| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (43)

Posted: May 1st 2011 3:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would say the essential difference here is that when you're playing a single-player game, it's no big deal to abandon the game and move on, because you're the only one that cares. However, abandoning an MMO means you're also likely abandoning a bunch of *people* you met and became friends with along the way. So, you have to justify your actions. Explaining vociferously just how terrible the game was is the prime way of doing that.

Posted: May 1st 2011 5:10PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am going to link this article the next time I deal with the type of community you are talking about. Vanguard's community, Ryzom's...all have issues with players who want to somehow see the game they played for years injured or destroyed.

Beau

Posted: May 1st 2011 5:32PM Deadalon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman
Maybe - just maybe the problem isn't really the community ? But rather the fact its a subscription based game? Noone starting to notice the trend here ?

How many ppl are logging on to diablo 2 forums and taking bull about the game hoping it goes to hell ?

Subscription means that ppl feel that a company ows them something in return. So.. when the devs nerf your character - they still force you to pay for it. When they ignore updating the feature that many have been asking for in years - for the 4th expansion in a row.. then maybe you have a claim to point it out.

MMO rpg subs are first and foremost a buisness. You talk here like its "just" a game. Its not. The companies making these games show no obligation whatsoever to their games. Even close them down when they are not raking in the money - or cut the development down and put in a skeletal mainanance crew. Its just buisness... Good buisness in many cases since the company stops updating the game over time and abandons their subscribers to still pay to play their characters. Who wouldn't love 15$ for nothing 6 years down the line ?
Reply

Posted: May 1st 2011 6:05PM Seffrid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deadalon

"Subscription means that ppl feel that a company ows them something in return. "

Whereas people who pay for the game through a cash shop don't feel that?

Like I said before, this anti-subscription agenda is sounding pretty desperate these days, especially here on Massively.
Reply

Posted: May 1st 2011 5:45PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Some good points. I agree that the games are so much more to -- probably -- most of us. For me, though, it is pretty obvious when the game is done updating or trying to satisfy a certain section of the playerbase. At that point players need to move on if they are not happy, just as with any other service or product.

Also, many players look at a "nerf" as an intentional attempt at hurting someone by the developers. If someone thinks that the devs are performing what is normal, mandatory changes to a game that is changing all the time anyway (due to the playerbase constantly changing hardware, playstyles, etc..) with the intention of hurting them or their character, they might want to consider moving on from gaming in general.

Beau
Reply

Posted: May 1st 2011 6:10PM Seffrid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

"For me, though, it is pretty obvious when the game is done updating or trying to satisfy a certain section of the playerbase. At that point players need to move on if they are not happy, just as with any other service or product"

Exactly. To listen to some of the people in this type of discussion you'd think that if a static game like Vanguard didn't immediately switch from subscription to cash shop then the players were being conned and ripped off, whereas the reality is that they have complete freedom of choice as to whether they stay or leave. No-one forces them to pay a subscription for the game, they do so because they consider it to represent worthwhile value for money.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2011 12:14PM Deadalon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Seffrid
Why is it the players that need to move on when it becomes obvious that the game is no longer updating and expanding ? Shouldn't it be the developers that open the servers?

The argument that it costs money to just run the servers is not valid. There are buy to play games out (like GW) that do not charge for server usage. I think it would be perfectly fair that when a game has so obvious lack of develpment like alot of todays sub based games - then they should become free to play. Telling ppl to just "move on" is not acceptable.
Reply

Posted: May 1st 2011 9:27PM Lateris said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Even if AoC catered to every request the same people would bitch and complain about the changes they requested and were implemented. At the root of this article I agree that the trolls and flamers of our AoC community are overshadowing the fact that AoC is a good game. I am starting to see that the trolls are the same group of people. And people, the release was under different leadership. Those issues are RESOLVED.

If you don't like the game leave the game and the room please. And go play WoW. It's an easier game.

