I wasn't arguing soloability, only that having advantages/disadvantages between classes is a better, albeit more difficult to achieve, form of balance than just letting everyone be good at everything. The latter being nothing more than a cop-out.
Everyone can be good at everything...just not all the time, and not in the same ways.
Advantages/disadvantages to classes is perfectly fine. Asymetric games are more interesting than symetric ones.
It's when we delve into the "some classes should suck at soloing" topic that we feel the need to point out that while that may create a form of asymetric, it's not a form that most players actually want. Which is why it's not a cop-out, but a shift to better serve player desires.
You should really stop confusing what you want with what most players want, since you really have no way to determine what most players want.
This, I think, is the reason many people have problems with your arguments.
I wasn't arguing soloability, only that having advantages/disadvantages between classes is a better, albeit more difficult to achieve, form of balance than just letting everyone be good at everything. The latter being nothing more than a cop-out.
Everyone can be good at everything...just not all the time, and not in the same ways.
Advantages/disadvantages to classes is perfectly fine. Asymetric games are more interesting than symetric ones.
It's when we delve into the "some classes should suck at soloing" topic that we feel the need to point out that while that may create a form of asymetric, it's not a form that most players actually want. Which is why it's not a cop-out, but a shift to better serve player desires.
You should really stop confusing what you want with what most players want, since you really have no way to determine what most players want.
This, I think, is the reason many people have problems with your arguments.
Your comment just now was a cop out. I think you missed his point completely.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You should really stop confusing what you want with what most players want, since you really have no way to determine what most players want.
This, I think, is the reason many people have problems with your arguments.
Look around you.
It's pretty obvious that MMORPGs which allowed both solo and grouping have blasted group-only MMORPGs out of the water.
The market has spoken very loudly about what they want. If you're plugging your ears, it's on you.
And if that's not enough, it's well-known trends in game design as well, with developers discovering that Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness are critical to good game design (from a talk I attended at GDC given by a designer on theUncharted series. Her presentation apparently has roots in Self-determination Theory) Autonomy in the case of games refers to the sense that you can accomplish things on your own (the ability to solo obviously provides tons of autonomy.)
From the reality around us to the deeper details of game design, it's very obvious that "some classes suck at soloing" isn't desired by most players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Skill, wherever it comes from, is the entire point of competitive games. My performance is my own, not some game rule declaring my defeat or victory.
So you prefer player skill vs character skill.
On Topic:
I think what people are missing is that "skill" is a PvP term. It is the battlefield FPS games that bring this term into gaming. I think players rarely use the term "skill" in describing there exploits vs NPC AI.
When I played tabletop RPG games, it was about exploring the land that the DM had designed. There was fighting, to be sure, but there was also puzzle solving, mysteries to be solved, and lots of NPC interaction. There was lore to be discovered. Sure, some gamers had to min/max their characters, but they missed out on the essence of what the games were all about.
I think that the Creslin's use of "fair fight" kind of threw people off about what he was really getting at. In reality, "fair fight" means all contestants have an equal chance of winning, all things considered. That means you have a 50/50 chance of losing as well as winning. That's not Creslin's point, I think.
To me, I brought away the thought that today's MMOs seem to make things "safe" for players and he (and I) miss the old games where things were not as safe. It's not about soloing vs grouping. It's about being in a fight and having to watch your back for add-ons, especially that hill giant (sand giant) wandering suspiciously close to your fight. It's about going off the beaten path and... OOPS! I found a monster I should not have amongst the monsters I usually fight! Instead, there are child-proof locks on all the kitchen drawers.
What I found in SW:TOR were elites and bosses in specific places. You went to them, not they to you. In EQ, sand giants wandered the zone (N Ro and the Oasis), Kizdan Gix wandered the Commonlands, Griffins flew throughout lower level zones. These monsters added suspense and a sense of excitement lacking in today's games. "Skill" has nothing to do with this aspect.
Yes, exactly! Good clarification. Perhaps "safe" would have been a better term for me to use than "fair fight."
There's been a whole lot of debate back and forth about player skill versus character skill and what not, but this kind of misses the point of the thread. The point is that modern MMORPGs are so concerned with giving a "safe" and "balanced" leveling experience to the player, that they essentially railroad the player into a very pre-determined and consistently balanced leveling path, where all the MOBs are roughly the level of the player at all times. This results in the player growing complacent and never really feeling like they are progressing since the enemies always progress on par with them.
And yes, you can walk off the beaten path in a modern MMORPG if you want, but the game really discourages this. Walking off the beaten path nets you FAR less reward than staying on your leveling path does, the mobs are typically invincible to you, and you normally can't even get any of the quests in the higher level area.
It's probably too deep into the thread to spend as much time and energy as I'm about to discussing this, but oh well, here goes.
You are running into a completely different issue than your realize. It is not about a fair fight, at its root.
This idea of "fairness" is something I've been thinking about a lot over the last few months. I actually came across it not by playing MMOs, but by playing PnP D&D 4th edition. I have been a big proponent of 4th edition with my friends, who were quite skeptical of it. On paper it looks great: the game is far more balanced, and it really was not de-featured, so long as you could look past the smoke and mirrors of previous sections (for example, it looks like you can be all kinds of classes that are way different and do way more things in D&D3.5, however, they all end up getting very similar skill boosts are spell/attack options. They are, perhaps more "the same" than in 4th).
However, I still found myself not enjoying combat, despite having many more combat options, and a more dynamic game revolving around it. The reason for this: everything at every level is fair for every character, more or less. This is exactly what OP was explaining with MMOs.
I firmly believe that this issue is not due to the precise balance of level and power of enemies, buta fundamental and ubiquitous flaw in design in RPGs of every type.We are only now noticing this issue because the simplification and precision of modern game design brings this flaw into the light.
The answer is NOT to inject flaws into level and power balance. Nor were past games not hampered by this flaw. We just didn't pay attention to it, because it was hidden by bad game design.
Consider, instead, how gameplay actually plays out relative to your level:
Modern games rank your opponents based off of level and a status, such as elite. You know exactly what to expect each time you fight them, and becasue the game is well balanced you will rarely be wrong.
By putting in some imbalance in the strength of opponents (or by removing this "consider" ability completely) the only thing we gain is uncertainty. meaning we have to fight an enemy once, or maybe twice, before we have a good idea of how easily or when we can beat it. We will still be following the same exact gameplay, level after level, where our power never actually changes in relation to what we are fighting.
So, there needs to be more revolutionary (not devolutionary) changes to the entire idea of what an RPG is before this issue is fixed. There are actually many ways to go about this, with flaws and advantages all their own. In the end, I think the best change that can happen to RPGs is this:
The statistical strength of a character needs to be more than just a function of time and efficiency. The title of "most powerful" chararacter should not be achievable by more than just a few players. We can throw other factors into the equation including skill, dynamic strategic thinking, and perhaps even luck (so long as the luck bonuses are temporary and unique).
How we want to accomplish this is up to experimentation. I'm currently working on a flash based RPG that uses collectible cards for progression instead of levels to try and solve some of these issues. If I can get it finished in my spare time before my baby is born, maybe it will see the light of day
I was really debating responding to this because I really agree with certain parts of it, but then I'm confused about others. But anyway, I obviously decided to respond .
First off...I can't agree with you more about not liking D&D 4E. Man, did I think that was a terrible direction for D&D. It turned D&D from an epic game of exploration, into a well balanced tactical RPG. I mean, it wasn't a terrible game, but it wasn't really D&D. Personally, and I know you disagree, I thought the main issue with 4E was this whole fairness thing. Every class was given the EXACT same system for ability usage...everything felt the same. A ranger did very similar things to a sorceror...the abilities just had different names.
Second...I think I disagree with you about your assertion that there is some kind of fundamental flaw with RPGs that needs a revolutionary fix, but I may just be misunderstanding. I really don't think there is any kind of fundamental flaw with all RPGs...I've always loved the genre for what it was. If anything, I'm just annoyed that it seems to be getting away from its roots. Could you please clarify more on what you feel think fundamental flaw is?
Yes, exactly! Good clarification. Perhaps "safe" would have been a better term for me to use than "fair fight."
There's been a whole lot of debate back and forth about player skill versus character skill and what not, but this kind of misses the point of the thread. The point is that modern MMORPGs are so concerned with giving a "safe" and "balanced" leveling experience to the player, that they essentially railroad the player into a very pre-determined and consistently balanced leveling path, where all the MOBs are roughly the level of the player at all times. This results in the player growing complacent and never really feeling like they are progressing since the enemies always progress on par with them.
And yes, you can walk off the beaten path in a modern MMORPG if you want, but the game really discourages this. Walking off the beaten path nets you FAR less reward than staying on your leveling path does, the mobs are typically invincible to you, and you normally can't even get any of the quests in the higher level area.
Well no wonder we missed the point.
"Safe" is in many ways the opposite of a "fair" fight. It's imbalanced and unfair if the player consistently slaughters PVE mobs.
Although there's a bit of conflict in your statement of "never feeling like they are progressing".
Basically you have the desire for true fair fights (where player skill is required to succeed, and mobs aren't easily slaughtered) which necessitates that the player is consistently able to fight challenging enemies, which necessitates a certain lack of progression.
But at the same time a game shouldn't lock you into never seeing or experiencing mobs which are now easily slaughtered, or even mobs which are currently too hard to kill. Since it's these occasional outliers which really give the sense of progression. But those outliers can't be the norm, or fights will be too boring or frustratingly impossible.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wasn't arguing soloability, only that having advantages/disadvantages between classes is a better, albeit more difficult to achieve, form of balance than just letting everyone be good at everything. The latter being nothing more than a cop-out.
Everyone can be good at everything...just not all the time, and not in the same ways.
Advantages/disadvantages to classes is perfectly fine. Asymetric games are more interesting than symetric ones.
It's when we delve into the "some classes should suck at soloing" topic that we feel the need to point out that while that may create a form of asymetric, it's not a form that most players actually want. Which is why it's not a cop-out, but a shift to better serve player desires.
You should really stop confusing what you want with what most players want, since you really have no way to determine what most players want.
This, I think, is the reason many people have problems with your arguments.
