There are 2 premises floating around this thread. Let's get them straight.
1. Older games are better
They probably are. What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics.
2. Quality of games is TRENDING downwards
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit.
And this too sheesh.
They probably are. Based on nothing but your personal preference and/or opinion.
What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? Probably very little , that is a red herring argument. Each new game doesn't need to be the best ever in order for a general trend of games to be improving.
What are you talking about? Why are you talking about a general trend? I deliberately broke up the two questions because they are indeed two questions. The question is when was the best game released? If MMOs have been around for ~15 years, it's highly unlikely that the best games have occurred very recently, unless you believe there's a general trend upwards in the genre.
This is like the nostalgia arguments that people around here like to bring up. Nostalgia has nothing to do with me liking Mario 64 of Ocarina of Time. There are many games that I enjoyed before those games and I didn't have any problems with nostalgia then. What you're (not you necessarily) really saying is that the game that I feel nostalgia for represents the peak of my gaming enjoyment.... in other words, it's my favorite game.
It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics. Really? Is that the only reason you can think of? Someone that likes newer games is either inexperienced or was turned off by graphics? Come on, how about they were turned off by gameplay, how about they were turned off by too much grouping if they started with EQ, or by ganking if they played a pvp game, or how about by grinding in the same spot for hours and hours and hours. There are likely literally thousands of reasons why a person who played older games did not like them. Simply saying it's because of inexperience of graphics is the worst kind of cop out. Yes there are a lot of new people who are inexperienced. It is equally true there a lot of experienced people who prefer new ones.
Ugh again you're just confused. I'm not saying in order to dislike ANY older game they must just be inexperienced or unable to get over the dated graphics. But if your favorite game of all time is one that has literally just been released, you probably are pretty new to the world of video games. Unless you believe games are constantly getting better, holding unobjectionable things like technical limitations constant, then you pretty much have to believe that the best game of a certain genre or type probably isn't one that is brand spanking new.
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. Again just based on nothing but yoru personal prefernece and opinion. I think it's pretty easy to argue this point actually
The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. They will serve some people better and some people worse, I'm sure a lot of people that played the old ones like the new ones. You constantly hear things about how people like many aspects of newer games, but disliked something else. Just because it was niche does not mean it was serving it's audience well. Just because it is big does not mean it is not serving it's audience badly or alienating more people. It is a fallacy that just because something is niche it is serving an audience better.
Saying they will serve some people better and some people worse misses my point entirely. I said they will server their audience better. I'm saying niche products will server their audience better than mainstream products because niche products can find larger areas of overlapping preferences among their playerbase.
By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit. No. See above. Yes you need to find common ground, that does not mean that they give up certain things. Often it means they add things. Once again, just because somethign is niche doesn't mean it is serving the audience well. In fact the opposite could be true, it was not serving their audience well and so their audience left and it was relegated to the negative connotative status of "Niche" by the public.
Finding common ground quite often DOES mean giving certain things up. It doesn't mean ALWAYS giving things up. You can have an MMO with only one player because the game is just poorly optimized or crashes every 2 seconds. By fixing those problems you're bringing in more people without necessarily alienating anybody. But going from hundreds of thousands of players to tens of millions of players isn't the same thing. At some point you have to go beyond just fixing unobjectionable problems and into the realm of design choices. At some point you start changing your game, not just fixing your game. That's where you're alienating people, at least a little bit. That's where niche products have the advantage.
The question was not what is the best game released. The question was what are the chances of each new game being the best game of it’s type ever released. Those are very very different questions.
I didn’t bring up nostalgia – and don’t want to get into it because I don’t think it is significantly relevant to our conversation.
Here was the actual question:
"What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made?"
It's pretty simple. Us "both ways in the snow" guys aren't just speaking from a perspective of rose colored glasses when we say such and such was an amazing game. OF COURSE our favorite game is going to be an older one because the vast majority of possible candidates for best game ever are older.
I didn’t say you said they must be. In fact I said You sated it was likely because they haven’t experienced it or were turned off by graphics. I’m saying that is false premise. Yes there were many new people when WoW came out. But there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who played older games as well, and a great many of them left. Your premise being that if someone didn’t like older games it was likely because they haven’t experienced it or were turned off by graphics, is extremely inflated to the point of being false. There are many many many many other reasons.
I may have been a bit simplistic in just saying graphics. I should have made it clear that I mean whatever technical limitations there were at the time. The response to this is similar to what I just explained above.
I’m saying your wrong in that belief. They may serve it better, they may not
I’m saying you are wrong in that belief. They may serve it better, they may not.
I say quite often finding common ground doesn’t mean giving up, often it means adding things.
Yes, you're right that you can increase your playerbase by adding content, which is different from fixing unobjectionable problems. It's conceivable (just not feasible) to have 30 different games essentially under the same name. However in practice what happens is features differ from game to game. It's not just a question of which game has the most content. Often content conflicts with people's preferences. For instance, adding an auction house takes away from some social aspects of the player economy.
A preference is a like or a dislike. It may be based on someone's opinion of something, but if that opinion is incorrect it may not change whether they like whatever the subject is. Preferences are all equal, opinions are not.
Preferences and opinions are not the same.
I don't like brussel sprouts. That is a preference. I think they are bad for you, this is opinion and is incorrect. It will not change my preference and my preference is not wrong.
A preference is greater liking for one alternative over another or others. An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
No, a preference is choosing one thing over another. That's the definition and most importantly that's how it's always used in context on this site. So I'll ask the question again: If somebody says they prefer game A over game B, but hasn't played game B, is their opinion just as good or valid as somebody who says they prefer game A over game B and has played both quite a bit?
