Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Space and Time in MMOs

1192022242528

Comments

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,198
    immodium said:
    Grand Turismo and Foraza have sold over 80 million combined.  Grand Theft Auto has sold over 100 million.  Minecraft has sold over 70 million.  Those games have you traveling with no fast travel.
    Yet the travel in those games aren't deep. Maybe the travel is fun.

    It's not really the point when they're single player open world games with fast travel that sell a lot and are as deep as the games you mentioned.

    To say MMO that can and arguably should represent virtual worlds can't have meaningful travel to a viable audience means you simply have no imagination.  
    I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying fast travel doesn't take away from meaningful travel, that hasn't been proven.
    It can.  If the purpose of the game lies with travel for various reason fast travel will negate it.  
    Yes, if the purpose of the game is a race I'd agree with you. If it's not I don't see how fast travel would remove anything and hasn't with games where fast travel is present.
    GTA Online is multiplayer and attempts to emulate an MMO.  Minecraft has MMO servers.  The comparison is not that far off when it comes to the travel mechanics.

    But no system operates in a vacuum.  For me as good as Witcher 3 seems I just can't stand the combat.  I haven't been able to get into the game. I enjoy traveling the world, the lore and the narrative but the combat annoys me.  Kind of the exact opposite most here say.  
  • GrumpyHobbitGrumpyHobbit Member RarePosts: 1,220
    Axehilt said:
    Personal attacks...got it. 

    And please refer to the title of the thread before calling up my literacy skills after rambling about losing in games. 
    I literally just stepped you through the issue's relevance to the thread title.  It was VestigeGamer's vain attempt to use "losing isn't fun; but games have losing" to attempt to rationalize slow travel.  I disputed that, and you responded.  And you keep responding to it, in spite of the fact that the battle was lost to truth, evidence, and reason long ago.

    The correct way for you to have handled it would've been:
    1. Vestige attempted a flawed point about losing to support the slow travel side of the argument.
    2. I posted to point out that his point completely lacks evidence and is just outright wrong.
    3. Because you're literate, you would've read both posts, realized this, and let the issue drop. No further mention of "losing" would've been made.
    The wrong way for you to handle it is how you have been:
    1. Vestige said something wrong.
    2. I pointed it out.
    3. You pressed the issue without reading or thinking about the fact that I was right.
    4. I laid out a huge list of games, which served as objective evidence proving my point.
    5. A completely different poster made an unrelated point.
    6. You responded to them saying they had brought up Tetris.
    7. I corrected you yet again.
    Reading this, and how you've behaved, wouldn't you agree that "reading and understanding what's being said before responding" hasn't been a behavior you've been following?  Knowing that, doesn't my call for literate responses seem reasonable?
    No excuse for personal attacks but keep rambling. 
  • DeivosDeivos Member EpicPosts: 3,692
    edited April 2016
    Quirhid said:
    Deivos said:
    Well you start off by making a mistake, which makes it really hard to agree with your opinion.

    "No matter how much you integrate slow travel with other systems, it will remain un-fun if you don't make slow travel in itself fun." Integrating mechanics with each other is how you make games fun.

    Combat is an example of this because it is often a mix of multiple gameplay mechanics together. Time, a bit of movement for position/direction based attacks, the manner of input for the controls, etc. You start isolating these mechanics and combat starts getting less interesting. You can establish a flawed argument as long ago as you want. It was corrected a long time ago too.

    As for your continued dialogue, that claim is invalidated again as far back as page 6 with pointing out that your claim is at best only the application of western gaming market, fails to reflect that the integration of travel mechanics is a very real element of eastern gaming titles, and that there are existing examples of it's use.

    I will agree it is more cost effective and safe to make the same thing over and over again. But that's also how you make games that are going to be progressively less interesting as evidenced by the rush of very similar titles that has lead to failed sales and many MMOs closing even though they followed the same formula implied by you as successful.

    Also hence the previous statement;

    "MMOs as a global genre are slower to develop and their technical requirements burdens them in a way that they will never be able to match the present technical capacity of a single or smaller scale multiplayer. 

    This puts a dampener on doing "new" things in the genre not because of what is being done is "bad", but because it is under-developed and the time and cost to invest into it to see it evolve is great. More than many developer have or are willing to invest.

    So we have compromises."

    "RPG games didn't face 22 years of refinement and evolution to stagnate. Same applies to other game genres. Just because mechanics are newer and more experimental does not mean they should be abandoned for the same old experience. Someone with the skill to do so needs to spend the time and effort to create "22 years of genre experience" for newer game mechanics. To continue growing, trying new things, making bigger better games, worlds, systems, etc. We need not wallow in mediocrity."