The current scene of MMOS and upcoming title clearly shows what majority of players want.
Yes, exactly! Good clarification. Perhaps "safe" would have been a better term for me to use than "fair fight."
There's been a whole lot of debate back and forth about player skill versus character skill and what not, but this kind of misses the point of the thread. The point is that modern MMORPGs are so concerned with giving a "safe" and "balanced" leveling experience to the player, that they essentially railroad the player into a very pre-determined and consistently balanced leveling path, where all the MOBs are roughly the level of the player at all times. This results in the player growing complacent and never really feeling like they are progressing since the enemies always progress on par with them.
And yes, you can walk off the beaten path in a modern MMORPG if you want, but the game really discourages this. Walking off the beaten path nets you FAR less reward than staying on your leveling path does, the mobs are typically invincible to you, and you normally can't even get any of the quests in the higher level area.
Well no wonder we missed the point.
"Safe" is in many ways the opposite of a "fair" fight. It's imbalanced and unfair if the player consistently slaughters PVE mobs.
Although there's a bit of conflict in your statement of "never feeling like they are progressing".
Basically you have the desire for true fair fights (where player skill is required to succeed, and mobs aren't easily slaughtered) which necessitates that the player is consistently able to fight challenging enemies, which necessitates a certain lack of progression.
But at the same time a game shouldn't lock you into never seeing or experiencing mobs which are now easily slaughtered, or even mobs which are currently too hard to kill. Since it's these occasional outliers which really give the sense of progression. But those outliers can't be the norm, or fights will be too boring or frustratingly impossible.
To the blue part...no, I don't . Or rather, it's immaterial to this discussion. Whether the mobs at the players level are "easy" or "hard" isn't really applicable...this discussion is more about spreading mobs of higher level/difficulty around the world more than it is about individual fights being harder or easier.
To the green part...yes I basically agree with this, but let me expand on it a bit. The issue at hand is that mobs are essentailly "cordoned off" by level to specific zones. In the level 10-20 zone, you will rarely see a mob that is higher level, and if you are level 10-19, then you have absolutely zero incentive, or reason to go outside your "box." You will stay in the level 10-19 zone until you get level 20, then you will move to the level 20-29 zone...ad infinitum.
It did not used to be this way. It used to be, you would just explore the world and find mobs. Some of them would be easy for you, some would be hard. When you found a spot with mobs that were "good" for you to fight, you would frequent that area. Then when you explored again, you would find that the mobs that used to be very hard for you to beat, are now much easier...thus you always felt like you were progressing because you were constantly exposed to mobs of varying difficulty.
I really think that one of the main roots of the problem here is that all themepark MMORPGs insist on making someone only 5 levels higher than you RIDICULOUSLY more powerful than you. This means that you pretty much HAVE to stay within your little box, or you will have no chance of success.
Personally, I would prefer if the power gap between a "max level" and "min level" player were not nearly as severe as it always is now. I would like a system where there were maybe just four "tiers" of mobs:
Beginner
Intermediate
Hard
Master
Low level players would be stuck with beginner mobs, or maybe intermediate mobs if they were really good. Mid level players could fight beginner or intermediate mobs...and maybe hard if they were really good or had a group. And so on and so on...
It would just make the world feel so much more open. If you put normal TP games into a "tier" framework with regards to their mobs, they would have something ridiculous like 12 tiers. Because like I said, if something is 5 levels higher than you, it is impossible to beat, and 60(levels)/5 = 12 tiers. Add this to the fact that most TP games are two faction, then you have an even MORE railroaded experience...
Second...I think I disagree with you about your assertion that there is some kind of fundamental flaw with RPGs that needs a revolutionary fix, but I may just be misunderstanding. I really don't think there is any kind of fundamental flaw with all RPGs...I've always loved the genre for what it was. If anything, I'm just annoyed that it seems to be getting away from its roots. Could you please clarify more on what you feel think fundamental flaw is?
Sure! Thanks for responding.
And, just so you know, I actually find 4e to be far superior to the previous versions of DnD (although it has its unique, unrelated flaws as well). My point isn't that it's bad, but that it's refined enough to let me see the flaws with the level/challenge conundrum. Basically, the genre is getting far enough away from its roots, that the flaws in the roots themselves are becoming exposed.
Here's some points before we begin.
Challenge is relative. RPGs are not (necessarily) easier because we level up, nor are they (necessarily) harder when we fight end game enemies. There are many examples where things go either way. These are functions of enemy power vs. character power + player power (skill, strategy, etc.)
Modern RPGs almost universally apply some sort of scaling system so that challenge remains. This is either done through scaling individual creatures based off of character level (ala Skyrim/KoA), or scaling the experience to give access to higher level creatures due to story progression or map progression (ala WoW or Mass Effect). In general, this scaling is highly desirable, because without it the amount of time spent developing a character makes all other aspects of the game worthless.
This one is contestable, and I believe the point of your thread. In general, balance is better than imbalance. A perfectly balanced game will be playable by any person under any circumstances. A truly excellent player would have the same challenge as a horrible player, due to scaling of enemies. Both would find the game challenging and fun (unless they saw each other and found that the grass is greener...). By contrast a perfectly imbalanced game is straight unplayable.
So, let's say someone created the perfectly balanced RPG, without any systems in place to try to hide or adjust that balance. We have a linear, static difficulty curve. Possibly to account for increase in player skill, enemies/levels may become slightly harder late game (as is done with typical single player games, adventure, FPS, etc.).
The player is picking skills, stats, etc. to improve themselves, however they are not actually changing the gameplay. The enemies improve at the same rate. In fact, if they didn't pick the skills, they would notice no actual difference in the difficulty of the gameplay.
What does this mean? The level and advancement system is meaningless. It's a smoke and mirrors system to make it seem like you are improving, when in actuality you are not.
There are a lot of ways that RPGs try to hide this.
Create "game changing" abilities (such as the ability to fly, etc.) that unlock as you level. DnD 4e went this route. Most MMOs try this as well.
Create statistical imbalance in gameplay, so that early game feels different than late game. All other DnD's went this route. 1 hit death possibilities at level 1, bag of hp at level 15. This is pure bad game design imo.
Create statistical imbalance between classes so that character importance changes over time. All other DnD's also did this (linear fighters, exponential spellcasters).
Create imbalance in enemy scaling so that at high levels your opponents are less challenging (or more challenging) than they were before. Skyrim and Oblivion both did this, and ruined late game in opposite ways for me. (actually, it's probably less of a purposeful imbalance than just a damn hard balance to achieve).
Create imbalance between individual enemies, so that it's not immediately clear what challenge the player faces when fighting a creature. This still keeps the challenge wavering within a certain waveband of difficulty that will eventually be known. Essentially, this is like having the weak, normal, elite, champion (or whatever) of SWToR without having the ability to tell what it is before fighting (and the possibility of them being between the ranks as well).
Allow a wide range of customization so strategic character choices are rewarded more than poor choices. (D2 is the exemplar of this).
Show bigger numbers on the screen/dice so you can feel more awesome (sadly, this works really well).
Have you walk through previous areas to show how much more awesome you are than you used to be.
Have an active combat system to obscure the numbers behind the scenes.
Increase the focus on player skill so that the character skill portion of things matters less.
Likely many others I haven't thought of.
The problem with this is they are still just trying to hide the inherant issue. When you level up both characters and enemies, the point of leveling up (showing growth of character) becomes moot, or is at least dramatically lessened.
So, I think there is a fundamental issue with RPGs in this sense, and I think it has festered and grown as we have become more and more dependant on the idea of leveling up (so much so, that it has become the game instead of achieving victory over the game world). I also think that there needs to be some pretty dramatic changes within the genre if we are ever going to move past this. What those changes are, I'm not entirely sure. No one really is. A lot of people don't care. They'd rather level. I understand, becasue this is a powerful motivator for me too.
As a game that I think is a step in the right direction, I will highlight Dark Souls. Gaining a level in dark souls can be a big deal (especially because it's a challenge, and you're in danger of losing your souls before you gain it). However, the power difference between levels is very small. Leveling up once or twice does not trivialize previous opponents, nor does it make tough enemies easy. It also does a number of the above "tricks" in ways that empathize the game's strengths. For instance, going through previous areas feels more awesome in an action game, because you are still in danger, still need to be engaged in the game, and can't just press a button whenever you feel like it to instantly win. There are also plenty of corner stone levels marked by your choices in character building. Getting access to a new weapon because you've got enough strength (finally) is an awesome feeling.
Anyway, I have my own thoughts on what I think needs to change. As long as the system of power gain is numeric in nature (ie. you have stats that are based on how many hours you've played the game), this is going to remain a problem. I want to see if I can keep a sense of progression in a game, but get rid of the numeric based system. Hence the card game. (XP allows you to purchase new (random) cards).
And, just so you know, I actually find 4e to be far superior to the previous versions of DnD (although it has its unique, unrelated flaws as well). My point isn't that it's bad, but that it's refined enough to let me see the flaws with the level/challenge conundrum. Basically, the genre is getting far enough away from its roots, that the flaws in the roots themselves are becoming exposed.
Here's some points before we begin.
Challenge is relative. RPGs are not (necessarily) easier because we level up, nor are they (necessarily) harder when we fight end game enemies. There are many examples where things go either way. These are functions of enemy power vs. character power + player power (skill, strategy, etc.)
Modern RPGs almost universally apply some sort of scaling system so that challenge remains. This is either done through scaling individual creatures based off of character level (ala Skyrim/KoA), or scaling the experience to give access to higher level creatures due to story progression or map progression (ala WoW or Mass Effect). In general, this scaling is highly desirable, because without it the amount of time spent developing a character makes all other aspects of the game worthless.
This one is contestable, and I believe the point of your thread. In general, balance is better than imbalance. A perfectly balanced game will be playable by any person under any circumstances. A truly excellent player would have the same challenge as a horrible player, due to scaling of enemies. Both would find the game challenging and fun (unless they saw each other and found that the grass is greener...). By contrast a perfectly imbalanced game is straight unplayable.