Regarding solo content. You stated, "I'm saying what's wrong with adding more solo content."
I'm saying that is incorrect. I'm saying the genre started with tons of solo content, the ability to solo a great deal, from beginning to end has been in the genre since day one. The genre started with a tonne of solo content, EQ moved away from that. Therefore adding more solo content is not mixing genre's, it is staying true to the MMO and specifically the MMORPG genre.
I'm not sure how you're still not getting this. When I say what's wrong with adding more solo content, it's assuming the premise is true, which is that the genre is adding more solo content. Again, it was in response to somebody who was essentially saying "so what??" to the claim that more solo content was being added to MMOs.
Whether or not that's actually happening is a different discussion. As I'm sure you're aware I'm always looking for a good argument so it's one I'm totally willing to have... it's just not this particular discussion.
No a preference is not simply choosign one over another, it is a like or dislike of one thing over another. That is the defnition adn how it is always used in context on this site. The question you are asking now is not what was asked before. This question is about something choosing something when they are uninformed. Their opinion of game B is not as valid, however there preferences may be based on somethign else. AGain there is a difference between preference adn opinion.
I accidentily included the word opinion. I should have said preference. Among those two people, are both of their preferences just as valid? As you now admit, a preference isn't simply liking or disliking something, which is what you originally said. It's liking or disliking something over another thing. But if you have no experience in that other thing, how can you possibly say that's a valid preference???? How can you possibly act like his preference is equal to somebody else's who is completely informed?
I'll use your food analogy. My brother used to prefer mustard over ketchup. This was because he never actually tried ketchup. Once he had, he realized how wrong he had been to prefer mustard over ketchup. It's not like his taste buds changed and he now prefers ketchup over mustard, it was because he was ill informed. How can you possibly be of the opinion that all preferences are created equal?
I"m not sure how you are not getting this. You stated adding more solo content is mixing genre's. I'm saying it isn't. I'm saying it is staying true to the genre.
Do you know what "adding more" means? It means there is now more than there was. The whole premise is that modern MMOs have had more solo content than their predecessors. That's the premise. You're saying you disagree with that premise. Fine. That doesn't change what I've said. Everything I said was based on the assumption that modern MMOs have indeed added more solo content. You saying they haven't, doesn't contradict what I said.
If they have never tried the other, it is not a case of a preferring one over the other. It is not a preference, no matter the person says, it is just an assumption.
Of course if the person had tried similar games, it could be a preference and would be just as valid. We are talking about something they like or dislike.
He was not wrong to prefer mustard, he never had the preference as far as taste is concerned. Maybe he liked the color better or the way it looked. As far as taste goes, he cannot prefer the taste of one over another he has not tasted both, so not a preference, but is an ignorant assumption.
And taste buds absolutely can change, or rather our sensitivity can change which affects how things taste.
I never said taste buds can't change. I'm saying in this particular case that isn't what's happening. His preference for the taste of mustard over the taste of ketchup as invalid, he just didn't know it. At this point you're just being pedantic. What we're talking about is people's expressed preferences. What comes out of their mouth may not perfectly match reality, but what comes out of their mouth is what we're talking about.
Let's revisit my brother's tastes. Let's say our cousin had never tasted ketchup or mustard. He asks my brother and I what we prefer. I say I prefer ketchup, my brother says he prefers mustard. If my cousin finds out that my brother has never tasted ketchup, should he treat his preference the same way he treats mine?
That's the situation we have on these forums. If you want to nit pick about the wording, have fun arguing with yourself. But keep in mind that other definitions of the word prefer include things like "tends to choose." Also keep in mind that I'm not the only person using the word "preference" in place of "expressed preference."
And I’m saying that that premise is wrong, it is only adding more than SOME of their predecessors. That MANY of the predecessors had just as much. Everything I’m saying is that modern MMO’s have not added more than the ancestors, only than some of their ancestors, by all accounts AC had tons of solo content, as did UO. I know EQ and COH had tons of solo content. Arguably more than today’s games.
Then you're not taking issue with anything I've said. Take it to the guy who said he doesn't see the problem with modern MMOs adding more solo content.
However, you're wrong about UO. At no point in that game (pre-trammel) could it be considered solo content. You were literally always potentially in contact with other players. The main ways to have solo content in an MMO are instances, and turning off ow pvp or player interaction (like clipping). In those ways, it seems modern MMOs have indeed added way more solo content.
what people call a preference may or may not be a prefernce. Someone who does not have experience is not expressing a preference, again no matter what they say. That is not pedantic, it is a fundamental flaw in communication.
And others have said they didn't need anyone else in UO.
No. The main ways to have solo content in an MMO is not by instances or by turning off pvp, those are just 2 ways.
In the past they did not call it solo or group content, they just called it content. You could attempt it solo, you could attempt it grouped. And many many many did do it solo.
Instances weren't added for the solo content - it was added to get rid of the camp, tell a better story, and control the game more.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
And others have said they didn't need anyone else in UO.
No. The main ways to have solo content in an MMO is not by instances or by turning off pvp, those are just 2 ways.
In the past they did not call it solo or group content, they just called it content. You could attempt it solo, you could attempt it grouped. And many many many did do it solo.
Instances weren't added for the solo content - it was added to get rid of the camp, tell a better story, and control the game more.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the anthesis of the solo content that is pervasive in modern MMOs which almost always takes the form of an instance.
And others have said they didn't need anyone else in UO.
No. The main ways to have solo content in an MMO is not by instances or by turning off pvp, those are just 2 ways.
In the past they did not call it solo or group content, they just called it content. You could attempt it solo, you could attempt it grouped. And many many many did do it solo.
Instances weren't added for the solo content - it was added to get rid of the camp, tell a better story, and control the game more.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the anthesis of the solo content that is pervasive in modern MMOs which almost always takes the form of an instance.
Thats fine.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the type of game thats lets people choose how they want to play, solo or grouped. And today's games have really just as much grouping as old games, just not necessarily for the same activities. Instancing in games very rarely is solo content, the instancing is almost entirely dungeons and raids - the exact opposite of solo content.
The solo content is typically quests.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
what people call a preference may or may not be a prefernce. Someone who does not have experience is not expressing a preference, again no matter what they say. That is not pedantic, it is a fundamental flaw in communication.
No, it's pedantic. It's pedantic because you're picking on the word usage and not the message. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the term. You're also using the most strict definition possible. Here's another one:
"The selecting of someone or something over another or others."
And others have said they didn't need anyone else in UO.
No. The main ways to have solo content in an MMO is not by instances or by turning off pvp, those are just 2 ways.
In the past they did not call it solo or group content, they just called it content. You could attempt it solo, you could attempt it grouped. And many many many did do it solo.
Instances weren't added for the solo content - it was added to get rid of the camp, tell a better story, and control the game more.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the anthesis of the solo content that is pervasive in modern MMOs which almost always takes the form of an instance.
Thats fine.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the type of game thats lets people choose how they want to play, solo or grouped. And today's games have really just as much grouping as old games, just not necessarily for the same activities. Instancing in games very rarely is solo content, the instancing is almost entirely dungeons and raids - the exact opposite of solo content.
The solo content is typically quests.
I'm not sure if you know you're doing it but you come off as quite smarmy when you use people's exact wording in your own point.
At any rate, I think if you ask people what they mean by solo content, they'll respond by referencing instancing. The ability to cut yourself off from the rest of the community. But you're right, questing is another form of solo content. It's also something that is far more widespread now than it was before.
I've never had any problems telling a good mmorpg from a bad. If it is good it should create a living breathing world, an alternate reality if you will, that makes you want to visit it again and again. It doesn't have to have the most advanced engine or the slickest graphics to do this. Such games often have "loose" rules, a lot of things to do and encourages social interaction.
Many modern games are the opposite. The trail is already set in stone, from the first time you log in to max level. The human interactions not only occur less often, when they do they are more transitory in nature compared to older games. You don't make "friends" in the same way that you used to. New games are more and more becoming a lobby to this or that instanced activity. It can still be a fun game but it is no longer a mmorpg because it has sacrificed the living breathing world, the one thing a mmorpg should never compromise with if it want to be called that.
what people call a preference may or may not be a prefernce. Someone who does not have experience is not expressing a preference, again no matter what they say. That is not pedantic, it is a fundamental flaw in communication.
No, it's pedantic. It's pedantic because you're picking on the word usage and not the message. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the term. You're also using the most strict definition possible. Here's another one:
"The selecting of someone or something over another or others."
How does my point not fit into this defintion?
No it's not pedantic because if someone has a preference for something that means they have knowledge of both, or knowledge of what it is they prefer. If they don't have that knowledge it is not a preference, merely a blind choice, or a choice based on an incorrect assumption.
That is not significantly different from what I stated. And the free online dictionary that you got that from is the only one that give sthat.
In fact that is a poor definition because people often deliberately choose things they don't like or don't want, it is not their preference.
And others have said they didn't need anyone else in UO.
No. The main ways to have solo content in an MMO is not by instances or by turning off pvp, those are just 2 ways.
In the past they did not call it solo or group content, they just called it content. You could attempt it solo, you could attempt it grouped. And many many many did do it solo.
Instances weren't added for the solo content - it was added to get rid of the camp, tell a better story, and control the game more.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the anthesis of the solo content that is pervasive in modern MMOs which almost always takes the form of an instance.
Thats fine.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the type of game thats lets people choose how they want to play, solo or grouped. And today's games have really just as much grouping as old games, just not necessarily for the same activities. Instancing in games very rarely is solo content, the instancing is almost entirely dungeons and raids - the exact opposite of solo content.
The solo content is typically quests.
I'm not sure if you know you're doing it but you come off as quite smarmy when you use people's exact wording in your own point.
At any rate, I think if you ask people what they mean by solo content, they'll respond by referencing instancing. The ability to cut yourself off from the rest of the community. But you're right, questing is another form of solo content. It's also something that is far more widespread now than it was before.
What game has instances that were designed to have people solo?
The idea is not to be smarmy, I apologize if it comes off that way. The idea is to show that our perception is not reality, so we can use the exact same phrasing to describe the completely opposite situation. So if we believe something to be true we should have more than just our perception of it, and to ask ourselves do we have a bias for that, and then why we have that, leading to is that correct.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The main ways to have solo content in an MMO is not by instances or by turning off pvp, those are just 2 ways.
In the past they did not call it solo or group content, they just called it content. You could attempt it solo, you could attempt it grouped. And many many many did do it solo.
This is something i absolutely miss and you're spot on.
Trying to either solo or low man open world bosses normally designed for an alliance/raid was so much fun. Of course it stunk for everyone else having to watch after wasting hours or days of their lives camping said boss. Finding some sort of balance between these would be great.
what people call a preference may or may not be a prefernce. Someone who does not have experience is not expressing a preference, again no matter what they say. That is not pedantic, it is a fundamental flaw in communication.
No, it's pedantic. It's pedantic because you're picking on the word usage and not the message. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the term. You're also using the most strict definition possible. Here's another one:
"The selecting of someone or something over another or others."
How does my point not fit into this defintion?
No it's not pedantic because if someone has a preference for something that means they have knowledge of both, or knowledge of what it is they prefer. If they don't have that knowledge it is not a preference, merely a blind choice, or a choice based on an incorrect assumption.
That is not significantly different from what I stated. And the free online dictionary that you got that from is the only one that give sthat. People choose things.
In fact that is a poor definition because people often deliberately choose things they don't like or don't want, it is not their preference.
You're basically saying "I'm not being pedantic because I'm right."
First of all, you're not right. Definitions for prefer/preference are not in conflict with my post.
Second, even if you were technically correct (you're not), it would still be pedantic because in the context of this debate you have nothing to say. The word preference in this case is obviously talking about people's expressed preference. What they say they prefer. You nit picking word usage is a waste of time. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the word like that.
Third, using your strict definition of the word, basically nobody could ever use it. You could never say you prefer anything over another thing because you will never have complete knowledge of either. This is why you're being pedantic.
And others have said they didn't need anyone else in UO.
No. The main ways to have solo content in an MMO is not by instances or by turning off pvp, those are just 2 ways.
In the past they did not call it solo or group content, they just called it content. You could attempt it solo, you could attempt it grouped. And many many many did do it solo.
Instances weren't added for the solo content - it was added to get rid of the camp, tell a better story, and control the game more.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the anthesis of the solo content that is pervasive in modern MMOs which almost always takes the form of an instance.
Thats fine.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the type of game thats lets people choose how they want to play, solo or grouped. And today's games have really just as much grouping as old games, just not necessarily for the same activities. Instancing in games very rarely is solo content, the instancing is almost entirely dungeons and raids - the exact opposite of solo content.
The solo content is typically quests.
I'm not sure if you know you're doing it but you come off as quite smarmy when you use people's exact wording in your own point.
At any rate, I think if you ask people what they mean by solo content, they'll respond by referencing instancing. The ability to cut yourself off from the rest of the community. But you're right, questing is another form of solo content. It's also something that is far more widespread now than it was before.
What game has instances that were designed to have people solo?
The idea is not to be smarmy, I apologize if it comes off that way. The idea is to show that our perception is not reality, so we can use the exact same phrasing to describe the completely opposite situation. So if we believe something to be true we should have more than just our perception of it, and to ask ourselves do we have a bias for that, and then why we have that, leading to is that correct.
I don't tend to play games with instances. But I do think the term solo is loosely used. For instance, if it's not massively multiplayer, it's more solo-oriented. The ability to cut off the rest of the world in the case of instancing is more solo-oriented. It's not as social. That's why right off the bat I clarified that I'm taking solo content to basically be the antithesis of an open, social virtual world.
But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
what people call a preference may or may not be a prefernce. Someone who does not have experience is not expressing a preference, again no matter what they say. That is not pedantic, it is a fundamental flaw in communication.
No, it's pedantic. It's pedantic because you're picking on the word usage and not the message. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the term. You're also using the most strict definition possible. Here's another one:
"The selecting of someone or something over another or others."
How does my point not fit into this defintion?
No it's not pedantic because if someone has a preference for something that means they have knowledge of both, or knowledge of what it is they prefer. If they don't have that knowledge it is not a preference, merely a blind choice, or a choice based on an incorrect assumption.
That is not significantly different from what I stated. And the free online dictionary that you got that from is the only one that give sthat. People choose things.
In fact that is a poor definition because people often deliberately choose things they don't like or don't want, it is not their preference.
You're basically saying "I'm not being pedantic because I'm right."
First of all, you're not right. Definitions for prefer/preference are not in conflict with my post.
Second, even if you were technically correct (you're not), it would still be pedantic because in the context of this debate you have nothing to say. The word preference in this case is obviously talking about people's expressed preference. What they say they prefer. You nit picking word usage is a waste of time. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the word like that.
Third, using your strict definition of the word, basically nobody could ever use it. You could never say you prefer anything over another thing because you will never have complete knowledge of either. This is why you're being pedantic.
Once again, wanting something is very different from choosing something. Wanting is the preference, choosing that may be based on the preference, choosing may be based on something else.
And no I disagree that this debate is about people's expressed prefernce, you have chosen to say that, this is about people's actual preference. And you have presented this whole thign by saying they they likely choose new ones because either they didn't know about them (which is totally arogant and in this day and age where WoW is almost a decade old, largely untrue now) or didn't like the grahpics - very very weak arguments and largely false.
And no most people do think preference corresponds to what people actually like. You don't need to have complete knowledge to have a preference, you do need to have some knowledg - a strawman argument.. You cannot prefer somethign over another if you don't know the other-
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
Ok. So? This doesn't mean that the modern era has more or less solo content than older games, only that it has more quests. Older games may have had more mob grinding (actually they did), they may have had more crafting, they may have had other activities (swg entertainer).
Just having more of one feature that is solo, doesn't mean the overal game is more solo.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
first to be clear, there are significant differences in the mmorpg's from 10-15 years back (or more). so i am not belittling those changes. however, its interesting to note that a number of us older gamers can look back and think: my gahd, what was i thinking camping that spawn all day.
the sad truth, that i am coming to accept, is that neurologically speaking its becoming more and more evident that the brain's ability to adapt to change as we age does diminish and it does diminish noticeably.
im afraid that neurologically speaking some of us are simply getting older. and i mean that sincerely, not casting any aspersions. but the facts are that as you age your neuronal pathways become less and less "flexible" in forming new connections or altering paths.
note, this is not about intelligence or the ability to process information. it seems that in some ways its easier when you are older. but the ability to form new paths or adapt older ones in new ways is affected (even if you are doing Sudoku every morning).
this is often why older folks are stereotypically seen as not embracing change. neurologically, its just harder. so those things we've enjoyed in the past seem more pleasurable because in a sense they really are more pleasurable. and the reason is that the brain is not having to overcome an increasingly difficult hurdle towards change.
this doesn't mean that everyone over 40 can't change or adapt. but it does mean that it is decreasing over time.
This is wrong and I will tell you why. The games have changed over time and are different from what they were ten years ago. Embracing poor changes in my opinion doesn't lead to the conclusion older people are unable to accept change. What people like is subjective.
By the way, I really enjoyed World of Warcraft after I played Everquest for years. Why? I liked the game, I liked the changes. I could solo in this big world and do meaningful very fun group content in my opinion. I enjoyed the game mechanics, I loved the group dynamics, I loved crowd control, and strategy in dungeons.
Everquest changed while I was playing it, guess what for the worse. I didn't like the direction SOE took the game so I moved on to a new game which was different. I didn't like that Everquest had a POK lobby, I didn't like the theme the expansion took, etc. World of Warcraft too has changed in a way I do not like now. The selling of virtual items on top of a subscription, mindless group content that a potatoe could succeed at, pet battles.
So you think you are right but so wrong. I like new games and I like some changes but not all changes. We are going to switch your ice cream on the weekend with asparagus for the sake of change. If you don't like it, you must be old.
I still think the original post is quite silly and as narrow as this underlined part quoted written previously.
Originally posted by Magiknight Even if I do have more trouble adapting to change as I get older that doesn't change the fact that the games have changed. Now they are shallower, emptier, shorter, easier, quicker....
what people call a preference may or may not be a prefernce. Someone who does not have experience is not expressing a preference, again no matter what they say. That is not pedantic, it is a fundamental flaw in communication.
No, it's pedantic. It's pedantic because you're picking on the word usage and not the message. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the term. You're also using the most strict definition possible. Here's another one:
"The selecting of someone or something over another or others."
How does my point not fit into this defintion?
No it's not pedantic because if someone has a preference for something that means they have knowledge of both, or knowledge of what it is they prefer. If they don't have that knowledge it is not a preference, merely a blind choice, or a choice based on an incorrect assumption.
That is not significantly different from what I stated. And the free online dictionary that you got that from is the only one that give sthat. People choose things.
In fact that is a poor definition because people often deliberately choose things they don't like or don't want, it is not their preference.
You're basically saying "I'm not being pedantic because I'm right."
First of all, you're not right. Definitions for prefer/preference are not in conflict with my post.
Second, even if you were technically correct (you're not), it would still be pedantic because in the context of this debate you have nothing to say. The word preference in this case is obviously talking about people's expressed preference. What they say they prefer. You nit picking word usage is a waste of time. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the word like that.
Third, using your strict definition of the word, basically nobody could ever use it. You could never say you prefer anything over another thing because you will never have complete knowledge of either. This is why you're being pedantic.
Once again, wanting something is very different from choosing something. Wanting is the preference, choosing that may be based on the preference, choosing may be based on something else.
And no I disagree that this debate is about people's expressed prefernce, you have chosen to say that, this is about people's actual preference. And you have presented this whole thign by saying they they likely choose new ones because either they didn't know about them (which is totally arogant and in this day and age where WoW is almost a decade old, largely untrue now) or didn't like the grahpics - very very weak arguments and largely false.
And no most people do think preference corresponds to what people actually like. You don't need to have complete knowledge to have a preference, you do need to have some knowledg - a strawman argument.. You cannot prefer somethign over another if you don't know the other-
You're confused again. The preference debate started by me responding to one of Narius' many posts that hold up an individual's preference to godlike status. He loves to point out that the only thing that matters is the individual's preference. I'm saying that's bullshit. The individual may be misinformed, or biased. Not only preferences are created equal because they may turn out to be wrong. You may have preferred something over another thing because of a personal bias, bad information, etc. That doesn't mean you didn't prefer it. It means your preference wasn't very valid, which is my point.
Can I say I prefer UO over WoW? What if I've never played WoW? What if I only played it a little? What if I played it when I was drunk? What if I never played it, but somebody explained it to me?
Your requirements for what we consider an actual preference or not are either too strict, or arbitrary. It's not a strawman.
But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
Ok. So? This doesn't mean that the modern era has more or less solo content than older games, only that it has more quests. Older games may have had more mob grinding (actually they did), they may have had more crafting, they may have had other activities (swg entertainer).
Just having more of one feature that is solo, doesn't mean the overal game is more solo.
SWG entertainer required interaction from other players, if I'm remembering correctly. Also, crafting to put in your vendor or to actually sell to another play is not an example of solo content. In the case of UO, it was the opposite. Crafting was a very social aspect of the game.
The point about quests is if you say questing is an example of solo content, and questing is far more prevalent now, then that's an indiciation that games are more solo-oriented.
Interacting with lots of other players is the opposite of solo content. Having a lot of instances, streamlined auction houses, no unwarranted player interaction (ow pvp, clipping, stealing, etc) are all a shift away from the MM part of MMORPG and towards more solo-oriented play, or co-op play.
But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
Ok. So? This doesn't mean that the modern era has more or less solo content than older games, only that it has more quests. Older games may have had more mob grinding (actually they did), they may have had more crafting, they may have had other activities (swg entertainer).
Just having more of one feature that is solo, doesn't mean the overal game is more solo.
SWG entertainer required interaction from other players, if I'm remembering correctly. Also, crafting to put in your vendor or to actually sell to another play is not an example of solo content. In the case of UO, it was the opposite. Crafting was a very social aspect of the game.
The point about quests is if you say questing is an example of solo content, and questing is far more prevalent now, then that's an indiciation that games are more solo-oriented.
Interacting with lots of other players is the opposite of solo content. Having a lot of instances, streamlined auction houses, no unwarranted player interaction (ow pvp, clipping, stealing, etc) are all a shift away from the MM part of MMORPG and towards more solo-oriented play, or co-op play.
Vendoring/selling is seperate from crafting. I can craft by myself all day long. Selling requires interaction. Crafting can very much be a solo activity.
No just because questing is more prevalent and questing is a solo content does not mean that the game is more solo-orientied, you are making an assumption about all the other activities with that statement. It may or may not be true.
Instances are group oriented, the opposite of solo.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You're confused again. The preference debate started by me responding to one of Narius' many posts that hold up an individual's preference to godlike status. He loves to point out that the only thing that matters is the individual's preference. I'm saying that's bullshit. The individual may be misinformed, or biased. Not only preferences are created equal because they may turn out to be wrong. You may have preferred something over another thing because of a personal bias, bad information, etc. That doesn't mean you didn't prefer it. It means your preference wasn't very valid, which is my point.
Can I say I prefer UO over WoW? What if I've never played WoW? What if I only played it a little? What if I played it when I was drunk? What if I never played it, but somebody explained it to me?
Your requirements for what we consider an actual preference or not are either too strict, or arbitrary. It's not a strawman.
The preferences are all equal. The opinion is not. They are different.
The strawman was your assertion about it being impossible to have complete knowledge. You don't need complete knowledge - therefore it is a strawman argument.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
Ok. So? This doesn't mean that the modern era has more or less solo content than older games, only that it has more quests. Older games may have had more mob grinding (actually they did), they may have had more crafting, they may have had other activities (swg entertainer).
Just having more of one feature that is solo, doesn't mean the overal game is more solo.
SWG entertainer required interaction from other players, if I'm remembering correctly. Also, crafting to put in your vendor or to actually sell to another play is not an example of solo content. In the case of UO, it was the opposite. Crafting was a very social aspect of the game.
The point about quests is if you say questing is an example of solo content, and questing is far more prevalent now, then that's an indiciation that games are more solo-oriented.
Interacting with lots of other players is the opposite of solo content. Having a lot of instances, streamlined auction houses, no unwarranted player interaction (ow pvp, clipping, stealing, etc) are all a shift away from the MM part of MMORPG and towards more solo-oriented play, or co-op play.
Vendoring/selling is seperate from crafting. I can craft by myself all day long. Selling requires interaction. Crafting can very much be a solo activity.
No just because questing is more prevalent and questing is a solo content does not mean that the game is more solo-orientied, you are making an assumption about all the other activities with that statement. It may or may not be true.
Instances are group oriented, the opposite of solo.
I said more quests is an indication that the game is more solo-oriented, not that it is definitely solo-oriented. You said quests are an example of solo player. I said modern mmos have more of an emphasis on quests. Problem?
In a lot of games crafting requires the funds to continue crafting. So in that case selling your crafted items helps you to craft more. How the game is set up is what matters.
You're confused again. The preference debate started by me responding to one of Narius' many posts that hold up an individual's preference to godlike status. He loves to point out that the only thing that matters is the individual's preference. I'm saying that's bullshit. The individual may be misinformed, or biased. Not only preferences are created equal because they may turn out to be wrong. You may have preferred something over another thing because of a personal bias, bad information, etc. That doesn't mean you didn't prefer it. It means your preference wasn't very valid, which is my point.
Can I say I prefer UO over WoW? What if I've never played WoW? What if I only played it a little? What if I played it when I was drunk? What if I never played it, but somebody explained it to me?
Your requirements for what we consider an actual preference or not are either too strict, or arbitrary. It's not a strawman.
The preferences are all equal. The opinion is not. They are different.
The strawman was your assertion about it being impossible to have complete knowledge. You don't need complete knowledge - therefore it is a strawman argument.
Then what do you need? If you don't need complete knowledge of both things to have a valid preference for one over the other, then what do you need? You seem to think you're qualified to say what DOESN'T count as a preference; what DOES count as a preference? Like I said, the way you're using the word seems to paint you into a corner of the definition either being arbitrary or too strict to be used in practice.
Here's what it actually means: you choose something over another thing when given the opportunity to have either. And that's why I say that not all preferences are created equal You can prefer something on incomplete or inaccurate data.
But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
Ok. So? This doesn't mean that the modern era has more or less solo content than older games, only that it has more quests. Older games may have had more mob grinding (actually they did), they may have had more crafting, they may have had other activities (swg entertainer).
Just having more of one feature that is solo, doesn't mean the overal game is more solo.
SWG entertainer required interaction from other players, if I'm remembering correctly. Also, crafting to put in your vendor or to actually sell to another play is not an example of solo content. In the case of UO, it was the opposite. Crafting was a very social aspect of the game.
The point about quests is if you say questing is an example of solo content, and questing is far more prevalent now, then that's an indiciation that games are more solo-oriented.
Interacting with lots of other players is the opposite of solo content. Having a lot of instances, streamlined auction houses, no unwarranted player interaction (ow pvp, clipping, stealing, etc) are all a shift away from the MM part of MMORPG and towards more solo-oriented play, or co-op play.
Vendoring/selling is seperate from crafting. I can craft by myself all day long. Selling requires interaction. Crafting can very much be a solo activity.
No just because questing is more prevalent and questing is a solo content does not mean that the game is more solo-orientied, you are making an assumption about all the other activities with that statement. It may or may not be true.
Instances are group oriented, the opposite of solo.
I said more quests is an indication that the game is more solo-oriented, not that it is definitely solo-oriented. You said quests are an example of solo player. I said modern mmos have more of an emphasis on quests. Problem?
In a lot of games crafting requires the funds to continue crafting. So in that case selling your crafted items helps you to craft more. How the game is set up is what matters.
Thats fine.
I said quests are not an indication the game is more solo oriented as it is only one feature in a whole package of features. It is the entirety of features that determine whether a game is is more or less solo-oriented.
yes how the game is set up matters, no one is arguing this. In fact it would go to the first point, one feature in a whole package of features does not necessarily determine whether a game is more or less solo-oriented.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Here was the actual question:
"What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made?"
It's pretty simple. Us "both ways in the snow" guys aren't just speaking from a perspective of rose colored glasses when we say such and such was an amazing game. OF COURSE our favorite game is going to be an older one because the vast majority of possible candidates for best game ever are older.
I may have been a bit simplistic in just saying graphics. I should have made it clear that I mean whatever technical limitations there were at the time. The response to this is similar to what I just explained above.
Yes, you're right that you can increase your playerbase by adding content, which is different from fixing unobjectionable problems. It's conceivable (just not feasible) to have 30 different games essentially under the same name. However in practice what happens is features differ from game to game. It's not just a question of which game has the most content. Often content conflicts with people's preferences. For instance, adding an auction house takes away from some social aspects of the player economy.
I never said taste buds can't change. I'm saying in this particular case that isn't what's happening. His preference for the taste of mustard over the taste of ketchup as invalid, he just didn't know it. At this point you're just being pedantic. What we're talking about is people's expressed preferences. What comes out of their mouth may not perfectly match reality, but what comes out of their mouth is what we're talking about.
Let's revisit my brother's tastes. Let's say our cousin had never tasted ketchup or mustard. He asks my brother and I what we prefer. I say I prefer ketchup, my brother says he prefers mustard. If my cousin finds out that my brother has never tasted ketchup, should he treat his preference the same way he treats mine?
That's the situation we have on these forums. If you want to nit pick about the wording, have fun arguing with yourself. But keep in mind that other definitions of the word prefer include things like "tends to choose." Also keep in mind that I'm not the only person using the word "preference" in place of "expressed preference."
Then you're not taking issue with anything I've said. Take it to the guy who said he doesn't see the problem with modern MMOs adding more solo content.
However, you're wrong about UO. At no point in that game (pre-trammel) could it be considered solo content. You were literally always potentially in contact with other players. The main ways to have solo content in an MMO are instances, and turning off ow pvp or player interaction (like clipping). In those ways, it seems modern MMOs have indeed added way more solo content.
what people call a preference may or may not be a prefernce. Someone who does not have experience is not expressing a preference, again no matter what they say. That is not pedantic, it is a fundamental flaw in communication.
And others have said they didn't need anyone else in UO.
No. The main ways to have solo content in an MMO is not by instances or by turning off pvp, those are just 2 ways.
In the past they did not call it solo or group content, they just called it content. You could attempt it solo, you could attempt it grouped. And many many many did do it solo.
Instances weren't added for the solo content - it was added to get rid of the camp, tell a better story, and control the game more.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the anthesis of the solo content that is pervasive in modern MMOs which almost always takes the form of an instance.
Thats fine.
The way I've always perceived the discussion around these parts is that an open, social, virtual world is the type of game thats lets people choose how they want to play, solo or grouped. And today's games have really just as much grouping as old games, just not necessarily for the same activities. Instancing in games very rarely is solo content, the instancing is almost entirely dungeons and raids - the exact opposite of solo content.
The solo content is typically quests.
No, it's pedantic. It's pedantic because you're picking on the word usage and not the message. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the term. You're also using the most strict definition possible. Here's another one:
" The selecting of someone or something over another or others."
How does my point not fit into this defintion?
I'm not sure if you know you're doing it but you come off as quite smarmy when you use people's exact wording in your own point.
At any rate, I think if you ask people what they mean by solo content, they'll respond by referencing instancing. The ability to cut yourself off from the rest of the community. But you're right, questing is another form of solo content. It's also something that is far more widespread now than it was before.
I've never had any problems telling a good mmorpg from a bad. If it is good it should create a living breathing world, an alternate reality if you will, that makes you want to visit it again and again. It doesn't have to have the most advanced engine or the slickest graphics to do this. Such games often have "loose" rules, a lot of things to do and encourages social interaction.
Many modern games are the opposite. The trail is already set in stone, from the first time you log in to max level. The human interactions not only occur less often, when they do they are more transitory in nature compared to older games. You don't make "friends" in the same way that you used to. New games are more and more becoming a lobby to this or that instanced activity. It can still be a fun game but it is no longer a mmorpg because it has sacrificed the living breathing world, the one thing a mmorpg should never compromise with if it want to be called that.
No it's not pedantic because if someone has a preference for something that means they have knowledge of both, or knowledge of what it is they prefer. If they don't have that knowledge it is not a preference, merely a blind choice, or a choice based on an incorrect assumption.
That is not significantly different from what I stated. And the free online dictionary that you got that from is the only one that give sthat.
In fact that is a poor definition because people often deliberately choose things they don't like or don't want, it is not their preference.
https://www.google.com/search?q=preference+defintion
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preference
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preference
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/preference
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/preference
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/preference
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/preference
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/preference
Of all those, only one said it was merely the choosing. A poor definition and not one most people think of when saying I prefer...
What game has instances that were designed to have people solo?
The idea is not to be smarmy, I apologize if it comes off that way. The idea is to show that our perception is not reality, so we can use the exact same phrasing to describe the completely opposite situation. So if we believe something to be true we should have more than just our perception of it, and to ask ourselves do we have a bias for that, and then why we have that, leading to is that correct.
This is something i absolutely miss and you're spot on.
Trying to either solo or low man open world bosses normally designed for an alliance/raid was so much fun. Of course it stunk for everyone else having to watch after wasting hours or days of their lives camping said boss. Finding some sort of balance between these would be great.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preference
"a. The selecting of someone or something over another or others.
b. The right or chance to so choose.
c. Someone or something so chosen."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preference
"a feeling of liking or wanting one person or thing more than another person or thing"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prefer
"tend to choose"
You're basically saying "I'm not being pedantic because I'm right."
First of all, you're not right. Definitions for prefer/preference are not in conflict with my post.
Second, even if you were technically correct (you're not), it would still be pedantic because in the context of this debate you have nothing to say. The word preference in this case is obviously talking about people's expressed preference. What they say they prefer. You nit picking word usage is a waste of time. Not only that, I'm not the only one using the word like that.
Third, using your strict definition of the word, basically nobody could ever use it. You could never say you prefer anything over another thing because you will never have complete knowledge of either. This is why you're being pedantic.
I think older mmos seemed better because we had no expectations.
I don't tend to play games with instances. But I do think the term solo is loosely used. For instance, if it's not massively multiplayer, it's more solo-oriented. The ability to cut off the rest of the world in the case of instancing is more solo-oriented. It's not as social. That's why right off the bat I clarified that I'm taking solo content to basically be the antithesis of an open, social virtual world.
But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
Once again, wanting something is very different from choosing something. Wanting is the preference, choosing that may be based on the preference, choosing may be based on something else.
And no I disagree that this debate is about people's expressed prefernce, you have chosen to say that, this is about people's actual preference. And you have presented this whole thign by saying they they likely choose new ones because either they didn't know about them (which is totally arogant and in this day and age where WoW is almost a decade old, largely untrue now) or didn't like the grahpics - very very weak arguments and largely false.
And no most people do think preference corresponds to what people actually like. You don't need to have complete knowledge to have a preference, you do need to have some knowledg - a strawman argument.. You cannot prefer somethign over another if you don't know the other-
Ok. So? This doesn't mean that the modern era has more or less solo content than older games, only that it has more quests. Older games may have had more mob grinding (actually they did), they may have had more crafting, they may have had other activities (swg entertainer).
Just having more of one feature that is solo, doesn't mean the overal game is more solo.
I still think the original post is quite silly and as narrow as this underlined part quoted written previously.
This.
You're confused again. The preference debate started by me responding to one of Narius' many posts that hold up an individual's preference to godlike status. He loves to point out that the only thing that matters is the individual's preference. I'm saying that's bullshit. The individual may be misinformed, or biased. Not only preferences are created equal because they may turn out to be wrong. You may have preferred something over another thing because of a personal bias, bad information, etc. That doesn't mean you didn't prefer it. It means your preference wasn't very valid, which is my point.
Can I say I prefer UO over WoW? What if I've never played WoW? What if I only played it a little? What if I played it when I was drunk? What if I never played it, but somebody explained it to me?
Your requirements for what we consider an actual preference or not are either too strict, or arbitrary. It's not a strawman.
SWG entertainer required interaction from other players, if I'm remembering correctly. Also, crafting to put in your vendor or to actually sell to another play is not an example of solo content. In the case of UO, it was the opposite. Crafting was a very social aspect of the game.
The point about quests is if you say questing is an example of solo content, and questing is far more prevalent now, then that's an indiciation that games are more solo-oriented.
Interacting with lots of other players is the opposite of solo content. Having a lot of instances, streamlined auction houses, no unwarranted player interaction (ow pvp, clipping, stealing, etc) are all a shift away from the MM part of MMORPG and towards more solo-oriented play, or co-op play.
Vendoring/selling is seperate from crafting. I can craft by myself all day long. Selling requires interaction. Crafting can very much be a solo activity.
No just because questing is more prevalent and questing is a solo content does not mean that the game is more solo-orientied, you are making an assumption about all the other activities with that statement. It may or may not be true.
Instances are group oriented, the opposite of solo.
The preferences are all equal. The opinion is not. They are different.
The strawman was your assertion about it being impossible to have complete knowledge. You don't need complete knowledge - therefore it is a strawman argument.
I said more quests is an indication that the game is more solo-oriented, not that it is definitely solo-oriented. You said quests are an example of solo player. I said modern mmos have more of an emphasis on quests. Problem?
In a lot of games crafting requires the funds to continue crafting. So in that case selling your crafted items helps you to craft more. How the game is set up is what matters.
Then what do you need? If you don't need complete knowledge of both things to have a valid preference for one over the other, then what do you need? You seem to think you're qualified to say what DOESN'T count as a preference; what DOES count as a preference? Like I said, the way you're using the word seems to paint you into a corner of the definition either being arbitrary or too strict to be used in practice.
Here's what it actually means: you choose something over another thing when given the opportunity to have either. And that's why I say that not all preferences are created equal You can prefer something on incomplete or inaccurate data.
Thats fine.
I said quests are not an indication the game is more solo oriented as it is only one feature in a whole package of features. It is the entirety of features that determine whether a game is is more or less solo-oriented.
yes how the game is set up matters, no one is arguing this. In fact it would go to the first point, one feature in a whole package of features does not necessarily determine whether a game is more or less solo-oriented.