Well EVE's travel isn't interesting despite its world being considered interesting, which is why an interesting world doesn't automatically make travel interesting.
And twice now I have pointed out why that is a poor analogy to make. EVE's world is considered engaging primarily on a longer term, indirect, meta level for the systems it drives. I have consistently been advocating improving the direct engagement as well as the indirect engagement.When that is done you do make travel more engaging via the game world. You will note that actions per minute also do not "automatically make travel interesing" either.
As for "interesting" and "fun", perhaps we should turn to the objective measure of meaningful decisions per minute, and point out that a typical game involves many decisions/min when played normally but travel in these games usually involves about 1/min.
If we are going to pick arbitrary lengths of time why not make it per 0.03 seconds? Or we could be sensible and stick to what mechanics either can or cannot add as opposed to trying to judge every single mechanic in every single game by exactly the same metric.
It is completely insane to try and judge all mechanics on one simple metric as you seem to suggest. What if the user is constantly engaged in one complex decision making process for 5 minutes? How about we judge all games and all systems based upon how many longer term dynamics they interlink with?Does that mean that Chess lacks sufficient complexity and depth because I face more actions per minute in a game of Tetris?
Well you weren't always advocating it -- for a while you were fixated on my calling it a "minigame" (which your suggested travel improvements still are, even though we're pretending they're not,) and took a steadfast stance against improving the depth of travel.
I have repeatedly said that game worlds can be improved in order to improve the engagement of the user as he travels through it, adding depth. Stipulating that the indirect mechanics are also vital and suggesting some of the alternatives being put forward are naff, is not a "steadfast stance against improving the depth of travel". And no, making the player engage with the game world to move through it is not a "mini game" at all.
And for what it's worth "extra button" presses are going to be involved one way or another with deeper travel because having less than 1 button press a minute is actually not frequent enough for a deep enough system.
Pressing x buttons per minute is not the same as making an interesting decision per minute and it is certainly not the yardstick as to what makes for a deep system in every case. A player may stop at a tricky section of land and have to think for a while about how to tackle it before progressing through it. I could play an incredibly thought provoking game of chess without making a move for two minutes.
Suggesting this is probably more amusing to me than it should be, but this is honestly the first time in a gaming forum I've actually straight up suggested that more complexity is required to achieve the desired depth. Whereas there are tens or hundreds of "games should be complex for complexity's sake" threads out there where I've pointed out that that's the wrong goal and games should strive to be as simple as possible while achieving the desired game depth. And in this case, the complexity is insufficient to achieve that game depth, so more complexity is warranted.
What you have suggested is "complexity", where you have suggested that "complexity" comes from and how you quantify it has been an issue.
The main crux of my case is that by improving the game world itself in terms of direct and indirect engagement, you can improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world. Whilst at the same time retaining all the longer term, indirect systems which travel links into in virtual world games. You make travel engaging without the need for extraneous crap.
If you are not in disagreement with that then there is nothing to debate. If you disagree with that, then you are a long, long way short of giving an adequate reason why.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Well EVE's travel isn't interesting despite its world being considered interesting, which is why an interesting world doesn't automatically make travel interesting.
And twice now I have pointed out why that is a poor analogy to make. EVE's world is considered engaging primarily on a longer term, indirect, meta level for the systems it drives. I have consistently advocating improving the direct engagement as well as the indirect engagement.
As for "interesting" and "fun", perhaps we should turn to the objective measure of meaningful decisions per minute, and point out that a typical game involves many decisions/min when played normally but travel in these games usually involves about 1/min.
If we are going to pick arbitrary lengths of time why not make it per 0.03 seconds? Or we could be sensible and stick to what mechanics can and can't add. And yes, a game world can be pretty much constantly engaging so long as the player actively chooses to engage with it.
Well you weren't always advocating it -- for a while you were fixated on my calling it a "minigame" (which your suggested travel improvements still are, even though we're pretending they're not,) and took a steadfast stance against improving the depth of travel.
I have repeatedly said that game worlds can be improved in order to improve the engagement of the user as he travels through it, adding depth. Stipulating that the indirect mechanics are also vital is not a "steadfast stance against improving the depth of travel". And no, making the player engage with the game world to move through it is not a "mini game" at all.
And for what it's worth "extra button" presses are going to be involved one way or another with deeper travel because having less than 1 button press a minute is actually not frequent enough for a deep enough system.
Pressing a button per minute is not the same as making an interesting decision per minute and it is certainly not the yardstick as to what makes for a deep system. A player may stop at a tricky section of land and have to think for a while about how to tackle it before progressing through it.
Suggesting this is probably more amusing to me than it should be, but this is honestly the first time in a gaming forum I've actually straight up suggested that more complexity is required to achieve the desired depth. Whereas there are tens or hundreds of "games should be complex for complexity's sake" threads out there where I've pointed out that that's the wrong goal and games should strive to be as simple as possible while achieving the desired game depth. And in this case, the complexity is insufficient to achieve that game depth, so more complexity is warranted.
Where you have suggested that "complexity" comes from and how you quantify it has been the issue.
I have suggested that by improving the game world itself you can improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he travels through the game world whilst at the same time retaining all the longer term, indirect systems which travel links into in virtual world games.
Two things.
1. Avoiding aggro bubbles during travel is a minigame.
2. Complexity can be measured. There are various ways to do this. There's heuristic evaluation, basic usability testing (measure time and success rate of completing tasks) and a number of different questionnaires and interview methods (like Nasa's Task Load Index).
Depth can also be measured: At any given time Magic the Gathering had from 2 to 12 different tournament deck builds around depending on current balance and what you judged was a distinct build. There are thousands of cards and billions of different deck variations possible, but it all comes down to those dozen or so.
Usually people who don't get this are the ones who are most vocal about classes. They don't get it that the abundace of choice does not necessarily create depth. There's just more ways to go wrong.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
1. Avoiding aggro bubbles during travel is a minigame.
2. Complexity can be measured. There are various ways to do this. There's heuristic evaluation, basic usability testing (measure time and success rate of completing tasks) and a number of different questionnaires and interview methods (like Nasa's Task Load Index).
Depth can also be measured: At any given time Magic the Gathering had from 2 to 12 different tournament deck builds around depending on current balance and what you judged was a distinct build. There are thousands of cards and billions of different deck variations possible, but it all comes down to those dozen or so.
Usually people who don't get this are the ones who are most vocal about classes. They don't get it that the abundace of choice does not necessarily create depth. There's just more ways to go wrong.
2. I know full well what complexity is and I am pretty sure it is not measured purely on a "press x buttons per minute basis", nor it is having lots of buttons to press, which don't actually interlink or offer up alternate outcomes (hello Press Any Key to Continue), which some people seem to think.
What it is is interlinked systems offering differeing outcome variables dependant upon agent/component interactions. I am against ramming in extra options which will merely create redundant options and I am against tacking on crappy elements extraneous to the game world, in a virtual world game. When far more can be derived from improving the game world and the players engagement directly and indirectly with it and within it.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
"And twice now I have pointed out why that is a poor analogy to make. EVE's world is considered engaging primarily on a longer term, indirect, meta level for the systems it drives. I have consistently been advocating improving the direct engagement as well as the indirect engagement.When that is done you do make travel more engaging via the game world. You will note that actions per minute also do not "automatically make travel interesing" either."
You keep going here. I keep having to point out that travel itself is what's being discussed. Travel itself being shallow is what creates 5-15 minutes of non-gameplay, which is the problem to be solved.
EVE's dull travel is suffered through on account of the meta, but its travel is not interesting. So an interesting world did not make travel interesting automatically.
"If we are going to pick arbitrary lengths of time why not make it per 0.03 seconds? Or we could be sensible and stick to what mechanics either can ir cannot add as opposed to trying to judge every single mechanic in every single game by exactly the same metric."
Since we're comparing the relative values of two numbers, hopefully you took enough math to understand that changing the denominator of that fraction won't affect a comparison. 1 decision per minute is going to become 0.0005 decisions per 0.03 secs, which will have the exact same relation to however many decisions we're comparing against.
If you wanted we could measure decisions per year or decisions per nanosecond. The fact will remain that games people enjoy will have this sweet spot of interaction with the game which requires a certain baseline amount of decision-making which doesn't exist during excessive travel.
"What if the user is constantly engaged in one complex decision making process for 5 minutes? How about we judge all games and all systems based upon how many longer term dynamics they interlink with?Does that mean that Chess lacks sufficient complexity and depth because I face more actions per minute in a game of Tetris?"
In the case of a complicated decision-making process that would undoubtedly be multiple decisions. But this seems mostly designed just to sidetrack discussion with irrelevant details as we could obviously pick a metric like "time spent making decisions per minute" to avoid that simple problem.
Remember...what you're arguing for here, or distracting from arguing for, is the amount of and quality of decisions which occur during those 5-15 of psuedo-AFKable travel. For a while I thought you were on board with making travel deeper, but these irrelevant diversions make me wonder.
"And no, making the player engage with the game world to move through it is not a "mini game" at all."
Right, gotcha. *wink*
"Pressing x buttons per minute is not the same as making an interesting decision per minute and it is certainly not the yardstick as to what makes for a deep system in every case. A player may stop at a tricky section of land and have to think for a while about how to tackle it before progressing through it. I could play an incredibly through provoking game of chess without making a move for two minutes."
Right, but uh...we're talking about 5-15 minutes of psuedo-AFKable travel.
It's not rocket surgery.
"Where you have suggested that "complexity" comes from and how you quantify it has been an issue."
Eh, you were fixated on the terminology (which was irrelevant) and not the idea itself.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You keep going here. I keep having to point out that travel itself is what's being discussed. Travel itself being shallow is what creates 5-15 minutes of non-gameplay, which is the problem to be solved.
EVE's dull travel is suffered through on account of the meta, but its travel is not interesting. So an interesting world did not make travel interesting automatically.
The travel "problem" is solved by making the game world DIRECTLY engaging as well as indirectly engaging. You are trying to use EVE as a counter example when due to the fact that it is not that DIRECTLY engaging it provides next to nothing as a counter argument.So yes a game world which is both directly and indirectly engaging is "interesting" to travel through.
Since we're comparing the relative values of two numbers, hopefully you took enough math to understand that changing the denominator of that fraction won't affect a comparison. 1 decision per minute is going to become 0.0005 decisions per 0.03 secs, which will have the exact same relation to however many decisions we're comparing against.
If you wanted we could measure decisions per year or decisions per nanosecond. The fact will remain that games people enjoy will have this sweet spot of interaction with the game which requires a certain baseline amount of decision-making which doesn't exist during excessive travel.
The point is using a decision per minute basis for all mechanics for all games is a poor idea. As was pointed out by the Chess/Tetris example. The game world simply needs to be as consistently engaging as possible.
In the case of a complicated decision-making process that would undoubtedly be multiple decisions. But this seems mostly designed just to sidetrack discussion with irrelevant details as we could obviously pick a metric like "time spent making decisions per minute" to avoid that simple problem.
You would get "multiple decisions" to make in an engaging game world, but to stipulate that is has to reach x decisions per minute to qualify is ridiculous.
Remember...what you're arguing for here, or distracting from arguing for, is the amount of and quality of decisions which occur during those 5-15 of psuedo-AFKable travel. For a while I thought you were on board with making travel deeper, but these irrelevant diversions make me wonder.
I know exactly what I am arguing for. I'm arguing for engaging the player when traveling by directly and indirectly engaging him with the game world on a frequent basis. I am not arguing for "must constantly be 2.59393 interactions per minute".There would be no 15 minutes of psuedo-AFKable travel.
Right, gotcha. *wink*
That added a great deal and really demonstrated your point.
Right, but uh...we're talking about 5-15 minutes of psuedo-AFKable travel.
It's not rocket surgery.
Well that really refuted what I just posted... What I am talking about is making it so that there will not be 5-15 minutes of psuedo-AFKable travel. What you are doing is arguing the toss about "must be x interactions per minute".The player would either be engaging directly with the game world or the agents within it, or when not travelling he would be indirectly engaged via the interlinked effects whilst he is engaged in another game play element.
Eh, you were fixated on the terminology (which was irrelevant) and not the idea itself.
And the idea I have put forward is to make the game world engaging for the player both directly and indirectly. All you seem to be doing is banging on about EVE and offering really, really bad catch all metrics which don't actually refute that central case that I have offered.
To prevent this going around in circles, forget the semantics, forget bashing EVE. Do you actually have a valid counter to the main core argument that improving the game world so that it is both directly and indirectly engaging makes for engaging travel?
Because if not (and I can assure you "must have exactly x interactions per minute" is not it), then I can't see the point in continuing the debate.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Genre isnt dead or even close to dying, we are just getting older and as such out interests change. Old gamers have tried it all, many times over, and we just dont feel the buzz anymore.
I am, like so many others, looking towards GW2 where I can play for fun and I truly hope it will kick the genre in the behind so other major companies at least try to move out of their comfort zones of pumping out same kind of shit with just different taste variations.
But dont worry, if we as a species dont exterminate ourselves then we will get the buzz again once we hook up to the virtual reality in few years
If we were all having so much fun in ezMMO's we would not be on here. I say that to the defenders of modern MMO's, if they are all so great what are you doing on MMORPG.com? Go and play your wonderful games.
To kill some time at work?
I can't play D3 during work, can i?
Plus, i don't want to play ANY game, no matter how great it is, straight 24/7. Everything needs a break. Have you read about the guy who play D3 straight for hours and hours, and died?
I love many games like Deus Ex, and Borderland .. and yet you don't see me playing them so much and completely ignore other activities like movies, reading .. *AND* reading/posting in forums.
The main crux of my case is that by improving the game world itself in terms of direct and indirect engagement, you can improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world. Whilst at the same time retaining all the longer term, indirect systems which travel links into in virtual world games. You make travel engaging without the need for extraneous crap.
Gosh .. you guys are still at it?
In that case, i will jump in again ....
You have a lot of theory and talk. I have yet to find a MMO that i want to travel around multiple times. If it does not happen, all these theories and arguments are moot.
Do you actually know what it takes (in terms of arts asset, programming, and all those implementation details) to "improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world" to a point that it actually will be fun?
The main crux of my case is that by improving the game world itself in terms of direct and indirect engagement, you can improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world. Whilst at the same time retaining all the longer term, indirect systems which travel links into in virtual world games. You make travel engaging without the need for extraneous crap.
Gosh .. you guys are still at it?
In that case, i will jump in again ....
You have a lot of theory and talk. I have yet to find a MMO that i want to travel around multiple times. If it does not happen, all these theories and arguments are moot.
Do you actually know what it takes (in terms of arts asset, programming, and all those implementation details) to "improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world" to a point that it actually will be fun?
Personally, i will only believe it when i see it.
Suggesting "it's hard" does not actually refute the case offered in your quote. It is in fact a cop out.
Given you have zero interest in longer term, open, virtual world games. It is highly questionable as to whether you would ever "see it". I could look to improve arena pvp for e-sport games, and yet if someone has absolutely zero interest in that kind of game then they would still not like it and still not get involved.
Oh and I am not knocking you for not liking virtual world, longer term games. That is your choice.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The main crux of my case is that by improving the game world itself in terms of direct and indirect engagement, you can improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world. Whilst at the same time retaining all the longer term, indirect systems which travel links into in virtual world games. You make travel engaging without the need for extraneous crap.
Gosh .. you guys are still at it?
In that case, i will jump in again ....
You have a lot of theory and talk. I have yet to find a MMO that i want to travel around multiple times. If it does not happen, all these theories and arguments are moot.
Do you actually know what it takes (in terms of arts asset, programming, and all those implementation details) to "improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world" to a point that it actually will be fun?
Personally, i will only believe it when i see it.
Do you know what kind of art assets, programming and everything else it takes? No. You don't. You also don't leave the door open to new ideas (or in this case old ones cause its all been done before). You are like an old guy stuck in his ways unwilling to accept anything else as an option. I am glad close minded people like you are a minority.
It's a shame you missed out on great games that proved that it can be done. You "jumping in again" didn't do a damn thing because you didn't bring anything to the conversation. You didn't help solve an issue or anything. Next time try to be another threads savior. Your opinion (and mine) mean jack shit. Thankfully yours in particular means jackshit because you want the market to head in one direction only and thats the one YOU like. Get over yourself.
The main crux of my case is that by improving the game world itself in terms of direct and indirect engagement, you can improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world. Whilst at the same time retaining all the longer term, indirect systems which travel links into in virtual world games. You make travel engaging without the need for extraneous crap.
Gosh .. you guys are still at it?
In that case, i will jump in again ....
You have a lot of theory and talk. I have yet to find a MMO that i want to travel around multiple times. If it does not happen, all these theories and arguments are moot.
Do you actually know what it takes (in terms of arts asset, programming, and all those implementation details) to "improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world" to a point that it actually will be fun?
Personally, i will only believe it when i see it.
Suggesting "it's hard" does not actually refute the case offered in your quote.
Given you have zero interest in longer term, open, virtual world games. It is highly questionable as to whether you would ever "see it". I could look to improve arena pvp for e-sport games, and yet if someone has absolutely zero interest in that kind of game then they would still not like it and still not get involved.
Oh and I am not knocking you for not liking virtual world, longer term games. That is your choice.
Problem is, he has repeatedly shown that he only wants it his way and no one else should be able to have it their way. I simply don't understand why there isn't room for both. Same goes for most arguments.
The main crux of my case is that by improving the game world itself in terms of direct and indirect engagement, you can improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world. Whilst at the same time retaining all the longer term, indirect systems which travel links into in virtual world games. You make travel engaging without the need for extraneous crap.
Gosh .. you guys are still at it?
In that case, i will jump in again ....
You have a lot of theory and talk. I have yet to find a MMO that i want to travel around multiple times. If it does not happen, all these theories and arguments are moot.
Do you actually know what it takes (in terms of arts asset, programming, and all those implementation details) to "improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world" to a point that it actually will be fun?
Personally, i will only believe it when i see it.
Do you know what kind of art assets, programming and everything else it takes? No. You don't. You also don't leave the door open to new ideas (or in this case old ones cause its all been done before). You are like an old guy stuck in his ways unwilling to accept anything else as an option. I am glad close minded people like you are a minority.
It's a shame you missed out on great games that proved that it can be done. You "jumping in again" didn't do a damn thing because you didn't bring anything to the conversation. You didn't help solve an issue or anything. Next time try to be another threads savior. Your opinion (and mine) mean jack shit. Thankfully yours in particular means jackshit because you want the market to head in one direction only and thats the one YOU like. Get over yourself.
Of course i don't .. i am not a dev. That is why i asked. He claimed it can be done .. well .. it is up to him to prove it.
And what "great games"? I haven't seen any. Tell me a game with "great travel". I will try it and tell you what i think. So far there is none that makes me want to walk around.
Of course i am not help solve an issue .... it is an internet forum. Nothing can be solved. We are just shooting breeze here.
And of course i want the market to go the direction i want. You expect me to want it to go the direction i don't want? That is laughable.
There are hundreds of mmorpg's out there now, 1 or 2% of them actually match my desired gameplay criteria so I play them with zero regrets. No more do I have to pick between only a handful.
Keep up the good work developers, and dont worry if your game doesnt match my desired gameplay exactly, I might still try it, and I bet thousands out there will love what you did and reward you for years.
We are at the beginning stages of a revolution in User Interface, Artificial Intelligence, Demographic Targetting, and Environmental Interactivity.
You have a lot of theory and talk. I have yet to find a MMO that i want to travel around multiple times. If it does not happen, all these theories and arguments are moot.
Do you actually know what it takes (in terms of arts asset, programming, and all those implementation details) to "improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world" to a point that it actually will be fun?
Personally, i will only believe it when i see it.
Well, if not making random encounters or allowing player conflict etc. You can always make travelling itself fun. Such as a game in the style of Interstate '76/Auto Assault driving would be fun. Or in a FPS which used Tribes-style skiing, Warsow-style dashing/wall jumping and/or Quake-style strafe jump the movement itself would be a strong part of the game and fun in itself.
Then again, such movement is crippled by high latency so it wouldn't be feasible in an MMO. If you can't make movement fun, you're pretty much stuck with random encounters and player conflict. Alas, the former gets old after a while and the latter is notoriously inconsistent - atleast not in an open environment.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Do you know what kind of art assets, programming and everything else it takes? No. You don't. You also don't leave the door open to new ideas (or in this case old ones cause its all been done before). You are like an old guy stuck in his ways unwilling to accept anything else as an option. I am glad close minded people like you are a minority.
It's a shame you missed out on great games that proved that it can be done. You "jumping in again" didn't do a damn thing because you didn't bring anything to the conversation. You didn't help solve an issue or anything. Next time try to be another threads savior. Your opinion (and mine) mean jack shit. Thankfully yours in particular means jackshit because you want the market to head in one direction only and thats the one YOU like. Get over yourself.
I actually think that the people who spend times shifting through what belongs in an MMO and what doesn't are the ones that are close-minded. I really don't care how the game is categorized as long as its fun. In the end that's all that matters. Not how much of an MMORPG it is by someone's narrow and arbitrary definition.
I also think that half of the people who would like a "true MMO" (what a laugh that term is) would actually be better of by playing good old tabletop/pen & paper RPGs, because those games have exactly what you want, and you can customize it within your circle of friends to further suit your needs.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I actually think that the people who spend times shifting through what belongs in an MMO and what doesn't are the ones that are close-minded. I really don't care how the game is categorized as long as its fun. In the end that's all that matters. Not how much of an MMORPG it is by someone's narrow and arbitrary definition.
I agree. Who cares about what is a "proper" MMO and what is not. If a game is fun (to me), i will play it.
MMO is just a convenient label to group a bunch of games .. no more and no less.
There are hundreds of mmorpg's out there now, 1 or 2% of them actually match my desired gameplay criteria so I play them with zero regrets. No more do I have to pick between only a handful.
Keep up the good work developers, and dont worry if your game doesnt match my desired gameplay exactly, I might still try it, and I bet thousands out there will love what you did and reward you for years.
We are at the beginning stages of a revolution in User Interface, Artificial Intelligence, Demographic Targetting, and Environmental Interactivity.
-Blitz
I cant tell if this is a troll post or not. Let me get this stright...
"The current market is Amazing!"
"There are hundered of mmos out there."
"1 or 2% of them you like."
"No more do you have to pick between a handfull of them."
Has anyone found Waldo yet within these 4 sentences? You 1-2% IS a handfull of the current MMO market. Not even a handfull. LIke a capfull. You got a sip of the current MMO market. So no. the current mmo market isent amazing. Its appalling.
I actually think that the people who spend times shifting through what belongs in an MMO and what doesn't are the ones that are close-minded. I really don't care how the game is categorized as long as its fun. In the end that's all that matters. Not how much of an MMORPG it is by someone's narrow and arbitrary definition.
I agree. Who cares about what is a "proper" MMO and what is not. If a game is fun (to me), i will play it.
MMO is just a convenient label to group a bunch of games .. no more and no less.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I actually think that the people who spend times shifting through what belongs in an MMO and what doesn't are the ones that are close-minded. I really don't care how the game is categorized as long as its fun. In the end that's all that matters. Not how much of an MMORPG it is by someone's narrow and arbitrary definition.
I agree. Who cares about what is a "proper" MMO and what is not. If a game is fun (to me), i will play it.
MMO is just a convenient label to group a bunch of games .. no more and no less.
I care. Because by company standards, the bottom line won't allow a triple A mmo (You know what kind of MMOs im refering to) to be made for the sake of these abbomanations and that as a whole sucks. Using the term MMO to cluster fuck games together just for the sake of giving them a label is irresponsible.
You yourself don't care because this doesn't effect you. But to the rest of us that have been sitting on the sidelines for YEARS waiting for something worthwhile to play, its grown tiresome and were getting tired of waiting. And it's frustrating to read posts from you and your ilk trying to belittle the situation like we should be grateful there making games at all. Well fuck that.
There's a reason i haven't been buying these games. It's because i won't add to an already screwed up industry that lost its own identity years ago. You said it yourself you vote with your wallet. I do the same thing.
I will abstain from this myriad of horrendous, carbon copy, mmos that the gaming industry has been churning out these past 7+ years. Sure these games are fun. There fun for 1 month and that about it. [mod edit]
I care. Because by company standards, the bottom line won't allow a triple A mmo (You know what kind of MMOs im refering to) to be made for the sake of these abbomanations and that as a whole sucks. Using the term MMO to cluster fuck games together just for the sake of giving them a label is irresponsible.
You yourself don't care because this doesn't effect you. But to the rest of us that have been sitting on the sidelines for YEARS waiting for something worthwhile to play, its grown tiresome and were getting tired of waiting. And it's frustrating to read posts from you and your ilk trying to belittle the situation like we should be grateful there making games at all. Well fuck that.
There's a reason i haven't been buying these games. It's because i won't add to an already screwed up industry that lost its own identity years ago. You said it yourself you vote with your wallet. I do the same thing.
I will abstain from this myriad of horrendous, carbon copy, mmos that the gaming industry has been churning out these past 7+ years. Sure these games are fun. There fun for 1 month and that about it. [mod edit]
No one is making a very serious argument by saying the "genre is dead" just like a teenager would say "My life is over!" after he/she found it things didn't go the way he/she planned. I reserve my right to ridicule drama queens. You are not a victim and nobody is out to get you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I care. Because by company standards, the bottom line won't allow a triple A mmo (You know what kind of MMOs im refering to) to be made for the sake of these abbomanations and that as a whole sucks. Using the term MMO to cluster fuck games together just for the sake of giving them a label is irresponsible.
You yourself don't care because this doesn't effect you. But to the rest of us that have been sitting on the sidelines for YEARS waiting for something worthwhile to play, its grown tiresome and were getting tired of waiting. And it's frustrating to read posts from you and your ilk trying to belittle the situation like we should be grateful there making games at all. Well fuck that.
There's a reason i haven't been buying these games. It's because i won't add to an already screwed up industry that lost its own identity years ago. You said it yourself you vote with your wallet. I do the same thing.
I will abstain from this myriad of horrendous, carbon copy, mmos that the gaming industry has been churning out these past 7+ years. Sure these games are fun. There fun for 1 month and that about it. [mod edit]
No one is making a very serious argument by saying the "genre is dead" just like a teenager would say "My life is over!" after he/she found it things didn't go the way he/she planned. I reserve my right to ridicule drama queens. You are not a victim and nobody is out to get you.
How bout this. My genre is dead. Does that make you feel better? And no where did i say i was a victim and that anyone was out to get me. Again you show us your superpower of putting words into other peoples mouths.
I care. Because by company standards, the bottom line won't allow a triple A mmo (You know what kind of MMOs im refering to) to be made for the sake of these abbomanations and that as a whole sucks. Using the term MMO to cluster fuck games together just for the sake of giving them a label is irresponsible.
Irrresponsible? To whom? Language use is ALWAYS based on popular demand and convenience. You can go shout at the top of your lungs that "WOW Is not a MMO" ... very few will actually stop calling it so.
MMO is just a label.
If they don't make the kind of MMO you like .. well, that is too bad but how does trying to change the name of the group of games like WOW, Rift, DCUO helps?
You yourself don't care because this doesn't effect you. But to the rest of us that have been sitting on the sidelines for YEARS waiting for something worthwhile to play, its grown tiresome and were getting tired of waiting. And it's frustrating to read posts from you and your ilk trying to belittle the situation like we should be grateful there making games at all. Well fuck that.
"YEARS waiting"? I think you should have better things to do in your life. When i found out that EQ is a camp fest, and not a fun game, I QUIT and MOVED ON. I don't troll forums begging devs to make WOW. I only came back because now games is fun.
You should take it easy. MMOs are just games. You won't die because you don't have one that you like. Play a FPS, or read a book.
And there is NOTHING you can do about internet forums. Everyone can express their opinions here.
There's a reason i haven't been buying these games. It's because i won't add to an already screwed up industry that lost its own identity years ago. You said it yourself you vote with your wallet. I do the same thing.
"Screwed up"? From YOUR perpsective. From mine, it is great. I have fun games to entertain me. Obviously i am going to vote with my wallet.
I will abstain from this myriad of horrendous, carbon copy, mmos that the gaming industry has been churning out these past 7+ years. Sure these games are fun. There fun for 1 month and that about it. [mod edit]
You won't play games that are fun for a month? And you keep complaining? I really think you need to get a life. If you play each fun game for 1 month, there are enough games to last you years. In fact, some games i won't even play for a month, so that i can have time to play more games.
Heck, most SP games won't last a month. You really have a SERIOUS case of "the glass is half empty".
No one is making a very serious argument by saying the "genre is dead" just like a teenager would say "My life is over!" after he/she found it things didn't go the way he/she planned. I reserve my right to ridicule drama queens. You are not a victim and nobody is out to get you.
How bout this. My genre is dead. Does that make you feel better? And no where did i say i was a victim and that anyone was out to get me. Again you show us your superpower of putting words into other peoples mouths.
YOUR genre? You don't own the genre. The accurate statement is
"the genre YOU like changes into something you do not like"
... do you have to use the word "dead" to get all drama-queen like?
Bottom line. Genre is now cash shops, esports, all dev driven content, combat centric and auto socialized. Simply put, Id like to have more choices besides combat and afterthought mini games. And here we are hundreds of posts later still getting shouted down by people that like the way it is now. The funny thing is that I never said to get rid of these types of mmos. But the very thought that these new games are just not enough for some of us is too much to handle for others. Its kinda funny actually heh Nobody is threatening your "gamehood"
I think what i would like to see from this thread is a Solid focus on where the OP and people who feel the OP is corrects mmo's of choice of legend begins. What was that mmo that was so amazing that now the other mmo's feel liek there just not getting it right. What are the similiarities that the new mmo's are taking from this particular mmo and what is it that is truly making you sick.
Ill start by stating that my favorite all time mmo was DAOC the PvE content was far from good but the PvP interaction and fearce war and struggle to be the best was ever lasting to the point where i felt i had a strong purpose which of course was to have a name and be the best. I find that the newer mmo's for th elongest time were so bogged down by the fact that casuals wanted to achieve what players from the beginning had bled to achieve in a matter of minutes which has forced alot of the new games to conform and make content easier. Eq is a prime example of some gear was very difficult to get and daoc is a prime example of how gear was a matter of a very solid crafting system. WoW is a prime example of the genre heading in the wrong direction even tho many feel it refreshed and brought mmo's back to life. I my self did enjoy it in the beginning aka 1-60 mc and early epic bg grinding for grand marshall. But then the game got consumed by pleasing the casual gamers who just didnt have the time or just couldnt hack it so they went about making content and still go about making content easier and easier which pushs away the more elitest of the group of mmo (which tends to be the old school gamers).
I would also like to state that i dont feel that the genre is dying but that games havent really brought that IT factor that some of the big blockbuster games have brought so peopel lose interest or feel its been done before. EQ great PvE content DAOC PvP content. WoW smashed out the heavy arena and constant updates to its PvE content keeping its consumers hooked with its casual driven community.
Needless to say ive gone off in a rant again my opinion is that In order to truly see the OP's side(of course i didnt riffle through all 53 pages of post) BUT its a must that everyone start off by stating WHAT that mmo was that really set the stage for them to compare all the other games they feel just are not getting it right.
p.s. I have played every mmo' sense EQ /UO all the way to the latest TSW and Gw2.
Comments
The main crux of my case is that by improving the game world itself in terms of direct and indirect engagement, you can improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world. Whilst at the same time retaining all the longer term, indirect systems which travel links into in virtual world games. You make travel engaging without the need for extraneous crap.
If you are not in disagreement with that then there is nothing to debate. If you disagree with that, then you are a long, long way short of giving an adequate reason why.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Two things.
1. Avoiding aggro bubbles during travel is a minigame.
2. Complexity can be measured. There are various ways to do this. There's heuristic evaluation, basic usability testing (measure time and success rate of completing tasks) and a number of different questionnaires and interview methods (like Nasa's Task Load Index).
Depth can also be measured: At any given time Magic the Gathering had from 2 to 12 different tournament deck builds around depending on current balance and what you judged was a distinct build. There are thousands of cards and billions of different deck variations possible, but it all comes down to those dozen or so.
You can gather data on it too. http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2008/oct/17/street-fighter-4-tiers-character-rankings/ In this street fighter game, none of the lower tier characters add to gamedepth since no one in their right mind would play them.
Usually people who don't get this are the ones who are most vocal about classes. They don't get it that the abundace of choice does not necessarily create depth. There's just more ways to go wrong.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
1. No clearly it isn't, avoiding agro is a game world dynamic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minigame
2. I know full well what complexity is and I am pretty sure it is not measured purely on a "press x buttons per minute basis", nor it is having lots of buttons to press, which don't actually interlink or offer up alternate outcomes (hello Press Any Key to Continue), which some people seem to think.
What it is is interlinked systems offering differeing outcome variables dependant upon agent/component interactions. I am against ramming in extra options which will merely create redundant options and I am against tacking on crappy elements extraneous to the game world, in a virtual world game. When far more can be derived from improving the game world and the players engagement directly and indirectly with it and within it.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
"And twice now I have pointed out why that is a poor analogy to make. EVE's world is considered engaging primarily on a longer term, indirect, meta level for the systems it drives. I have consistently been advocating improving the direct engagement as well as the indirect engagement. When that is done you do make travel more engaging via the game world. You will note that actions per minute also do not "automatically make travel interesing" either."
You keep going here. I keep having to point out that travel itself is what's being discussed. Travel itself being shallow is what creates 5-15 minutes of non-gameplay, which is the problem to be solved.
EVE's dull travel is suffered through on account of the meta, but its travel is not interesting. So an interesting world did not make travel interesting automatically.
"If we are going to pick arbitrary lengths of time why not make it per 0.03 seconds? Or we could be sensible and stick to what mechanics either can ir cannot add as opposed to trying to judge every single mechanic in every single game by exactly the same metric."
Since we're comparing the relative values of two numbers, hopefully you took enough math to understand that changing the denominator of that fraction won't affect a comparison. 1 decision per minute is going to become 0.0005 decisions per 0.03 secs, which will have the exact same relation to however many decisions we're comparing against.
If you wanted we could measure decisions per year or decisions per nanosecond. The fact will remain that games people enjoy will have this sweet spot of interaction with the game which requires a certain baseline amount of decision-making which doesn't exist during excessive travel.
"What if the user is constantly engaged in one complex decision making process for 5 minutes? How about we judge all games and all systems based upon how many longer term dynamics they interlink with? Does that mean that Chess lacks sufficient complexity and depth because I face more actions per minute in a game of Tetris?"
In the case of a complicated decision-making process that would undoubtedly be multiple decisions. But this seems mostly designed just to sidetrack discussion with irrelevant details as we could obviously pick a metric like "time spent making decisions per minute" to avoid that simple problem.
Remember...what you're arguing for here, or distracting from arguing for, is the amount of and quality of decisions which occur during those 5-15 of psuedo-AFKable travel. For a while I thought you were on board with making travel deeper, but these irrelevant diversions make me wonder.
"And no, making the player engage with the game world to move through it is not a "mini game" at all."
Right, gotcha. *wink*
"Pressing x buttons per minute is not the same as making an interesting decision per minute and it is certainly not the yardstick as to what makes for a deep system in every case. A player may stop at a tricky section of land and have to think for a while about how to tackle it before progressing through it. I could play an incredibly through provoking game of chess without making a move for two minutes."
Right, but uh...we're talking about 5-15 minutes of psuedo-AFKable travel.
It's not rocket surgery.
"Where you have suggested that "complexity" comes from and how you quantify it has been an issue."
Eh, you were fixated on the terminology (which was irrelevant) and not the idea itself.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To prevent this going around in circles, forget the semantics, forget bashing EVE. Do you actually have a valid counter to the main core argument that improving the game world so that it is both directly and indirectly engaging makes for engaging travel?
Because if not (and I can assure you "must have exactly x interactions per minute" is not it), then I can't see the point in continuing the debate.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Genre isnt dead or even close to dying, we are just getting older and as such out interests change. Old gamers have tried it all, many times over, and we just dont feel the buzz anymore.
I am, like so many others, looking towards GW2 where I can play for fun and I truly hope it will kick the genre in the behind so other major companies at least try to move out of their comfort zones of pumping out same kind of shit with just different taste variations.
But dont worry, if we as a species dont exterminate ourselves then we will get the buzz again once we hook up to the virtual reality in few years
To kill some time at work?
I can't play D3 during work, can i?
Plus, i don't want to play ANY game, no matter how great it is, straight 24/7. Everything needs a break. Have you read about the guy who play D3 straight for hours and hours, and died?
I love many games like Deus Ex, and Borderland .. and yet you don't see me playing them so much and completely ignore other activities like movies, reading .. *AND* reading/posting in forums.
Gosh .. you guys are still at it?
In that case, i will jump in again ....
You have a lot of theory and talk. I have yet to find a MMO that i want to travel around multiple times. If it does not happen, all these theories and arguments are moot.
Do you actually know what it takes (in terms of arts asset, programming, and all those implementation details) to "improve upon the direct engagement the user has as he/she travels through the game world" to a point that it actually will be fun?
Personally, i will only believe it when i see it.
Suggesting "it's hard" does not actually refute the case offered in your quote. It is in fact a cop out.
Given you have zero interest in longer term, open, virtual world games. It is highly questionable as to whether you would ever "see it". I could look to improve arena pvp for e-sport games, and yet if someone has absolutely zero interest in that kind of game then they would still not like it and still not get involved.
Oh and I am not knocking you for not liking virtual world, longer term games. That is your choice.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Do you know what kind of art assets, programming and everything else it takes? No. You don't. You also don't leave the door open to new ideas (or in this case old ones cause its all been done before). You are like an old guy stuck in his ways unwilling to accept anything else as an option. I am glad close minded people like you are a minority.
It's a shame you missed out on great games that proved that it can be done. You "jumping in again" didn't do a damn thing because you didn't bring anything to the conversation. You didn't help solve an issue or anything. Next time try to be another threads savior. Your opinion (and mine) mean jack shit. Thankfully yours in particular means jackshit because you want the market to head in one direction only and thats the one YOU like. Get over yourself.
Problem is, he has repeatedly shown that he only wants it his way and no one else should be able to have it their way. I simply don't understand why there isn't room for both. Same goes for most arguments.
Of course i don't .. i am not a dev. That is why i asked. He claimed it can be done .. well .. it is up to him to prove it.
And what "great games"? I haven't seen any. Tell me a game with "great travel". I will try it and tell you what i think. So far there is none that makes me want to walk around.
Of course i am not help solve an issue .... it is an internet forum. Nothing can be solved. We are just shooting breeze here.
And of course i want the market to go the direction i want. You expect me to want it to go the direction i don't want? That is laughable.
No. The current market is Amazing!
There are hundreds of mmorpg's out there now, 1 or 2% of them actually match my desired gameplay criteria so I play them with zero regrets. No more do I have to pick between only a handful.
Keep up the good work developers, and dont worry if your game doesnt match my desired gameplay exactly, I might still try it, and I bet thousands out there will love what you did and reward you for years.
We are at the beginning stages of a revolution in User Interface, Artificial Intelligence, Demographic Targetting, and Environmental Interactivity.
-Blitz
Werewolf Online(R) - Lead Developer
Well, if not making random encounters or allowing player conflict etc. You can always make travelling itself fun. Such as a game in the style of Interstate '76/Auto Assault driving would be fun. Or in a FPS which used Tribes-style skiing, Warsow-style dashing/wall jumping and/or Quake-style strafe jump the movement itself would be a strong part of the game and fun in itself.
Then again, such movement is crippled by high latency so it wouldn't be feasible in an MMO. If you can't make movement fun, you're pretty much stuck with random encounters and player conflict. Alas, the former gets old after a while and the latter is notoriously inconsistent - atleast not in an open environment.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I actually think that the people who spend times shifting through what belongs in an MMO and what doesn't are the ones that are close-minded. I really don't care how the game is categorized as long as its fun. In the end that's all that matters. Not how much of an MMORPG it is by someone's narrow and arbitrary definition.
I also think that half of the people who would like a "true MMO" (what a laugh that term is) would actually be better of by playing good old tabletop/pen & paper RPGs, because those games have exactly what you want, and you can customize it within your circle of friends to further suit your needs.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I agree. Who cares about what is a "proper" MMO and what is not. If a game is fun (to me), i will play it.
MMO is just a convenient label to group a bunch of games .. no more and no less.
I cant tell if this is a troll post or not. Let me get this stright...
"The current market is Amazing!"
"There are hundered of mmos out there."
"1 or 2% of them you like."
"No more do you have to pick between a handfull of them."
Has anyone found Waldo yet within these 4 sentences? You 1-2% IS a handfull of the current MMO market. Not even a handfull. LIke a capfull. You got a sip of the current MMO market. So no. the current mmo market isent amazing. Its appalling.
::applauds::
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I care. Because by company standards, the bottom line won't allow a triple A mmo (You know what kind of MMOs im refering to) to be made for the sake of these abbomanations and that as a whole sucks. Using the term MMO to cluster fuck games together just for the sake of giving them a label is irresponsible.
You yourself don't care because this doesn't effect you. But to the rest of us that have been sitting on the sidelines for YEARS waiting for something worthwhile to play, its grown tiresome and were getting tired of waiting. And it's frustrating to read posts from you and your ilk trying to belittle the situation like we should be grateful there making games at all. Well fuck that.
There's a reason i haven't been buying these games. It's because i won't add to an already screwed up industry that lost its own identity years ago. You said it yourself you vote with your wallet. I do the same thing.
I will abstain from this myriad of horrendous, carbon copy, mmos that the gaming industry has been churning out these past 7+ years. Sure these games are fun. There fun for 1 month and that about it. [mod edit]
No one is making a very serious argument by saying the "genre is dead" just like a teenager would say "My life is over!" after he/she found it things didn't go the way he/she planned. I reserve my right to ridicule drama queens. You are not a victim and nobody is out to get you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
How bout this. My genre is dead. Does that make you feel better? And no where did i say i was a victim and that anyone was out to get me. Again you show us your superpower of putting words into other peoples mouths.
YOUR genre? You don't own the genre. The accurate statement is
"the genre YOU like changes into something you do not like"
... do you have to use the word "dead" to get all drama-queen like?
Bottom line. Genre is now cash shops, esports, all dev driven content, combat centric and auto socialized. Simply put, Id like to have more choices besides combat and afterthought mini games. And here we are hundreds of posts later still getting shouted down by people that like the way it is now. The funny thing is that I never said to get rid of these types of mmos. But the very thought that these new games are just not enough for some of us is too much to handle for others. Its kinda funny actually heh Nobody is threatening your "gamehood"
I think what i would like to see from this thread is a Solid focus on where the OP and people who feel the OP is corrects mmo's of choice of legend begins. What was that mmo that was so amazing that now the other mmo's feel liek there just not getting it right. What are the similiarities that the new mmo's are taking from this particular mmo and what is it that is truly making you sick.
Ill start by stating that my favorite all time mmo was DAOC the PvE content was far from good but the PvP interaction and fearce war and struggle to be the best was ever lasting to the point where i felt i had a strong purpose which of course was to have a name and be the best. I find that the newer mmo's for th elongest time were so bogged down by the fact that casuals wanted to achieve what players from the beginning had bled to achieve in a matter of minutes which has forced alot of the new games to conform and make content easier. Eq is a prime example of some gear was very difficult to get and daoc is a prime example of how gear was a matter of a very solid crafting system. WoW is a prime example of the genre heading in the wrong direction even tho many feel it refreshed and brought mmo's back to life. I my self did enjoy it in the beginning aka 1-60 mc and early epic bg grinding for grand marshall. But then the game got consumed by pleasing the casual gamers who just didnt have the time or just couldnt hack it so they went about making content and still go about making content easier and easier which pushs away the more elitest of the group of mmo (which tends to be the old school gamers).
I would also like to state that i dont feel that the genre is dying but that games havent really brought that IT factor that some of the big blockbuster games have brought so peopel lose interest or feel its been done before. EQ great PvE content DAOC PvP content. WoW smashed out the heavy arena and constant updates to its PvE content keeping its consumers hooked with its casual driven community.
Needless to say ive gone off in a rant again my opinion is that In order to truly see the OP's side(of course i didnt riffle through all 53 pages of post) BUT its a must that everyone start off by stating WHAT that mmo was that really set the stage for them to compare all the other games they feel just are not getting it right.
p.s. I have played every mmo' sense EQ /UO all the way to the latest TSW and Gw2.