So, let's say someone created the perfectly balanced RPG, without any systems in place to try to hide or adjust that balance. We have a linear, static difficulty curve. Possibly to account for increase in player skill, enemies/levels may become slightly harder late game (as is done with typical single player games, adventure, FPS, etc.).
The player is picking skills, stats, etc. to improve themselves, however they are not actually changing the gameplay. The enemies improve at the same rate. In fact, if they didn't pick the skills, they would notice no actual difference in the difficulty of the gameplay.
What does this mean? The level and advancement system is meaningless. It's a smoke and mirrors system to make it seem like you are improving, when in actuality you are not.
There are a lot of ways that RPGs try to hide this.
Create "game changing" abilities (such as the ability to fly, etc.) that unlock as you level. DnD 4e went this route. Most MMOs try this as well.
Create statistical imbalance in gameplay, so that early game feels different than late game. All other DnD's went this route. 1 hit death possibilities at level 1, bag of hp at level 15. This is pure bad game design imo.
Create statistical imbalance between classes so that character importance changes over time. All other DnD's also did this (linear fighters, exponential spellcasters).
Create imbalance in enemy scaling so that at high levels your opponents are less challenging (or more challenging) than they were before. Skyrim and Oblivion both did this, and ruined late game in opposite ways for me. (actually, it's probably less of a purposeful imbalance than just a damn hard balance to achieve).
Create imbalance between individual enemies, so that it's not immediately clear what challenge the player faces when fighting a creature. This still keeps the challenge wavering within a certain waveband of difficulty that will eventually be known. Essentially, this is like having the weak, normal, elite, champion (or whatever) of SWToR without having the ability to tell what it is before fighting (and the possibility of them being between the ranks as well).
Allow a wide range of customization so strategic character choices are rewarded more than poor choices. (D2 is the exemplar of this).
Show bigger numbers on the screen/dice so you can feel more awesome (sadly, this works really well).
Have you walk through previous areas to show how much more awesome you are than you used to be.
Have an active combat system to obscure the numbers behind the scenes.
Increase the focus on player skill so that the character skill portion of things matters less.
Likely many others I haven't thought of.
The problem with this is they are still just trying to hide the inherant issue. When you level up both characters and enemies, the point of leveling up (showing growth of character) becomes moot, or is at least dramatically lessened.
So, I think there is a fundamental issue with RPGs in this sense, and I think it has festered and grown as we have become more and more dependant on the idea of leveling up (so much so, that it has become the game instead of achieving victory over the game world). I also think that there needs to be some pretty dramatic changes within the genre if we are ever going to move past this. What those changes are, I'm not entirely sure. No one really is. A lot of people don't care. They'd rather level. I understand, becasue this is a powerful motivator for me too.
As a game that I think is a step in the right direction, I will highlight Dark Souls. Gaining a level in dark souls can be a big deal (especially because it's a challenge, and you're in danger of losing your souls before you gain it). However, the power difference between levels is very small. Leveling up once or twice does not trivialize previous opponents, nor does it make tough enemies easy. It also does a number of the above "tricks" in ways that empathize the game's strengths. For instance, going through previous areas feels more awesome in an action game, because you are still in danger, still need to be engaged in the game, and can't just press a button whenever you feel like it to instantly win. There are also plenty of corner stone levels marked by your choices in character building. Getting access to a new weapon because you've got enough strength (finally) is an awesome feeling.
Anyway, I have my own thoughts on what I think needs to change. As long as the system of power gain is numeric in nature (ie. you have stats that are based on how many hours you've played the game), this is going to remain a problem. I want to see if I can keep a sense of progression in a game, but get rid of the numeric based system. Hence the card game. (XP allows you to purchase new (random) cards).
Very good post, thanks for putting so much time into writing this reply!
I agree with much of what you say, but I still don't feel like this flaw has always existed in RPGs...at least not the way I look at them. I always felt that the "magic" of progressing in D&D had very little to do with the "numbers." As you say, getting more hitpoints, a better attack rating, or doing more damage is just an illusion because the mobs you fight will get the same increases to keep the game interesting. Instead, I thought that the magic was all about how your character's "place in the world" changed as you got more powerful.
For example:
At low level, you might struggle to defend your village against goblins sent by a noblemen working for a king sworn to an evil god.
At mid level, you might kill the noblemen and free your village from tyranny.
At high level, you might kill the king and rule the kingdom.
And at epic level, you might kill the god.
Now, if you were to take these events as mere numerical contests where the "mobs" (goblins, noblemen, king, god) get progressively stronger...then yes, it would seem like there is a flaw. But...you would also be completely missing the point.
Getting more powerful isn't about your numbers getting bigger, it's about having a bigger impact on the world. At low level, you were just struggling to survive. At mid level, you start to fight back, and strike a mighty blow. At high level, you conquer the earthly forces that sought to destroy you and rule a kingdom. And finally at epic level, you kill the divine force that orchestrated it all, and maybe even ascend to godhood!
So my point is that, even though your "relative power" never really changes...your status relative to the world DOES. You feel more powerful because you are more powerful and the game world makes that abundantly clear.
Many CRPGs have been able to successful capture this feeling of progression...SRPGs like NWN and BG for example are great at this. In NWN2, you start off as just a normal guy under assault by terrible forces. But at the end of the last expansion, you are traveling the planes and challenging ancient evils.
Many MMORPGs just don't get this...
First, they think that players "always want to feel powerful" so they throw you up against a big mega monster at level 1 that you crush. But then...you never feel like you really progress because you were fighting the big mega monster at level 1!
Second, many of them reuse models so much that it always feels like your fighting the same mobs. I'm sure everyone has played a game where they fought "green" goblins at level 10, but "blue" goblins at level 40.
Third, they focus on combat and deemphasize exploration so much that players just view the zone as a backdrop to fight mobs in. The player should feel amazed when they first step through a gate into another plane of existence. But instead, they just think, "oh this is where the level 70 mobs are, let's go here LOL."
And finally, the point of this thread...they plan the game world out so well that you will always fight mobs exactly around your level and never really be exposed to stronger mobs until you are ready to fight them. It would be like in my D&D example, if the player just saw goblins at level 1 and killed them. Then at level 10, he randomly finds a castle and kills the noble inside. Then at level 20, he randomly finds a big castle and kills the king....it completely removes the CONTEXT from the fights and leaves only the fights themselves. And like I said earlier...if you just focus on the "numerical contest" part of the game, then it definitely IS flawed, and that is what most MMORPGs do.
This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game.
Actually, it's done because it enhances the feeling of progression for most players. The majority of players are playing to progress their character. The majority of players aren't playing to challenge themselves - the game is an entertaining diversion. Imagine the con of just a fraction of the mobs in any mainstream MMO shifted down a color or two. What's really a red now shows as yellow. What's really white now shows as green. Which do you think is the most likely scenario? A) Players see those mobs as a rewarding challenge Players complain the mobs are OP for their level and should be nerfed C) Players avoid those mobs altogether and fight the easier stuff I'd say B and C are good bets. Now, before Mr Extreme OutofLeftField RedHerringStrawMan jumps in... I never said that no game should be more challenging or that no one wants a more challenging PvE experience. I'm addressing the specific point the OP made that MMORPGs should get back to adding that level of challenge or difficulty. In an MMO where the playerbase is there for challenging battle and not to simply progreess their character, that would work. Very few MMOs are actually like that and very few players are actually looking for that (raid/boss/elite content the exception) so getting back to showing players this form of gameplay isn't anything that most MMOs should really focus on as it conflicts with what their players are trying to achieve/accomplish.
This is an interesting post. It goes quite contrary to the ideas expressed by 2 certain players that what players really seek is complex challenging gameplay. I'm sure you know the two people I mean, I do not get along with them well. I would say that the kind of thing Creslin is talking about is not what you are talking about. He doesn't argue for all the mobs in the game to be exactly equivalent to the player in power. In fact he was arguing the opposite. I also don't think that the rare super strong Sand Giant style monster is there for a challenge. You aren't expected to play and beat it at a low level. You are expected to get crushed in a few seconds. Thus when you are finally able to kill it you are like wow that is so cool. I've changed. Its like in elementary school you think being a highschooler is so cool. And then one day you ARE one and you feel so cool. Omg, I'm in highschool!!! That's what this is about.
On Friday I hunkered down with my level 18 ranger in Qeynos hills to camp Pyzjn, I spent the whole weekend, about 16 hours camping her, I killed her 6 times no problems, she was dark blue still but around 13-14 level I think. Then on Sunday night, after logging off I thought crap I'm going to do "one more night" and I managed to spawn her,attacked her, saw her little hand glowing red, was like woot! and then she proceeded to dot the crap out of me, lifetap all my hp away and kill me with 40% life...
Most frustrating thing ever but that's what was great and is still great about Everquest.
People may want easy boring progression, but that's imo only because developers have spoon fed them that since they were old enough to click [buy WoW gold]. Adversity is an important part of any experience in life, those who experience it appreciate, those who don't adversity appreciate nothing.
P.S In case ur confused I play a Everquest private server which tries to mirror classic EQ up to Kunark and does a very good job.
At low level, you might struggle to defend your village against goblins sent by a noblemen working for a king sworn to an evil god.
At mid level, you might kill the noblemen and free your village from tyranny.
At high level, you might kill the king and rule the kingdom.
And at epic level, you might kill the god.
[...]
And like I said earlier...if you just focus on the "numerical contest" part of the game, then it definitely IS flawed, and that is what most MMORPGs do.
I thought so too, for a time. SWToR convinced me otherwise. Despite a focus on story, it still turned into a numerical contest.
Perhaps that is the flaw with the length of MMOs, or perhaps it's just a flaw with SWToR's particular brand of story telling. I know with GW1 I was actually pleasantly driven by the stories. Since the story portion of GW2 looks to be longer than GW1, it will be interesting to see how that works.
Anyway, PnP or MMO, I believe I will always be discouraged by the idea that what I'm fighting is the same thing I was fighting before, and that an evil God is just a goblin with a different skin, different skill-set, and different story motivation. Perhaps I'm just getting cynical.
Then on Sunday night, after logging off I thought crap I'm going to do "one more night" and I managed to spawn her,attacked her, saw her little hand glowing red, was like woot! and then she proceeded to dot the crap out of me, lifetap all my hp away and kill me with 40% life...
