MUD was a genre. It was not a game.

It was basically Dungeons and Dragons style roleplaying in a chat room, with a dungeon master guiding "players" (read: roleplayers) through an "adventure" (read: chat room about orcs, goblins, traps, etc.).

MMO's evolved largely from MUD's.

Originally posted by Dulu

MUD was a genre. It was not a game.

It was basically Dungeons and Dragons style roleplaying in a chat room, with a dungeon master guiding "players" (read: roleplayers) through an "adventure" (read: chat room about orcs, goblins, traps, etc.).

MMO's evolved largely from MUD's.

MUDs were an entire genre of many games, yes.

The next sentence...well, lots of sloppy phrasing. 

By 'chat room', I assume you mean 'text-based interface'.  By 'dungeon master', I assume you mean 'an online staff of varying size, from one to dozens of 'game masters', either paid or volunteer'.  "Roleplayers" means the same as "players", of course, though MUDs were the (last) genre in which a very high percentage of players still roleplayed.  "Guiding...through an adventure" implies more hand-holding than ever (to my knowledge) took place in any MUD.

Originally posted by Arakazi

Although most people would disagree I feel a true MMO should'nt a themepark but a sandbox with PvP. I just feel that themeparks are glorified multiplayer games rather than true virtual worlds - which is something I feel MMOs should be. However the domination of themeparks shows that I am in a minority. 

Both Themepark and Sandboxes are MMOs in their own right.  It is just themeparks are the bigger titles, and easier to monetize, so we see them featured a lot more than sandbox MMOs.

Honestly, disregarding the current attempts, I think the only way any "innovative", "oldschool", or whatever buzzword gets thrown around nowadays MMOs will be created is when it isn't so damn expensive to make one in the first place.

Seriously, these things are monstrous money munchers compared to other genres; it's no bloody surprise that big devs tend to play safe, excluding things like incompetence, corporate meddling, and other stuff people "discuss" about.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Yeah, sure, I'm with you, more of a virtual world, more of a challenge, more socialization mechanics etc etc.

Along with you and me and perhaps 500K of our friends it still isn't enough of an audience to encourage a AAA developer to sink 100M plus into such a design, so don't get your hopes up.

What we really need is for a large size indie title to hit the big time, much like CCP did with EVE.

Which as crazy as it may seem is why I'm going to support DF:UW, despite my misgivings with some of the game mechanics.

 

      I think part of what the OP is asking for is that we don't need all thse bells and whistles that these companies are spending the millions on.....We just want a nice looking world where we work together to overcome......I see some people mentioned Vanguard and in some ways it does fit the bill, but it also is a technological piece of crap that still infuriates many......

I wonder, for how many people, Hard = grinding in the same spot, with a group, nearly risk free, for 4 hours to get a level. 

Hard for me, is, sure you can level up to max level in a day (an extreme example), but say, in group content, if everyone doesnt do their job near perfect, you wipe, and no ammount of banging your head against the wall will help you complete it if everyone isnt on their A game.

Originally posted by smh_alot
People like to forget that a lot of new mechanics and features were introduced as a solution for old problems and annoyances.

 

- Old school MMO gamers started to detest mob grinding for leveling. That's why MMO's like EQ2 and WoW introduced quest based leveling and advertised it.

 

- Old school MMO gamers started to get fed up with enforced grouping and sometimes hour(s) long waits to do anything fun, so solo based leveling got expanded upon.

 

- Harsh death penalties, long travel times, even if they helped give that vibe of a dangerous, vast world, there was a reason that they were gotten rid of in follow-up MMO's, and that's because a lot of the old school MMO gamers disliked them.

 

- Old school MMO gamers weren't happy with spot camping especially in dungeons, so instanced dungeons were introduced, all to yourself and your group.

 

You can get rid of those features, from quests to instanced dungeons etc, but they were introduced as solutions to problems that people had in the first place, and they were received with relief and satisfaction by old school MMO gamers when these features first got introduced.

 

If the issues with the old mechanics weren't regarded as annoyances and problems in the first place, those new features would never have been introduced and happily welcomed by (a very large part of) that first generation of MMO gamers in the first place.

 

So I wonder how an MMO that got rid of all those features again and is made like an oldschool MMO will truly do, and if the first generation MMO gamers that are now pining for such an MMO would be happy or if they'd realize how much they disliked those issues and annoyances for which a lot of later features were one possible solution for. AFter all, MMO games like Vanguard or the EQ classic servers that take you back to that oldschool MMO gaming were minimally successful as well.

I'm an old school gamer and all the things you mentioned getting rid of I loved, and that's why I don't even bother playing MMO's anymore.  MMO's imo should be something you look at playing for the next 2+ years of your life.  It isn't a genre made for casuals, but somehow casuals started getting into it.  Now we have nothing but trash year after year, and all the casuals are living in paradise talking down to old school gamers like we don't know what we really want.  I'll tell you what I want.  A game that doesn't cater to 12 year old snot nosed brats by giving them everything they demand and no consquences for their actions.  I want a game that I hate as much as I love because that is what it takes to create worthwhile memories.

Think about all the experiences in your life.  You remember the good ones and the bad ones.  Why bother remembering all the meh moments.  Games today are so gd mundane and boring because there is nothing that illicits and emotional response wether it be good or bad.  Because suffering through shitty days with your friends is a memory that is just as good as beating that final boss.

good luck finding a 'hard' mmo.  devs these days are only about maximizing their investment and that means catering to as wide of an audience as possible.. despite their 'teen' or 'mature' ratings.. they know damn well that they are reaching for the 12 year olds as well.  

good luck finding a social interaction dependent game too.  others on here have asked for the exact opposite mmo.. a solo-able one. i agree that crossing servers detracts from social worth of a game and it also invites more hacks imo.  

the truth is that we don't even seem to know what we want.. for every thread supporting one view, there are other opposing it.  i guess in the end, we just want something to be fun again, like when all this mmo thing was new to us... hard to find in a clonewar mmo economy.  funny thing is that when a dev company does make a different type of game, ev1 craps all over it and starts threads asking for things that are clone-like ( don't believe me? just look at any recent mmo's forums first couple months of threads that request wow-like changes) ..  seems people actually want things to stay exactly the same.

Originally posted by allendale5

good luck finding a 'hard' mmo.  devs these days are only about maximizing their investment and that means catering to as wide of an audience as possible.. despite their 'teen' or 'mature' ratings.. they know damn well that they are reaching for the 12 year olds as well.  

Just put in a difficulty setting. There are plenty of hard games .. like Diablo 3 (even has a PD mode). There is no reason why MMO cannot be hard (like hard mode raids).

good luck finding a social interaction dependent game too.  others on here have asked for the exact opposite mmo.. a solo-able one. i agree that crossing servers detracts from social worth of a game and it also invites more hacks imo.  

If people don't want to social, why force them? Socializiation is not the ONLY multiplayer interaction out there, you know.

the truth is that we don't even seem to know what we want.. for every thread supporting one view, there are other opposing it.  i guess in the end, we just want something to be fun again, like when all this mmo thing was new to us... hard to find in a clonewar mmo economy.  funny thing is that when a dev company does make a different type of game, ev1 craps all over it and starts threads asking for things that are clone-like ( don't believe me? just look at any recent mmo's forums first couple months of threads that request wow-like changes) ..  seems people actually want things to stay exactly the same.

There is no "we". Different people like different games. That is why there are genres and sub-genres.