He's saying that when your (general "you") grandparents were young, the things they liked were considered horrible and world ending by old people. And when you play video games (any video game) old people think that video games are a colossal waste of time and that your entire generation is filled with worthless losers who play video games.
YET, the sun still rises. The next day comes. You still enjoyed those video games.
And when your old and moldy, you're going to hate something that young people are doing. And they're still going to enjoy it.
In your eyes, you see lower quality. In other people's eyes, they see fun and great experiences.
Let's say society banned sex, and let's say the new generation of young people enjoyed pleasuring themselves instead. Would the older generation just be a bunch of old farts for suggesting the young generation was missing out on something?
Isn't it so that it is not necessarily the case that the young generation is always right? Perhaps in a society that is evolving and generally moving in the right direction that may be more or less true. But what about in a society that is going in the wrong direction? Were the Nazi youth right for being so enthusiastic about their enterprise? Were the old people just "old farts" for being dismayed at the state of their youth?
A society is a context, and a gaming genre is also a context. If the gaming genre as a whole is going in the wrong direction, isn't like when a society was going in the wrong direction? In that case, how can the young generation be trusted as automatically being right just because they are young?
Or are we just throwing up our relativist hands and saying nothing matters? There is no such thing as good or bad, quality or lack thereof, it is only perception that counts?
Perhaps the context matters. If we are talking about modern media, then a young person's insights might be the trail to follow. If we are talking about cooking, maybe grandma knows a bit more than Miley Cyrus.
Look, video games are new for humanity, thus they have naturally become associated with young people. I wonder if novels were also associated with young people immediately after the invention of the printing press.
This is a joke right? You've been sent to these forums to pull everyone's leg.
Of course context matters, but you can't apply a past context to a current generation. That's egocentrism. And perception counts a great deal, because perception is what creates the context, a group/society/generation's perception of things is what creates the context they're built around. Not vice versa.
No one is throwing up their hands and saying nothing matters, you can't possibly be this obtuse. We're specifically saying that just because YOU thought a specific time in gaming was the best, does not make it so. Nor does it mean that others find value in what you find value.
Think of the Beatles; largely considered one of the greatest bands in human civilization's history. There was a time when parents thought it was literally (yes literally) devil's music and that it was complete and utter trash. And those parents legitimately believed that what they grew up with was so far superior that their children should abandon "Rock and Roll" in favor of it.
That's how you sound. You're not leaving any room to believe that maybe, the games you liked aren't actually something people today would like. That's why you're being egocentric. You can't see past your own perspective. You think that the games you loved are so good, that of course everyone would love them if there were out today. It's a different time and place, tastes change, people's expectation change. I'm not saying that you can't love those games and think they're awesome. I'm saying that you are behaving like an old fogey unable to see that others don't necessarily share your views.
There's always someone who thinks that what you currently like is worse than what they had in their day. I'm really surprised you need this concept explained to you considering how many older people think things like texting, wearing jeans to work, spending time chatting on internet forums are the next bane of humanity. They can't fathom how someone might enjoy those things. And yet, here you are, being that person.
Nostalgia is a funny thing...it makes you think the past was better than it actually was.
No it makes people "remember" how great things really were.
All relative to the individual's taste. As stated by others, what one finds exciting and fun, or a classic, others may find dull or boring. I also agree the gaming industry is all about the money. But then, it's a business. Consequently, we will see more of what works, i.e. sells well, and less of what doesn't. Which brings me to the point of my original response...if things were so great, "back in the good old days", we would see similar features in new AAA titles. Money talks, my friend. It's the nature of the beast.
Originally posted by movindude the graphics get better but the game rules and play gets worse. I been waiting since EQ1 and still live in the dream land of hope that will never come. When you die there has to be a price to pay that involves time spent in the game.
Game play has gotten tremendously better and it's not even close. Seriously, combat in those older MMO's were and still are atrocious. Boss encounters have become much better as well thanks to improved combat.
It's everything else that has gotten worse. Smaller worlds, fewer classes, fewer roles, fewer weapon choices, smaller party sizes, smaller raids, less exploration, less danger, less interdependence, and of course lack of reputation meaning anything.
At the same time, i don't miss terrible RNG or camping world spawns one bit.
Look, video games are new for humanity, thus they have naturally become associated with young people. I wonder if novels were also associated with young people immediately after the invention of the printing press.
You bring up novels and they fit into the same issue games have. Ever tried to read moby dick ? Pretty painful.... The language they use, the overly dramatic style etc etc... I've been told many times how great the book is, it's a classic! ( and it is ) I've also been told what a bunch of trash books are now by those same people.
Thing is, I tried to get my nephew to read lord of the rings, thinking now that's a classic. He got bored and didn't finish it. He may be more interested in it as he gets older but by then he will have read other books that have borrowed from it and it wont be the same as when I first read it. I'd never read anything like it and it was all new to me, just like my first mmos were.
The same thing happens in games. Older games have that classic feel to people who played them and new games all seem like trash ( to some ). To a newer gamer that didn't play those games, they just see them as old games with crappy graphics. The new games that to them are not just bad copies of what the older gamer loves is their first love.
The same examples can be made in every type of entertainment.
Everything evolves and changes, there can be no doubt. Yet in every era some things rise to the top, others do not. The current period may have a different set of criteria, but they still recognize superior and inferior quality within the context of that period and its sets of values. Clothing styles, for example, are in constant flux. Yet whenever one is in the midst of a certain fashion, there are very definite good and bad ways of dressing in that fashion.
But what about clothing fashion in general? Covering all styles ever made? Are there not common themes that define good over bad clothing sense that carry through all periods and fads? Can I, despite having never lived in the 16th century, look at two paintings or two different women dressed and have a fairly accurate sense of which of the two had a better sense of style? If you play me two bands from the 60s era, one being the Beetles, the other some obscure band no one has ever heard of, will I be able to tell which of the two was generally considered better by their contemporaries?
I know the old games would suck today, I certainly wouldn't want to play them. So I too have left them behind. Then where did their magic come from? Was it a passing thing inherent in the period of time they were made, was it just that they fit me as a young person of that time like a hand to glove? Am I inherently incapable of enjoying a modern game simply because I was in my 20s a decade ago? Or is it possible a modern game could be made that would enthrall older gamers every bit as much as the old games did, despite being entirely a modern game?
In short, does what makes something a great work of art, or in our case a great game, transcend the time period in which it was made?
This is a joke right? You've been sent to these forums to pull everyone's leg.
Of course context matters, but you can't apply a past context to a current generation. That's egocentrism. And perception counts a great deal, because perception is what creates the context, a group/society/generation's perception of things is what creates the context they're built around. Not vice versa.
No one is throwing up their hands and saying nothing matters, you can't possibly be this obtuse. We're specifically saying that just because YOU thought a specific time in gaming was the best, does not make it so. Nor does it mean that others find value in what you find value.
Think of the Beatles; largely considered one of the greatest bands in human civilization's history. There was a time when parents thought it was literally (yes literally) devil's music and that it was complete and utter trash. And those parents legitimately believed that what they grew up with was so far superior that their children should abandon "Rock and Roll" in favor of it.
That's how you sound. You're not leaving any room to believe that maybe, the games you liked aren't actually something people today would like. That's why you're being egocentric. You can't see past your own perspective. You think that the games you loved are so good, that of course everyone would love them if there were out today. It's a different time and place, tastes change, people's expectation change. I'm not saying that you can't love those games and think they're awesome. I'm saying that you are behaving like an old fogey unable to see that others don't necessarily share your views.
There's always someone who thinks that what you currently like is worse than what they had in their day. I'm really surprised you need this concept explained to you considering how many older people think things like texting, wearing jeans to work, spending time chatting on internet forums are the next bane of humanity. They can't fathom how someone might enjoy those things. And yet, here you are, being that person.
There is no reason to be rude man and make up words that I never said and shove them in my mouth.
I just find this argument that older gamers prefer the old games simply because they are old farts . . . a very tired old argument. That isn't to say there isn't any truth in it, but it needs to be flushed out rather than just assumed.
And given that, according to people like Ray Kurzweil, aging itself will likely come to an end sometime this century, one has to wonder how long this whole paradigm you guys are talking about will even be valid. Who knows, we may be around for thousands of years arguing about games.
Sci-fi aside, we will all likely be here a few decades from now. If you are already talking about the games made a single decade ago as old, imagine what is in store. Either you are a gamer for a few years, or a gamer for life. If you are the later, then you need to find a way adjust, change, and flow with the direction of things . . . AND discover what it is about gaming that you love, that will carry you through decades of change. For, if what you love is merely dependent on the transient fad of the day, then in a few years you will need to give up gaming entirely. If what you are implying is true, that anyone who has been gaming for over a decade is suspect in their opinions whenever they suggest they preferred a game of the past just because they are old, then you too will be eating those words soon enough . . .
Cool discussions. I like seeing both sides of the fence, even though I am on one side.
Trust me, I hung on forever. I still play UO today. The population is just too small to have fun with the social aspect of it. I have not found another game to match it. Not because I am not open to games, but because they have not had the same features and were not capable of the meeting everything that game had inside of its little ugly 2D world of Sosaria.
I thought SWG was great. I thought the idea of playing for two years just trying to figure out how to become a Jedi was the shiz. I actually worked my way through Doctor, Bounty Hunter, and I started working on Commando and then they released Holocrons and things became a change environment. They started adding all kinds of things that started to make the game easy mode. It just pissed me off, so I quit.
I liked Vanguard and it had some serious potential, but it was buggy as hell. Crafting system and political system was above reproach and groundbreaking really. If it wasnt for the bugs and disconnects Id still be playing like I am in UO.
Lord of the Rings storyline quests were friggin sweet. Loved the storyline of the game. But once you were done with Storyline, what was there?
Aion... WoW! What a beautiful game. Flying was awesome and the quests were really WoW like, but flying really made this game for me. If it wasnt for all the bot controlled players running the same loop I might have stayed. Couldnt control the bots and it ruined it for me.
CoH.... Wow! Great concept. I thought the quests were redundant and it became ammoying. Debt made it even more annoying knowing you had to do more of those quests in a building with the same style over and over of killing people. It had a lot of great features though. Groundbreaking for sure.
WoW was a pretty decent game. Vanilla WoW anyways. Once they added HKs and BGs it became nothing more than a barren wasteland. Everyone was in an instance. At least before HKs and BGs us PvP players were in the World looking for a fight. Once they made it easy mode to find what you want and get rewarded for it, World PvP died and thuse became boring to me.
Global Agenda was pretty decent too. If they could have made a game with that style of combat in a virtual MMORPG, Oh wow!!! Would have loved it.
Darkfall was an alright game too. Buggy as hell, the devs didnt live to their promise and deliver the game to those of us who tested though and so I left. They promised something to the testers who helped shape the game and they didnt deliver and so I did not support them.
Mortal Online did have potential. No one gave it any time though to learn the game. I also helped test that, Good game with potential before they let in the masses of griefers.
I have played so many games and tested so many more that I am not really funny. Stargate Worlds was an amazing concept and their combat mode was really groundbreaking. They made some bad decisions and viola, no release. But I can tell you, that game would have been awesome if it had released as well.
Again, I can go through the myriad of games I have played and tell you that I have had a blast in my time of playing. I have found fun in even the easy give me give me give me games.
It just was never enough to keep me playing for long. I come, I conquer and I leave. Its just like playing Star Wars Unleashed for me. There's no social aspect, there's no real need for other people, and there's nothing that makes you want to play for years.
Games these days are created to attract you to get the initial purchase, have a little fun and move on to the next. They do not create games to KEEP players playing.
UO did and it's still going. They still have a decent player base for a game that probably takes two people to run it.
I played UO Forever and now I am on Zenvera because the devs at UO Forever were scum bags. That's how great that game was. Even after 15 years, I still play the stupid thing.
Can you say the same about Star Wars The Old Republic? Will you be playing that after 15 years? Will anyone for that matter? Why not? What is it lacking? Why would it not have content good enough to keep you playing for 15 years after all that money they have spent making it?
Im not saying the sky is falling and whoever said that didnt really read my post.
I said there's no future in MMORPGs for old gamers like me.
I want to socialize in a game. I want to barter and find someone who specializes in making armor or setting up shop. I want to band with the other nerds to fight off pricks that grief. I want to play alongside people and make friends. I still keep on contact with people from gaming and we have been friends for years because of gaming. How many games can you say have lead you to real life friendships these days?
Just not the same as it was and it never will be.
UO was the only game that brought all playstyles together.
We had crafters, socializers, PKs, PvPrs, PvErs, RPrs all together and everyone gathered together with like minded players to play their way and fight others that did not play their way. We will never have another UO; period.
Always a future for MMO's it might be a future without you in it mind you. But if you are a gamer you might find a different genre you enjoy. You will never find that 'Holy grail' unless it was something you made yourself, for the most part you find a game you enjoy and go from there and if it doesn't exist its time to move on to something else until it does.
Age of Wushu OP... Everything except the thieves (well there are scammers) and the taming of animals. Word is that taming is coming in the faction expansion.
MMORPG's as most of us on this site know them are close to extinction. The genre, like any health genre, is changing. Whether that is good or bad is up to you. Will you adapt? Personally I find it difficult adapting to the new 'MMO'. Games like Destiny and Division are were the genre is headed. They look promising and fun. However I will admit that there will indeed never be a 'UO' style game; we've got old UO and EVE to cover us though.
/played-mmorpgs
Total time played:9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
Originally posted by bcbully Age of Wushu OP... Everything except the thieves (well there are scammers) and the taming of animals. Word is that taming is coming in the faction expansion.
I played it for awhile. It's a fun game for sure too.
No housing Not a game breaker... not at all.
I played AoW for awhile. Here's where I started to hate it.
1st Internal to 2nd
2nd to 3rd
3rd to 4th
etc etc..
I enjoyed the game more when they didnt continue to add another internal and raise levels. I guess developing characters over and over and more and more is a new thing too. I enjoy developing a character, but not to the point where I am constantly doing so just to keep up with the people who power game.
Again, I have just grown picky in my old age. I love PvP and constantly having to move up and over the edge and new gear and new new new to develop and keep up with the power gamers, it just gets old.
I like the virtual world. Create a character no matter how long it takes, but have something other than leveling all the time keep people into the game.
I did like AoW before they continued adding more and more internals.
Now if someone made an offshoot of AoW and had 1st internals only. Oh yeah! Id be there. Everyone on equal ground able to fight for their schools? Hell yeah!
I have to disagree with the OP. At 37 - not old, but not young - I've played many of the old MMOs. Yes, the memory of them makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, but I see a bright future in MMOs. They seem to get better, not work.
Comments
This is a joke right? You've been sent to these forums to pull everyone's leg.
Of course context matters, but you can't apply a past context to a current generation. That's egocentrism. And perception counts a great deal, because perception is what creates the context, a group/society/generation's perception of things is what creates the context they're built around. Not vice versa.
No one is throwing up their hands and saying nothing matters, you can't possibly be this obtuse. We're specifically saying that just because YOU thought a specific time in gaming was the best, does not make it so. Nor does it mean that others find value in what you find value.
Think of the Beatles; largely considered one of the greatest bands in human civilization's history. There was a time when parents thought it was literally (yes literally) devil's music and that it was complete and utter trash. And those parents legitimately believed that what they grew up with was so far superior that their children should abandon "Rock and Roll" in favor of it.
That's how you sound. You're not leaving any room to believe that maybe, the games you liked aren't actually something people today would like. That's why you're being egocentric. You can't see past your own perspective. You think that the games you loved are so good, that of course everyone would love them if there were out today. It's a different time and place, tastes change, people's expectation change. I'm not saying that you can't love those games and think they're awesome. I'm saying that you are behaving like an old fogey unable to see that others don't necessarily share your views.
There's always someone who thinks that what you currently like is worse than what they had in their day. I'm really surprised you need this concept explained to you considering how many older people think things like texting, wearing jeans to work, spending time chatting on internet forums are the next bane of humanity. They can't fathom how someone might enjoy those things. And yet, here you are, being that person.
All relative to the individual's taste. As stated by others, what one finds exciting and fun, or a classic, others may find dull or boring. I also agree the gaming industry is all about the money. But then, it's a business. Consequently, we will see more of what works, i.e. sells well, and less of what doesn't. Which brings me to the point of my original response...if things were so great, "back in the good old days", we would see similar features in new AAA titles. Money talks, my friend. It's the nature of the beast.
Game play has gotten tremendously better and it's not even close. Seriously, combat in those older MMO's were and still are atrocious. Boss encounters have become much better as well thanks to improved combat.
It's everything else that has gotten worse. Smaller worlds, fewer classes, fewer roles, fewer weapon choices, smaller party sizes, smaller raids, less exploration, less danger, less interdependence, and of course lack of reputation meaning anything.
At the same time, i don't miss terrible RNG or camping world spawns one bit.
Everything evolves and changes, there can be no doubt. Yet in every era some things rise to the top, others do not. The current period may have a different set of criteria, but they still recognize superior and inferior quality within the context of that period and its sets of values. Clothing styles, for example, are in constant flux. Yet whenever one is in the midst of a certain fashion, there are very definite good and bad ways of dressing in that fashion.
But what about clothing fashion in general? Covering all styles ever made? Are there not common themes that define good over bad clothing sense that carry through all periods and fads? Can I, despite having never lived in the 16th century, look at two paintings or two different women dressed and have a fairly accurate sense of which of the two had a better sense of style?
If you play me two bands from the 60s era, one being the Beetles, the other some obscure band no one has ever heard of, will I be able to tell which of the two was generally considered better by their contemporaries?
I know the old games would suck today, I certainly wouldn't want to play them. So I too have left them behind. Then where did their magic come from? Was it a passing thing inherent in the period of time they were made, was it just that they fit me as a young person of that time like a hand to glove? Am I inherently incapable of enjoying a modern game simply because I was in my 20s a decade ago? Or is it possible a modern game could be made that would enthrall older gamers every bit as much as the old games did, despite being entirely a modern game?
In short, does what makes something a great work of art, or in our case a great game, transcend the time period in which it was made?
There is no reason to be rude man and make up words that I never said and shove them in my mouth.
I just find this argument that older gamers prefer the old games simply because they are old farts . . . a very tired old argument. That isn't to say there isn't any truth in it, but it needs to be flushed out rather than just assumed.
And given that, according to people like Ray Kurzweil, aging itself will likely come to an end sometime this century, one has to wonder how long this whole paradigm you guys are talking about will even be valid. Who knows, we may be around for thousands of years arguing about games.
Sci-fi aside, we will all likely be here a few decades from now. If you are already talking about the games made a single decade ago as old, imagine what is in store. Either you are a gamer for a few years, or a gamer for life. If you are the later, then you need to find a way adjust, change, and flow with the direction of things . . . AND discover what it is about gaming that you love, that will carry you through decades of change. For, if what you love is merely dependent on the transient fad of the day, then in a few years you will need to give up gaming entirely. If what you are implying is true, that anyone who has been gaming for over a decade is suspect in their opinions whenever they suggest they preferred a game of the past just because they are old, then you too will be eating those words soon enough . . .
Cool discussions. I like seeing both sides of the fence, even though I am on one side.
Trust me, I hung on forever. I still play UO today. The population is just too small to have fun with the social aspect of it. I have not found another game to match it. Not because I am not open to games, but because they have not had the same features and were not capable of the meeting everything that game had inside of its little ugly 2D world of Sosaria.
I thought SWG was great. I thought the idea of playing for two years just trying to figure out how to become a Jedi was the shiz. I actually worked my way through Doctor, Bounty Hunter, and I started working on Commando and then they released Holocrons and things became a change environment. They started adding all kinds of things that started to make the game easy mode. It just pissed me off, so I quit.
I liked Vanguard and it had some serious potential, but it was buggy as hell. Crafting system and political system was above reproach and groundbreaking really. If it wasnt for the bugs and disconnects Id still be playing like I am in UO.
Lord of the Rings storyline quests were friggin sweet. Loved the storyline of the game. But once you were done with Storyline, what was there?
Aion... WoW! What a beautiful game. Flying was awesome and the quests were really WoW like, but flying really made this game for me. If it wasnt for all the bot controlled players running the same loop I might have stayed. Couldnt control the bots and it ruined it for me.
CoH.... Wow! Great concept. I thought the quests were redundant and it became ammoying. Debt made it even more annoying knowing you had to do more of those quests in a building with the same style over and over of killing people. It had a lot of great features though. Groundbreaking for sure.
WoW was a pretty decent game. Vanilla WoW anyways. Once they added HKs and BGs it became nothing more than a barren wasteland. Everyone was in an instance. At least before HKs and BGs us PvP players were in the World looking for a fight. Once they made it easy mode to find what you want and get rewarded for it, World PvP died and thuse became boring to me.
Global Agenda was pretty decent too. If they could have made a game with that style of combat in a virtual MMORPG, Oh wow!!! Would have loved it.
Darkfall was an alright game too. Buggy as hell, the devs didnt live to their promise and deliver the game to those of us who tested though and so I left. They promised something to the testers who helped shape the game and they didnt deliver and so I did not support them.
Mortal Online did have potential. No one gave it any time though to learn the game. I also helped test that, Good game with potential before they let in the masses of griefers.
I have played so many games and tested so many more that I am not really funny. Stargate Worlds was an amazing concept and their combat mode was really groundbreaking. They made some bad decisions and viola, no release. But I can tell you, that game would have been awesome if it had released as well.
Again, I can go through the myriad of games I have played and tell you that I have had a blast in my time of playing. I have found fun in even the easy give me give me give me games.
It just was never enough to keep me playing for long. I come, I conquer and I leave. Its just like playing Star Wars Unleashed for me. There's no social aspect, there's no real need for other people, and there's nothing that makes you want to play for years.
Games these days are created to attract you to get the initial purchase, have a little fun and move on to the next. They do not create games to KEEP players playing.
UO did and it's still going. They still have a decent player base for a game that probably takes two people to run it.
I played UO Forever and now I am on Zenvera because the devs at UO Forever were scum bags. That's how great that game was. Even after 15 years, I still play the stupid thing.
Can you say the same about Star Wars The Old Republic? Will you be playing that after 15 years? Will anyone for that matter? Why not? What is it lacking? Why would it not have content good enough to keep you playing for 15 years after all that money they have spent making it?
Im not saying the sky is falling and whoever said that didnt really read my post.
I said there's no future in MMORPGs for old gamers like me.
I want to socialize in a game. I want to barter and find someone who specializes in making armor or setting up shop. I want to band with the other nerds to fight off pricks that grief. I want to play alongside people and make friends. I still keep on contact with people from gaming and we have been friends for years because of gaming. How many games can you say have lead you to real life friendships these days?
Just not the same as it was and it never will be.
UO was the only game that brought all playstyles together.
We had crafters, socializers, PKs, PvPrs, PvErs, RPrs all together and everyone gathered together with like minded players to play their way and fight others that did not play their way. We will never have another UO; period.
MMORPG's as most of us on this site know them are close to extinction. The genre, like any health genre, is changing. Whether that is good or bad is up to you. Will you adapt? Personally I find it difficult adapting to the new 'MMO'. Games like Destiny and Division are were the genre is headed. They look promising and fun. However I will admit that there will indeed never be a 'UO' style game; we've got old UO and EVE to cover us though.
Total time played: 9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds
Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
I played it for awhile. It's a fun game for sure too.
No housing
Not a game breaker... not at all.
I played AoW for awhile. Here's where I started to hate it.
1st Internal to 2nd
2nd to 3rd
3rd to 4th
etc etc..
I enjoyed the game more when they didnt continue to add another internal and raise levels. I guess developing characters over and over and more and more is a new thing too. I enjoy developing a character, but not to the point where I am constantly doing so just to keep up with the people who power game.
Again, I have just grown picky in my old age. I love PvP and constantly having to move up and over the edge and new gear and new new new to develop and keep up with the power gamers, it just gets old.
I like the virtual world. Create a character no matter how long it takes, but have something other than leveling all the time keep people into the game.
I did like AoW before they continued adding more and more internals.
Now if someone made an offshoot of AoW and had 1st internals only. Oh yeah! Id be there. Everyone on equal ground able to fight for their schools? Hell yeah!
A great list of free games (mostly MMORPGs): http://www.mytop10games.com/