Most frustrating thing ever but that's what was great and is still great about Everquest.
I may be wrong, but doesn't that mean you failed just because she used more powerful abilities, and had succeeded before because she didn't? If so, success/failure by randomness does not equate to challenge or skill.
At low level, you might struggle to defend your village against goblins sent by a noblemen working for a king sworn to an evil god.
At mid level, you might kill the noblemen and free your village from tyranny.
At high level, you might kill the king and rule the kingdom.
And at epic level, you might kill the god.
[...]
And like I said earlier...if you just focus on the "numerical contest" part of the game, then it definitely IS flawed, and that is what most MMORPGs do.
I thought so too, for a time. SWToR convinced me otherwise. Despite a focus on story, it still turned into a numerical contest.
Perhaps that is the flaw with the length of MMOs, or perhaps it's just a flaw with SWToR's particular brand of story telling. I know with GW1 I was actually pleasantly driven by the stories. Since the story portion of GW2 looks to be longer than GW1, it will be interesting to see how that works.
Anyway, PnP or MMO, I believe I will always be discouraged by the idea that what I'm fighting is the same thing I was fighting before, and that an evil God is just a goblin with a different skin, different skill-set, and different story motivation. Perhaps I'm just getting cynical.
I still want to try to grow the genre though.
Different skillset and different story motivation? Well duh. Everything is numbers. So really everything you do is just processing math. So its all the same, even real life.
You are just me with a different skillset and story motivation.
You should really stop confusing what you want with what most players want, since you really have no way to determine what most players want.
This, I think, is the reason many people have problems with your arguments.
Look around you.
It's pretty obvious that MMORPGs which allowed both solo and grouping have blasted group-only MMORPGs out of the water.
The market has spoken very loudly about what they want. If you're plugging your ears, it's on you.
And if that's not enough, it's well-known trends in game design as well, with developers discovering that Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness are critical to good game design (from a talk I attended at GDC given by a designer on theUncharted series. Her presentation apparently has roots in Self-determination Theory) Autonomy in the case of games refers to the sense that you can accomplish things on your own (the ability to solo obviously provides tons of autonomy.)
From the reality around us to the deeper details of game design, it's very obvious that "some classes suck at soloing" isn't desired by most players.
All the theory in the world doesn't dictate what people want. Especially when that theory is in regards to single-player games. Also, what people want and what people will settle for are two very different creatures.
Lets take a look at history. Pong. Pong was very popular. Game developers said "Hey! Our numbers and statistics say people want more Pong!" So developers continued to make Pong. The market was flooded with Pong, and the industry almost disintegrated because no one was doing anything else.
The numbers lied. People settled for Pong because Pong was all there was, until they just couldn't settle anymore.
Different skillset and different story motivation? Well duh. Everything is numbers. So really everything you do is just processing math. So its all the same, even real life.
You are just me with a different skillset and story motivation.
That's not a particularly useful belief though.
That's true in a way. You can extrapolate that idea out to anything, really.
However, I think the point of all of this is that if you have a game that is based entirely on those numbers (which is typical of many types of RPGs, especially rote MMORPGs that have 20 skills that deal damage in different ways, and most PnP rpgs) then the feeling of sameness is going to destroy any immersion you might have had, and things like skillsets and story stop mattering as much. And, as Creslin pointed out in his OP, other factors, such as perfect balance of what you are fighting compared to your level, exasperate this issue.
That's why I think the genre's initial roots of basing gameplay entirely (or almost entirely) on increasing numbers has been flawed from the beginning.
The only difference between now and our "roots" is that we are now more reliant on these systems invented 40 years ago. They were never meant to be used to simulate a world, just determine the outcome of a conflict.
Different skillset and different story motivation? Well duh. Everything is numbers. So really everything you do is just processing math. So its all the same, even real life.
You are just me with a different skillset and story motivation.
That's not a particularly useful belief though.
That's true in a way. You can extrapolate that idea out to anything, really.
However, I think the point of all of this is that if you have a game that is based entirely on those numbers (which is typical of many types of RPGs, especially rote MMORPGs that have 20 skills that deal damage in different ways, and most PnP rpgs) then the feeling of sameness is going to destroy any immersion you might have had, and things like skillsets and story stop mattering as much. And, as Creslin pointed out in his OP, other factors, such as perfect balance of what you are fighting compared to your level, exasperate this issue.
That's why I think the genre's initial roots of basing gameplay entirely (or almost entirely) on increasing numbers has been flawed from the beginning.
The only difference between now and our "roots" is that we are now more reliant on these systems invented 40 years ago. They were never meant to be used to simulate a world, just determine the outcome of a conflict.
Bingo, I think you just summed up the point I was trying to make in my extremely long post last night in two sentences, well said .
Different skillset and different story motivation? Well duh. Everything is numbers. So really everything you do is just processing math. So its all the same, even real life.
You are just me with a different skillset and story motivation.
That's not a particularly useful belief though.
That's true in a way. You can extrapolate that idea out to anything, really.
However, I think the point of all of this is that if you have a game that is based entirely on those numbers (which is typical of many types of RPGs, especially rote MMORPGs that have 20 skills that deal damage in different ways, and most PnP rpgs) then the feeling of sameness is going to destroy any immersion you might have had, and things like skillsets and story stop mattering as much. And, as Creslin pointed out in his OP, other factors, such as perfect balance of what you are fighting compared to your level, exasperate this issue.
That's why I think the genre's initial roots of basing gameplay entirely (or almost entirely) on increasing numbers has been flawed from the beginning.
The only difference between now and our "roots" is that we are now more reliant on these systems invented 40 years ago. They were never meant to be used to simulate a world, just determine the outcome of a conflict.
Bingo, I think you just summed up the point I was trying to make in my extremely long post last night in two sentences, well said .
What else are we going to base the progression on though? Any progression of characters is based on numbers because computers.
Theoretically we could create a system as complex as real life, and maybe you would be too dumb to perceive the numbers, but that would just piss people off. Games are supposed to have rulesets that a human can understand. And if we base it on real life skills, a majority of nerds won't be able to be good at it, and aren't rpgs for nerds? And in any case where is the role playing with twitch? And unless you have a turn based game, just being smart isn't really a viable talent in real time games.
But still, fire damage and poison damage are really just numbers in real life too. Everything is numbers.
I remember in TTS I wanted to have physics and the environment play a role in conflict and people flipped a shit.
I also thought about making a chemistry system where you could construct poisons from environment materials. Instead of just a generic poison category. But I bet 90% of players will complain that they are not organic chem phds and don't want to earn a second degree just to play a game. Unless I make it so simple that the purpose is invalidated.
And if we don't rely on numbers, how to make the game hard to master but simple to learn? Especially without complexity.
PvP is considered non complicated, like Chess, because the world obfuscates the truth from people. Playing a person is functionally non different from playing a computer but people perceive it as different.
So people say that chess is simple to learn and hard to master and its deep not complex, but really thats an illusion. Chess, much like a videogame, is simple, in chess pieces have moves and in games you have physical attacks, movement, and magic and healing. If you play a shitty enemy you can suck hard and win, just like in LoL where people play other shitty players and win and think its simple to learn LoL. But its not.
The difference is that in an RPG the math is in your face. Stats and so forth. Whereas "skill" in a PvP game is hidden. A player has a twitch stat, an intellect stat, a decisiveness stat, a well rested stat and so forth. Plus there are a lot of random factors. Well more like, factors so complex that they are effectively random.
I suppose the TL:DR here is this:
PvE is functionally identical to PvP but people perceive it as being different and therefore it is different. Even though its not. Paradox! Fun times.
That perception means this:
YOU WILL NEVER MAKE PVE THAT IS CONSIDERED DEEP.
A good experiment would be this. Make a player monster system like LOTRO. Tell people that they are playing other people. They will believe you. Even though the game is always bots vs humans players will perceive your totally standard PvE game as a PvP game and there will be arguments about how deep it is and what great design. And you will just stand there and suddenly collapse. Because your mind will be blown.
When I play a game I give my mind a preprocessor command:
#pragma comment: These monsters are real living beings.
Bam, I can treat PvE identically to how I treat PvP.
The difference between deep and complex in most standard use cases is entirely imaginary.
The difference between deep and complex in most standard use cases is entirely imaginary.
I would say opinionated rather than imaginary. Imaginary would suggest that it doesn't actually exist, but the level of enjoyment someone feels over something is very real. It's also totally based on their own opinion.
Some dont even like "deep" and "complex", and would instead opt for "simple" and "easy".
I think there's room in the market for both, but I don't think both play well together and, in my opinion, need to be kept apart.
The difference between deep and complex in most standard use cases is entirely imaginary.
I would say opinionated rather than imaginary. Imaginary would suggest that it doesn't actually exist, but the level of enjoyment someone feels over something is very real. It's also totally based on their own opinion.
Some dont even like "deep" and "complex", and would instead opt for "simple" and "easy".
I think there's room in the market for both, but I don't think both play well together and, in my opinion, need to be kept apart.
I believe we are saying the same thing but with some different context on a given concept so it looks like we aren't. A perfect example of my point about subjective reality.
The difference is effectively real. But not actually real.
This might seem like a tiny distinction if you care about effective reality. However, when you perceive a non truth it can create other problems.
People who want to create deep PvE have a problem. This imaginary difference prevents them from acheiving their goal. Because in a sense perception shapes reality, ie the concept of the social construction of reality in sociology, it is actually not possible to create a computer vs player experience which feels the same to a player.
A good example is tetris. Tetris is not "deep" like Chess. Tetris is given as an example of a "deep" single player game but in reality all Tetris does is ramp up the numbers. As you progress in the game the law of large numbers produces a higher chance that you will get a very poor selection of pieces and lose. And also the game speed increaeses so that eventually you cannot produce input fast enough.
Even though this is clearly analogous to high hitpoint pools on monsters in RPGs or maybe faster attack speed or larger groups of mobs many people who support the "deep" vs "complicated" dichotomy try to reference tetris as a deep single player game.
The truth is that a single player game will never be considered as deep as multiplayer unless you shift the imaginary perception.
Long ago women were considered poor at math and this perception shaped women's belief about their math abilities. They thought they were bad and that women were not supposed to do math and so they didn't TRY.
A perfect example of perception shapinfg reality.
That is why the ideal experiment involves a long long running lie that a game is multiplayer. If we could avoid legal interference we could prove my theory. Sadly its unlikely.
Given that in most turing test demonstrations both humans and machines weigh in at about 50% human and 50% machine based on human guesses this is theoretically possible to pull off. Again as long as no one spills the beans. or no one starts suing.
Too much nonsense here. I'm sorry but I have to pick this apart point by point.
Originally posted by Cuathon
What else are we going to base the progression on though? Any progression of characters is based on numbers because computers.
There are plenty of other ways to base progression.
GW1 has a very horizontal based progression, you gain new skills that you can use, but don't grow in actual power (after the first 20 hours or so, anyway). This is what I want to capitalize on by using ccg mechanics.
Competitive games, such as League of Legends have micro-progression, which, while numeric, still allows for a level 1 to dominate a level 30 by skill differentiation.
Further, competitive games allow a personal skill progression, as your knowledge of mechanics and play grow, you become more powerful.
Originally posted by Cuathon
Theoretically we could create a system as complex as real life, and maybe you would be too dumb to perceive the numbers, but that would just piss people off. Games are supposed to have rulesets that a human can understand. And if we base it on real life skills, a majority of nerds won't be able to be good at it, and aren't rpgs for nerds? And in any case where is the role playing with twitch? And unless you have a turn based game, just being smart isn't really a viable talent in real time games.
Stereotypes were fun in the 90's as well. The world isn't this simple as "nerds like numbers not rl lol!!" Actually, most intelligent people tend to excel at interpersonal communication as well.
In regards to your comment about twitch play, I will again bring up dark souls. A truly sublime game design allows for (and necessitates) character growth, but player skill (and personal skill progression) are tantamount.
Originally posted by Cuathon
I also thought about making a chemistry system where you could construct poisons from environment materials. Instead of just a generic poison category. But I bet 90% of players will complain that they are not organic chem phds and don't want to earn a second degree just to play a game. Unless I make it so simple that the purpose is invalidated.
You don't give players enough credit. I think if something adds to a game's playability it will be desired by gamers. If it's soul purpose is to add realism or complexity to the game, however, people will balk. It's a good thing too, because those are really dumb reasons to add features to a game.
Originally posted by Cuathon
And if we don't rely on numbers, how to make the game hard to master but simple to learn? Especially without complexity.
Odd you would say this? IMath makes games hard to learn and simple to master.
Originally posted by Cuathon
The difference is that in an RPG the math is in your face. Stats and so forth. Whereas "skill" in a PvP game is hidden. A player has a twitch stat, an intellect stat, a decisiveness stat, a well rested stat and so forth. Plus there are a lot of random factors. Well more like, factors so complex that they are effectively random.
I agree with this. Unfortunately the math in your face usually amounts to "I will attack this creature because I know I will win." etc. That's not good gameplay. That's doing errands.
Originally posted by Cuathon
I suppose the TL:DR here is this:
PvE is functionally identical to PvP but people perceive it as being different and therefore it is different. Even though its not. Paradox! Fun times.
That perception means this:
YOU WILL NEVER MAKE PVE THAT IS CONSIDERED DEEP.
A good experiment would be this. Make a player monster system like LOTRO. Tell people that they are playing other people. They will believe you. Even though the game is always bots vs humans players will perceive your totally standard PvE game as a PvP game and there will be arguments about how deep it is and what great design. And you will just stand there and suddenly collapse. Because your mind will be blown.
When I play a game I give my mind a preprocessor command:
#pragma comment: These monsters are real living beings.
Bam, I can treat PvE identically to how I treat PvP.
The difference between deep and complex in most standard use cases is entirely imaginary
PvE is obviously different than PvP for reasons that you've mentioned. Whether it's "functionally" different or not depends on your definition of functionally, but really it doesn't matter. You're a tool if you think you can make an AI that makes people think they are playing other actual players over a long period of time. That's a turing test that game AI is far from reaching.
Even if this were the case, it has nothing to do with the depth of PvE, and neither does anything anyone has been talking about anywhere in this thread. I stand that PvE can be deep (and non-complex simultaneously), but that's completely subjective, and adds nothing to any argument. It's also dependant on your definition of deep and complex gameplay.
TLDR:
There is nothing of value to be gained from the quoted post.
Too much nonsense here. I'm sorry but I have to pick this apart point by point.
Originally posted by Cuathon
What else are we going to base the progression on though? Any progression of characters is based on numbers because computers.
There are plenty of other ways to base progression.
GW1 has a very horizontal based progression, you gain new skills that you can use, but don't grow in actual power (after the first 20 hours or so, anyway). This is what I want to capitalize on by using ccg mechanics.
Competitive games, such as League of Legends have micro-progression, which, while numeric, still allows for a level 1 to dominate a level 30 by skill differentiation.
Further, competitive games allow a personal skill progression, as your knowledge of mechanics and play grow, you become more powerful.
Horizontal progression is meaningless. In most cases 90% of skills are useless. But if you call collecting useless objects to be progression than I guess you are right?
Progression in LoL lasts about a few weeks. After that it doens't exist. Yelling "Random game has progression" where progression is almost instantly complete and adds very little value is silly. Imagine if you played just bots. Your progression wouldn't feel very meaningful. LoL's value is derived from PvP. When I leveled in LoL I didn't even both assigning my points until I hit level 30 because it was meaningless. At the point in the game when you are leveling to 30, those points don't matter. Masteries only matter in games with top players which are so close that 20 mana is the difference between a win and a loss. Just like having a bike that weighs a half a pound less doesn't mean shit unless you are in a professional long distance bike race.
Originally posted by Cuathon
Theoretically we could create a system as complex as real life, and maybe you would be too dumb to perceive the numbers, but that would just piss people off. Games are supposed to have rulesets that a human can understand. And if we base it on real life skills, a majority of nerds won't be able to be good at it, and aren't rpgs for nerds? And in any case where is the role playing with twitch? And unless you have a turn based game, just being smart isn't really a viable talent in real time games.
Stereotypes were fun in the 90's as well. The world isn't this simple as "nerds like numbers not rl lol!!" Actually, most intelligent people tend to excel at interpersonal communication as well.
I am not stereotyping. At the time when computers games were niche nerd activities the number of athletes with superior twitch compared to the best twitch nerds was huge.
In regards to your comment about twitch play, I will again bring up dark souls. A truly sublime game design allows for (and necessitates) character growth, but player skill (and personal skill progression) are tantamount.
Originally posted by Cuathon
I also thought about making a chemistry system where you could construct poisons from environment materials. Instead of just a generic poison category. But I bet 90% of players will complain that they are not organic chem phds and don't want to earn a second degree just to play a game. Unless I make it so simple that the purpose is invalidated.
You don't give players enough credit. I think if something adds to a game's playability it will be desired by gamers. If it's soul purpose is to add realism or complexity to the game, however, people will balk. It's a good thing too, because those are really dumb reasons to add features to a game.
That's totally tautological. Anything that adds to gameplay will be desired by players. Anything that people don't do is because it doesn't add to gameplay. That is what you just said. It sounds ridiculous.
Gameplay value is totally subjective.
Originally posted by Cuathon
And if we don't rely on numbers, how to make the game hard to master but simple to learn? Especially without complexity.
Odd you would say this? IMath makes games hard to learn and simple to master.
I have no idea what you said here. IMath?
Originally posted by Cuathon
The difference is that in an RPG the math is in your face. Stats and so forth. Whereas "skill" in a PvP game is hidden. A player has a twitch stat, an intellect stat, a decisiveness stat, a well rested stat and so forth. Plus there are a lot of random factors. Well more like, factors so complex that they are effectively random.
I agree with this. Unfortunately the math in your face usually amounts to "I will attack this creature because I know I will win." etc. That's not good gameplay. That's doing errands.
Whether you see the math or not doesn't affect reality. Given players who pick easy mobs without seeing math, its still an errand. Whether you see the math is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Cuathon
I suppose the TL:DR here is this:
PvE is functionally identical to PvP but people perceive it as being different and therefore it is different. Even though its not. Paradox! Fun times.
That perception means this:
YOU WILL NEVER MAKE PVE THAT IS CONSIDERED DEEP.
A good experiment would be this. Make a player monster system like LOTRO. Tell people that they are playing other people. They will believe you. Even though the game is always bots vs humans players will perceive your totally standard PvE game as a PvP game and there will be arguments about how deep it is and what great design. And you will just stand there and suddenly collapse. Because your mind will be blown.
When I play a game I give my mind a preprocessor command:
#pragma comment: These monsters are real living beings.
Bam, I can treat PvE identically to how I treat PvP.
The difference between deep and complex in most standard use cases is entirely imaginary
PvE is obviously different than PvP for reasons that you've mentioned. Whether it's "functionally" different or not depends on your definition of functionally, but really it doesn't matter. You're a tool if you think you can make an AI that makes people think they are playing other actual players over a long period of time. That's a turing test that game AI is far from reaching.
By functionally I mean this, PvP appears interesting because we can't know who will win right? Why not? Because we don't have access to all the numbers. We could make a computer with just as much complexity. But if you KNEW it was a computer you would percieve it as random or unfair based on the results. Ie if you lost too much you would call it unfair, we have seen many demonstrations of this behavior. If it went 50 50 you would just say it was random. Why is it not random when players go 50 50? Because of our perception of humans. If you believe that we are something more than deterministic, which is what computers are, then you perceive the 50 50 result as b eing not the same. We have proved that perception functions even when it is wrong. Humans DO attribute things to incorrect beliefs and feel differently about them because of that.
Even if this were the case, it has nothing to do with the depth of PvE, and neither does anything anyone has been talking about anywhere in this thread. I stand that PvE can be deep (and non-complex simultaneously), but that's completely subjective, and adds nothing to any argument. It's also dependant on your definition of deep and complex gameplay.
It has everything to do with the depth of PvE. Depth is just misunderstood complexity. PvP is deep because humans. Even if we make a computer that produces identical results, and we pass it off as a human, as soon as people KNOW its a computer they start changing their mind about what happened to them. What happened is the same, only their perception changes.
TLDR:
There is nothing of value to be gained from the quoted post.
Not agreeing with me or understanding what I say, I don't know which describes you, doesn't mean I have nothing of value. These are too different things.
Saying: "Wow sucks because frog" would be saying nothing of value.
1) Access to new skills allows combinations to make old skills viable, making a constantly changing gameplay while skills are unlocked.
2) You are obviously not good at LoL your level of play is so bad that the difference between a level 29 and level 1 character does not matter to you. I'm sorry you have not been able to experience this game in a more meaningful fashion.
3) Claiming that stereotypes are facts does not excuse you from stereotyping.
4) It is not tautological to say that gamers want improved gameplay. Some gamers may not want improved gameplay if it costs too much somewhere else (development time, game cost, complexity, etc.)
5) Gameplay value is subjective, but if features are added because it will improve players enjoyment (in their subjective cases) then the features will be embraced. If they are added to make things more complicated, then only those who enjoy complexity for complexity's sake will enjoy the changes.
6) You're getting desperate if you're going to try to say you can't understand me due to an errant "I" in a word.
7) Yes, seeing the math does not matter if it's an obvious i win or lose choice.
8) You have a long argument that pvp is the same as pve because players are random. Players are not random. There are tell-tale signs of humanity in gameplay, and predictability in what an opponent will do. For instance, if I play LoL, I can dominate a lane enough that I can anticipate my opponent will not attack when he otherwise should.
9) Again, you are giving way too much credit to this placebo idea of "if you say they are human and no one spills the beans then no one will figure it out!" It's ridiculous. Give that up.
Also, still PvE depth, complexity, etc. has nothing to do with the original point, which is the common MMORPG gameplay flaws revolving around difficulty.
1) Access to new skills allows combinations to make old skills viable, making a constantly changing gameplay while skills are unlocked.
2) You are obviously not good at LoL your level of play is so bad that the difference between a level 29 and level 1 character does not matter to you. I'm sorry you have not been able to experience this game in a more meaningful fashion.
The distinction between a level 30 and a level 1 player is irrelevant at the stage where you are actually at those levels. If I were to play against someone of my current skill and one of us was level 1 and one was 30 it would make a difference. But in your first 100 or so games which is pretty much how long before you get into the 20s and 30s the small bonuses of masteries are not that important. Especially since generally players in the first 30 levels don't know what the optimal masters for their character are. And most people don't have good runes this early either.
In fact you just agreed with me. Really bad players don't appreciate the difference between 30 and 1. And prior to hitting level 30 the first time most people suck.
3) Claiming that stereotypes are facts does not excuse you from stereotyping.
Fine. I am stereotyping. What I said is still true.
4) It is not tautological to say that gamers want improved gameplay. Some gamers may not want improved gameplay if it costs too much somewhere else (development time, game cost, complexity, etc.)
I said that its tautological to say that gamers want improved gameplay when you defined improved gameplay by what players want.
If you start with the premise players only want better gameplay than any gameplay players say they want is by definition better because players only want good gameplay.
And since players on this very forum desire gameplay that you don't yet players only want good gameplay how do you reconcile that? You can't. Your position is illogical.
What constitutes good gameplay is variable. Its relative and subjective.
5) Gameplay value is subjective, but if features are added because it will improve players enjoyment (in their subjective cases) then the features will be embraced. If they are added to make things more complicated, then only those who enjoy complexity for complexity's sake will enjoy the changes.
The distinction between adding to increase complexity and adding gameplay is just as relative as gameplay. One person's increased complexity is another's superior gameplay.
6) You're getting desperate if you're going to try to say you can't understand me due to an errant "I" in a word.
I or l? eye or elle.
7) Yes, seeing the math does not matter if it's an obvious i win or lose choice.
Its only non obvious if you hide the math. How is it player skill that determines the winner of a fight where you don't know anything about the other side? Its random based on whether the enemy is better or worse.
All the "player" skills that people obsessively reference are just as determinstic and math based as assigning stats. As I said, players have stats too.
8) You have a long argument that pvp is the same as pve because players are random. Players are not random. There are tell-tale signs of humanity in gameplay, and predictability in what an opponent will do. For instance, if I play LoL, I can dominate a lane enough that I can anticipate my opponent will not attack when he otherwise should.
I can assign this power to a computer as well. The fact is that EACH HUMAN is essentially its own powerful computer. Having many many games run on a single server or even just 5 bots on one computer vs 5 players on 5 "computers" obviously means that bots won't be as complex as players. Imagine a game where you had 5 deep blues on one side and 5 players on another.
But thats a financial constraint and not a gameplay one. Companies cannot afford to support a computer that costs the same as a human. After all that means the cost of what, millions of humans for LoL? In a free to play game? Please. Again you argue for gameplay but you are dealing with financial limitations.
9) Again, you are giving way too much credit to this placebo idea of "if you say they are human and no one spills the beans then no one will figure it out!" It's ridiculous. Give that up.
This is not true. We have computers that score better on a Turing Test than humans. Even chatbots can do that. If you made a program to effectively simulate a person you could fool people. But what company can spend the money to do that?
Also, still PvE depth, complexity, etc. has nothing to do with the original point, which is the common MMORPG gameplay flaws revolving around difficulty.
You quoted a post by me that was discussing WHY PvE was more difficult to create than PvP. If you wanted to discuss a different aspect of the OP why did you quote me? Its not my fault you responded to me.
That's true in a way. You can extrapolate that idea out to anything, really.
However, I think the point of all of this is that if you have a game that is based entirely on those numbers (which is typical of many types of RPGs, especially rote MMORPGs that have 20 skills that deal damage in different ways, and most PnP rpgs) then the feeling of sameness is going to destroy any immersion you might have had, and things like skillsets and story stop mattering as much. And, as Creslin pointed out in his OP, other factors, such as perfect balance of what you are fighting compared to your level, exasperate this issue.
That's why I think the genre's initial roots of basing gameplay entirely (or almost entirely) on increasing numbers has been flawed from the beginning.
The only difference between now and our "roots" is that we are now more reliant on these systems invented 40 years ago. They were never meant to be used to simulate a world, just determine the outcome of a conflict.
Excellent post. The use of a game engine to take the place of the DM/storyteller made that component far less effective and useful, so MMOs have gravitated toward the combat component (the numbers) as their crutch to strengthen the game.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
You should really stop confusing what you want with what most players want, since you really have no way to determine what most players want.
This, I think, is the reason many people have problems with your arguments.
Your comment just now was a cop out. I think you missed his point completely.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Look around you.
It's pretty obvious that MMORPGs which allowed both solo and grouping have blasted group-only MMORPGs out of the water.
The market has spoken very loudly about what they want. If you're plugging your ears, it's on you.
And if that's not enough, it's well-known trends in game design as well, with developers discovering that Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness are critical to good game design (from a talk I attended at GDC given by a designer on theUncharted series. Her presentation apparently has roots in Self-determination Theory) Autonomy in the case of games refers to the sense that you can accomplish things on your own (the ability to solo obviously provides tons of autonomy.)
From the reality around us to the deeper details of game design, it's very obvious that "some classes suck at soloing" isn't desired by most players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes, exactly! Good clarification. Perhaps "safe" would have been a better term for me to use than "fair fight."
There's been a whole lot of debate back and forth about player skill versus character skill and what not, but this kind of misses the point of the thread. The point is that modern MMORPGs are so concerned with giving a "safe" and "balanced" leveling experience to the player, that they essentially railroad the player into a very pre-determined and consistently balanced leveling path, where all the MOBs are roughly the level of the player at all times. This results in the player growing complacent and never really feeling like they are progressing since the enemies always progress on par with them.
And yes, you can walk off the beaten path in a modern MMORPG if you want, but the game really discourages this. Walking off the beaten path nets you FAR less reward than staying on your leveling path does, the mobs are typically invincible to you, and you normally can't even get any of the quests in the higher level area.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I was really debating responding to this because I really agree with certain parts of it, but then I'm confused about others. But anyway, I obviously decided to respond
.
First off...I can't agree with you more about not liking D&D 4E. Man, did I think that was a terrible direction for D&D. It turned D&D from an epic game of exploration, into a well balanced tactical RPG. I mean, it wasn't a terrible game, but it wasn't really D&D. Personally, and I know you disagree, I thought the main issue with 4E was this whole fairness thing. Every class was given the EXACT same system for ability usage...everything felt the same. A ranger did very similar things to a sorceror...the abilities just had different names.
Second...I think I disagree with you about your assertion that there is some kind of fundamental flaw with RPGs that needs a revolutionary fix, but I may just be misunderstanding. I really don't think there is any kind of fundamental flaw with all RPGs...I've always loved the genre for what it was. If anything, I'm just annoyed that it seems to be getting away from its roots. Could you please clarify more on what you feel think fundamental flaw is?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Well no wonder we missed the point.
"Safe" is in many ways the opposite of a "fair" fight. It's imbalanced and unfair if the player consistently slaughters PVE mobs.
Although there's a bit of conflict in your statement of "never feeling like they are progressing".
Basically you have the desire for true fair fights (where player skill is required to succeed, and mobs aren't easily slaughtered) which necessitates that the player is consistently able to fight challenging enemies, which necessitates a certain lack of progression.
But at the same time a game shouldn't lock you into never seeing or experiencing mobs which are now easily slaughtered, or even mobs which are currently too hard to kill. Since it's these occasional outliers which really give the sense of progression. But those outliers can't be the norm, or fights will be too boring or frustratingly impossible.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The current scene of MMOS and upcoming title clearly shows what majority of players want.
To the blue part...no, I don't
. Or rather, it's immaterial to this discussion. Whether the mobs at the players level are "easy" or "hard" isn't really applicable...this discussion is more about spreading mobs of higher level/difficulty around the world more than it is about individual fights being harder or easier.
To the green part...yes I basically agree with this, but let me expand on it a bit. The issue at hand is that mobs are essentailly "cordoned off" by level to specific zones. In the level 10-20 zone, you will rarely see a mob that is higher level, and if you are level 10-19, then you have absolutely zero incentive, or reason to go outside your "box." You will stay in the level 10-19 zone until you get level 20, then you will move to the level 20-29 zone...ad infinitum.
It did not used to be this way. It used to be, you would just explore the world and find mobs. Some of them would be easy for you, some would be hard. When you found a spot with mobs that were "good" for you to fight, you would frequent that area. Then when you explored again, you would find that the mobs that used to be very hard for you to beat, are now much easier...thus you always felt like you were progressing because you were constantly exposed to mobs of varying difficulty.
I really think that one of the main roots of the problem here is that all themepark MMORPGs insist on making someone only 5 levels higher than you RIDICULOUSLY more powerful than you. This means that you pretty much HAVE to stay within your little box, or you will have no chance of success.
Personally, I would prefer if the power gap between a "max level" and "min level" player were not nearly as severe as it always is now. I would like a system where there were maybe just four "tiers" of mobs:
Beginner
Intermediate
Hard
Master
Low level players would be stuck with beginner mobs, or maybe intermediate mobs if they were really good. Mid level players could fight beginner or intermediate mobs...and maybe hard if they were really good or had a group. And so on and so on...
It would just make the world feel so much more open. If you put normal TP games into a "tier" framework with regards to their mobs, they would have something ridiculous like 12 tiers. Because like I said, if something is 5 levels higher than you, it is impossible to beat, and 60(levels)/5 = 12 tiers. Add this to the fact that most TP games are two faction, then you have an even MORE railroaded experience...
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Sure! Thanks for responding.
And, just so you know, I actually find 4e to be far superior to the previous versions of DnD (although it has its unique, unrelated flaws as well). My point isn't that it's bad, but that it's refined enough to let me see the flaws with the level/challenge conundrum. Basically, the genre is getting far enough away from its roots, that the flaws in the roots themselves are becoming exposed.
Here's some points before we begin.
Challenge is relative. RPGs are not (necessarily) easier because we level up, nor are they (necessarily) harder when we fight end game enemies. There are many examples where things go either way. These are functions of enemy power vs. character power + player power (skill, strategy, etc.)
Modern RPGs almost universally apply some sort of scaling system so that challenge remains. This is either done through scaling individual creatures based off of character level (ala Skyrim/KoA), or scaling the experience to give access to higher level creatures due to story progression or map progression (ala WoW or Mass Effect). In general, this scaling is highly desirable, because without it the amount of time spent developing a character makes all other aspects of the game worthless.
This one is contestable, and I believe the point of your thread. In general, balance is better than imbalance. A perfectly balanced game will be playable by any person under any circumstances. A truly excellent player would have the same challenge as a horrible player, due to scaling of enemies. Both would find the game challenging and fun (unless they saw each other and found that the grass is greener...). By contrast a perfectly imbalanced game is straight unplayable.
So, let's say someone created the perfectly balanced RPG, without any systems in place to try to hide or adjust that balance. We have a linear, static difficulty curve. Possibly to account for increase in player skill, enemies/levels may become slightly harder late game (as is done with typical single player games, adventure, FPS, etc.).
The player is picking skills, stats, etc. to improve themselves, however they are not actually changing the gameplay. The enemies improve at the same rate. In fact, if they didn't pick the skills, they would notice no actual difference in the difficulty of the gameplay.
What does this mean? The level and advancement system is meaningless. It's a smoke and mirrors system to make it seem like you are improving, when in actuality you are not.
There are a lot of ways that RPGs try to hide this.
Create "game changing" abilities (such as the ability to fly, etc.) that unlock as you level. DnD 4e went this route. Most MMOs try this as well.
Create statistical imbalance in gameplay, so that early game feels different than late game. All other DnD's went this route. 1 hit death possibilities at level 1, bag of hp at level 15. This is pure bad game design imo.
Create statistical imbalance between classes so that character importance changes over time. All other DnD's also did this (linear fighters, exponential spellcasters).
Create imbalance in enemy scaling so that at high levels your opponents are less challenging (or more challenging) than they were before. Skyrim and Oblivion both did this, and ruined late game in opposite ways for me. (actually, it's probably less of a purposeful imbalance than just a damn hard balance to achieve).
Create imbalance between individual enemies, so that it's not immediately clear what challenge the player faces when fighting a creature. This still keeps the challenge wavering within a certain waveband of difficulty that will eventually be known. Essentially, this is like having the weak, normal, elite, champion (or whatever) of SWToR without having the ability to tell what it is before fighting (and the possibility of them being between the ranks as well).
Allow a wide range of customization so strategic character choices are rewarded more than poor choices. (D2 is the exemplar of this).
Show bigger numbers on the screen/dice so you can feel more awesome (sadly, this works really well).
Have you walk through previous areas to show how much more awesome you are than you used to be.
Have an active combat system to obscure the numbers behind the scenes.
Increase the focus on player skill so that the character skill portion of things matters less.
Likely many others I haven't thought of.
The problem with this is they are still just trying to hide the inherant issue. When you level up both characters and enemies, the point of leveling up (showing growth of character) becomes moot, or is at least dramatically lessened.
So, I think there is a fundamental issue with RPGs in this sense, and I think it has festered and grown as we have become more and more dependant on the idea of leveling up (so much so, that it has become the game instead of achieving victory over the game world). I also think that there needs to be some pretty dramatic changes within the genre if we are ever going to move past this. What those changes are, I'm not entirely sure. No one really is. A lot of people don't care. They'd rather level. I understand, becasue this is a powerful motivator for me too.
As a game that I think is a step in the right direction, I will highlight Dark Souls. Gaining a level in dark souls can be a big deal (especially because it's a challenge, and you're in danger of losing your souls before you gain it). However, the power difference between levels is very small. Leveling up once or twice does not trivialize previous opponents, nor does it make tough enemies easy. It also does a number of the above "tricks" in ways that empathize the game's strengths. For instance, going through previous areas feels more awesome in an action game, because you are still in danger, still need to be engaged in the game, and can't just press a button whenever you feel like it to instantly win. There are also plenty of corner stone levels marked by your choices in character building. Getting access to a new weapon because you've got enough strength (finally) is an awesome feeling.
Anyway, I have my own thoughts on what I think needs to change. As long as the system of power gain is numeric in nature (ie. you have stats that are based on how many hours you've played the game), this is going to remain a problem. I want to see if I can keep a sense of progression in a game, but get rid of the numeric based system. Hence the card game. (XP allows you to purchase new (random) cards).
Very good post, thanks for putting so much time into writing this reply!
I agree with much of what you say, but I still don't feel like this flaw has always existed in RPGs...at least not the way I look at them. I always felt that the "magic" of progressing in D&D had very little to do with the "numbers." As you say, getting more hitpoints, a better attack rating, or doing more damage is just an illusion because the mobs you fight will get the same increases to keep the game interesting. Instead, I thought that the magic was all about how your character's "place in the world" changed as you got more powerful.
For example:
At low level, you might struggle to defend your village against goblins sent by a noblemen working for a king sworn to an evil god.
At mid level, you might kill the noblemen and free your village from tyranny.
At high level, you might kill the king and rule the kingdom.
And at epic level, you might kill the god.
Now, if you were to take these events as mere numerical contests where the "mobs" (goblins, noblemen, king, god) get progressively stronger...then yes, it would seem like there is a flaw. But...you would also be completely missing the point.
Getting more powerful isn't about your numbers getting bigger, it's about having a bigger impact on the world. At low level, you were just struggling to survive. At mid level, you start to fight back, and strike a mighty blow. At high level, you conquer the earthly forces that sought to destroy you and rule a kingdom. And finally at epic level, you kill the divine force that orchestrated it all, and maybe even ascend to godhood!
So my point is that, even though your "relative power" never really changes...your status relative to the world DOES. You feel more powerful because you are more powerful and the game world makes that abundantly clear.
Many CRPGs have been able to successful capture this feeling of progression...SRPGs like NWN and BG for example are great at this. In NWN2, you start off as just a normal guy under assault by terrible forces. But at the end of the last expansion, you are traveling the planes and challenging ancient evils.
Many MMORPGs just don't get this...
First, they think that players "always want to feel powerful" so they throw you up against a big mega monster at level 1 that you crush. But then...you never feel like you really progress because you were fighting the big mega monster at level 1!
Second, many of them reuse models so much that it always feels like your fighting the same mobs. I'm sure everyone has played a game where they fought "green" goblins at level 10, but "blue" goblins at level 40.
Third, they focus on combat and deemphasize exploration so much that players just view the zone as a backdrop to fight mobs in. The player should feel amazed when they first step through a gate into another plane of existence. But instead, they just think, "oh this is where the level 70 mobs are, let's go here LOL."
And finally, the point of this thread...they plan the game world out so well that you will always fight mobs exactly around your level and never really be exposed to stronger mobs until you are ready to fight them. It would be like in my D&D example, if the player just saw goblins at level 1 and killed them. Then at level 10, he randomly finds a castle and kills the noble inside. Then at level 20, he randomly finds a big castle and kills the king....it completely removes the CONTEXT from the fights and leaves only the fights themselves. And like I said earlier...if you just focus on the "numerical contest" part of the game, then it definitely IS flawed, and that is what most MMORPGs do.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Most frustrating thing ever but that's what was great and is still great about Everquest.
People may want easy boring progression, but that's imo only because developers have spoon fed them that since they were old enough to click [buy WoW gold]. Adversity is an important part of any experience in life, those who experience it appreciate, those who don't adversity appreciate nothing.
P.S In case ur confused I play a Everquest private server which tries to mirror classic EQ up to Kunark and does a very good job.
I thought so too, for a time. SWToR convinced me otherwise. Despite a focus on story, it still turned into a numerical contest.
Perhaps that is the flaw with the length of MMOs, or perhaps it's just a flaw with SWToR's particular brand of story telling. I know with GW1 I was actually pleasantly driven by the stories. Since the story portion of GW2 looks to be longer than GW1, it will be interesting to see how that works.
Anyway, PnP or MMO, I believe I will always be discouraged by the idea that what I'm fighting is the same thing I was fighting before, and that an evil God is just a goblin with a different skin, different skill-set, and different story motivation. Perhaps I'm just getting cynical.
I still want to try to grow the genre though.
I may be wrong, but doesn't that mean you failed just because she used more powerful abilities, and had succeeded before because she didn't? If so, success/failure by randomness does not equate to challenge or skill.
Different skillset and different story motivation? Well duh. Everything is numbers. So really everything you do is just processing math. So its all the same, even real life.
You are just me with a different skillset and story motivation.
That's not a particularly useful belief though.
All the theory in the world doesn't dictate what people want. Especially when that theory is in regards to single-player games. Also, what people want and what people will settle for are two very different creatures.
Lets take a look at history. Pong. Pong was very popular. Game developers said "Hey! Our numbers and statistics say people want more Pong!" So developers continued to make Pong. The market was flooded with Pong, and the industry almost disintegrated because no one was doing anything else.
The numbers lied. People settled for Pong because Pong was all there was, until they just couldn't settle anymore.
That's true in a way. You can extrapolate that idea out to anything, really.
However, I think the point of all of this is that if you have a game that is based entirely on those numbers (which is typical of many types of RPGs, especially rote MMORPGs that have 20 skills that deal damage in different ways, and most PnP rpgs) then the feeling of sameness is going to destroy any immersion you might have had, and things like skillsets and story stop mattering as much. And, as Creslin pointed out in his OP, other factors, such as perfect balance of what you are fighting compared to your level, exasperate this issue.
That's why I think the genre's initial roots of basing gameplay entirely (or almost entirely) on increasing numbers has been flawed from the beginning.
The only difference between now and our "roots" is that we are now more reliant on these systems invented 40 years ago. They were never meant to be used to simulate a world, just determine the outcome of a conflict.
Bingo, I think you just summed up the point I was trying to make in my extremely long post last night in two sentences, well said
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
What else are we going to base the progression on though? Any progression of characters is based on numbers because computers.
Theoretically we could create a system as complex as real life, and maybe you would be too dumb to perceive the numbers, but that would just piss people off. Games are supposed to have rulesets that a human can understand. And if we base it on real life skills, a majority of nerds won't be able to be good at it, and aren't rpgs for nerds? And in any case where is the role playing with twitch? And unless you have a turn based game, just being smart isn't really a viable talent in real time games.
But still, fire damage and poison damage are really just numbers in real life too. Everything is numbers.
I remember in TTS I wanted to have physics and the environment play a role in conflict and people flipped a shit.
I also thought about making a chemistry system where you could construct poisons from environment materials. Instead of just a generic poison category. But I bet 90% of players will complain that they are not organic chem phds and don't want to earn a second degree just to play a game. Unless I make it so simple that the purpose is invalidated.
And if we don't rely on numbers, how to make the game hard to master but simple to learn? Especially without complexity.
PvP is considered non complicated, like Chess, because the world obfuscates the truth from people. Playing a person is functionally non different from playing a computer but people perceive it as different.
So people say that chess is simple to learn and hard to master and its deep not complex, but really thats an illusion. Chess, much like a videogame, is simple, in chess pieces have moves and in games you have physical attacks, movement, and magic and healing. If you play a shitty enemy you can suck hard and win, just like in LoL where people play other shitty players and win and think its simple to learn LoL. But its not.
The difference is that in an RPG the math is in your face. Stats and so forth. Whereas "skill" in a PvP game is hidden. A player has a twitch stat, an intellect stat, a decisiveness stat, a well rested stat and so forth. Plus there are a lot of random factors. Well more like, factors so complex that they are effectively random.
I suppose the TL:DR here is this:
PvE is functionally identical to PvP but people perceive it as being different and therefore it is different. Even though its not. Paradox! Fun times.
That perception means this:
YOU WILL NEVER MAKE PVE THAT IS CONSIDERED DEEP.
A good experiment would be this. Make a player monster system like LOTRO. Tell people that they are playing other people. They will believe you. Even though the game is always bots vs humans players will perceive your totally standard PvE game as a PvP game and there will be arguments about how deep it is and what great design. And you will just stand there and suddenly collapse. Because your mind will be blown.
When I play a game I give my mind a preprocessor command:
#pragma comment: These monsters are real living beings.
Bam, I can treat PvE identically to how I treat PvP.
The difference between deep and complex in most standard use cases is entirely imaginary.
I would say opinionated rather than imaginary. Imaginary would suggest that it doesn't actually exist, but the level of enjoyment someone feels over something is very real. It's also totally based on their own opinion.
Some dont even like "deep" and "complex", and would instead opt for "simple" and "easy".
I think there's room in the market for both, but I don't think both play well together and, in my opinion, need to be kept apart.
I believe we are saying the same thing but with some different context on a given concept so it looks like we aren't. A perfect example of my point about subjective reality.
The difference is effectively real. But not actually real.
This might seem like a tiny distinction if you care about effective reality. However, when you perceive a non truth it can create other problems.
People who want to create deep PvE have a problem. This imaginary difference prevents them from acheiving their goal. Because in a sense perception shapes reality, ie the concept of the social construction of reality in sociology, it is actually not possible to create a computer vs player experience which feels the same to a player.
A good example is tetris. Tetris is not "deep" like Chess. Tetris is given as an example of a "deep" single player game but in reality all Tetris does is ramp up the numbers. As you progress in the game the law of large numbers produces a higher chance that you will get a very poor selection of pieces and lose. And also the game speed increaeses so that eventually you cannot produce input fast enough.
Even though this is clearly analogous to high hitpoint pools on monsters in RPGs or maybe faster attack speed
or larger groups of mobs many people who support the "deep" vs "complicated" dichotomy try to reference tetris as a deep single player game.
The truth is that a single player game will never be considered as deep as multiplayer unless you shift the imaginary perception.
Long ago women were considered poor at math and this perception shaped women's belief about their math abilities. They thought they were bad and that women were not supposed to do math and so they didn't TRY.
A perfect example of perception shapinfg reality.
That is why the ideal experiment involves a long long running lie that a game is multiplayer. If we could avoid legal interference we could prove my theory. Sadly its unlikely.
Given that in most turing test demonstrations both humans and machines weigh in at about 50% human and 50% machine based on human guesses this is theoretically possible to pull off. Again as long as no one spills the beans. or no one starts suing.
Too much nonsense here. I'm sorry but I have to pick this apart point by point.
There are plenty of other ways to base progression.
GW1 has a very horizontal based progression, you gain new skills that you can use, but don't grow in actual power (after the first 20 hours or so, anyway). This is what I want to capitalize on by using ccg mechanics.
Competitive games, such as League of Legends have micro-progression, which, while numeric, still allows for a level 1 to dominate a level 30 by skill differentiation.
Further, competitive games allow a personal skill progression, as your knowledge of mechanics and play grow, you become more powerful.
Stereotypes were fun in the 90's as well. The world isn't this simple as "nerds like numbers not rl lol!!" Actually, most intelligent people tend to excel at interpersonal communication as well.
In regards to your comment about twitch play, I will again bring up dark souls. A truly sublime game design allows for (and necessitates) character growth, but player skill (and personal skill progression) are tantamount.
You don't give players enough credit. I think if something adds to a game's playability it will be desired by gamers. If it's soul purpose is to add realism or complexity to the game, however, people will balk. It's a good thing too, because those are really dumb reasons to add features to a game.
Odd you would say this? IMath makes games hard to learn and simple to master.
I agree with this. Unfortunately the math in your face usually amounts to "I will attack this creature because I know I will win." etc. That's not good gameplay. That's doing errands.
PvE is obviously different than PvP for reasons that you've mentioned. Whether it's "functionally" different or not depends on your definition of functionally, but really it doesn't matter. You're a tool if you think you can make an AI that makes people think they are playing other actual players over a long period of time. That's a turing test that game AI is far from reaching.
Even if this were the case, it has nothing to do with the depth of PvE, and neither does anything anyone has been talking about anywhere in this thread. I stand that PvE can be deep (and non-complex simultaneously), but that's completely subjective, and adds nothing to any argument. It's also dependant on your definition of deep and complex gameplay.
TLDR:
There is nothing of value to be gained from the quoted post.
Not agreeing with me or understanding what I say, I don't know which describes you, doesn't mean I have nothing of value. These are too different things.
Saying: "Wow sucks because frog" would be saying nothing of value.
I won't bother quoting this time.
1) Access to new skills allows combinations to make old skills viable, making a constantly changing gameplay while skills are unlocked.
2) You are obviously not good at LoL your level of play is so bad that the difference between a level 29 and level 1 character does not matter to you. I'm sorry you have not been able to experience this game in a more meaningful fashion.
3) Claiming that stereotypes are facts does not excuse you from stereotyping.
4) It is not tautological to say that gamers want improved gameplay. Some gamers may not want improved gameplay if it costs too much somewhere else (development time, game cost, complexity, etc.)
5) Gameplay value is subjective, but if features are added because it will improve players enjoyment (in their subjective cases) then the features will be embraced. If they are added to make things more complicated, then only those who enjoy complexity for complexity's sake will enjoy the changes.
6) You're getting desperate if you're going to try to say you can't understand me due to an errant "I" in a word.
7) Yes, seeing the math does not matter if it's an obvious i win or lose choice.
8) You have a long argument that pvp is the same as pve because players are random. Players are not random. There are tell-tale signs of humanity in gameplay, and predictability in what an opponent will do. For instance, if I play LoL, I can dominate a lane enough that I can anticipate my opponent will not attack when he otherwise should.
9) Again, you are giving way too much credit to this placebo idea of "if you say they are human and no one spills the beans then no one will figure it out!" It's ridiculous. Give that up.
Also, still PvE depth, complexity, etc. has nothing to do with the original point, which is the common MMORPG gameplay flaws revolving around difficulty.
You quoted a post by me that was discussing WHY PvE was more difficult to create than PvP. If you wanted to discuss a different aspect of the OP why did you quote me? Its not my fault you responded to me.
Excellent post. The use of a game engine to take the place of the DM/storyteller made that component far less effective and useful, so MMOs have gravitated toward the combat component (the numbers) as their crutch to strengthen the game.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre