RPG players don't want skill in games, they want to "win" constiantly and chase gear. If this was not true, MMOFPS games would be more popular.
A few things are funny about this...
1) The cough, ahem - "skill" player is looking to "win" constantly and chase whatever it is they like.
2) If there were any kind of market for those gaes, more MMOFPS games would exist.
3) Not all RPG players are alike, but even so - many of those that do want skill in games do not consider "twitch" to be any more skill than oh say one tying their shoes...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Here is how you get skill in an MMO: everyone has the same health, the same access to EVERYTHING and has the exact same damage output. Leaves for little in terms of customization or progression, ultimately making it so by day one, you can be bored to hell with the MMO. I like how current MMOs work, time based, because it's like this: I spend more time on it, so I should be better than other people at it because my character has seen more action, got more experience with the world of that game and ultimately improved himself greatly since he started.
Balanced skill-centric gameplay doesn't require everyone to be identical. The best and most interesting competitive games are things like Starcraft and Street Fighter, where substantial playstyle variety exists.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Find anyone in their 30s, 40s, 50s+ who leapfrogged from Pong to Atari, to TRS-80, Apple, Commodore, and onwards. Who had to program his own games out of a magazine because there was no such thing as GameStop. Who spent countless thousands of hours glued to a monochrome screen playing the classic oldies from SirTech, Origin, Electronic Arts, SSI, and more. Who endlessly surfed "the boards" on 300 baud modems a decade or more before anyone had ever heard of "the internet". Find anyone who failed a class because he couldn't get in enough Wizardry, even after clocking four or five hundred hours on the same game. Who has bought or hand built by now his 10th or 15th gaming rig and spent more time on them then he's spent sleeping the past few decades. Find anyone who's list of finished games requires a word document broken up into chapters, separated by eras.
Most of these people are still playing games. Their gaming is driven not by gamer scores, prizes or any other kind of public cred, their gaming is driven by their passion for gaming. Many of these people don't count "twitch" among their interests. Personally I'd say any of these people warrants the title "hard core" a hell of a lot more than some whiny self impressed "twitch gamer".
Hard core gaming isn't about twitch. It's never been about twitch. It's about passion, the love of gaming that drives hard core gamers to choose gaming over X,Y,Z. Certainly twitch gamers can be hard core, but to suggest that only twitch gaming is hard core... well, anyone who would suggest that simply doesn't know the history of computer gamers and computer gaming.
Personally I'd say that if you have two gamers... Gamer #1 is a twelve year old girl that spends 16 hours a day in Hello Kitty Online, and is so invested in the game that she dreams about it at night, and gamer #2 is some punk ass that spends a few hours after school every day knifing his friends in Halo, and ok he's good enough he never gets the favor returned... well, sorry twitch gamers but that twelve year old is HELLA hard core compared to you. It is what it is. lol
newsflash. space wars, pong, galaga, etc. were twitch games.
i was there for all those early games (except space wars), systems and computers, i'm 40 and i'm a 'twitch gamer'.
Find anyone in their 30s, 40s, 50s+ who leapfrogged from Pong to Atari, to TRS-80, Apple, Commodore, and onwards. Who had to program his own games out of a magazine because there was no such thing as GameStop. Who spent countless thousands of hours glued to a monochrome screen playing the classic oldies from SirTech, Origin, Electronic Arts, SSI, and more. Who endlessly surfed "the boards" on 300 baud modems a decade or more before anyone had ever heard of "the internet". Find anyone who failed a class because he couldn't get in enough Wizardry, even after clocking four or five hundred hours on the same game. Who has bought or hand built by now his 10th or 15th gaming rig and spent more time on them then he's spent sleeping the past few decades. Find anyone who's list of finished games requires a word document broken up into chapters, separated by eras.
Most of these people are still playing games. Their gaming is driven not by gamer scores, prizes or any other kind of public cred, their gaming is driven by their passion for gaming. Many of these people don't count "twitch" among their interests. Personally I'd say any of these people warrants the title "hard core" a hell of a lot more than some whiny self impressed "twitch gamer".
Hard core gaming isn't about twitch. It's never been about twitch. It's about passion, the love of gaming that drives hard core gamers to choose gaming over X,Y,Z. Certainly twitch gamers can be hard core, but to suggest that only twitch gaming is hard core... well, anyone who would suggest that simply doesn't know the history of computer gamers and computer gaming.
Personally I'd say that if you have two gamers... Gamer #1 is a twelve year old girl that spends 16 hours a day in Hello Kitty Online, and is so invested in the game that she dreams about it at night, and gamer #2 is some punk ass that spends a few hours after school every day knifing his friends in Halo, and ok he's good enough he never gets the favor returned... well, sorry twitch gamers but that twelve year old is HELLA hard core compared to you. It is what it is. lol
newsflash. space wars, pong, galaga, etc. were twitch games.
i was there for all those early games (except space wars), systems and computers, i'm 40 and i'm a 'twitch gamer'.
Lets be fair here, I know you know that there is more to it than that. What you bring up was the general design for arcade games. Think about how the arcade mentality works, coin opperated limited play sessions entirely based around quick sprints of casual play. At home however, we see less twitch based games, especially as the technology improves. You also have to remember popular analog games which still existed that are not twitch based, chess, poker, dungeons and dragons...ect we see these modes of play also in the digital sphere, even to the point of experimental MUDs, text based adventures such as Zork, or even Collasal Cave Adventure? I just dont understand the rationality of your response.
To add to the comment you quote: People should look at South Korea's major leage gaming scene. Some players get paid to play, high skill games are not twitch based though like any game reaction time does mean something. Look at how they play Starcraft, I think this is a good example of skill in a game that is not about twitch based play as the core mechanic. It uses strategy, short term tactics, resource management, player growth and upgrades, progression...ect Many of these are features found in most of the mmorpgs that are not twitch based.
If you want MASSIVE first person shooters, ok, isn't that APB?
I like First Person Shooters just the way the are. I can't kill as many people as are on the map, and there are plenty of people to kill me already. Dont' really need more than Call of Duty, Battlefield, Modern Warfare, etc.
If you want MORE people to kill, and MORE people ot kill you, ok, I hope the maps get even bigger for you in some games.
As far as MMORPGs, I like the RPG part, no desire to see it turn into a First Person Shooter.
Do I want Star War the Old Republic Massive First Person Shooter? Not really.
Just wanted to make a hearty attempt to answer the title of the thread.
What dissatisfies me more than anything else about the MMORPG is the "RPG". There's no real attempt to implement true roleplaying in the roleplaying mmo.
Sure, you might think all those cute and cuddly carebear people, with their "emotes" and dancing, are roleplayers; in truth, they aren't anymore than anyone else. What's missing, in my opinion, is a system that influences players to accomodate roleplay to acheive their goals.
For example, in your typical MMO, you can pretty much (attempt to) kill anyone you come across. What stops you? There is no justice system; you do not go to jail. Your possessions aren't taken. And what happens when you die? Nothing much, maybe 15 minutes of weakness, perhaps? There's no sense of proportion.
If a game was going to influence the RP, you wouldn't go around killing other players unless you could, strategically, work out a situation where it was plausible. In the days of AD&D, the ancient grandfather of the MMORPG, battle was only one part of the game. There was diplomacy, research, secret societies, dark magics with equally bad consequences.
The style of society in MMORPGs is basically clans and guilds. The city/realm/kingdom aspect, where laws and legislation dictate justice, barely exists.
Ah well; this comment is twice as long as I wanted and half as long as I needed. Let me just say this; many of you have never, and might never, see and feel the true aspects of roleplaying in an MMORPG. If you think there needs to be more "skill", I respect your wishes, but feel that's the wrong direction to go. Once you delve into "skill", you're usually talking about maneuvering and jump/firing while in combat. And at that point, it becomes a matter of your ping rate.
Ping...
I really like your point as well. Real risks would be nice in an mmo. Somthing like a couple days in jail, perma death or having a large death penetly would be refreshing. Yours is the opposite viewpoint of mine but every bit as valid.
I dont mean that ALL MMOs need to revolve around skill. I would just like 1 or 2 AAA titles to. Right now there are 0 AAA titles that do (maybe eve online if that is considered AAA).
Find anyone in their 30s, 40s, 50s+ who leapfrogged from Pong to Atari, to TRS-80, Apple, Commodore, and onwards. Who had to program his own games out of a magazine because there was no such thing as GameStop. Who spent countless thousands of hours glued to a monochrome screen playing the classic oldies from SirTech, Origin, Electronic Arts, SSI, and more. Who endlessly surfed "the boards" on 300 baud modems a decade or more before anyone had ever heard of "the internet". Find anyone who failed a class because he couldn't get in enough Wizardry, even after clocking four or five hundred hours on the same game. Who has bought or hand built by now his 10th or 15th gaming rig and spent more time on them then he's spent sleeping the past few decades. Find anyone who's list of finished games requires a word document broken up into chapters, separated by eras.
Most of these people are still playing games. Their gaming is driven not by gamer scores, prizes or any other kind of public cred, their gaming is driven by their passion for gaming. Many of these people don't count "twitch" among their interests. Personally I'd say any of these people warrants the title "hard core" a hell of a lot more than some whiny self impressed "twitch gamer".
Hard core gaming isn't about twitch. It's never been about twitch. It's about passion, the love of gaming that drives hard core gamers to choose gaming over X,Y,Z. Certainly twitch gamers can be hard core, but to suggest that only twitch gaming is hard core... well, anyone who would suggest that simply doesn't know the history of computer gamers and computer gaming.
Personally I'd say that if you have two gamers... Gamer #1 is a twelve year old girl that spends 16 hours a day in Hello Kitty Online, and is so invested in the game that she dreams about it at night, and gamer #2 is some punk ass that spends a few hours after school every day knifing his friends in Halo, and ok he's good enough he never gets the favor returned... well, sorry twitch gamers but that twelve year old is HELLA hard core compared to you. It is what it is. lol
newsflash. space wars, pong, galaga, etc. were twitch games.
i was there for all those early games (except space wars), systems and computers, i'm 40 and i'm a 'twitch gamer'.
Lets be fair here, I know you know that there is more to it than that. What you bring up was the general design for arcade games. Think about how the arcade mentality works, coin opperated limited play sessions entirely based around quick sprints of casual play. At home however, we see less twitch based games, especially as the technology improves. You also have to remember popular analog games which still existed that are not twitch based, chess, poker, dungeons and dragons...ect we see these modes of play also in the digital sphere, even to the point of experimental MUDs, text based adventures such as Zork, or even Collasal Cave Adventure? I just dont understand the rationality of your response.
To add to the comment you quote: People should look at South Korea's major leage gaming scene. Some players get paid to play, high skill games are not twitch based though like any game reaction time does mean something. Look at how they play Starcraft, I think this is a good example of skill in a game that is not about twitch based play as the core mechanic. It uses strategy, short term tactics, resource management, player growth and upgrades, progression...ect Many of these are features found in most of the mmorpgs that are not twitch based.
i really am not understanding how you can argue with my 2 simple sentences there. why is what i said offensive to you?
btw (not entirely irrelevant), some of my favorites back then were Zork and ALL the Infocom grey boxes. i own at least one copy of every game they made before they started introducing graphics (and own MOST of those too).
despite the fact you seem to be offended at the fact i stated, you said nothing to take away from it or show it to be wrong. of course other types of games EXISTED, but the majority of early video games were twitch games. INCLUDING ON THE HOME CONSOLES AND HOME COMPUTERS. this goes against the picture that the guy i was responding to was painting.
and if you go watch some videos of StarCraft games being played competitively right now, i don't see how you can say its not also a twitch game. one of the reasons i don't play RTS games much is how a significant part of the gameplay revolves around twitching through the UI fast enough that your strategies become relevant.
RPG players don't want skill in games, they want to "win" constiantly and chase gear. If this was not true, MMOFPS games would be more popular.
I hope you do not actually believe that. I would assume by definition, RPG players want DEPTH. Challenges that include everything from micromanagement to Identification and reaction challenges. A game is only created through rulesets that result in challenges, the types of challenges present define the genre.
I guess what I would have to ask the OP of this thread is...how do you define skill? is it player skill vs character skill? is twitch vs intelligent play? what kind of challenges are you associating with skill?
The fact that the OP claims that mmorpgs that are not "twitch" based are some how not for hardcore gamers, or even skill based... says a lot about their understanding of design and modes of play. I could counter argue that player skill without character skill (items, stats, levels, abilities) results in reactionary play rather than intelligent play. One would assume intelligent play is the most valued skill to have in any game.
To answer your question:
Skill in video games revolves around being good at strategy, spacial awareness and "twitch" gameplay.
Twitch gameplay is defined as both physical "hand eye coordinated" games such as halo and CoD and Mental "fast thinking" type of games such as starcraft or other RTSs.
Twitch is all about reaction time whether it be mental or physical.
There really are no MMOs that stress either. Some mmos will maybe cause your brain to work a little but never at the point where you really have to be quick on your feet.
For example most raid bosses can be beaten by any well geared characters regardless of whether the players using the characters are "skilled" or not. As long as 1 person knows the correct strategy and everyone exicutes there role (as defined by the devolopers) the boss will go down.
Another example is the use of zerg mentality in PvP. Superior numbers always destroys fewer numbers. There are no examples of 300 alliance holding off thousands of horde over a three day period. It is impossible to overcome odds in current MMO games.
If you want MASSIVE first person shooters, ok, isn't that APB?
I like First Person Shooters just the way the are. I can't kill as many people as are on the map, and there are plenty of people to kill me already. Dont' really need more than Call of Duty, Battlefield, Modern Warfare, etc.
If you want MORE people to kill, and MORE people ot kill you, ok, I hope the maps get even bigger for you in some games.
As far as MMORPGs, I like the RPG part, no desire to see it turn into a First Person Shooter.
Do I want Star War the Old Republic Massive First Person Shooter? Not really.
APB failed when they removed headshots. The same failure that Global Agenda had. When you take away the ability for a skilled kill it once again boils down to stats.
Game doesnt have to be an FPS. It could be an action game like god of war, devil may cry or my dream MMO Star Wars Jedi Knight the MMO.
i guess since i've participated in this thread i should answer the OPs question. 8)
yes i've been totally dissatisfied with MMORPG "gameplay" since its inception. grinding away in my 5 months of addiction to EQ1 in 1999 i cursed the RPG mechanics constantly and longed for the day a true MMOFPS would come out. 11 years later and its finally about to happen. altho as with the first implementation of virtually anything, there are likely to be some issues i'll have with it. maybe dealbreaking issues. but at least its a start. and there are alot more possible options on the horizon. there's a clear and obvious shift finally in MMO paradigms. hopefully it doesn't take a few years for it to produce some genuinely fine examples of its potential to appeal to people outside of the typical RPG bubble.
RPG players don't want skill in games, they want to "win" constiantly and chase gear. If this was not true, MMOFPS games would be more popular.
I hope you do not actually believe that. I would assume by definition, RPG players want DEPTH. Challenges that include everything from micromanagement to Identification and reaction challenges. A game is only created through rulesets that result in challenges, the types of challenges present define the genre.
I guess what I would have to ask the OP of this thread is...how do you define skill? is it player skill vs character skill? is twitch vs intelligent play? what kind of challenges are you associating with skill?
The fact that the OP claims that mmorpgs that are not "twitch" based are some how not for hardcore gamers, or even skill based... says a lot about their understanding of design and modes of play. I could counter argue that player skill without character skill (items, stats, levels, abilities) results in reactionary play rather than intelligent play. One would assume intelligent play is the most valued skill to have in any game.
To answer your question:
Skill in video games revolves around being good at strategy, spacial awareness and "twitch" gameplay.
Problem being...there is more TO mmoRPGs than combat skill. If you don't like the skill sets required in mmoRPGs....why not go find yourself a good mmoFPS? I don't think the two need to be mutually exclusive. We can have ALL KINDS of MMOs. What I think you're saying throughout this thread, is that MMOs don't require as much skill in YOUR FAVORITE gaming skill sets, which would be skills that have primarily to do ONLY with combat and not the myriads of other things involved in playing a role playing game on a massive scale.
Twitch gameplay is defined as both physical "hand eye coordinated" games such as halo and CoD and Mental "fast thinking" type of games such as starcraft or other RTSs.
Twitch is all about reaction time whether it be mental or physical.
There really are no MMOs that stress either. Some mmos will maybe cause your brain to work a little but never at the point where you really have to be quick on your feet.
This reinforces what I just said I thought your point is/was with this thread. Be patient....your games are coming. MMOs are becoming more and more diversified ALL the time. You'll have your games. Doesn't mean every other play style can't also have theirs, and vice versa.
For example most raid bosses can be beaten by any well geared characters regardless of whether the players using the characters are "skilled" or not. As long as 1 person knows the correct strategy and everyone exicutes there role (as defined by the devolopers) the boss will go down.
Another example is the use of zerg mentality in PvP. Superior numbers always destroys fewer numbers. There are no examples of 300 alliance holding off thousands of horde over a three day period. It is impossible to overcome odds in current MMO games.
EVE takes skill. Skill with your brain, theorycrafting skill, social skills to make friends who will back you up, skills like common sense...
Oh, that's not the skill you were talking about, eh? Well, I hope you find an MMO to suit you. Darkfall or Mortal Online sound pretty accurate.
Yeah I have to agree. It's pretty annoying when someone comes along and decides that only THEIR favorite skills (of course the things they personally may be best at doing) are the ONLY SKILLS that matter or that are necessary to play games.
Some of the people that have the most refined "twitch" combat skills or strategy skills (or whatever the war-hungry version of gamer thinks are the "important" gaming skills)....may have next to NO social skills, no organizational skills, no leadership skills, no ability to be diplomatic, little or none of the OTHER skills it takes to make things work in an MMORPG. Just like in the real world, a team is composed of a variety of different people with varying degrees of skill in a wide assortment of skills.
If there was nothing at all but combat in MMORPGs....well first of all they wouldn't be RPGs.....but not only that, they would cease to provide a "world" or any reason to do anything but combat. THAT...to me....sounds like an FPS game, not an RPG. So what, imo, is needed....is the hole in the genre for MMOFPS games needs to be filled. There really isn't much for this type of player atm, but....I believe those games are coming.
RPG players don't want skill in games, they want to "win" constiantly and chase gear. If this was not true, MMOFPS games would be more popular.
I hope you do not actually believe that. I would assume by definition, RPG players want DEPTH. Challenges that include everything from micromanagement to Identification and reaction challenges. A game is only created through rulesets that result in challenges, the types of challenges present define the genre.
I guess what I would have to ask the OP of this thread is...how do you define skill? is it player skill vs character skill? is twitch vs intelligent play? what kind of challenges are you associating with skill?
The fact that the OP claims that mmorpgs that are not "twitch" based are some how not for hardcore gamers, or even skill based... says a lot about their understanding of design and modes of play. I could counter argue that player skill without character skill (items, stats, levels, abilities) results in reactionary play rather than intelligent play. One would assume intelligent play is the most valued skill to have in any game.
To answer your question:
Skill in video games revolves around being good at strategy, spacial awareness and "twitch" gameplay.
Twitch gameplay is defined as both physical "hand eye coordinated" games such as halo and CoD and Mental "fast thinking" type of games such as starcraft or other RTSs.
Twitch is all about reaction time whether it be mental or physical.
There really are no MMOs that stress either. Some mmos will maybe cause your brain to work a little but never at the point where you really have to be quick on your feet.
For example most raid bosses can be beaten by any well geared characters regardless of whether the players using the characters are "skilled" or not. As long as 1 person knows the correct strategy and everyone exicutes there role (as defined by the devolopers) the boss will go down.
Another example is the use of zerg mentality in PvP. Superior numbers always destroys fewer numbers. There are no examples of 300 alliance holding off thousands of horde over a three day period. It is impossible to overcome odds in current MMO games.
The reason I asked that question was not because I didnt know the answer, but rather to understand what you "think" skill is.
There is no one definition. Skill as an argument is often used a means to push a bias against certain modes of play. What I think I see coming from you is whats known as a confirmation bias, one in which you have a preferred play style and try to confirm that your play style is superior by rationalizing it as being more skilled...which it is not.
I have to ask you, do you consider chess a game that features skill? Also, dont you think you are generalizing way to much when you say any well geared character can be a raid boss? My experiences have shown otherwise. Situation and circumstances are all dependent upon results. Back in Vanilla WoW you needed an entire 40 man team working perfectly together while acting out specific strategies en masse to take down Molten Core bosses. One regular mob, regardless of gear at the time, could dessimate an entire 40 man party. Gear represents character progression, this is required for RPGs in some form.
What I am confused with then is why you do not play FPS games such as Counter Strike or Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer to get the twitch based modes of play you like. My point is that RPGs are a genre that come equiped with certain mechanics that define the genre. Genres help up enjoy variety in games, and I would hope you do not wish for all games to be only as you would like. Gamers are not entitled to have all games fit their preferred modes of play.
So then the question is, how can one say player skill over character skill is better than the other? Most mmorpgs I have seen hold a balance of both. The RPG requires the character skill be part of the player skill, without that there is a problem. Smart builds and play can defeat enemies way above your level. Maybe the question should be, why are players who defeat way above their "level" not rewarded enough? That would be a valid critism in mmorpgs.
I think it is also important to consider the input devices involved in these types of games. While motion control requires more body movement and reaction, computer games feature a mouse with X and Y coordinates and a set of buttons. The limitations exist, so in regards to design, you focus on keeping the depth with that limited input while making it enjoyable for everyone, not just the few "twitchy" or reactionary players.
RPG players don't want skill in games, they want to "win" constiantly and chase gear. If this was not true, MMOFPS games would be more popular.
I hope you do not actually believe that. I would assume by definition, RPG players want DEPTH. Challenges that include everything from micromanagement to Identification and reaction challenges. A game is only created through rulesets that result in challenges, the types of challenges present define the genre.
I guess what I would have to ask the OP of this thread is...how do you define skill? is it player skill vs character skill? is twitch vs intelligent play? what kind of challenges are you associating with skill?
The fact that the OP claims that mmorpgs that are not "twitch" based are some how not for hardcore gamers, or even skill based... says a lot about their understanding of design and modes of play. I could counter argue that player skill without character skill (items, stats, levels, abilities) results in reactionary play rather than intelligent play. One would assume intelligent play is the most valued skill to have in any game.
To answer your question:
Skill in video games revolves around being good at strategy, spacial awareness and "twitch" gameplay.
Problem being...there is more TO mmoRPGs than combat skill. If you don't like the skill sets required in mmoRPGs....why not go find yourself a good mmoFPS? I don't think the two need to be mutually exclusive. We can have ALL KINDS of MMOs. What I think you're saying throughout this thread, is that MMOs don't require as much skill in YOUR FAVORITE gaming skill sets, which would be skills that have primarily to do ONLY with combat and not the myriads of other things involved in playing a role playing game on a massive scale.
Twitch gameplay is defined as both physical "hand eye coordinated" games such as halo and CoD and Mental "fast thinking" type of games such as starcraft or other RTSs.
Twitch is all about reaction time whether it be mental or physical.
There really are no MMOs that stress either. Some mmos will maybe cause your brain to work a little but never at the point where you really have to be quick on your feet.
This reinforces what I just said I thought your point is/was with this thread. Be patient....your games are coming. MMOs are becoming more and more diversified ALL the time. You'll have your games. Doesn't mean every other play style can't also have theirs, and vice versa.
For example most raid bosses can be beaten by any well geared characters regardless of whether the players using the characters are "skilled" or not. As long as 1 person knows the correct strategy and everyone exicutes there role (as defined by the devolopers) the boss will go down.
Another example is the use of zerg mentality in PvP. Superior numbers always destroys fewer numbers. There are no examples of 300 alliance holding off thousands of horde over a three day period. It is impossible to overcome odds in current MMO games.
For the 4th or 5th time, NOWHERE in my OP did I mention mmoRPGs. I made certain that I just said MMO games. So yes its obvious that I am refering to MMOaction games in the vein of Call of Duty or god of war. There are NO good open world games like this. So saying go find one is retarded.
EVE takes skill. Skill with your brain, theorycrafting skill, social skills to make friends who will back you up, skills like common sense...
Oh, that's not the skill you were talking about, eh? Well, I hope you find an MMO to suit you. Darkfall or Mortal Online sound pretty accurate.
Yeah I have to agree. It's pretty annoying when someone comes along and decides that only THEIR favorite skills (of course the things they personally may be best at doing) are the ONLY SKILLS that matter or that are necessary to play games.
Some of the people that have the most refined "twitch" combat skills or strategy skills (or whatever the war-hungry version of gamer thinks are the "important" gaming skills)....may have next to NO social skills, no organizational skills, no leadership skills, no ability to be diplomatic, little or none of the OTHER skills it takes to make things work in an MMORPG. Just like in the real world, a team is composed of a variety of different people with varying degrees of skill in a wide assortment of skills.
If there was nothing at all but combat in MMORPGs....well first of all they wouldn't be RPGs.....but not only that, they would cease to provide a "world" or any reason to do anything but combat. THAT...to me....sounds like an FPS game, not an RPG. So what, imo, is needed....is the hole in the genre for MMOFPS games needs to be filled. There really isn't much for this type of player atm, but....I believe those games are coming.
Read what I think skill is. Eve probably falls into the RTS form of skill.
I am a former guild leader, raid leader and general social junky. So saying I lack those skills because of my desire for games that branch outside YOUR skillset is insulting.
Do I want MMOs to be more challenging and require more skill? Most definitely. Do I want to be able to play them for an extended period of time? Yes.
The problem with that is, both things are difficult to accomplish. If the game is too difficult, I'll enjoy it more, but the game will die due to lack of players. Difficult games turn players away and aren't accessible to the lesser skilled or the casual player.
The reverse of that is true as well. Games that are too easy tend to turn away even the casual player, and are avoided like the plague by the more "hard-core" players.
A balance of the two is necessary. Being able to defeat an encounter should be something anyone can do. Being able able to defeat the same encounter AND knit a scarf while doing the jig is something a more skilled player should be able to do.
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
I have been playing MMOs for a long time (Aceron's Call was my first) and I have never really been satisfied by the gameplay. Well, why play them you ask? To be honest, I play them mostly to relax and have have some nice casual multiplayer with friends. I also play them for story and roleplaying purposes. But this said I would really like an MMO to come out that is not for casual gamers but for hardcore gamers.
But wait, wait!!!??!!! WoW has plenty Hardcore gamerzzz doesn't it?
Short answer= No, mmo hardcore people are NOT hardcore gamers. That thought is laughable.
Long answer= Hardcore gamers are people who enjoy games that require skill, not time commitment. (think street fighter, Call of Duty, japanese top down shooters).
This is really the crux of my issue with MMOs. They require absolutely no skill at all. I mean, there isnt a single open world MMO thats PvP or PvE doesn't boil down to who has better gear, higher levels, better traits, etc.
I want to see a guy tank the biggest boss in the game wearing nothing at all because he is just that FREAKING good. I wanna see an underdog win because he has a flawless fight against a better geared character. I want to get ganked by three other people and end up killing them all because I am just that freaking good. I want skill to matter and gear to be a bonus.
That way players can truely become legendary not for being "first to" but for being epic. For fighting against all odds and winning. Until then MMOs will continue to be casual "side attractions" and stuck in the stone ages they find themselves in now.
I will keep playing though. Its nice to have some carebear games to play too.
Before the flaming starts this is a thought piece, I am primarily a twitch gamer, and I wonder how many like minded people are out there like me.
A pretty moronic thought. If you have played in any mmo and been in any sort of competitive progression guild then you would know that there are a good nmber of damn skilled people that play anything from wow to eve online. We might, occasionally play the moronic fps or some other mindles pos excuse for a game if we go to a friends house because we wouldn't waste our own cash on something that stupid.
Most mmo's out there require a different set of skills from the fps crowd.... fps crowd remind me of the stereotypical "jock" from the 80's John Hughes films. It takes more than just reflex to be good in mmos. It takes a heck of a lot of knowledge to be a better than average tank in addition to the reflex skills it takes to manage the agro of dps classes. Personally I think all you twitch fps dregs of internet gaming culture should stick to your games and flashing people over xbox live.
RPG players don't want skill in games, they want to "win" constiantly and chase gear. If this was not true, MMOFPS games would be more popular.
I hope you do not actually believe that. I would assume by definition, RPG players want DEPTH. Challenges that include everything from micromanagement to Identification and reaction challenges. A game is only created through rulesets that result in challenges, the types of challenges present define the genre.
I guess what I would have to ask the OP of this thread is...how do you define skill? is it player skill vs character skill? is twitch vs intelligent play? what kind of challenges are you associating with skill?
The fact that the OP claims that mmorpgs that are not "twitch" based are some how not for hardcore gamers, or even skill based... says a lot about their understanding of design and modes of play. I could counter argue that player skill without character skill (items, stats, levels, abilities) results in reactionary play rather than intelligent play. One would assume intelligent play is the most valued skill to have in any game.
To answer your question:
Skill in video games revolves around being good at strategy, spacial awareness and "twitch" gameplay.
Twitch gameplay is defined as both physical "hand eye coordinated" games such as halo and CoD and Mental "fast thinking" type of games such as starcraft or other RTSs.
Twitch is all about reaction time whether it be mental or physical.
There really are no MMOs that stress either. Some mmos will maybe cause your brain to work a little but never at the point where you really have to be quick on your feet.
For example most raid bosses can be beaten by any well geared characters regardless of whether the players using the characters are "skilled" or not. As long as 1 person knows the correct strategy and everyone exicutes there role (as defined by the devolopers) the boss will go down.
Another example is the use of zerg mentality in PvP. Superior numbers always destroys fewer numbers. There are no examples of 300 alliance holding off thousands of horde over a three day period. It is impossible to overcome odds in current MMO games.
The reason I asked that question was not because I didnt know the answer, but rather to understand what you "think" skill is.
There is no one definition. Skill as an argument is often used a means to push a bias against certain modes of play. What I think I see coming from you is whats known as a confirmation bias, one in which you have a preferred play style and try to confirm that your play style is superior by rationalizing it as being more skilled...which it is not.
I have to ask you, do you consider chess a game that features skill? Also, dont you think you are generalizing way to much when you say any well geared character can be a raid boss? My experiences have shown otherwise. Situation and circumstances are all dependent upon results. Back in Vanilla WoW you needed an entire 40 man team working perfectly together while acting out specific strategies en masse to take down Molten Core bosses. One regular mob, regardless of gear at the time, could dessimate an entire 40 man party. Gear represents character progression, this is required for RPGs in some form.
What I am confused with then is why you do not play FPS games such as Counter Strike or Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer to get the twitch based modes of play you like. My point is that RPGs are a genre that come equiped with certain mechanics that define the genre. Genres help up enjoy variety in games, and I would hope you do not wish for all games to be only as you would like. Gamers are not entitled to have all games fit their preferred modes of play.
So then the question is, how can one say player skill over character skill is better than the other? Most mmorpgs I have seen hold a balance of both. The RPG requires the character skill be part of the player skill, without that there is a problem. Smart builds and play can defeat enemies way above your level. Maybe the question should be, why are players who defeat way above their "level" not rewarded enough? That would be a valid critism in mmorpgs.
I think it is also important to consider the input devices involved in these types of games. While motion control requires more body movement and reaction, computer games feature a mouse with X and Y coordinates and a set of buttons. The limitations exist, so in regards to design, you focus on keeping the depth with that limited input while making it enjoyable for everyone, not just the few "twitchy" or reactionary players.
Anyways, just think on it.
In this thread I have said that chess is a game of skill. It follows the mental skill path. I am not going to say that my form of gaming is better than yours only that most MMOs (notice I did not include the RPG) are dumbed down and require no skill at all to do most of the content. I have played a lot of MMOs games and yet have I found something that requires skill unless you go outside of the game mechanics (such as soloing a group instance).
I guess the best way I can make my point is that there is a skill ceiling in MMOs. You are only ever as good as the developers want you to be. You cannot become something more than your role. In lotro a champion cannot become better than other champions once he has the best gear, traits and understands his class. Any fight between two similar champions ends in luck of the dice roll.
I admit that you can suck at mmos but you never really can be "the best" and the ability to "be the best" is what drives people to become skilled. So essentially MMOs as they currently allow people to all become average at max level and never let them become better because of the artificial constraints placed on their combat system.
I agree that MMORPGs have more to them than combat. I want all my games to have social, economic and explorative interests. Combat is but one piller and I think it is lacking in skill.
I play a lot of FPS games. In fact I am playing the medal of honor beta as we speak. Its a fine game and I will add it to the collection of other shooters I play often.
Throughout this thread I have just been explaining that there should be at least ONE MMOaction game, of AAA quality that really tries to explore what sports like golf, football, soccer,etc do. Give people a playfield, give them the ability to continueally exel, to push boundaries of CAN happen. To create miricles and fight and win against overwhelming odds.
This to me would make a great game but it may not be for you. It might be too competitive which is fine.
I have been playing MMOs for a long time (Aceron's Call was my first) and I have never really been satisfied by the gameplay. Well, why play them you ask? To be honest, I play them mostly to relax and have have some nice casual multiplayer with friends. I also play them for story and roleplaying purposes. But this said I would really like an MMO to come out that is not for casual gamers but for hardcore gamers.
But wait, wait!!!??!!! WoW has plenty Hardcore gamerzzz doesn't it?
Short answer= No, mmo hardcore people are NOT hardcore gamers. That thought is laughable.
Long answer= Hardcore gamers are people who enjoy games that require skill, not time commitment. (think street fighter, Call of Duty, japanese top down shooters).
This is really the crux of my issue with MMOs. They require absolutely no skill at all. I mean, there isnt a single open world MMO thats PvP or PvE doesn't boil down to who has better gear, higher levels, better traits, etc.
I want to see a guy tank the biggest boss in the game wearing nothing at all because he is just that FREAKING good. I wanna see an underdog win because he has a flawless fight against a better geared character. I want to get ganked by three other people and end up killing them all because I am just that freaking good. I want skill to matter and gear to be a bonus.
That way players can truely become legendary not for being "first to" but for being epic. For fighting against all odds and winning. Until then MMOs will continue to be casual "side attractions" and stuck in the stone ages they find themselves in now.
I will keep playing though. Its nice to have some carebear games to play too.
Before the flaming starts this is a thought piece, I am primarily a twitch gamer, and I wonder how many like minded people are out there like me.
A pretty moronic thought. If you have played in any mmo and been in any sort of competitive progression guild then you would know that there are a good nmber of damn skilled people that play anything from wow to eve online. We might, occasionally play the moronic fps or some other mindles pos excuse for a game if we go to a friends house because we wouldn't waste our own cash on something that stupid.
Most mmo's out there require a different set of skills from the fps crowd.... fps crowd remind me of the stereotypical "jock" from the 80's John Hughes films. It takes more than just reflex to be good in mmos. It takes a heck of a lot of knowledge to be a better than average tank in addition to the reflex skills it takes to manage the agro of dps classes. Personally I think all you twitch fps dregs of internet gaming culture should stick to your games and flashing people over xbox live.
Its pretty moronic to pigeonhole the fps crowd as dumb jocks that just want to high five each other. These people who are in these top tiered guilds can be no better than me if I have the same gear and build they do. I know this for a fact having played countless MMOS and pvped against these so called "skilled" guild players.
1v1 fights come down to dice rolls.
team fights come down to who has the better organization.
show me the guild of 300 that can defeat 1000 other people just because they are so good.
I have been playing MMOs for a long time (Aceron's Call was my first) and I have never really been satisfied by the gameplay. Well, why play them you ask? To be honest, I play them mostly to relax and have have some nice casual multiplayer with friends. I also play them for story and roleplaying purposes. But this said I would really like an MMO to come out that is not for casual gamers but for hardcore gamers.
But wait, wait!!!??!!! WoW has plenty Hardcore gamerzzz doesn't it?
Short answer= No, mmo hardcore people are NOT hardcore gamers. That thought is laughable.
Long answer= Hardcore gamers are people who enjoy games that require skill, not time commitment. (think street fighter, Call of Duty, japanese top down shooters).
This is really the crux of my issue with MMOs. They require absolutely no skill at all. I mean, there isnt a single open world MMO thats PvP or PvE doesn't boil down to who has better gear, higher levels, better traits, etc.
I want to see a guy tank the biggest boss in the game wearing nothing at all because he is just that FREAKING good. I wanna see an underdog win because he has a flawless fight against a better geared character. I want to get ganked by three other people and end up killing them all because I am just that freaking good. I want skill to matter and gear to be a bonus.
That way players can truely become legendary not for being "first to" but for being epic. For fighting against all odds and winning. Until then MMOs will continue to be casual "side attractions" and stuck in the stone ages they find themselves in now.
I will keep playing though. Its nice to have some carebear games to play too.
Before the flaming starts this is a thought piece, I am primarily a twitch gamer, and I wonder how many like minded people are out there like me.
A pretty moronic thought. If you have played in any mmo and been in any sort of competitive progression guild then you would know that there are a good nmber of damn skilled people that play anything from wow to eve online. We might, occasionally play the moronic fps or some other mindles pos excuse for a game if we go to a friends house because we wouldn't waste our own cash on something that stupid.
Most mmo's out there require a different set of skills from the fps crowd.... fps crowd remind me of the stereotypical "jock" from the 80's John Hughes films. It takes more than just reflex to be good in mmos. It takes a heck of a lot of knowledge to be a better than average tank in addition to the reflex skills it takes to manage the agro of dps classes. Personally I think all you twitch fps dregs of internet gaming culture should stick to your games and flashing people over xbox live.
No...no it doesn't...
One may enjoy the thought, but it's a far cry from reality, and more so than anything else it's just an exaggeration of a core truth.
The OP seems to have made quite a bit of a point(which has repeatedly failed to be read it seems) on differing skillsets and what a game might require. The things you mentioned included.
As someone who rather prefers the support roles of healer in games, I can understand your sentiment about knowledge, aggro management, and reflex. Honestly though, I have never been able to rationally compare my experiences in MMOs to my experiences in my favorite genre of shooters, the tactical shooter.
Primarily because I usually have way too much damn time to think. There's a difference between being able to and having to plan for a strategy, and being able to plan for a strategy then wait until everyone's almost dead, and still win. Too much time to think makes this one very bored.
The knowledgebase for MMOs isn't that convoluted or deep either, you know your stats, effects, abilities, and some info about the mobs behaviors, and you're golden. Everything falls in place as mindlessly predictable after that, and you find yourself repeatedly doing the same things every raid thereafter. Only reason something different ever happens on a raid is because of the people. Some one does something stupid, and you get the joy of compensating. While offering a bit more of a challenge, it's only becuase the unpredictability of another fleshy bag of mostly water.
Now PVP you could say offers a challenge then. But even that's stunted. You don't have to guess with the environment in, well, any MMO as to where some one is coming from. If any one on your team is remotely paying attention, or you're smart enough to swivel your camera occasionally, you can see them coming a mile away. What that leaves, is to line up your allies, get their specced abilities in order, and either charge at whatever is most squishy to them, or focus on some poor sap of a support class before beatsticking every one else.
Let me just talk for a moment about the genre of games I alluded to, the tactical shooter.
While I will concede the average shooter is a somewhat mindless pain in the butt because it's central focus is to run around with a perceivably ungodly high fortitude against bullets, ability to leap like a frog, and fling rockets in as many directions as your mouse can take you. That is also the genre of shooters that caters to the lowest common denominator of action junkies.
When a person talks about strategy in a shooter, you notice they drop names to games where if someone shoots a person, they die. Games with large environments or maps with numerous interwoven routes to sneak, flank, cover, and confound enemies with. Games that each and every gun has a clear weakness as much as it has an advantage, a fair tradeoff.
I usually enjoy referencing the Rainbow Six series for that reason. Others swing slightly lower on the spectrum and reference Call of Duty. Battlefield, MAG, and Ghost Recon are also readily applicable in many ways. They all share the traits listed above, and some of them even step beyond via character and/or equipment customization. In Rainbow Six it matters a lot what equipment you bring along aside from your guns, because that changes what effective strategies you can use against the other players and AI drastically. Battlefield pushed quite a bit on the ability to progress and specialize your character into particular roles, the results of such are also shared with CoD and MAG.
The concept of aggro management is as readily applicable to these types of shooters as well. Being able to fake out the opposition and draw their fire away from a primary target, or even get them running in circles is very important to the chances of winning. Even better yet on the knowledge front, you have to be able to judge a person's personality and playstyle in order to predict what they'll do next, where the battle is going to flow towards, etc. Now, sure that also applies somewhat to MMO pvp, but then that just makes me cycle back to my prior comment on being able to see what one's opponent is doing from a mile away in MMOs.
So please stop railing on the lowest common denominator of shooters when that clearly isn't what we're talking about.
"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
I have been playing MMOs for a long time (Aceron's Call was my first) and I have never really been satisfied by the gameplay. Well, why play them you ask? To be honest, I play them mostly to relax and have have some nice casual multiplayer with friends. I also play them for story and roleplaying purposes. But this said I would really like an MMO to come out that is not for casual gamers but for hardcore gamers.
But wait, wait!!!??!!! WoW has plenty Hardcore gamerzzz doesn't it?
Short answer= No, mmo hardcore people are NOT hardcore gamers. That thought is laughable.
Long answer= Hardcore gamers are people who enjoy games that require skill, not time commitment. (think street fighter, Call of Duty, japanese top down shooters).
This is really the crux of my issue with MMOs. They require absolutely no skill at all. I mean, there isnt a single open world MMO thats PvP or PvE doesn't boil down to who has better gear, higher levels, better traits, etc.
I want to see a guy tank the biggest boss in the game wearing nothing at all because he is just that FREAKING good. I wanna see an underdog win because he has a flawless fight against a better geared character. I want to get ganked by three other people and end up killing them all because I am just that freaking good. I want skill to matter and gear to be a bonus.
That way players can truely become legendary not for being "first to" but for being epic. For fighting against all odds and winning. Until then MMOs will continue to be casual "side attractions" and stuck in the stone ages they find themselves in now.
I will keep playing though. Its nice to have some carebear games to play too.
Before the flaming starts this is a thought piece, I am primarily a twitch gamer, and I wonder how many like minded people are out there like me.
A pretty moronic thought. If you have played in any mmo and been in any sort of competitive progression guild then you would know that there are a good nmber of damn skilled people that play anything from wow to eve online. We might, occasionally play the moronic fps or some other mindles pos excuse for a game if we go to a friends house because we wouldn't waste our own cash on something that stupid.
Most mmo's out there require a different set of skills from the fps crowd.... fps crowd remind me of the stereotypical "jock" from the 80's John Hughes films. It takes more than just reflex to be good in mmos. It takes a heck of a lot of knowledge to be a better than average tank in addition to the reflex skills it takes to manage the agro of dps classes. Personally I think all you twitch fps dregs of internet gaming culture should stick to your games and flashing people over xbox live.
No...no it doesn't...
One may enjoy the thought, but it's a far cry from reality, and more so than anything else it's just an exaggeration of a core truth.
The OP seems to have made quite a bit of a point(which has repeatedly failed to be read it seems) on differing skillsets and what a game might require. The things you mentioned included.
As someone who rather prefers the support roles of healer in games, I can understand your sentiment about knowledge, aggro management, and reflex. Honestly though, I have never been able to rationally compare my experiences in MMOs to my experiences in my favorite genre of shooters, the tactical shooter.
Primarily because I usually have way too much damn time to think. There's a difference between being able to and having to plan for a strategy, and being able to plan for a strategy then wait until everyone's almost dead, and still win. Too much time to think makes this one very bored.
The knowledgebase for MMOs isn't that convoluted or deep either, you know your stats, effects, abilities, and some info about the mobs behaviors, and you're golden. Everything falls in place as mindlessly predictable after that, and you find yourself repeatedly doing the same things every raid thereafter. Only reason something different ever happens on a raid is because of the people. Some one does something stupid, and you get the joy of compensating. While offering a bit more of a challenge, it's only becuase the unpredictability of another fleshy bag of mostly water.
Now PVP you could say offers a challenge then. But even that's stunted. You don't have to guess with the environment in, well, any MMO as to where some one is coming from. If any one on your team is remotely paying attention, or you're smart enough to swivel your camera occasionally, you can see them coming a mile away. What that leaves, is to line up your allies, get their specced abilities in order, and either charge at whatever is most squishy to them, or focus on some poor sap of a support class before beatsticking every one else.
Let me just talk for a moment about the genre of games I alluded to, the tactical shooter.
While I will concede the average shooter is a somewhat mindless pain in the butt because it's central focus is to run around with a perceivably ungodly high fortitude against bullets, ability to leap like a frog, and fling rockets in as many directions as your mouse can take you. That is also the genre of shooters that caters to the lowest common denominator of action junkies.
When a person talks about strategy in a shooter, you notice they drop names to games where if someone shoots a person, they die. Games with large environments or maps with numerous interwoven routes to sneak, flank, cover, and confound enemies with. Games that each and every gun has a clear weakness as much as it has an advantage, a fair tradeoff.
I usually enjoy referencing the Rainbow Six series for that reason. Others swing slightly lower on the spectrum and reference Call of Duty. Battlefield, MAG, and Ghost Recon are also readily applicable in many ways. They all share the traits listed above, and some of them even step beyond via character and/or equipment customization. In Rainbow Six it matters a lot what equipment you bring along aside from your guns, because that changes what effective strategies you can use against the other players and AI drastically. Battlefield pushed quite a bit on the ability to progress and specialize your character into particular roles, the results of such are also shared with CoD and MAG.
The concept of aggro management is as readily applicable to these types of shooters as well. Being able to fake out the opposition and draw their fire away from a primary target, or even get them running in circles is very important to the chances of winning. Even better yet on the knowledge front, you have to be able to judge a person's personality and playstyle in order to predict what they'll do next, where the battle is going to flow towards, etc. Now, sure that also applies somewhat to MMO pvp, but then that just makes me cycle back to my prior comment on being able to see what one's opponent is doing from a mile away in MMOs.
So please stop railing on the lowest common denominator of shooters when that clearly isn't what we're talking about.
*Stands up and claps*
Thank you, thank you so much for typing something I just could not seem to get across. Too many people think shooters = deathmatch which is far from the case. Objective matches and team cooperation are what drive competitive FPS games.
Most MMO gamers have a closed mind about this sort of thing. They see any new idea and shun it because it goes against what they know and at the same time they bitch at the industry for being stale.
What about a game, set in a persistant world about the size of Fallout 3s gameworld. Not huge by MMO standards but now fill that world with 5 bases across the middle and two main bases at either end.
Allow up to 5,000 people to fight for two different factions over those bases in the middle using true fps combat. Give them levels that unlock specific class abilities. And create a situation in which holding the bases can cause you to win he game over a few months time.
After one side wins, reset the server and start the war over.
This, this my friends would be a phenomenon. You would be creating a massive call of duty capture the hill game that remains persistant and will periodically have winners. Add some cool gameplay gimicks and neat classes and you have fps gold. This is what a true persistant fps game would have.
Is it an MMORPG? No, but it would have social aspects, exploration and character building (leveling). But it would be mostly pvp based.
Open your mind to the possibilities outside of hotbars and autoattacks.
Huge diffrence between skill, and knowing the mechanics guys. MMORPG are simply about who has the higher number, and who knows the mechanics better, FPS games do all of that, and include skill.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Huge diffrence between skill, and knowing the mechanics guys. MMORPG are simply about who has the higher number, and who knows the mechanics better, FPS games do all of that, and include skill.
Another good point. I think though that some people equate learning the mechanics and memorizing them to skill though.
Comments
A few things are funny about this...
1) The cough, ahem - "skill" player is looking to "win" constantly and chase whatever it is they like.
2) If there were any kind of market for those gaes, more MMOFPS games would exist.
3) Not all RPG players are alike, but even so - many of those that do want skill in games do not consider "twitch" to be any more skill than oh say one tying their shoes...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
go play savage 2 there thread closed
Balanced skill-centric gameplay doesn't require everyone to be identical. The best and most interesting competitive games are things like Starcraft and Street Fighter, where substantial playstyle variety exists.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
newsflash. space wars, pong, galaga, etc. were twitch games.
i was there for all those early games (except space wars), systems and computers, i'm 40 and i'm a 'twitch gamer'.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
Do I want all First Person Shooter games to disappear nad turn into Role Playing Games?
So I want all Role Playing Games to disappear and turn into First Person Shooter Games?
No, to both questions.
I like to play both. Why would I want one to disappear?
Lets be fair here, I know you know that there is more to it than that. What you bring up was the general design for arcade games. Think about how the arcade mentality works, coin opperated limited play sessions entirely based around quick sprints of casual play. At home however, we see less twitch based games, especially as the technology improves. You also have to remember popular analog games which still existed that are not twitch based, chess, poker, dungeons and dragons...ect we see these modes of play also in the digital sphere, even to the point of experimental MUDs, text based adventures such as Zork, or even Collasal Cave Adventure? I just dont understand the rationality of your response.
To add to the comment you quote: People should look at South Korea's major leage gaming scene. Some players get paid to play, high skill games are not twitch based though like any game reaction time does mean something. Look at how they play Starcraft, I think this is a good example of skill in a game that is not about twitch based play as the core mechanic. It uses strategy, short term tactics, resource management, player growth and upgrades, progression...ect Many of these are features found in most of the mmorpgs that are not twitch based.
If you want MASSIVE first person shooters, ok, isn't that APB?
I like First Person Shooters just the way the are. I can't kill as many people as are on the map, and there are plenty of people to kill me already. Dont' really need more than Call of Duty, Battlefield, Modern Warfare, etc.
If you want MORE people to kill, and MORE people ot kill you, ok, I hope the maps get even bigger for you in some games.
As far as MMORPGs, I like the RPG part, no desire to see it turn into a First Person Shooter.
Do I want Star War the Old Republic Massive First Person Shooter? Not really.
I really like your point as well. Real risks would be nice in an mmo. Somthing like a couple days in jail, perma death or having a large death penetly would be refreshing. Yours is the opposite viewpoint of mine but every bit as valid.
I dont mean that ALL MMOs need to revolve around skill. I would just like 1 or 2 AAA titles to. Right now there are 0 AAA titles that do (maybe eve online if that is considered AAA).
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2
i really am not understanding how you can argue with my 2 simple sentences there. why is what i said offensive to you?
btw (not entirely irrelevant), some of my favorites back then were Zork and ALL the Infocom grey boxes. i own at least one copy of every game they made before they started introducing graphics (and own MOST of those too).
despite the fact you seem to be offended at the fact i stated, you said nothing to take away from it or show it to be wrong. of course other types of games EXISTED, but the majority of early video games were twitch games. INCLUDING ON THE HOME CONSOLES AND HOME COMPUTERS. this goes against the picture that the guy i was responding to was painting.
and if you go watch some videos of StarCraft games being played competitively right now, i don't see how you can say its not also a twitch game. one of the reasons i don't play RTS games much is how a significant part of the gameplay revolves around twitching through the UI fast enough that your strategies become relevant.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
To answer your question:
Skill in video games revolves around being good at strategy, spacial awareness and "twitch" gameplay.
Twitch gameplay is defined as both physical "hand eye coordinated" games such as halo and CoD and Mental "fast thinking" type of games such as starcraft or other RTSs.
Twitch is all about reaction time whether it be mental or physical.
There really are no MMOs that stress either. Some mmos will maybe cause your brain to work a little but never at the point where you really have to be quick on your feet.
For example most raid bosses can be beaten by any well geared characters regardless of whether the players using the characters are "skilled" or not. As long as 1 person knows the correct strategy and everyone exicutes there role (as defined by the devolopers) the boss will go down.
Another example is the use of zerg mentality in PvP. Superior numbers always destroys fewer numbers. There are no examples of 300 alliance holding off thousands of horde over a three day period. It is impossible to overcome odds in current MMO games.
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2
APB failed when they removed headshots. The same failure that Global Agenda had. When you take away the ability for a skilled kill it once again boils down to stats.
Game doesnt have to be an FPS. It could be an action game like god of war, devil may cry or my dream MMO Star Wars Jedi Knight the MMO.
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2
i guess since i've participated in this thread i should answer the OPs question. 8)
yes i've been totally dissatisfied with MMORPG "gameplay" since its inception. grinding away in my 5 months of addiction to EQ1 in 1999 i cursed the RPG mechanics constantly and longed for the day a true MMOFPS would come out. 11 years later and its finally about to happen. altho as with the first implementation of virtually anything, there are likely to be some issues i'll have with it. maybe dealbreaking issues. but at least its a start. and there are alot more possible options on the horizon. there's a clear and obvious shift finally in MMO paradigms. hopefully it doesn't take a few years for it to produce some genuinely fine examples of its potential to appeal to people outside of the typical RPG bubble.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Yeah I have to agree. It's pretty annoying when someone comes along and decides that only THEIR favorite skills (of course the things they personally may be best at doing) are the ONLY SKILLS that matter or that are necessary to play games.
Some of the people that have the most refined "twitch" combat skills or strategy skills (or whatever the war-hungry version of gamer thinks are the "important" gaming skills)....may have next to NO social skills, no organizational skills, no leadership skills, no ability to be diplomatic, little or none of the OTHER skills it takes to make things work in an MMORPG. Just like in the real world, a team is composed of a variety of different people with varying degrees of skill in a wide assortment of skills.
If there was nothing at all but combat in MMORPGs....well first of all they wouldn't be RPGs.....but not only that, they would cease to provide a "world" or any reason to do anything but combat. THAT...to me....sounds like an FPS game, not an RPG. So what, imo, is needed....is the hole in the genre for MMOFPS games needs to be filled. There really isn't much for this type of player atm, but....I believe those games are coming.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
The reason I asked that question was not because I didnt know the answer, but rather to understand what you "think" skill is.
There is no one definition. Skill as an argument is often used a means to push a bias against certain modes of play. What I think I see coming from you is whats known as a confirmation bias, one in which you have a preferred play style and try to confirm that your play style is superior by rationalizing it as being more skilled...which it is not.
I have to ask you, do you consider chess a game that features skill? Also, dont you think you are generalizing way to much when you say any well geared character can be a raid boss? My experiences have shown otherwise. Situation and circumstances are all dependent upon results. Back in Vanilla WoW you needed an entire 40 man team working perfectly together while acting out specific strategies en masse to take down Molten Core bosses. One regular mob, regardless of gear at the time, could dessimate an entire 40 man party. Gear represents character progression, this is required for RPGs in some form.
What I am confused with then is why you do not play FPS games such as Counter Strike or Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer to get the twitch based modes of play you like. My point is that RPGs are a genre that come equiped with certain mechanics that define the genre. Genres help up enjoy variety in games, and I would hope you do not wish for all games to be only as you would like. Gamers are not entitled to have all games fit their preferred modes of play.
So then the question is, how can one say player skill over character skill is better than the other? Most mmorpgs I have seen hold a balance of both. The RPG requires the character skill be part of the player skill, without that there is a problem. Smart builds and play can defeat enemies way above your level. Maybe the question should be, why are players who defeat way above their "level" not rewarded enough? That would be a valid critism in mmorpgs.
I think it is also important to consider the input devices involved in these types of games. While motion control requires more body movement and reaction, computer games feature a mouse with X and Y coordinates and a set of buttons. The limitations exist, so in regards to design, you focus on keeping the depth with that limited input while making it enjoyable for everyone, not just the few "twitchy" or reactionary players.
Anyways, just think on it.
For the 4th or 5th time, NOWHERE in my OP did I mention mmoRPGs. I made certain that I just said MMO games. So yes its obvious that I am refering to MMOaction games in the vein of Call of Duty or god of war. There are NO good open world games like this. So saying go find one is retarded.
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2
Read what I think skill is. Eve probably falls into the RTS form of skill.
I am a former guild leader, raid leader and general social junky. So saying I lack those skills because of my desire for games that branch outside YOUR skillset is insulting.
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2
Do I want MMOs to be more challenging and require more skill? Most definitely. Do I want to be able to play them for an extended period of time? Yes.
The problem with that is, both things are difficult to accomplish. If the game is too difficult, I'll enjoy it more, but the game will die due to lack of players. Difficult games turn players away and aren't accessible to the lesser skilled or the casual player.
The reverse of that is true as well. Games that are too easy tend to turn away even the casual player, and are avoided like the plague by the more "hard-core" players.
A balance of the two is necessary. Being able to defeat an encounter should be something anyone can do. Being able able to defeat the same encounter AND knit a scarf while doing the jig is something a more skilled player should be able to do.
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
A pretty moronic thought. If you have played in any mmo and been in any sort of competitive progression guild then you would know that there are a good nmber of damn skilled people that play anything from wow to eve online. We might, occasionally play the moronic fps or some other mindles pos excuse for a game if we go to a friends house because we wouldn't waste our own cash on something that stupid.
Most mmo's out there require a different set of skills from the fps crowd.... fps crowd remind me of the stereotypical "jock" from the 80's John Hughes films. It takes more than just reflex to be good in mmos. It takes a heck of a lot of knowledge to be a better than average tank in addition to the reflex skills it takes to manage the agro of dps classes. Personally I think all you twitch fps dregs of internet gaming culture should stick to your games and flashing people over xbox live.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
In this thread I have said that chess is a game of skill. It follows the mental skill path. I am not going to say that my form of gaming is better than yours only that most MMOs (notice I did not include the RPG) are dumbed down and require no skill at all to do most of the content. I have played a lot of MMOs games and yet have I found something that requires skill unless you go outside of the game mechanics (such as soloing a group instance).
I guess the best way I can make my point is that there is a skill ceiling in MMOs. You are only ever as good as the developers want you to be. You cannot become something more than your role. In lotro a champion cannot become better than other champions once he has the best gear, traits and understands his class. Any fight between two similar champions ends in luck of the dice roll.
I admit that you can suck at mmos but you never really can be "the best" and the ability to "be the best" is what drives people to become skilled. So essentially MMOs as they currently allow people to all become average at max level and never let them become better because of the artificial constraints placed on their combat system.
I agree that MMORPGs have more to them than combat. I want all my games to have social, economic and explorative interests. Combat is but one piller and I think it is lacking in skill.
I play a lot of FPS games. In fact I am playing the medal of honor beta as we speak. Its a fine game and I will add it to the collection of other shooters I play often.
Throughout this thread I have just been explaining that there should be at least ONE MMOaction game, of AAA quality that really tries to explore what sports like golf, football, soccer,etc do. Give people a playfield, give them the ability to continueally exel, to push boundaries of CAN happen. To create miricles and fight and win against overwhelming odds.
This to me would make a great game but it may not be for you. It might be too competitive which is fine.
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2
Its pretty moronic to pigeonhole the fps crowd as dumb jocks that just want to high five each other. These people who are in these top tiered guilds can be no better than me if I have the same gear and build they do. I know this for a fact having played countless MMOS and pvped against these so called "skilled" guild players.
1v1 fights come down to dice rolls.
team fights come down to who has the better organization.
show me the guild of 300 that can defeat 1000 other people just because they are so good.
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2
No...no it doesn't...
One may enjoy the thought, but it's a far cry from reality, and more so than anything else it's just an exaggeration of a core truth.
The OP seems to have made quite a bit of a point(which has repeatedly failed to be read it seems) on differing skillsets and what a game might require. The things you mentioned included.
As someone who rather prefers the support roles of healer in games, I can understand your sentiment about knowledge, aggro management, and reflex. Honestly though, I have never been able to rationally compare my experiences in MMOs to my experiences in my favorite genre of shooters, the tactical shooter.
Primarily because I usually have way too much damn time to think. There's a difference between being able to and having to plan for a strategy, and being able to plan for a strategy then wait until everyone's almost dead, and still win. Too much time to think makes this one very bored.
The knowledgebase for MMOs isn't that convoluted or deep either, you know your stats, effects, abilities, and some info about the mobs behaviors, and you're golden. Everything falls in place as mindlessly predictable after that, and you find yourself repeatedly doing the same things every raid thereafter. Only reason something different ever happens on a raid is because of the people. Some one does something stupid, and you get the joy of compensating. While offering a bit more of a challenge, it's only becuase the unpredictability of another fleshy bag of mostly water.
Now PVP you could say offers a challenge then. But even that's stunted. You don't have to guess with the environment in, well, any MMO as to where some one is coming from. If any one on your team is remotely paying attention, or you're smart enough to swivel your camera occasionally, you can see them coming a mile away. What that leaves, is to line up your allies, get their specced abilities in order, and either charge at whatever is most squishy to them, or focus on some poor sap of a support class before beatsticking every one else.
Let me just talk for a moment about the genre of games I alluded to, the tactical shooter.
While I will concede the average shooter is a somewhat mindless pain in the butt because it's central focus is to run around with a perceivably ungodly high fortitude against bullets, ability to leap like a frog, and fling rockets in as many directions as your mouse can take you. That is also the genre of shooters that caters to the lowest common denominator of action junkies.
When a person talks about strategy in a shooter, you notice they drop names to games where if someone shoots a person, they die. Games with large environments or maps with numerous interwoven routes to sneak, flank, cover, and confound enemies with. Games that each and every gun has a clear weakness as much as it has an advantage, a fair tradeoff.
I usually enjoy referencing the Rainbow Six series for that reason. Others swing slightly lower on the spectrum and reference Call of Duty. Battlefield, MAG, and Ghost Recon are also readily applicable in many ways. They all share the traits listed above, and some of them even step beyond via character and/or equipment customization. In Rainbow Six it matters a lot what equipment you bring along aside from your guns, because that changes what effective strategies you can use against the other players and AI drastically. Battlefield pushed quite a bit on the ability to progress and specialize your character into particular roles, the results of such are also shared with CoD and MAG.
The concept of aggro management is as readily applicable to these types of shooters as well. Being able to fake out the opposition and draw their fire away from a primary target, or even get them running in circles is very important to the chances of winning. Even better yet on the knowledge front, you have to be able to judge a person's personality and playstyle in order to predict what they'll do next, where the battle is going to flow towards, etc. Now, sure that also applies somewhat to MMO pvp, but then that just makes me cycle back to my prior comment on being able to see what one's opponent is doing from a mile away in MMOs.
So please stop railing on the lowest common denominator of shooters when that clearly isn't what we're talking about.
"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
*Stands up and claps*
Thank you, thank you so much for typing something I just could not seem to get across. Too many people think shooters = deathmatch which is far from the case. Objective matches and team cooperation are what drive competitive FPS games.
Most MMO gamers have a closed mind about this sort of thing. They see any new idea and shun it because it goes against what they know and at the same time they bitch at the industry for being stale.
What about a game, set in a persistant world about the size of Fallout 3s gameworld. Not huge by MMO standards but now fill that world with 5 bases across the middle and two main bases at either end.
Allow up to 5,000 people to fight for two different factions over those bases in the middle using true fps combat. Give them levels that unlock specific class abilities. And create a situation in which holding the bases can cause you to win he game over a few months time.
After one side wins, reset the server and start the war over.
This, this my friends would be a phenomenon. You would be creating a massive call of duty capture the hill game that remains persistant and will periodically have winners. Add some cool gameplay gimicks and neat classes and you have fps gold. This is what a true persistant fps game would have.
Is it an MMORPG? No, but it would have social aspects, exploration and character building (leveling). But it would be mostly pvp based.
Open your mind to the possibilities outside of hotbars and autoattacks.
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2
Huge diffrence between skill, and knowing the mechanics guys. MMORPG are simply about who has the higher number, and who knows the mechanics better, FPS games do all of that, and include skill.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Another good point. I think though that some people equate learning the mechanics and memorizing them to skill though.
IDK
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2