    What you offered is not objective observation because it has failed to observe many things going on with the games in the market in favor of taking finite snippets to declare it the truth of all. There have been plenty of examples offered by name of active titles directly disproving your last argument, meaning what you said is very much driven by opinion and not objective observation, otherwise they would have been accounted for.
    Travel has nowhere near the amount of depth combat has. To make travel interesting you'd have to make travel itself interesting. It is not going to magically turn into a fun activity by attaching it to other mechanics in the game. Travel can be an important element to those other mechanics, but that does not make travel fun. Just like grind is not made fun by the eventual reward at the end.

    Do you see the challenges involved? First time travel is easy to make interesting. Many games do it, and then implement fast travel. But to make travel interesting most of the time after that, and in an MMORPG environment no less, is incredibly hard and likely very expensive. So far, no MMORPG has done it (although some people are more easily amused than others).

    You talk like its just a simple matter of "doing it". This sort of ignorance of what is doable and what is not is what causes people to concoct these crazy, ill-adviced notions about how the developers only think about money, they are inept and stupid, out of touch with the audience or all of the above. Now I don't know whether you nurse these kinds of theories yourself, but I read them every day on these forums, and this is one of the reasons why.
    You repeat the same inaccuracies again, to which I repeat the corrections prior made;
    "It's only by adding special abilities, secondary effects and the time factor to gameplay that combat gets complex. Attacking a target by itself would be the most tedious activity if it weren't for how integrated it is into the mechanics of the characters and mobs in the game.

    So the argument that "adding meaning or feature integration would magically cause a boring thing to be fun" is itself a false argument. Feature integration is the only reason game mechanics have any interest or depth. From combat to travel, it's how many aspects support the tools and how those tools interact with each-other that makes a game. It's not magic taking place, it's design that actually supports the feature set. A good game designer would know that."

    Combat only has the depth it has because it is a mix of integrated components. Travel lacks that because it is an isolated one in the cases you use as example.

    You also again repeat a claim that as far as page six was refuted.

    Never did I say it was as simple as "doing it" either, but I did argue on the necessity of doing it.

    I repeat these points made;
    "I will agree it is more cost effective and safe to make the same thing over and over again. But that's also how you make games that are going to be progressively less interesting as evidenced by the rush of very similar titles that has lead to failed sales and many MMOs closing even though they followed the same formula implied by you as successful."

    "RPG games didn't face 22 years of refinement and evolution to stagnate. Same applies to other game genres. Just because mechanics are newer and more experimental does not mean they should be abandoned for the same old experience. Someone with the skill to do so needs to spend the time and effort to create "22 years of genre experience" for newer game mechanics. To continue growing, trying new things, making bigger better games, worlds, systems, etc. We need not wallow in mediocrity."

    If there is ignorance to be had in this, it's yours not mine. Your only recourse in this conversation so far has been to repeat arguments that were corrected a long time ago and lie about what was said. That's not simply intellectual dishonesty, but active combat against sanity.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin

  • DeivosDeivos Member EpicPosts: 3,692
    edited April 2016
    Axehilt said:

    Steelhelm said:
    This conversation has made me see that all other mmo mechanics are severely hindered by fast travel for perhaps the exception of combat, which itself is an integration of mechanics as Deivos said. How the developers of the most successful mmos out there don't see this is beyond me. Maybe this conversation gives hints to that also. To not understand something that is plainly clear is beyond me.
    Where does this comment even come from?

    The vast majority of MMORPG mechanics work just fine without excessive slow travel.

    Are you living in a fantasy world where WOW didn't exist?   Because if "all" mechanics were "severely hindered" by fast travel, then WOW would've flopped.  Here in real life that didn't happen.

    You're more willing to believe a lie than the truth?  What benefit do you gain from ignoring all the evidence?
    Lets break this down.
    "The vast majority of MMORPG mechanics work just fine without excessive slow travel."

     This is true for western MMORPG titles in so far as most of them are themepart titles with heavily scripted content, generally meaning there isn't a whole lot to do outside of specific locations of the world that have been explicitly designed with rather inflexible content to be entertained by. They survive without travel because the content consumption and depth of the game is focused on a finite scope that is not generally serviced by having a large world space. The titles could just as easily be linear corridors or entirely instanced.

    Other types of MMORPG titles like Monster Hunter Online and several other eastern games that have launched in the last few years, don't see that as the best layout because there is a lot they are trying to do with their world space and controlling the travel mechanics becomes much more necessary as it easily effects how other things work in the game.

    "Are you living in a fantasy world where WOW didn't exist?   Because if "all" mechanics were "severely hindered" by fast travel, then WOW would've flopped.  Here in real life that didn't happen."

    WoW is a heavily scripted themepark, not a virtual/emulated world. Nor does it really deliver content that relies on it possessing a large world space. That's why one sees all the travel mechanics used to contract that world space so that the developers can deliver the players to where the content is in the game faster, because they did not populate the environment with it beyond the finite quest hubs.

    "You're more willing to believe a lie than the truth?  What benefit do you gain from ignoring all the evidence?"

    This is a facetious argument. The evidence provided by you has both been ironically used to point out you are wrong as well as countered by reference to other games and content out on the market that can be openly verified.

    Also this comment of yours;
    "Nobody is arguing that players don't like deep travel.  I'm simply pointing out the reality that MMORPGs don't have deep travel, and wouldn't have it because their focus is on core RPG features rather than travel."

    This would be part of the problem that is being pointed out as false. Western MMORPG titles suffer because they are not designed for it, but they are not the only MMORPGs and we can see the trend that has taken eastern titles doing exactly what you have claimed impossible.

    Besides which the "core RPG features" claim was proven to be a rather opinion driven semantic quite some time ago since combat is not technically integral to RPG design (had a set of links to explain this too on page 18).

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775


    Said nothing of MSG.  Thsts a pure strawman. Showing one game with fast travel does not negate others who don't that sell tremendously well. 


    still .. whoever is using MSG as an example of a popular slow travel only game is wrong because it has fast travel. Do you dispute this face?
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775

    Deivos said:


    "No matter how much you integrate slow travel with other systems, it will remain un-fun if you don't make slow travel in itself fun." Integrating mechanics with each other is how you make games fun.

    Why bother to make slow travel fun? It is 10x cheaper to just put in fast travel, and focus on the other types of fun stuff that are more efficient to create (like combat that you have mentioned).

    In fact, most games don't.

    And for those who already think slow travel is fun, they can. So what is the problem here?
  • GrumpyHobbitGrumpyHobbit Member RarePosts: 1,220


    And for those who already think slow travel is fun, they can. So what is the problem here?
    The problem that keeps being detailed to you and the others arguing is that in isolation fast travel or slow travel are both viable. But when travel is NOT done in isolation but is part of a well designed, integrated set of game mechanics then choosing the wrong form of travel will probably kill the game. 

    When you design an entire game world you have to think of every system you integrate as part of the whole. It requires an holistic approach to game design.

    Imagine an escort quest where you can fast travel and just collect the reward by fast travelling rather then have to actually complete the quest in the way intended by travelling through dangerous lands.

    Again, the problem is not  fast travel or slow travel but how it needs to be part of the overall game design and not some arbitrary "slow travel takes longer" type decision process.  
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775

    The problem that keeps being detailed to you and the others arguing is that in isolation fast travel or slow travel are both viable. But when travel is NOT done in isolation but is part of a well designed, integrated set of game mechanics then choosing the wrong form of travel will probably kill the game. 


    and clearly this is not a problem because devs have already chosen how to do it in open world games, and MMORPG. Add fast travel. 

    Tell me, which game is *killed* because fast travel is added?

    You are making it much more complicated than it is. Just treat travel in isolation, pick a system, and be done with. Few games have travel as the focal point (except may be American trucks). It is just not that important or a new design issue. 
  • VestigeGamerVestigeGamer Member UncommonPosts: 518
    VestigeGamer said:
    MMOROGs are NOT about popular.  Never was.  Should never have happened (thanks, WoW).
    Why not?

    Popular keeps the company running, the jobs flowing, and the content producing. For more than a decade, a very good long run by anyone's standards.

    Unpopular, on the other hand... Well, take a look at the games list over on the side, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of examples.

    There's nothing admirable about the terribad titles, for sure.

    Rejecting popularity because it's popular is hip, but impractical. Good consolation approach for the True Believers of those titles that failed to capture much of the Gamer Herd interest, I suppose.
    Because "popular" means the lowest common denominator.  Appealing to "the masses" may make loads of money but rarely creates great games, unless one measures "great" by popularity, which I do not.  This is simple because there is no way on heaven or earth that a mass of people (players in this instance) can AGREE on what is "great", a totally subjective word.  What happens is a vast compromise that really pleases very few.

    Targeted audiences is the key.  If it works, great.  If not, try for a different audience.  "Targeted" indicates small, not massive.  One tries for the small red circle in the middle, not the whole damn target.

    To be perfectly clear, I am not against games making money.  But there is a vast difference between WoW numbers and EQ or UO numbers at their height.  ALL of them made money.  The difference is just "how much."  I am NOT rejecting popular because it is "hip."  I could not care any less about being "hip."  I reject popularity because of the mess the MMORPG genre is in right now, thanks to "popularity."

    Yup, MMOs (no RPG) make shitloads of money and are hyper-popular, but the games are shit, in my opinion.  Why?  Because they have to appease "the masses."

    VG

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
      I reject popularity because of the mess the MMORPG genre is in right now, thanks to "popularity."

    Yup, MMOs (no RPG) make shitloads of money and are hyper-popular, but the games are shit, in my opinion.  Why?  Because they have to appease "the masses."
    You certainly can reject "popularity" and don't play games that you think is shit.

    But at the end of the day, you are just one gamer with a different preference than the masses. Devs have no obligation to pay attention to you. They can target anyone they want.
  • VestigeGamerVestigeGamer Member UncommonPosts: 518
    An afterthought about the thread title to add: Slow travel is about interacting with the world AND the other players.  Sure, running back and forth between 2 points one has traversed many times before can be boring, especially when plays a massively multiplayer game as a single player game.

    In MMORPGs I've played with slow travel as "the norm", I have had interactions with other players.  I have healed player fighting.  I have jumped in and lent a hand if not a healer.  I have struck up conversations with passersby on the rods.  Those who think "slow travel" is boring are playing the wrong genre.  They need single player games where the world and, most importantly, other players are not present.  The whole point of MMOs is play with other players, right?

    EQ had fast travel.  Limited fast travel.  In order for most players to utilize it, they had to actually interact with other players to accomplish it.  To me, that is fast travel done right.  Boring as all get out to single player game fans.

    VG

  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574

    Deivos said:


    "No matter how much you integrate slow travel with other systems, it will remain un-fun if you don't make slow travel in itself fun." Integrating mechanics with each other is how you make games fun.

    Why bother to make slow travel fun? It is 10x cheaper to just put in fast travel, and focus on the other types of fun stuff that are more efficient to create (like combat that you have mentioned).

    In fact, most games don't.

    And for those who already think slow travel is fun, they can. So what is the problem here?
    Perhaps because combat is only a small part of an RPG or adventure game.  There are many other aspects to it.  Too much combat is not enjoyable either.  Good slow travel can be very immersive and provide the player with a myriad of different areas that have personality and scope.  If you have only constant action you really can't enjoy the game world at all because you will be to busy fighting constantly.  Anything that is done to much is repetitive and boring.  No matter how complex you and others may say combat is in games.
  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,610
    Axehilt said:
    immodium said:
    Grand Turismo and Foraza have sold over 80 million combined.  Grand Theft Auto has sold over 100 million.  Minecraft has sold over 70 million.  Those games have you traveling with no fast travel.
    Yet the travel in those games aren't deep. Maybe the travel is fun.

    It's not really the point when they're single player open world games with fast travel that sell a lot and are as deep as the games you mentioned.
    It's worth noting travel in racing games is fairly deep.  There's a big difference between skilled and unskilled players.  Several hard-to-master skills are involved, like learning the subtle nuances of how to steer perfectly (because steering 4 degrees a second actually produces a different race time than when you took that corner  at 5 degrees a second last time,) and learning the right lines for each course is important too.

    What's the last racing game where you felt you had completely mastered the game?  Even back with Super Mario Kart (probably the racing game I've put the most time into) my times varied considerably race to race, and I was still improving after several years of practice.

    So it's a big difference from typical MMORPG travel, where nobody is considered skilled at travel because it's shallow and no challenging skills are involved.
    Totally agree. When I implied it wasn't deep, I was talking about the other systems outside of travel in those games. You could argue that the systems in some of those games to try and make your car go faster in the garage are deep. However that's promoting fast travel, not slow. So irrelevant.

    Spent hours on Mario Kart snes doing those time trials with friends. I'd just try and drift my way through the tracks, looked cooler. :)

    image
  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,610
    edited April 2016
    Flyte27 said:

    Deivos said:


    "No matter how much you integrate slow travel with other systems, it will remain un-fun if you don't make slow travel in itself fun." Integrating mechanics with each other is how you make games fun.

    Why bother to make slow travel fun? It is 10x cheaper to just put in fast travel, and focus on the other types of fun stuff that are more efficient to create (like combat that you have mentioned).

    In fact, most games don't.

    And for those who already think slow travel is fun, they can. So what is the problem here?
    Perhaps because combat is only a small part of an RPG or adventure game.  There are many other aspects to it.  Too much combat is not enjoyable either.  Good slow travel can be very immersive and provide the player with a myriad of different areas that have personality and scope.  If you have only constant action you really can't enjoy the game world at all because you will be to busy fighting constantly.  Anything that is done to much is repetitive and boring.  No matter how complex you and others may say combat is in games.
    The problem I've had with games with slow travel is I'm not being stimulated enough from getting from point A to point B. However deep or complex the other systems in place people are making them out to be. The open world lacked challenging or interesting worlds to explore. No matter how deep, or complex the other systems in place are to promote slow travel.

    I do get some people just want a mindless walk and look at the scenery in these virtual worlds. I do to, I can still do them in games with fast travel if I stumbled across something when I explored.

    The only thing I've deduced from this conversation is promoting slow travel is for people who like competition. This includes people who play the economy, locating rare items, PvP. Things a developer should be be able to lose in an MMORPG and still create a really deep, engaging world gamers would actually not choose to fast travel, even though it's present.

    Also, I can't rely on people in the world to entertain me as most humans are very dull. It's why I always roll on an RP server as they do inject some life/interesting stories in to the world. Still, most NPCs I talk to in games are far more interesting to get to know in most humans.
    Post edited by immodium on

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    I don't mind investing a lot of time into a great game.

    The problem is that most games don't provide the level of immersion and fun that I need to bother investing that much time into it.

    Essentially, I think great games are less about having X and Y features - but more about dedication and talent on the part of the developers.

    If the content is strong, then it's much easier to justify investing myself.

    So, if you want me to manually travel from A to B in a huge world - you better make sure the journey is worth it.
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Because "popular" means the lowest common denominator.  Appealing to "the masses" may make loads of money but rarely creates great games, unless one measures "great" by popularity, which I do not.  This is simple because there is no way on heaven or earth that a mass of people (players in this instance) can AGREE on what is "great", a totally subjective word.  What happens is a vast compromise that really pleases very few.

    Targeted audiences is the key.  If it works, great.  If not, try for a different audience.  "Targeted" indicates small, not massive.  One tries for the small red circle in the middle, not the whole damn target.

    To be perfectly clear, I am not against games making money.  But there is a vast difference between WoW numbers and EQ or UO numbers at their height.  ALL of them made money.  The difference is just "how much."  I am NOT rejecting popular because it is "hip."  I could not care any less about being "hip."  I reject popularity because of the mess the MMORPG genre is in right now, thanks to "popularity."

    Yup, MMOs (no RPG) make shitloads of money and are hyper-popular, but the games are shit, in my opinion.  Why?  Because they have to appease "the masses."
    You do realize this is a travel thread right?

    One side of the fence is arguing "create deep gameplay, or skip it entirely."  Essentially it's a demand for deep gameplay one way or another, implying games shouldn't be about empty wastes of time and should be about difficult-to-master situations.

    The other side is arguing against that focus on deep decisions.  Implying they are fine with gameplay having long segments of shallow play.  (Or at best they're arguing for an financially improbable game where every system, even minor ones like travel, offers deep gameplay.)

    Do you understand that the former want intellectually rewarding play, while the latter are arguing against intellectually rewarding play?  To be clear, the ironic part is: the former are the ones you're calling the "lowest common denominator", while the latter are arguing for objectively less intellectually-demanding gameplay.

    The masses want the more (objectively) intellectually challenging choice in this case.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    edited April 2016
    The problem that keeps being detailed to you and the others arguing is that in isolation fast travel or slow travel are both viable. But when travel is NOT done in isolation but is part of a well designed, integrated set of game mechanics then choosing the wrong form of travel will probably kill the game. 

    When you design an entire game world you have to think of every system you integrate as part of the whole. It requires an holistic approach to game design.

    Imagine an escort quest where you can fast travel and just collect the reward by fast travelling rather then have to actually complete the quest in the way intended by travelling through dangerous lands.

    Again, the problem is not  fast travel or slow travel but how it needs to be part of the overall game design and not some arbitrary "slow travel takes longer" type decision process.  
    That isn't a logical line of reasoning though.

    Travel is experienced in isolation, and is highly exclusive (while traveling you're not experiencing the other decision-sets in a game; at best you'll have access to a handful of minor, infrequent, or shallow decisions like changing your gear while traveling (which you can do, but we all know how incredibly infrequent that choice is, which is my point.))

    The experience of a game is the game.  So if 15% of your time is eaten up by shallow tedium, then the game is that much worse off.

    It simply won't matter whether that shallow activity is "integrated" with other systems -- if what you're doing in a game 15% of the time is shallow, then the game is less fun to play.

    People arguing in favor of slow travel need to realize that conversation essentially boils down to:
    • Group A argues that being kicked in the crotch is enjoyable if it's integrated with a $50 reward.
    • Group B argues that being kicked in the crotch is never enjoyable. Whether or not there's a reward involved, it's a bad mechanic to have in a game that's supposed to be enjoyable.  (Notably, the game can still offer the $50 reward gated behind some enjoyable activity.)
    Post edited by Axehilt on

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    DKLond said:
    I don't mind investing a lot of time into a great game.

    The problem is that most games don't provide the level of immersion and fun that I need to bother investing that much time into it.

    Essentially, I think great games are less about having X and Y features - but more about dedication and talent on the part of the developers.

    If the content is strong, then it's much easier to justify investing myself.

    So, if you want me to manually travel from A to B in a huge world - you better make sure the journey is worth it.
    I find this is the biggest problem with games today.  They are made with numbers in mind.  Immersion is an afterthought because it's not something that can be judged.  Even the most simple Nintendo games could have more immersion than a great 3D game that looks photo realistic because the person who made it poured their heart into it instead of making it with surveys based on how many of x are going to like this or our numbers show x people like x the color blue more than pink.  Travel is boring because there is no immersion or interesting puzzle solving.  GPS and markers has pretty much eliminated travel and immersion.  I think there may only be a small amount of people who have actually gotten immersed and understand immersion in a game.  For the majority of people out there all they can see is numbers.  That's sad because they miss the whole point of something like an RPG in the first place.  It's an adventure story.  It's not what is going to be the most efficient use of my time in a game simulator.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Flyte27 said:

    Deivos said:


    "No matter how much you integrate slow travel with other systems, it will remain un-fun if you don't make slow travel in itself fun." Integrating mechanics with each other is how you make games fun.

    Why bother to make slow travel fun? It is 10x cheaper to just put in fast travel, and focus on the other types of fun stuff that are more efficient to create (like combat that you have mentioned).

    In fact, most games don't.

    And for those who already think slow travel is fun, they can. So what is the problem here?
    Perhaps because combat is only a small part of an RPG or adventure game.  There are many other aspects to it.  Too much combat is not enjoyable either.  
    To you may be.

    Clearly there are very much combat centric games, and given the amount of business they are doing, I would say there is a large audience for combat centric games.

    Diablo, Destiny, Division, Call of Duty, Dishonor, WoW, all MOBAs ... the list goes on and on. In fact, most video games are combat centric.

    In fact, combat is a small part of WHAT RPG? WoW? Dark Souls? Witcher? Dragon Age, Mass Effect ... I don't think so. And we are talking about MMOs, not adventure games. In addition, what does RPGs have to do with MMOs?
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    edited April 2016
    Flyte27 said:
    I find this is the biggest problem with games today.  They are made with numbers in mind.  Immersion is an afterthought because it's not something that can be judged.  Even the most simple Nintendo games could have more immersion than a great 3D game that looks photo realistic because the person who made it poured their heart into it instead of making it with surveys based on how many of x are going to like this or our numbers show x people like x the color blue more than pink.  Travel is boring because there is no immersion or interesting puzzle solving.  GPS and markers has pretty much eliminated travel and immersion.  I think there may only be a small amount of people who have actually gotten immersed and understand immersion in a game.  For the majority of people out there all they can see is numbers.  That's sad because they miss the whole point of something like an RPG in the first place.  It's an adventure story.  It's not what is going to be the most efficient use of my time in a game simulator.
    Let's not lose sight of the fact that "Sit and do nothing while you wait for travel" isn't exactly the most immersive gameplay known to man.

    Remember, nobody ever criticized the LOTR movies for lacking in immersion on account of their skipping the year's worth of travel.  In fact keeping the story to the interesting events is itself going to immerse the audience more (because there's always something important to see, which wouldn't be the case when you were on Hour 329 of watching uneventful travel.)

    So first, let's not make the mistake of assuming pure simulation and immersion are the same thing. Things which are staggeringly boring struggle to be immersive.

    Second, let's not make the mistake of assuming it's "designing from the heart" to create a game with excessive shallow travel.  

    Instead, let's admit it was "designing from the pocketbook".  Excessive shallow travel wasn't a significant part of any game genre until subscription-based MMORPGs (and early on it was thought you could make more money by creating a bunch of excessive timesinks, like unavoidable slow travel.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • GrumpyHobbitGrumpyHobbit Member RarePosts: 1,220
    Axehilt said:
    The problem that keeps being detailed to you and the others arguing is that in isolation fast travel or slow travel are both viable. But when travel is NOT done in isolation but is part of a well designed, integrated set of game mechanics then choosing the wrong form of travel will probably kill the game. 

    When you design an entire game world you have to think of every system you integrate as part of the whole. It requires an holistic approach to game design.

    Imagine an escort quest where you can fast travel and just collect the reward by fast travelling rather then have to actually complete the quest in the way intended by travelling through dangerous lands.

    Again, the problem is not  fast travel or slow travel but how it needs to be part of the overall game design and not some arbitrary "slow travel takes longer" type decision process.  
    That isn't a logical line of reasoning though.

    Travel is experienced in isolation, and is highly exclusive (while traveling you're not experiencing the other decision-sets in a game; at best you'll have access to a handful of minor, infrequent, or shallow decisions like changing your gear while traveling (which you can do, but we all know how incredibly infrequent that choice is, which is my point.))

    The experience of a game is the game.  So if 15% of your time is eaten up by shallow tedium, then the game is that much worse off.

    It simply won't matter whether that shallow activity is "integrated" with other systems -- if what you're doing in a game 15% of the time is shallow, then the game is less fun to play.

    People arguing in favor of slow travel need to realize that conversation essentially boils down to:
    • Group A argues that being kicked in the crotch is enjoyable if it's integrated with a $50 reward.
    • Group B argues that being kicked in the crotch is never enjoyable. Whether or not there's a reward involved, it's a bad mechanic to have in a game that's supposed to be enjoyable.  (Notably, the game can still offer the $50 reward gated behind some enjoyable activity.)
    Please stop continuing to regurgitate the same stuff while totally ignoring what anyone else says to counter your points. This is a pointless exercise now as it is obvious you are only listening to your own point of view. 
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    Flyte27 said:

    Deivos said:


    "No matter how much you integrate slow travel with other systems, it will remain un-fun if you don't make slow travel in itself fun." Integrating mechanics with each other is how you make games fun.

    Why bother to make slow travel fun? It is 10x cheaper to just put in fast travel, and focus on the other types of fun stuff that are more efficient to create (like combat that you have mentioned).

    In fact, most games don't.

    And for those who already think slow travel is fun, they can. So what is the problem here?
    Perhaps because combat is only a small part of an RPG or adventure game.  There are many other aspects to it.  Too much combat is not enjoyable either.  
    To you may be.

    Clearly there are very much combat centric games, and given the amount of business they are doing, I would say there is a large audience for combat centric games.

    Diablo, Destiny, Division, Call of Duty, Dishonor, WoW, all MOBAs ... the list goes on and on. In fact, most video games are combat centric.

    In fact, combat is a small part of WHAT RPG? WoW? Dark Souls? Witcher? Dragon Age, Mass Effect ... I don't think so. And we are talking about MMOs, not adventure games. In addition, what does RPGs have to do with MMOs?
    While most video games may be combat centric they are still adventures at heart.  That is usually the predication of such games.  In general you aren't playing racing games, sports games, etc. when you are playing the games you mentioned or MMOs.  You are playing a character in a fantasy world going on a adventure in a scary world where you learn and grow.  All the games you mentioned have travel, but not all of them are immersive.  MMOs and MMORPGs are especially culprits here though.  They have become more about the numbers then about the adventure.  The single player games are still less immersive then older ones I go back and play though IMO.  The story telling is a different style and done better in most cases.  I do like Mass Effect and Witcher series a lot.  I also like Diablo 1 and 2 because of their dark and immersive environment.  Diablo 3 seems like it was made as a numbers competition alone.
  • vandal5627vandal5627 Member UncommonPosts: 788
    edited April 2016
    Axehilt said:
    The problem that keeps being detailed to you and the others arguing is that in isolation fast travel or slow travel are both viable. But when travel is NOT done in isolation but is part of a well designed, integrated set of game mechanics then choosing the wrong form of travel will probably kill the game. 

    When you design an entire game world you have to think of every system you integrate as part of the whole. It requires an holistic approach to game design.

    Imagine an escort quest where you can fast travel and just collect the reward by fast travelling rather then have to actually complete the quest in the way intended by travelling through dangerous lands.

    Again, the problem is not  fast travel or slow travel but how it needs to be part of the overall game design and not some arbitrary "slow travel takes longer" type decision process.  
    That isn't a logical line of reasoning though.

    Travel is experienced in isolation, and is highly exclusive (while traveling you're not experiencing the other decision-sets in a game; at best you'll have access to a handful of minor, infrequent, or shallow decisions like changing your gear while traveling (which you can do, but we all know how incredibly infrequent that choice is, which is my point.))

    The experience of a game is the game.  So if 15% of your time is eaten up by shallow tedium, then the game is that much worse off.

    It simply won't matter whether that shallow activity is "integrated" with other systems -- if what you're doing in a game 15% of the time is shallow, then the game is less fun to play.

    People arguing in favor of slow travel need to realize that conversation essentially boils down to:
    • Group A argues that being kicked in the crotch is enjoyable if it's integrated with a $50 reward.
    • Group B argues that being kicked in the crotch is never enjoyable. Whether or not there's a reward involved, it's a bad mechanic to have in a game that's supposed to be enjoyable.  (Notably, the game can still offer the $50 reward gated behind some enjoyable activity.)
    Please stop continuing to regurgitate the same stuff while totally ignoring what anyone else says to counter your points. This is a pointless exercise now as it is obvious you are only listening to your own point of view. 
    LOL Isn't that exactly what all you guys are doing when you respond to Axe....I don't see anyone listening to anyone's point of view except themselves.  I mean, isn't that the point of a DISCUSSION?  To see other's point of view and either agree or refute?  It's definitely fun to read the back and forth though.
  • GrumpyHobbitGrumpyHobbit Member RarePosts: 1,220
    Axehilt said:
    The problem that keeps being detailed to you and the others arguing is that in isolation fast travel or slow travel are both viable. But when travel is NOT done in isolation but is part of a well designed, integrated set of game mechanics then choosing the wrong form of travel will probably kill the game. 

    When you design an entire game world you have to think of every system you integrate as part of the whole. It requires an holistic approach to game design.

    Imagine an escort quest where you can fast travel and just collect the reward by fast travelling rather then have to actually complete the quest in the way intended by travelling through dangerous lands.

    Again, the problem is not  fast travel or slow travel but how it needs to be part of the overall game design and not some arbitrary "slow travel takes longer" type decision process.  
    That isn't a logical line of reasoning though.

    Travel is experienced in isolation, and is highly exclusive (while traveling you're not experiencing the other decision-sets in a game; at best you'll have access to a handful of minor, infrequent, or shallow decisions like changing your gear while traveling (which you can do, but we all know how incredibly infrequent that choice is, which is my point.))

    The experience of a game is the game.  So if 15% of your time is eaten up by shallow tedium, then the game is that much worse off.

    It simply won't matter whether that shallow activity is "integrated" with other systems -- if what you're doing in a game 15% of the time is shallow, then the game is less fun to play.

    People arguing in favor of slow travel need to realize that conversation essentially boils down to:
    • Group A argues that being kicked in the crotch is enjoyable if it's integrated with a $50 reward.
    • Group B argues that being kicked in the crotch is never enjoyable. Whether or not there's a reward involved, it's a bad mechanic to have in a game that's supposed to be enjoyable.  (Notably, the game can still offer the $50 reward gated behind some enjoyable activity.)
    Please stop continuing to regurgitate the same stuff while totally ignoring what anyone else says to counter your points. This is a pointless exercise now as it is obvious you are only listening to your own point of view. 
    LOL Isn't that exactly what all you guys are doing when you respond to Axe....I don't see anyone listening to anyone's point of view except themselves.  It's definitely fun to read the back and forth though.
    Exactly opposite actually if you read what people are writing. 

    One side is saying fast travel is the only way to go because slow travel is boring. 

    The other side is saying that both fast travel and slow travel are viable depending on the overall design of the game. 

    One side states slow travel is boring and offer not much else other then that.

    The other side states slow travel in conjunction with other game mechanics such as territorial control, localised markets, Quick and dangerous vs slow and safe routes between locations.....

    I would urge you to look at who is totally entrenched is fast travel being good and slow travel not being good vs both slow and fast travel being good depending on the overall design ob the game. 
  • vandal5627vandal5627 Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Axehilt said:
    The problem that keeps being detailed to you and the others arguing is that in isolation fast travel or slow travel are both viable. But when travel is NOT done in isolation but is part of a well designed, integrated set of game mechanics then choosing the wrong form of travel will probably kill the game. 

    When you design an entire game world you have to think of every system you integrate as part of the whole. It requires an holistic approach to game design.

    Imagine an escort quest where you can fast travel and just collect the reward by fast travelling rather then have to actually complete the quest in the way intended by travelling through dangerous lands.

    Again, the problem is not  fast travel or slow travel but how it needs to be part of the overall game design and not some arbitrary "slow travel takes longer" type decision process.  
    That isn't a logical line of reasoning though.

    Travel is experienced in isolation, and is highly exclusive (while traveling you're not experiencing the other decision-sets in a game; at best you'll have access to a handful of minor, infrequent, or shallow decisions like changing your gear while traveling (which you can do, but we all know how incredibly infrequent that choice is, which is my point.))

    The experience of a game is the game.  So if 15% of your time is eaten up by shallow tedium, then the game is that much worse off.

    It simply won't matter whether that shallow activity is "integrated" with other systems -- if what you're doing in a game 15% of the time is shallow, then the game is less fun to play.

    People arguing in favor of slow travel need to realize that conversation essentially boils down to:
    • Group A argues that being kicked in the crotch is enjoyable if it's integrated with a $50 reward.
    • Group B argues that being kicked in the crotch is never enjoyable. Whether or not there's a reward involved, it's a bad mechanic to have in a game that's supposed to be enjoyable.  (Notably, the game can still offer the $50 reward gated behind some enjoyable activity.)
    Please stop continuing to regurgitate the same stuff while totally ignoring what anyone else says to counter your points. This is a pointless exercise now as it is obvious you are only listening to your own point of view. 
    LOL Isn't that exactly what all you guys are doing when you respond to Axe....I don't see anyone listening to anyone's point of view except themselves.  It's definitely fun to read the back and forth though.
    Exactly opposite actually if you read what people are writing. 

    One side is saying fast travel is the only way to go because slow travel is boring. 

    The other side is saying that both fast travel and slow travel are viable depending on the overall design of the game. 

    One side states slow travel is boring and offer not much else other then that.

    The other side states slow travel in conjunction with other game mechanics such as territorial control, localised markets, Quick and dangerous vs slow and safe routes between locations.....

    I would urge you to look at who is totally entrenched is fast travel being good and slow travel not being good vs both slow and fast travel being good depending on the overall design ob the game. 
    Again, that's his point of view against everyone else's point of view, there's no wrong or right.  If you can't refute him or feel that he's not getting your point, then move on.  There's no need to try to shut him up with that ignorant statement.

Sign In or Register to comment.