That does thanks, Overall I agree with your statement. That line was my only issue.Originally Posted by frunk
That does thanks, Overall I agree with your statement. That line was my only issue.
I know right so many games out there we used to role play in. You know what I would love to see? A Zelda MMORPG, would that kickass or what.
http://www.graalonline.com/kingdoms/I know right so many games out there we used to role play in. You know what I would love to see? A Zelda MMORPG, would that kickass or what.
Back when this game was called "Zelda Online" I was a content/concept designer and sprite artist in a team of 6 (the game was really crappy back then). We were sued and it was sold off and a lot has changed but it should still be a Link to the Past MMO.
And lol @ the screenshot of the day. That roleplay was probably a bit awkward for some of the witnesses.
And I agree with Vayne's view on the definition of RPG. It's really skewed these days (mostly because people are stupid imo).
Last edited by Stonesolid; 11-29-2012 at 12:26 PM.
You couldnt have a master sword with better stats than a rusty sword though, That would be vertical progressionI know right so many games out there we used to role play in. You know what I would love to see? A Zelda MMORPG, would that kickass or what.
The screenshot of the day does remind me a whole lot of link to the past
You see, you say that. But I remember doing everything perfectly to get the best gear possible and clearing new game+ multiple times so I could tear through Lavos just like this:
Several years before MMO's where ever a thing. So if you think that's boring, maybe you should stop playing RPG's.
Old school video game RPGs aren't the same thing as modern MMORPGs and aren't even close to pen and paper RPGs. Just because they share an acronym doesn't mean there's any particular tie. Despite that, they all share at least one common thread. People play for different reasons. So I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'll keep playing.
Besides, your example isn't "get better stats and fight equally better enemies". You are talking about "get better stats to crush without thought". That's even worse. When I progress through a game I want more of a challenge, not less. So I think it's safe to say we play for very different reasons.
I get plenty of challenge in "modern" RPGs. Like Dark Souls, is heavily about player skill. But you also need equipment to beat it. It's no different. Mechanics of each individual game are different but they all follow the same basic principals and fundamentals.
And the point was, playing through new game+ over and over to get the best stuff made the game last longer than it initially should have. Which is what MMO's need to survive.
Last edited by Fey; 11-29-2012 at 05:34 PM.
True to a point. But, it didn't start that way. Early RPGs were in fact an attempt to put RPGs into the computer. SSI made the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons line, for example, and before that even on the old Commodore 64 we had games like Temple of Apshai by Epyx. What happened was that pen and paper RPGs were popular enough to emulate on the computer.
And those WERE the RPGs. Now the problem is that as the nature of computer games changed, they kept the same letters, which had meant something else, thus changing in the meaning. What they really needed was a new set of letters to describe the new games, because once what you're doing no longer fits the description, it's better to change the description than just stay with one that doesn't really fit. It creates confusion and even backlash.
There are still people out there who play muds which really are like pen and paper RPGs. But the mainstream MMO has changed, and decided to keep the same moniker and that means that it's not representing the original people who played this way.
Why continue to use a name that doesn't really fit anymore?
If it's true that most people don't read or care about quests, and they only care about getting to max level to raid, or they only care about beating each other up in PvP, why should it still be called an RPG, because this is part of the problem.
MMOs have fallen away from RPGs but RPGS without MMOs still exist and they haven't. Therefore, MMORPGs, at least until Guild Wars 2, and maybe a couple of others like TSW, and even SWToR despite it's problems, have moved away from RPGs while RPGs are still out there.
I think fans of RPGs have a right to expect some RPG in their MMORPGs, unless they do change the name. It would probably be different if games like The Witcher, Skyrim and Dragon Age didn't exist...but they do. They're RPGs. So an MMORPG really should have some RPG elements to it.
It's sad but true. But you can't ignore the item build up, level build up, customization, etc. The things that make your character, your character. If all anyone wants is a good story, then RPG's wouldn't sell. People would just read books or find other forms of media. That aspect of building your character along with the story that's presented is what keeps people playing RPGs. There has to be more of a reward than a satisfying story.
The problem with MMO's isn't necessarily the terminology that they follow. They obviously are RPGs, they obviously have RPG elements within. The problem is that the consumer base is so varied. Developers never know how people are actually going to play their game. They'll do the best they can to help guide you but ultimately, the player determines what's worth pursuing.
Since MMO's never truly "end" conclusively. Giving a player rewards to search after is necessary. ArenaNet has obviously realized this. Whether it was the correct change or not is still the question. We've gone in circles around this for almost 3 weeks now.
If at this point, people don't like the changes made to this game. I feel like they need to just leave. Because I for one am sick of discussing it. It's here to stay. Deal with it. Or get out.
Last edited by Fey; 11-29-2012 at 08:40 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote