for them.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
See, I was on board with your reply here until the last comment. I am capable of seeing both sides of an issue.
Sorry...but the playerbase IS worse...but of course, that is also because it is bigger. More people, more possibility of idiots. Players are just as much to blame for the current path of MMO's as the dev's are. After all...they wouldn't make the game with certain features if they weren't desired by their users.
A child asks for a case of beer, a handful of pornos, and a pack of smokes...
...if an adult gives that to the child, it is primarily the child's fault?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
You guys are missing something. Games in the modern world are designed as crack. It is essentially all Diablo's fault. People love loot drops. They also love slot machines. Mainly because these are the same thing functionally. Simplistic games with mechanics based on modern psychology in order to addict players are the model of today. Oldschool mmo's did not work that way.
Its rather ridiculous, if I run a sports book I go to prison but if Bigpoint sells a space drone for 1k$ thats just business. Capitalists are fucking morons who don't understand that just because you can make money doesn't make it okay to fuck people up in the head. We are cracking down on intra-family abuse but businesses exploiting abusive power dynamics get a cookie for their high sub numbers and sales of totally useless bullshit. We used to make fun of people who shelled out 200$ for designer jeans and tops, but thats nothing compared to 1k$ for a useless virtual item in a game that the majority of the world has never even heard of.
You clearly don't understand complexity vs. depth.
Chess is not complicated. It is deep.
Chess Clubs just play Chess. Simple, 1-page-of-rules Chess.
How can a game be considered complicated when its rules fit on one single page!? It's deep, not complicated. Emergent depth occurs because the simple rules which are in place create a very dynamic gameplay where the best decision is not obvious.
When you ordered a baked potato you didn't order every single option available. You kept it simple, to the 2-3 key additional ingredients which justified their presence enough to be tasty.
Would you really ever eat a baked potato with sour cream, bacon bits, pepper, salt, chedder, baked beans, ham, prawns, coleslaw, mushrooms, tuna, cream cheese and chives, sausage and beans, honey mustard chicken, gouda, and avocado? Individually many of those would be delicious on a baked potato. But once things become too complex, the end result is a disaster -- and the ideal count is almost always going to be a simple 2-3 key additional ingredients.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Thank you!
this had to be said. Wish more people understood that complexity doesn't equal depth. And too much complexity is just atrocious.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Its not restricted to MMO gamers. The RPG genra in general is in a simplification mode. Look at Skyrim and what they took out of the character creation and leveling process. Even standard non open world RPG's of today are simplified. It boils down to "Do you want to raise your magic or melee damage and magic or melee defense.". The good thing about a good RPG is so long as the story is there the gameplay isnt as important. FF7 for example. One of the most popular RPG's of all time (agree or disagree you cant deny the number of copies sold and its popularity even today) was a verry simple game at its base. One thing it did verry well was add a layer of depth if you really wanted to delve that far into the game but it wasnt required to really enjoy the storyline.
There IS a differnece between convenience and stupified. Convenience is a town auction house, stupidity is a 6 talent , talent tree. After WOW releases MOP WOW will officially be less complicated than Diablo 2. Thats not convenience thats idiotproofing.
Bravo, sir! Bravo!
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Well said! I hope the proponents of easy mode take time to read and think about what you have written.
I think there are more people that share your views out there than you know. Not on this forum perhaps, but I see them everytime I start a new game. They are out there, along with me, seeking a return to challenging, group oriented games, usually to be let down.
Numbers aren't everything. You have to look at how the game is balanced too. If a character has 3 skills to choose from, but only one is usable, then the character has only one skill in it. Or if skill A does the same thing as skill B then they are both one and the same skill.
Having seemingly a lot of skills is not depth. Thats an illusion of depth. What many games are trying to do is to make all the skills, all the choices viable - not just present you with a lot of choices where only a handful are good ones. So you get fewer choices, but more good ones.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That is a really moot argument imho. Let's take a look at Skyrim for example. I can spend just an hour in the game, basically achieve nothing epic (running some errands and explore a lost cave), yet I feel satisfied after I gotta go to work and am looking for more. At same time, I can run two dungeons in WoW and what I got are yet few more items everyone else is wearing, I am judging from experince and the feeling of satisfaction is lot less.
You could argue that you can't quite compare single player vs MMO, but I think you can compare the design and approach to the satisfaction of the player after the gameplay session. MMOs lately shifted to much into the "best bang for the buck" (most epics per hour) mindset, which is extremely wrong. It is possible to give player satisfaction of the gameplay session and feeling of achievement without having to shower him in epics in each dungeons, but such an approach is lot more difficult to design.
Another issue is the very core of the endgame, where the only thing to do is killing PvE bosses and casuals feel left out of it since they dont have as much time to grind the gear as more hardcore players do. More trivial, yet rewarding tasks would be much appriciated, which casuals could engage in, but also the mindset of the people would need a slight change, you can't expect to spend 10 times less on a game and yet achieve as much as somone who spends 10 times more then you. But you should not be completely left out either.
I have to agree however, that complexity!=difficulty. I would want to see a simple game which is difficult, rather then a game with complex systems but simple gamepaly such as Mortal Online. The systems are confusing and userundfriendly but are hardly difficult once you go spreadsheet on them. Imho simplification of ingame mechanics is something to welcome, as long as difficulty of the game doesnt take a hit.
The problem with your logic is that; Tedious game design does not make something challenging. There is a difference here. Streamlining an expierence so that more people can enjoy it is a good thing. MMOS are social games for the most part. What good is it if no one plays it?
Oversimplification? Streamlining? Developers for years now have stripped gameplay down to the most minimal aspects. If I ask about a title, "What's to do outside combat?" and you pause and shift around uncomfortably and confused, then that title has some problems. Crafting has completely gone downhill, for instance. It's excessively simple to the point item variety is lacking. Then there's the point where alot of MMORPGs are loot-based, i.e. go out and fight for your gear. So loot-based MMORPGs essentially negate the need for crafted goods.
So again, you're stuck at nothing to do but swing your sword some more.
Today's MMORPGs have taken "streamlining" to the most extreme extent possible. They took that huge pine tree and stripped it down to a single toothpick.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Developers are only focusing on what 90% of the people do 90% of the time anyway. What is wrong with that? Those games are better than ever, more focused than ever. The only objective measurement, sub and sales numbers, show growth. MMORPGs are doing good. Nobody's going to pay attention to few purists whining in forums.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But what is too much complexity? Some people think EVE is too complex, but for me I thought it was about right.
The real problem is that things can be deep and or complex and yet still not be very fun, since fun is mostly a subjective factor.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon