Originally posted by Morv 

What is FE? I'm curious about it now ;)

Fallen Earth, a post acopalyptic game made by Icarus a small Indy company. Its not anti thempark, it has like 5500 quests in it at launch, the point is just that they have made a gameworld where quests are nice and fun but its not _the_ game and just something you can do to create variation. To take an example in FE a typical quest reward equals maybe the same as killing 3 mobs or find a car to salvage, compare that to AoC or CO where a quest typically equals 3-400 mobs in reward. 

Game is a gem, a rough uncut gem (it has performance problems) but still a gem.

Just be prepared for things taking time . . . . a LOT of time. For example it takes 135 hours of research to learn to make your first Dune Buggy. Now I plan to learn to make diesel engines and learn to make bio diesel because its easier to find plants to make into bio diesel than it is to find petrochemical leftovers from before the fall.

What I think a lot of people don't understand about the old-timers is that we don't necessarily want UO to come back. All we want is some of the better features of UO to come back and even after 12 years no MMOG developer has had the balls to do it. All those things the OP mentions like housing and vendors, runebooks and teleporting, and some aspects of environment AI. Those things would be just as enjoyable to the new-comers as they were to the old-timers. The biggest difference is that the old-timers experienced the joy of these features and the new-comers haven't.

Originally posted by afoaa

Originally posted by Morv 

What is FE? I'm curious about it now ;)

Fallen Earth, a post acopalyptic game made by Icarus a small Indy company. Its not anti thempark, it has like 5500 quests in it at launch, the point is just that they have made a gameworld where quests are nice and fun but its not _the_ game and just something you can do to create variation. To take an example in FE a typical quest reward equals maybe the same as killing 3 mobs or find a car to salvage, compare that to AoC or CO where a quest typically equals 3-400 mobs in reward. 

Game is a gem, a rough uncut gem (it has performance problems) but still a gem.

Just be prepared for things taking time . . . . a LOT of time. For example it takes 135 hours of research to learn to make your first Dune Buggy. Now I plan to learn to make diesel engines and learn to make bio diesel because its easier to find plants to make into bio diesel than it is to find petrochemical leftovers from before the fall.

It didn't occur to me that FE was Fallen Earth, I beta tested it.

Originally posted by Aganazer

What I think a lot of people don't understand about the old-timers is that we don't necessarily want UO to come back. All we want is some of the better features of UO to come back and even after 12 years no MMOG developer has had the balls to do it. All those things the OP mentions like housing and vendors, runebooks and teleporting, and some aspects of environment AI. Those things would be just as enjoyable to the new-comers as they were to the old-timers. The biggest difference is that the old-timers experienced the joy of these features and the new-comers haven't.

I agree completely. We as a community can like more than just one type of game.

Okay, so pick your single-player RPG of choice. Mine is KoToR. Now if a company created a MMO like KoToR, but gave me the ability to play it online with others, would I hate it just because it is a "themepark" MMO? No, I'd love it, because KoToR has an awesome story and gameplay. The fact that I could play it with others makes it even better, if those others are mature and respectful adults. Now thing along these lines when you think of WoW, LoTRO and so on. WoW's story is more behind the scenes and barried in raids, but the story is there. LoTRO is more obvious about it's story, although a lot is behind the scenes as well. Turbine does a good job advancing the story through updates and expansions. Bioware is creating SWTOR, which promises to evolve the genre to what I described above in my KoToR example. So instead of playing single-player RPG's, people will now be able to play RPG's with good stories online, and can share their experiences with other people when they so choose. It isn't forced grouping, and I'm not talking about Coop games either, like NWN's multiplayer mode. I mean a persistent world where there's a great story line, with group content and purpose, and the ability to trade goods.

Now there's still value in the "sandbox" MMO, because entertainment in this kind of MMO isn't based around playing through a story, like a "themepark" MMO is. It's a different type of entertainment, not a superior type. It's like comparing an empire building RTS game to a storybased RPG. They are both fun, but are fun for different reasons. I'd have a blast playing a game where I can build a  city with other players that has the potential of being destroyed by enemy players. It'd be fun to pick and choose skills I want to specialize in, instead of picking a class that tells me my role. It'd be fun to be able to war with other players when I choose to, wherever I choose to, instead of in arenas and battlegrounds. It'd be fun to be fully equipped in gear that other players make and sell in the city through merchant stalls, rather than the impersonal method of AH's.

Both types of games are fun, but for different reasons. I would play both types of games honestly, granted a "sandbox" game will last as long as there is something to spend time doing, whereas "themepark" games are pretty much over after you've completed the story.

Originally posted by nate1980

Okay, so pick your single-player RPG of choice. Mine is KoToR. Now if a company created a MMO like KoToR, but gave me the ability to play it online with others, would I hate it just because it is a "themepark" MMO? No, I'd love it, because KoToR has an awesome story and gameplay. The fact that I could play it with others makes it even better, if those others are mature and respectful adults. Now thing along these lines when you think of WoW, LoTRO and so on. WoW's story is more behind the scenes and barried in raids, but the story is there. LoTRO is more obvious about it's story, although a lot is behind the scenes as well. Turbine does a good job advancing the story through updates and expansions. Bioware is creating SWTOR, which promises to evolve the genre to what I described above in my KoToR example. So instead of playing single-player RPG's, people will now be able to play RPG's with good stories online, and can share their experiences with other people when they so choose. It isn't forced grouping, and I'm not talking about Coop games either, like NWN's multiplayer mode. I mean a persistent world where there's a great story line, with group content and purpose, and the ability to trade goods.

Now there's still value in the "sandbox" MMO, because entertainment in this kind of MMO isn't based around playing through a story, like a "themepark" MMO is. It's a different type of entertainment, not a superior type. It's like comparing an empire building RTS game to a storybased RPG. They are both fun, but are fun for different reasons. I'd have a blast playing a game where I can build a  city with other players that has the potential of being destroyed by enemy players. It'd be fun to pick and choose skills I want to specialize in, instead of picking a class that tells me my role. It'd be fun to be able to war with other players when I choose to, wherever I choose to, instead of in arenas and battlegrounds. It'd be fun to be fully equipped in gear that other players make and sell in the city through merchant stalls, rather than the impersonal method of AH's.

Both types of games are fun, but for different reasons. I would play both types of games honestly, granted a "sandbox" game will last as long as there is something to spend time doing, whereas "themepark" games are pretty much over after you've completed the story.

Would you agree that the market has been saturated with cookie cutter Online Games?

Originally posted by Morv

I think that perception  of MMORPGs as certainly been rifted by the different kinds that have come out, but honestly, it seems that there is really only two kinds out there. The persistent and the not persistent.

At this point, WoW is immensely popular and rightly so but it is not a persistent game and therefore not an MMORPG.

The implementation of an MMORPG seems to determine whether it will be entertaining to anyone. We all know that launch is important, stability is important, because without those there is no option of fun in the game.

I see no reason why what was delivered with World of Warcraft can not be delivered in an actual persistent MMORPG. I think it is possible and I believe it can be successful.

Morv,

You keep going on about a persistent world, yet you seem to of defined that word on your own. The definition of that word as applied to MMO's, the way I've read it defined officially in the past, is a world where your character enters the world just as he left it; where events and things go on while you are offline, such as players doing their thing. So basically, there is no save option to load up when you make a mistake, you have to live with those mistakes. The game is still being played while you're offline, making the game persistent.

That's always been the official definition for me, and making up your own definition isn't going to change that. I'd give you a quote if I had one handy, but since this is a gaming forum, I don't see the reward of you agreeing with me worth the effort of tracking the definition down.

Overall instances and AH's are the least of the problems.

Wow is fine. I would prefer a rehashed DAoC. WoW will do until ToR comes out or until there is a new game that recaptures DAoC minus the annoying botters.

Well to me it seems WoW derailed the train but instead of the train crashing the shit just made it own track and started to go sideways which means its moving but along the lines of destruction and more of the same out shit.

Grind, lvl, max, pvp, bored, new game, rinse and repeat.

the thing alot of people on this forum have yet to realize is the vast majority of mmo players actually prefer game styles such as WoW. The genre is advancing its just going where the money and the majority of players are at. Sorry but unless everyone suddenly changes their mind nothing will change.

Originally posted by Morv

I'd like to refocus the topic.

The online games we see today, in my opinion, are not MMORPGs, nor are they persistent online games like older games.

It is true that often when we discover something that works that lots of effort and time are put in to both copy and improve that concept. That's fine for a while, but the market is already saturated with these kinds of games.

I feel it is time to move on and to re-discover an actual persistent MMORPG.

Who are you to define what a genre is? You are defining a MMORPG by your own terms, because you feel you have a right to since you played one of the first few released MMORPGs. The first or first few of anything doesn't necessarily define what that thing is. Take humans for example, would you define yourself based off of a human born 10k years ago? What about a car made in the early 1900's versus a car now? The genre is defined by itself as it grows. What you see is what the genre now is. You can say these games aren't MMO's, but I'd call that being in denial, due to your inability to cope with how the genre has evolved since its roots.

I mean, hell, even words have different meanings and gain extra meanings as time goes on. What makes MMORPG's so special as not to evolve in meaning?

Originally posted by Frostbite05

the thing alot of people on this forum have yet to realize is the vast majority of mmo players actually prefer game styles such as WoW. The genre is advancing its just going where the money and the majority of players are at. Sorry but unless everyone suddenly changes their mind nothing will change.

This.

Originally posted by Eben

Originally posted by sevitoth

If reading a forum made me as unhappy as you appear to be, I would probably stop reading that forum....

Who are you to come here on these forums and tell us what to talk about? If you don't like the discussions on this forum then maybe you should find another forum. It's not all about you....

 

I'm not unhappy.  I'm at work, and *bored*.  Reading the same threads, again and again. 

I'll answer the question in this thread, quite easily;  whatever happened to MMORPGS?  The people that played them from the beginning never left the basement, and are bitter about it.  The genre moved on, became mainstream and accessible to those that have lives away from a keyboard, and the 'old-timers' can't stand it.  The 'old-timers' had their little virtual worlds invaded by normal people, and don't know how to react.  So, they sit, remembering games for them, by them, comprised of them, unable to recapture that magic they felt when they first logged into something new.

Guess what.  That's GONE.  It's not coming back, and the genre will never go back in that direction.  People don't play MMOs nowdays  to be in some rich, immersive world...because they already live in a REAL rich and immersive world.  And I, for one, don't play -games- so I can have a second, non-paying job that takes up all the rest of my free time.  MMOs are pass-times now, and I'm glad companies like Blizzard came along and dragged the genre out of the basement .

^ This guy has a lot of truth in what he says, although he is brutal about it. Look past the aggressive tone he uses, for the truth that lies within his post.

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Frostbite05

the thing alot of people on this forum have yet to realize is the vast majority of mmo players actually prefer game styles such as WoW. The genre is advancing its just going where the money and the majority of players are at. Sorry but unless everyone suddenly changes their mind nothing will change.

 

This.

Okay, but it doesn't make any sense. The majority of beer drinkers seem to prefer Miller Light, but there is still a healthy market for Bass and Samuel Adams (and thank god for it!). There is plenty of room in this market for some quality micro-breweries (er niche games).

Also, WoW's success doesn't mean that it couldn't be made better by adding in some sandbox features. Another misconception is that sandbox features and themepark features are mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Eben

Originally posted by Drakaran

For those that complain about the old mmorgs, how hard they were, etc; the simple answer is, they weren't made for you, they were made for adults. The idea wasn't to rush to the top level as fast as possible, it was to escape for a few hours from the realities of adult life.

 

Funny you should mention that.  The last surviving EQ player at my workplace, was just divorced by his second wife (whom he met in EQ) because he plays too much.  And he's still playing.  Those games didn't allow you to escape life; they -became- life. 

Wrong. People *allowed* the games to become their life. Everquest doesn't come with a ball and chain that you're required to equip in order to play. It doesn't come with an "anti-wife" claus that you must abide by or lose your account. 

For those who allowed the game to consume their lives... that's an indication of a problem with the *person* - not the game itself. The game is simply where the issue manifested. Amazing that some people still don't understand the difference.

It's like the whole thing of wanting to outlaw guns because they kill people. No... the psychos wielding the gun is doing the killing. If they didn't have a gun, they'd have used something else. The problem is with the *killer*, not their choice of weapon.

We only hear about the people whose lives/marriages/jobs/friendships/etc. have been ruined because they were hooked to some game. Time and again, people look at the game as the culprit... some evil belligerent thing that preys on people and destroys lives. Too seldom to people stop and realize that it's the *person* that has the issue, not the game itself. 

Plenty of people - in fact, I'd say the majority - play those so-called "old-school" MMOs and still lead perfectly normal productive lives. You and I might not even know they're gamers unless they told you. I play FFXI, a MMO modeled after the "old-school" model and decidedly a very involved game that requires a lot of time to progress through. I've been playing since it launched. Guess what? I have a full-time job, I have friends outside of work and the game... I have a social life.

I think it's time we got beyond the "blame the evil game for people's problems" mentality and start accepting the fact that some people are simply fucked up to begin with.

Originally posted by Morv

Originally posted by nate1980

Okay, so pick your single-player RPG of choice. Mine is KoToR. Now if a company created a MMO like KoToR, but gave me the ability to play it online with others, would I hate it just because it is a "themepark" MMO? No, I'd love it, because KoToR has an awesome story and gameplay. The fact that I could play it with others makes it even better, if those others are mature and respectful adults. Now thing along these lines when you think of WoW, LoTRO and so on. WoW's story is more behind the scenes and barried in raids, but the story is there. LoTRO is more obvious about it's story, although a lot is behind the scenes as well. Turbine does a good job advancing the story through updates and expansions. Bioware is creating SWTOR, which promises to evolve the genre to what I described above in my KoToR example. So instead of playing single-player RPG's, people will now be able to play RPG's with good stories online, and can share their experiences with other people when they so choose. It isn't forced grouping, and I'm not talking about Coop games either, like NWN's multiplayer mode. I mean a persistent world where there's a great story line, with group content and purpose, and the ability to trade goods.

Now there's still value in the "sandbox" MMO, because entertainment in this kind of MMO isn't based around playing through a story, like a "themepark" MMO is. It's a different type of entertainment, not a superior type. It's like comparing an empire building RTS game to a storybased RPG. They are both fun, but are fun for different reasons. I'd have a blast playing a game where I can build a  city with other players that has the potential of being destroyed by enemy players. It'd be fun to pick and choose skills I want to specialize in, instead of picking a class that tells me my role. It'd be fun to be able to war with other players when I choose to, wherever I choose to, instead of in arenas and battlegrounds. It'd be fun to be fully equipped in gear that other players make and sell in the city through merchant stalls, rather than the impersonal method of AH's.

Both types of games are fun, but for different reasons. I would play both types of games honestly, granted a "sandbox" game will last as long as there is something to spend time doing, whereas "themepark" games are pretty much over after you've completed the story.

Would you agree that the market has been saturated with cookie cutter Online Games?

Yes, but most gaming genre's have. It's not something unique to MMO's. We only notice and complain about it more, because MMORPG's are typically subscription based games, whereas other gaming genre's produce games that last usually no more than a week, and then you buy another one. In other words, it's more cost effective and healthier to play one MMO at a time, which may last for years, whereas gamers in other genre's will buy most games in that genre if they're a fan of that genre if they want to keep playing games.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by Morv

I think that perception  of MMORPGs as certainly been rifted by the different kinds that have come out, but honestly, it seems that there is really only two kinds out there. The persistent and the not persistent.

At this point, WoW is immensely popular and rightly so but it is not a persistent game and therefore not an MMORPG.

The implementation of an MMORPG seems to determine whether it will be entertaining to anyone. We all know that launch is important, stability is important, because without those there is no option of fun in the game.

I see no reason why what was delivered with World of Warcraft can not be delivered in an actual persistent MMORPG. I think it is possible and I believe it can be successful.

 

Morv,

You keep going on about a persistent world, yet you seem to of defined that word on your own. The definition of that word as applied to MMO's, the way I've read it defined officially in the past, is a world where your character enters the world just as he left it; where events and things go on while you are offline, such as players doing their thing. So basically, there is no save option to load up when you make a mistake, you have to live with those mistakes. The game is still being played while you're offline, making the game persistent.

That's always been the official definition for me, and making up your own definition isn't going to change that. I'd give you a quote if I had one handy, but since this is a gaming forum, I don't see the reward of you agreeing with me worth the effort of tracking the definition down.

A persistent world can not just be limited to the landscape staying the same. Not having a save option has nothing to do with a persistent world as the truth is characters are saved we just don't see it. Regardless, I did not make up the definition I based it on how the first persistent MMORPG defined it through demonstration.

A persistent world includes, and is not limited by, being able to drop items from your bag on the ground where they stay for anyone to pick up or move around. Being able to place objects in the world such as a house, boat, or other object that stays there even if you log off, part of logging back into the world just as the player left it. All of these were demonstrated a long time ago.

When you mention that the world is still being played while you're offline I believe you're referring to other players. I am not. A persistent world by demonstration is a living breathing world, one that does not require players to progress. This is where I believe we can head in terms of the future. Players that interact with a world that actually builds and progresses without them. Players may choose to interact with that world or not. While Ultima Online did not demonstrate this last paragraph that is where I believe we can move to in online game development. We need more interaction from the gaming world and the gaming world needs to be more persistent. =)

Originally posted by Frostbite05

the thing alot of people on this forum have yet to realize is the vast majority of mmo players actually prefer game styles such as WoW. The genre is advancing its just going where the money and the majority of players are at. Sorry but unless everyone suddenly changes their mind nothing will change.

I disagree, WoW has merely 12 million subscribers... the world is huge. There is a lot of potential out there and a lot more people willing to play different MMOs.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by Morv

I'd like to refocus the topic.

The online games we see today, in my opinion, are not MMORPGs, nor are they persistent online games like older games.

It is true that often when we discover something that works that lots of effort and time are put in to both copy and improve that concept. That's fine for a while, but the market is already saturated with these kinds of games.

I feel it is time to move on and to re-discover an actual persistent MMORPG.

 

Who are you to define what a genre is? You are defining a MMORPG by your own terms, because you feel you have a right to since you played one of the first few released MMORPGs. The first or first few of anything doesn't necessarily define what that thing is. Take humans for example, would you define yourself based off of a human born 10k years ago? What about a car made in the early 1900's versus a car now? The genre is defined by itself as it grows. What you see is what the genre now is. You can say these games aren't MMO's, but I'd call that being in denial, due to your inability to cope with how the genre has evolved since its roots.

I mean, hell, even words have different meanings and gain extra meanings as time goes on. What makes MMORPG's so special as not to evolve in meaning?

I didn't define the genre, and that's hardly the point of this topic which I incidentally created. Furthermore, my definition of persistent MMORPG is exactly why I began this discussion. To discuss it.

Furthermore, I did not say all MMOs should be converted to the first kind of MMORPG, clearly that's not the topic here.

However, my point of view of MMORPGs is mine and I can share it if I'd like to.

I'll reiterate the point of this topic again. This is about moving forward with online games to include a persistent concept and to redefine what is already saturated on the market. To do that, we make a distinction.

I argue that the current cookie cutter saturated market is nothing more than online games without some very plausible and entertaining features which seem to have been abandoned over the years. Instead of progression we have stagnation.

Originally posted by Morv

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by Morv

I'd like to refocus the topic.

The online games we see today, in my opinion, are not MMORPGs, nor are they persistent online games like older games.

It is true that often when we discover something that works that lots of effort and time are put in to both copy and improve that concept. That's fine for a while, but the market is already saturated with these kinds of games.

I feel it is time to move on and to re-discover an actual persistent MMORPG.

 

Who are you to define what a genre is? You are defining a MMORPG by your own terms, because you feel you have a right to since you played one of the first few released MMORPGs. The first or first few of anything doesn't necessarily define what that thing is. Take humans for example, would you define yourself based off of a human born 10k years ago? What about a car made in the early 1900's versus a car now? The genre is defined by itself as it grows. What you see is what the genre now is. You can say these games aren't MMO's, but I'd call that being in denial, due to your inability to cope with how the genre has evolved since its roots.

I mean, hell, even words have different meanings and gain extra meanings as time goes on. What makes MMORPG's so special as not to evolve in meaning?

I didn't define the genre, and that's hardly the point of this topic which I incidentally created. Furthermore, my definition of persistent MMORPG is exactly why I began this discussion. To discuss it.

Furthermore, I did not say all MMOs should be converted to the first kind of MMORPG, clearly that's not the topic here.

However, my point of view of MMORPGs is mine and I can share it if I'd like to.

I'll reiterate the point of this topic again. This is about moving forward with online games to include a persistent concept and to redefine what is already saturated on the market. To do that, we make a distinction.

I argue that the current cookie cutter saturated market is nothing more than online games without some very plausible and entertaining features which seem to have been abandoned.

...and I disagree on your definition on persistence, so we can't really discuss your main topic. I view WoW and UO both as persistent worlds, based on the fact that both worlds remain active after you log off. NPC's carry on with their script and routines they're programmed with. You speak of dropping gear on the ground an it remaining there. That's a RESULT of the game being presistent, not a requirement of the game to be persistent. Not all games boast the same features, and I argue that some persistent worlds are just more believable, realistic, or enjoyable than others.

You argue for a more enjoyable persistent world, one that's more realistic, and I can agree that what you describe would be more fun.

Originally posted by Eben

Originally posted by Drakaran

For those that complain about the old mmorgs, how hard they were, etc; the simple answer is, they weren't made for you, they were made for adults. The idea wasn't to rush to the top level as fast as possible, it was to escape for a few hours from the realities of adult life.

 

Funny you should mention that.  The last surviving EQ player at my workplace, was just divorced by his second wife (whom he met in EQ) because he plays too much.  And he's still playing.  Those games didn't allow you to escape life; they -became- life. 

Blaming a game for having no self discipline is pretty pathetic on his part. 

There were some other freedoms in older games that you don't find in current games, which I miss.  Most games now don't even allow you to kill npc guards... With that said, a lot of that experience can't be recaptured because the genre as a whole is over 10 years old now.  Since EQ, every new game that has come out has had massive pre-release guild planning on how to powerlevel to the endgame quickly.  Games are much more linear now, not allowing for any sort of community branch-off ingame.  There are item sellers in almost every game, spamming chat.  Hacking is much more mainstream. The genre has evolved (poorly), but these things are here to stay.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by Morv

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by Morv

I'd like to refocus the topic.

The online games we see today, in my opinion, are not MMORPGs, nor are they persistent online games like older games.

It is true that often when we discover something that works that lots of effort and time are put in to both copy and improve that concept. That's fine for a while, but the market is already saturated with these kinds of games.

I feel it is time to move on and to re-discover an actual persistent MMORPG.

 

Who are you to define what a genre is? You are defining a MMORPG by your own terms, because you feel you have a right to since you played one of the first few released MMORPGs. The first or first few of anything doesn't necessarily define what that thing is. Take humans for example, would you define yourself based off of a human born 10k years ago? What about a car made in the early 1900's versus a car now? The genre is defined by itself as it grows. What you see is what the genre now is. You can say these games aren't MMO's, but I'd call that being in denial, due to your inability to cope with how the genre has evolved since its roots.

I mean, hell, even words have different meanings and gain extra meanings as time goes on. What makes MMORPG's so special as not to evolve in meaning?

I didn't define the genre, and that's hardly the point of this topic which I incidentally created. Furthermore, my definition of persistent MMORPG is exactly why I began this discussion. To discuss it.

Furthermore, I did not say all MMOs should be converted to the first kind of MMORPG, clearly that's not the topic here.

However, my point of view of MMORPGs is mine and I can share it if I'd like to.

I'll reiterate the point of this topic again. This is about moving forward with online games to include a persistent concept and to redefine what is already saturated on the market. To do that, we make a distinction.

I argue that the current cookie cutter saturated market is nothing more than online games without some very plausible and entertaining features which seem to have been abandoned.

 

...and I disagree on your definition on persistence, so we can't really discuss your main topic. I view WoW and UO both as persistent worlds, based on the fact that both worlds remain active after you log off. NPC's carry on with their script and routines they're programmed with. You speak of dropping gear on the ground an it remaining there. That's a RESULT of the game being presistent, not a requirement of the game to be persistent. Not all games boast the same features, and I argue that some persistent worlds are just more believable, realistic, or enjoyable than others.

You argue for a more enjoyable persistent world, one that's more realistic, and I can agree that what you describe would be more fun.

I believe the argument I'm making is to differentiate between those two games so that we can pursue a more robust game. By what you've 'defined' above UO is more persistent than WoW therefore they are not equal in terms of persistence. It's easy to make the case that they are both persistent they are both hosted on remote servers that people log onto, they both save games, they both have static landscapes etc..etc.. However, I feel games that lack certain persistent features are not really persistent and are merely online games validating my opinion and definition of a persistent MMORPG.

While in your view an item remaining on a ground is a result of a game being persistent I feel that should be a requirement to be considered a persistent game. By separating those two games we can then establish a new type of MMORPG one by which contains persistent features not found in the typical online game today. In that, we can find a very entertaining, rounded out, and fun game.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by Eben

I'm not unhappy.  I'm at work, and *bored*.  Reading the same threads, again and again. 

I'll answer the question in this thread, quite easily;  whatever happened to MMORPGS?  The people that played them from the beginning never left the basement, and are bitter about it.  The genre moved on, became mainstream and accessible to those that have lives away from a keyboard, and the 'old-timers' can't stand it.  The 'old-timers' had their little virtual worlds invaded by normal people, and don't know how to react.  So, they sit, remembering games for them, by them, comprised of them, unable to recapture that magic they felt when they first logged into something new.

Guess what.  That's GONE.  It's not coming back, and the genre will never go back in that direction.  People don't play MMOs nowdays  to be in some rich, immersive world...because they already live in a REAL rich and immersive world.  And I, for one, don't play -games- so I can have a second, non-paying job that takes up all the rest of my free time.  MMOs are pass-times now, and I'm glad companies like Blizzard came along and dragged the genre out of the basement .

 

^ This guy has a lot of truth in what he says, although he is brutal about it. Look past the aggressive tone he uses, for the truth that lies within his post.

Absolutely agree.  Many in this thread are calling people who enjoy the more current MMO's stupid, so I'd consider the brutality warranted.

Alot of the OP's points reminded me alot of that Simpsons episode where Bart and Lisa try to get out of doing yard work so that they can go to a science expo and... spend hours doing yard work in virtual reality.  So many of the things the OP is nostalgic for are the very things that I found unappealing regarding those MMO's.  I have chores and obligations in real life, when it comes to a virtual world, I'd like as few as possible.

As an "old timer" who played PnP D&D, and played MUDs like DragonRealms, and on to EQ and a short stint with UO, I don't recall much to be nostalgic about.  The oft worshipped(at least in this thread) UO, I can only recall one thing I did:  click to mine ore... over, and over, and over again.  That the rest of the game was apparently less memorable than that is telling...

The whole "people who like new MMO's are dumb" philosophy is getting pretty old, too, as well as the "old MMO's were harder than new MMO's" crap.  Old MMO's were harder only in that the interface was crap, and the devs, for creative or technological reasons couldn't develop any real content, so they just made up for that in requiring you to click on the map 50 times to mine enough ore for a helmet.  That's not a challenging, immersive game, that's a TIME SINK.

Probably the biggest thing(s) I have nostalgia for came from SWG.  The crafting system as a whole was engaging and interesting, starting with scanning for the best place to drop a harvester, to resources having properties based on the planet you harvest from, to having different levels of success.

That, and player owned ships that you and your pals could walk around in.  You could decorate them just like a house, and just float around out in space.  Sure, it was buggy as hell, but wow, that was as Star Wars as SWG got.  Not many games these days have player housing; and they certainly don't have player housing you can fly around in!

While I'd hope that those 2 things might be considered for SWToR, I won't refuse to call it an MMO if they aren't in the game.  That would just be silly...

Call it whatever you want to call it. I won't continue this pointless argument. The fact is that I don't really give a crap if an item is on the ground after I drop it or if others can pick it up, or if I can pick up items people place. Story has more meaning to me than crap like that.