Posted: May 1st 2011 11:45PM Feefait said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In the brief time I spent with AoC I never had an issue with the community. I actually found general chat to be relatively helpful I only played AoC for a couple months before DDO went f2p and I jumped back into that, so i may not have the broadest view but I never got the sense I wanted to avoid the game because of the community. When i tried WoW again a few months ago though that was awful. People were derisive if you asked questions and generally seemed so bored they had nothing better to do then harass noobs. I think AoC was an excellent game, and just had a few issues with it that kept me from keeping my sub, but I've always kind of regretted dropping it and think about going back constantly. Few games i could say that about.

Posted: May 2nd 2011 2:59AM Cylien said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have on the EU forums made several posts in this very topic. I find it odd that people can fill up with so much bile that they have to make everybody elses day miserable. Go do something else! It is just that easy.

But it works like a bully mob. The trolls write not for themselves but to get brownie points from the rest of the bully mob and they all have only one thing to say no matter what the topic of a thread is.

I quote from Mercsteff on EU forums as he has it spot on:
"gief content > bori > gief more gear > t2, bori gear > bori no good, nub FC! gief diff content > min premade sux! gief no premades > no more premades > no premade sux! gief back premades! gief new content 12vs12 > JB > 12v12 sux! gief diff content! > FC sux! gief! nerf! gief!

all of that, interlaced with the everpresent moan to nerf this or that class...

nerf stick nao!!!"

There it is!
That is the sum total of the entire complaint from the PvP whine crowd.

/Cylien

Posted: May 2nd 2011 3:05AM Plastic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I never had a problem with the community in-game, in fact, some of my best times raiding were in AoC, where I guess I just got lucky with good raid leaders and a limited amount of drama. The forums, however, are another story. They are probably the worst I've seen. The reason is simple, though; it's just moderated less than many others and people get away with more trollish behavior. I don't think it's the game itself that attracts any particular type of player, it's just the leniency on the part of forum moderators. I used to really respect this openness, and it was often hard transitioning to other communities where threads were being locked or deleted left and right, but now I realize that a little censorship is probably necessary to improve the overall experience for everybody.

Posted: May 2nd 2011 3:34AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
my experience (on Chrom/EU since start) is: the community on the server is great (ingame). couldnt be better, the usual global chat trolls do KNOW what they do and are not more than annoying/amusing. the forums on the other hand, must be the dirtiest place on the internet. its like a mental home. solution: stop reading forums, try the game, play the game - and dont come to the game expecting awesome pvp. its a pve game nowadays, and thats good, as its the best pve game you can find.

Posted: May 2nd 2011 10:21AM Poordevil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm serious, peeps who cannot get over a video game are in need of counseling, perhaps even a psychiatrist's couch. Anyone who would stalk message boards, day after day, slamming a game they don't like enough to play, has issues. You have to admit, at the very least it is strange behavior.





Posted: May 2nd 2011 10:59AM Chiren said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I turn off Global and LFG channels when I play. The global chats tend to be pretty horrible.

I think AOC tends to attract a different crowd because of the following factors:

1) High technical requirements - you need to have a gaming class computer, and in many cases you need to have some understanding of how to tweak your computer for performance to frankly, play AOC to an acceptable level. This tends to make the gaming community of AOC more "male" than perhaps others. But AOC really is the most beautiful MMO on the market still.

2) Male focus - The mythos and lore of AOC is male and chauvinistic - there is no getting around that. Sure there are some strong female characters like Belit or Valeria, but they don't have persistence - they are only in a story or two out of the entire saga, which tends to be filled more with princesses who have fallen out of graces. Its a great mythos, and on an equivalent scale to Tolkien, but at the same time its strongly male, and I think that trends AOC to both an older and younger male player base.

3) Hyborian Age - Again about the entirety of the Conan stories that spans thousands of pages across many years, using a style of writing and a level of imagination you really just don't see anymore. I think in this case - for better of for worse you are also attracting true fans of Robert E. Howard's works. I think overall this is for the better, but yes - sometimes you do see some awkward "lore-peen arguments" going on. Still, those are fun to watch and read.

AOC *could* be more friendlier to female audiences, although I'm not exactly sure what the best way would be. I think it'd be very good for the community if they were able to make the game more attractive to the female gamer.

Posted: May 2nd 2011 11:04AM Checksix said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
YES! I've been saying this for years. I've never seen a collection of more vile and mean spirited people than I did in AoC. People I talk to about it always bring up the nudity and blame that for bringing a low class of people to AoC but I always point out (and I've confirmed this with RL people I know that play the game) that I almost NEVER see a PC running around nude. I think I've seen it once in the entire time I've played the game.

You want to know what I think the problem in AoC is? (Of course not but I'm going to tell you anyway) It's the community managers lack of willingness to police the population. If AoC had a zero tolerance for a-hats in game there would be less of them.

For example, it's not perfectly legal to kill some one while they are talking to a quest giver even though that person has no idea they are being attacked (they are effectively in a cut scene). The gm response to me was they changed that policy, officially, and that I should listen for battle sounds while I'm talking to a quest giver. Really? You've just sanctioned people to be jerks. On top of that, a-hats who do this have an incentive to do so because they get PvP XP!!!

TLDR verson: The community manager / (person who is responsible for community policy) is responsible for the vileness of the community and should be fired.

Posted: May 2nd 2011 11:05AM Checksix said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Checksix
OOPS Ment to say it's NOW perfectly legal to kill people when talking to quest givers.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2011 11:21AM Heraclea said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What continues to surprise me about the game is the PvP-centric nature of almost all commentary on the official forums. Class discussions all focus on PvP. Game and strategy discussions are almost exclusively focused on PvP. When I posted a thread about a bug involving a rare boss in a dungeon, I got flamed for encouraging the devs to pay attention to something other than PvP.

http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?p=2855493#post2855493

So the official forums have always struck me as being full of PvP 'tudes.

There's always going to be an argument about how representative the official forums are of the player base. I don't know how many PvPers there are, but my experience is that the people I play with care mostly about character development or progression raiding or roleplaying, and that PvP is a sideshow at best. There's been some mention of a mass exodus off PvP servers as well.

Posted: May 2nd 2011 11:38AM Softserve said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Every MMORPG does have this, but I think these people will always be able to fall back on "AoC had a bad launch and it took a long time for the game to be good!". It doesn't matter if they never would have liked it, for some reason this gives trolls enough reason to sit around all day talking about a game they hate.

It's illogical by nature.

Posted: May 2nd 2011 1:08PM Thorqemada said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, as i dont play anymore but occasionally read the forums (if something worthy happens to take a look into it again) and most furious complains be about PvP.
Regardless of type of the server pvp is complain area number one^^
Also i think its a difference between americas and europe in furiosity and language sometimes big sometimes slight.

Posted: May 2nd 2011 1:16PM Tom in VA said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wasn't wild about AoC as a game, but I am sorry to read about the community there. The Guild Wars community could be pretty bad at times, too, but that game had what I believe is the perfect solution for "MMO A-Hattery": the game was largely instanced (eliminating a lot of griefing) and one always had the option of using Heroes and Henchmen.

AI team-mates are sometimes a bit dense, but they never act like jerks or talk about Chuck Norris; the longer I played GW, the more I preferred the company of AI to grouping with actual players. GW also allowed smaller player groups (1, 3, or 3, players) to tackle almost ALL of the content, so if you and a friend or 2 were online, you STILL didn't have to risk PUG-ing with jerks to balance out your party.

Honestly, if I was in a hub town or mission location LFG, and I felt like chat was filled with jerks. I'd just go on and do the mission on my own with henches. MMOs really need to give players more options regarding group content, using scalable dungeons or offering the assistance of AI.

Players who are pretty dedicated to a given game can get into a good guild with like-minded players and usually find non-a**-hat players and friends to run group content with, but for players like myself, who play infrequently and/or like to bounce among numerous alts, the guild option simply doesn't work and you're left with PUG-ing the group content or skipping it altogether, neither of which is a very satisfactory option.

I wish more MMOs would follow GW's example and allow players to play ALL of their game content either in full groups, smaller groups, or even solo if they feel like it.


Featured Stories

PAX Prime 2014: Strife learns from the past

Posted on Sep 1st 2014 6:00PM

PAX Prime 2014: Hands-on with The Crew

Posted on Sep 1st 2014 3:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW