Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

The evils of a fair fight

Creslin321Creslin321 Baltimore, MDPosts: 5,359Member

One thing that I think is way different (in a bad way) when you compare the MMORPGS and RPGs of today to their counterparts of 90's is this concept that everything should be "fair."  In themepark MMORPGs, you are guided from quest to quest in a way that ensures the mobs you fight will always be around your level, so you always have a "fair" (typically easy) fight.  The same is true of modern SPRPGs, though they sometimes use devices like level-scaling to enforce this fairness as opposed to simply guiding the player.

This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game.  For example, in WoW, I'm always fighting MOBs that are yellow or green..that's it.  The quest nodes and zone levels on the map are very careful to guide me along a carefully determined path so that this is the case.  I never really feel like I'm progressing, because my foes are almost always the exact same level as me...they increase in strength precisely proportionately to my advanacement.

So I think this philosophy is misguided.  You see, I believe that RPGs are about progression FAR more than they are about action-packed or highly tactical combat.  And guiding the player so that they are always fighting "equal" opponents kills that sense of progression.

In old school RPGs like early Final Fantasy games, the Ultima Series (including UO), or Everquest, if you wandered off the beaten path slightly, you may wind up meeting mobs that will hand you your behind on a silver platter.  This may seem unfair, but it really puts the danger of the world into perspective.  You KNOW that a sand giant can absolutely destroy you, because you encounter them often...they are as much a part of the world of a level 18 as they are a level 40.

And when you finally get high enough level to kill a sand giant...man that's a good feeling.  You feel like you actually accomplished something...the deadly predator of yesterday is now your prey!

So in conclusion, I really think (MMO)RPGs should get back to showing the player the terrifying monsters of the world at a lower level, and not being afraid to let them stumble on a dragon's lair just to put everything in perspective.  I'm not advocating the use of "grief NPCs" like Everquest had, but I think it would be good to even have a few "non-aggro" NPCs of higher levels wandering around lower level places so that players could have something to strive for.

Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

«134567

Comments

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    I love this. And not just because Sand Giants remind me of Fansy.

  • ElderRatElderRat Syracuse, NYPosts: 899Member

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    One thing that I think is way different (in a bad way) when you compare the MMORPGS and RPGs of today to their counterparts of 90's is this concept that everything should be "fair."  In themepark MMORPGs, you are guided from quest to quest in a way that ensures the mobs you fight will always be around your level, so you always have a "fair" (typically easy) fight.  The same is true of modern SPRPGs, though they sometimes use devices like level-scaling to enforce this fairness as opposed to simply guiding the player.

    This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game.  For example, in WoW, I'm always fighting MOBs that are yellow or green..that's it.  The quest nodes and zone levels on the map are very careful to guide me along a carefully determined path so that this is the case.  I never really feel like I'm progressing, because my foes are almost always the exact same level as me...they increase in strength precisely proportionately to my advanacement.

    So I think this philosophy is misguided.  You see, I believe that RPGs are about progression FAR more than they are about action-packed or highly tactical combat.  And guiding the player so that they are always fighting "equal" opponents kills that sense of progression.

    In old school RPGs like early Final Fantasy games, the Ultima Series (including UO), or Everquest, if you wandered off the beaten path slightly, you may wind up meeting mobs that will hand you your behind on a silver platter.  This may seem unfair, but it really puts the danger of the world into perspective.  You KNOW that a sand giant can absolutely destroy you, because you encounter them often...they are as much a part of the world of a level 18 as they are a level 40.

    And when you finally get high enough level to kill a sand giant...man that's a good feeling.  You feel like you actually accomplished something...the deadly predator of yesterday is now your prey!

    So in conclusion, I really think (MMO)RPGs should get back to showing the player the terrifying monsters of the world at a lower level, and not being afraid to let them stumble on a dragon's lair just to put everything in perspective.  I'm not advocating the use of "grief NPCs" like Everquest had, but I think it would be good to even have a few "non-aggro" NPCs of higher levels wandering around lower level places so that players could have something to strive for.

    I agree. There is a single player game - Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, for which there was a player mod that let random monsters of any level  and number appear - Martigan's Monster Mod I believe.  One never knew if one would run into a monster much higher than one's character... or a monster of similiar level but more than 1 at a time.  It was great, one learned the age old concept of he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

    Currently bored with MMO's.

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Baltimore, MDPosts: 5,359Member

    Originally posted by ElderRat

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    One thing that I think is way different (in a bad way) when you compare the MMORPGS and RPGs of today to their counterparts of 90's is this concept that everything should be "fair."  In themepark MMORPGs, you are guided from quest to quest in a way that ensures the mobs you fight will always be around your level, so you always have a "fair" (typically easy) fight.  The same is true of modern SPRPGs, though they sometimes use devices like level-scaling to enforce this fairness as opposed to simply guiding the player.

    This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game.  For example, in WoW, I'm always fighting MOBs that are yellow or green..that's it.  The quest nodes and zone levels on the map are very careful to guide me along a carefully determined path so that this is the case.  I never really feel like I'm progressing, because my foes are almost always the exact same level as me...they increase in strength precisely proportionately to my advanacement.

    So I think this philosophy is misguided.  You see, I believe that RPGs are about progression FAR more than they are about action-packed or highly tactical combat.  And guiding the player so that they are always fighting "equal" opponents kills that sense of progression.

    In old school RPGs like early Final Fantasy games, the Ultima Series (including UO), or Everquest, if you wandered off the beaten path slightly, you may wind up meeting mobs that will hand you your behind on a silver platter.  This may seem unfair, but it really puts the danger of the world into perspective.  You KNOW that a sand giant can absolutely destroy you, because you encounter them often...they are as much a part of the world of a level 18 as they are a level 40.

    And when you finally get high enough level to kill a sand giant...man that's a good feeling.  You feel like you actually accomplished something...the deadly predator of yesterday is now your prey!

    So in conclusion, I really think (MMO)RPGs should get back to showing the player the terrifying monsters of the world at a lower level, and not being afraid to let them stumble on a dragon's lair just to put everything in perspective.  I'm not advocating the use of "grief NPCs" like Everquest had, but I think it would be good to even have a few "non-aggro" NPCs of higher levels wandering around lower level places so that players could have something to strive for.

    I agree. There is a single player game - Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, for which there was a player mod that let random monsters of any level  and number appear - Martigan's Monster Mod I believe.  One never knew if one would run into a monster much higher than one's character... or a monster of similiar level but more than 1 at a time.  It was great, one learned the age old concept of he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

    FCOM ftw!

    FCOM (which contains Martigan's Monster Mod, among other mods that completely remove the scaling), turned Oblivion from a very good RPG with a fatal flaw (scaling) into an absolutely AMAZING RPG.

    The fact that so many modders spent so long to "fix" the scaling in Oblivion, and that the mods were so popular despite their difficulty to install, provides good evidence in favor of many players preferring a less "fair" experience.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • DannyGloverDannyGlover Portland, ORPosts: 1,277Member

    hehe yeah those times were pretty fun. I remember wandering around Trisfal Glades as a level 7 Undead Mage in WoW.

    I saw a camp out in the distance...

    "huh, The Bulwark. Thats cool. Wonder whats through this entryway.."

    Next thing I knew a diseased bear is running right at me from 50 yards away. Before I could say 'oh shiii', I was dead.

    I came back about a month later. Seasoned, geared, level 53. Found that diseased bear and dropped him like a bag of dirt. Remember me, smokey? Whos laffin nao!!!

    I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    I think that what many people fail to understand is that success is relative. Even in real life. Especially in real life. Why are you rich? Because other people are poor. Why are you smart? Because other people are dumber.

    You know that the average person in America today lives in conditions in many cases better than that of kings back in the day. But kids and adults kill themselves or face depression because they compare themselves to other people in the modern day instead of those middle age people.

    If you are trying to simulate a world its not going to be real if every fight is fair. Because that is not how life works.

    Does that make for good in the moment completely without context gameplay? Maybe not. But it feels REAL.

    Does a significant minority of gamers prefer the moment to moment play? The play that could be replaced in a dozen other "games" and not throw you off? Maybe. But it doesn't feel real.

  • lenyboblenybob Beaverton, ORPosts: 62Member

    i wonder if the market would allow allot of that or if there would be a ton of bitching for nerfs.

     

    in skyrim i saw people have tough time with giants while dragons (the game's focal point) were relatively easy. and with some of the style of game design. it brings up questions about why it was harder to beat a random nameless npc wiht no bearing on the plot than the final boss. granted it opens up content beyond the end but... it seems strange to me. depending on how it is handled.

     

    hmm... it would create a curious potential alternative endgame... sharp idea sir.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game. 

    Actually, it's done because it enhances the feeling of progression for most players. The majority of players are playing to progress their character. The majority of players aren't playing to challenge themselves - the game is an entertaining diversion. Imagine the con of just a fraction of the mobs in any mainstream MMO shifted down a color or two. What's really a red now shows as yellow. What's really white now shows as green.

    Which do you think is the most likely scenario?

    A) Players see those mobs as a rewarding challenge

    B) Players complain the mobs are OP for their level and should be nerfed

    C) Players avoid those mobs altogether and fight the easier stuff

     

    I'd say B and C are good bets.

     

    Now, before Mr Extreme OutofLeftField RedHerringStrawMan jumps in... I never said that no game should be more challenging or that no one wants a more challenging PvE experience. I'm addressing the specific point the OP made that MMORPGs should get back to adding that level of challenge or difficulty. In an MMO where the playerbase is there for challenging battle and not to simply progreess their character, that would work. Very few MMOs are actually like that and very few players are actually looking for that (raid/boss/elite content the exception) so getting back to showing players this form of gameplay isn't anything that most MMOs should really focus on as it conflicts with what their players are trying to achieve/accomplish.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    One thing to note is that PnP RPGs which were the original and which most of the creators of the first MMOs played were actually roleplaying games. You got together with your nerdy friends and pretended to be rangers and wizards.

    The feelings expressed in the OP are from there. In the end appealing the largest(not the lowest) common denominator is about games. And not role play. Not the world.

    These gamers like to play online and compete. That is the part of MMOs that draws them. Even the high end raiding guilds are more about the bragging than the roleplaying. They only accepted the RPG aspect of the system because there wasn't much else. Humans are notoriously bad at knowing what they want. They know there is something in MMOs that draws them, either the gameplay, or because it is cool or the roleplay but they can't instantly deduce which. Slowly the consensus came to be that it was about the numbers and mechanics and the competition.

    MMOs were intended to be, I am not getting into the argument about what they should be again because we have gone as far with that as we can, about playing PnP like RPGs with hundreds and thousands of people from all over the world. Getting together and forming a nerdy community not hemmed in on all sides by the mainstream. No one making fun of you or beating you up, just your own kind.

    Whether or not that is what MMORPGs will be is open for question. Once the mainstream got in there the genre shifted radically. But that is what the muds were. And MMOs like UO and EQ and Meridian 59 were supposed to be graphical muds. Other games like Habitat had similar goals with alternate settings.

    I think eventually we will see a split. The old ideal will break off from the modern version of MMOs. Those will push more and more towards Diablo 3 style or merge back with esports. They are already doing this. Which of these 2 genres retains the name MMO is not yet determined.

    I am perfectly happy to replace MMO with virtual world and use that as an indicator of the game I want to play, no longer recognizing MMO as a useful descriptor. MMORPG as a term no longer describes the games I want to play.

    I think that in the end it will be a better time when this split happens. It will save a lot of hassle.

     

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by Creslin321



    This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game. 

    Actually, it's done because it enhances the feeling of progression for most players. The majority of players are playing to progress their character. The majority of players aren't playing to challenge themselves - the game is an entertaining diversion. Imagine the con of just a fraction of the mobs in any mainstream MMO shifted down a color or two. What's really a red now shows as yellow. What's really white now shows as green.

    Which do you think is the most likely scenario?

    A) Players see those mobs as a rewarding challenge

    B) Players complain the mobs are OP for their level and should be nerfed

    C) Players avoid those mobs altogether and fight the easier stuff

     

    I'd say B and C are good bets.

     

    Now, before Mr Extreme OutofLeftField RedHerringStrawMan jumps in... I never said that no game should be more challenging or that no one wants a more challenging PvE experience. I'm addressing the specific point the OP made that MMORPGs should get back to adding that level of challenge or difficulty. In an MMO where the playerbase is there for challenging battle and not to simply progreess their character, that would work. Very few MMOs are actually like that and very few players are actually looking for that (raid/boss/elite content the exception) so getting back to showing players this form of gameplay isn't anything that most MMOs should really focus on as it conflicts with what their players are trying to achieve/accomplish.



    This is an interesting post. It goes quite contrary to the ideas expressed by 2 certain players that what players really seek is complex challenging gameplay. I'm sure you know the two people I mean, I do not get along with them well.

    I would say that the kind of thing Creslin is talking about is not what you are talking about. He doesn't argue for all the mobs in the game to be exactly equivalent to the player in power. In fact he was arguing the opposite. I also don't think that the rare super strong Sand Giant style monster is there for a challenge. You aren't expected to play and beat it at a low level. You are expected to get crushed in a few seconds. Thus when you are finally able to kill it you are like wow that is so cool. I've changed.

    Its like in elementary school you think being a highschooler is so cool. And then one day you ARE one and you feel so cool. Omg, I'm in highschool!!!

    That's what this is about.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,753Member Uncommon

    If progression mattered far more than tactical combat, the thousands of players raiding in WOW would be playing EVE PVE instead (where most missions basically play themselves as you slowly fall asleep.)

    The reality is that the demographic playing MMORPGs predominantly wants a game instead of a FarmVille-like relaxation activity.

     

    90s gamers wanted fairness too, because gamers have always wanted interesting decisions.  You don't achieve interesting decisions by letting things be unbalanced, such as in C&C:RA where all you did was mass tanks because the other strategies were too weak to work.   You achieved interesting decisions by having things be fair, like RA2 or Starcraft where many viable strategies exist (as a direct result of the games being well-balanced.)

    To put it simply:

    Fairness = balance = interesting decisions = what gamers want

    There's a market for players who just want a FarmVille-style relaxation activity (EVE PVE or EVE mining), but most players are clearly choosing the games where they can't succeed while falling asleep at the keyboard, where the game wants to play with them and not just use them.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    If progression mattered far more than tactical combat, the thousands of players raiding in WOW would be playing EVE PVE instead (where most missions basically play themselves as you slowly fall asleep.)

    The reality is that the demographic playing MMORPGs predominantly wants a game instead of a FarmVille-like relaxation activity.

     

    90s gamers wanted fairness too, because gamers have always wanted interesting decisions.  You don't achieve interesting decisions by letting things be unbalanced, such as in C&C:RA where all you did was mass tanks because the other strategies were too weak to work.   You achieved interesting decisions by having things be fair, like RA2 or Starcraft where many viable strategies exist (as a direct result of the games being well-balanced.)

    To put it simply:

    Fairness = balance = interesting decisions = what gamers want

    There's a market for players who just want a FarmVille-style relaxation activity (EVE PVE or EVE mining), but most players are clearly choosing the games where they can't succeed while falling asleep at the keyboard, where the game wants to play with them and not just use them.



    The original demographic wanted to Role Play. Your demographic wants to do esport PvP. Farmville is the new wave.

    I think that where we got lost is that we wanted to get new players for our RPGs but instead we colonized and conquered.

    I think that the goal of new games should be to maintain control over the RP space in games and let people come in and see if they like it. And if they don't they don't, but we don't let the money destroy us again. Its going to take some game developers with artistic integrity though.

    But ideally everyone will get to play the game they want to play. Except instead of us getting our games stolen the people who liked something but not all of it will be the ones who have to agitate and suffer to find an amazing game instead of repeating the cycle where RPGs get pushed out.

    Again something that will require game designers and owners who don't just chase after a buck.

  • VirgoThreeVirgoThree Tarzana, CAPosts: 1,220Member

    I would love to see an MMO with the sense of progression as a game like Demon's Souls/Dark Souls. It would probably be difficulty though but those games had an amazing sense of progression. 

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by VirgoThree

    I would love to see an MMO with the sense of progression as a game like Demon's Souls/Dark Souls. It would probably be difficulty though but those games had an amazing sense of progression. 

    Thought I haven't played in myself, I've heard from several that Wizardry Online offers an interesting level of both risk and challenge.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    If progression mattered far more than tactical combat, the thousands of players raiding in WOW would be playing EVE PVE instead (where most missions basically play themselves as you slowly fall asleep.)

    As I said in my post, raids/boss/elites are the exception. They are seen as the goal or end and the other mobs/content are seen as the means to reach that end.

    The reality is that the demographic playing MMORPGs predominantly wants a game instead of a FarmVille-like relaxation activity.

     Who said anything about Farmville or anything even remotely related to its design?

    90s gamers wanted fairness too, because gamers have always wanted interesting decisions.  You don't achieve interesting decisions by letting things be unbalanced, such as in C&C:RA where all you did was mass tanks because the other strategies were too weak to work.   You achieved interesting decisions by having things be fair, like RA2 or Starcraft where many viable strategies exist (as a direct result of the games being well-balanced.)

    "The reality is" "90s gamers want" .. can you link to the information you're basing this on?

    To put it simply:

    Fairness = balance = interesting decisions = what gamers want

    There's a market for players who just want a FarmVille-style relaxation activity (EVE PVE or EVE mining), but most players are clearly choosing the games where they can't succeed while falling asleep at the keyboard, where the game wants to play with them and not just use them.

    Again, where did the Farmville/EVE stuff come from? Was this post meant for another thread?

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,753Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Cuathon



    The original demographic wanted to Role Play. Your demographic wants to do esport PvP. Farmville is the new wave.

    I think that where we got lost is that we wanted to get new players for our RPGs but instead we colonized and conquered.

    I think that the goal of new games should be to maintain control over the RP space in games and let people come in and see if they like it. And if they don't they don't, but we don't let the money destroy us again. Its going to take some game developers with artistic integrity though.

    But ideally everyone will get to play the game they want to play. Except instead of us getting our games stolen the people who liked something but not all of it will be the ones who have to agitate and suffer to find an amazing game instead of repeating the cycle where RPGs get pushed out.

    Again something that will require game designers and owners who don't just chase after a buck.

    Throughout the history of videogame RPGs the focus was story, characters/development, and twitch-lite (or non-twitch) combat.  Role-play in the tabletop sense is not a central of focus of the genre.

    Also, I think you missed the point: FarmVille is EVE is FarmVille.  Time investment and friend count mean everything in these games.  Skill means little and decision-making is undermined because of the comparitive value of time investment and friend count.

    When you fought monsters and bosses in the best RPGs over the years they were introduced right when they provided the ideal challenge (or a little stronger), which made tactical decision-making during the fight a must, and directly undermined your entire progression up til that point.

    When this wasn't the case, the fight was either considered boringly easy or stupidly hard.  Neither case was desirable or intentional.

    If you want to offer an RP game, you create a tabletop RP game rather than banging the square peg in the round hole by trying to emulate tabletop RPing in a videogame.

    Until a game comes along where players are capable of creating entire worlds on the fly the same way DMs create a world on the fly out of their imagination during a session, you're not going to see tabletop-style RPing work in videogames.  Even then it's going to be a fundamentally different experience due to how it's realized (visually vs. imagination.)

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Throughout the history of videogame RPGs the focus was story, characters/development, and twitch-lite (or non-twitch) combat.  Role-play in the tabletop sense is not a central of focus of the genre.

    Until a game comes along where players are capable of creating entire worlds on the fly the same way DMs create a world on the fly out of their imagination during a session, you're not going to see tabletop-style RPing work in videogames.  Even then it's going to be a fundamentally different experience due to how it's realized (visually vs. imagination.)

    I agree with both of these and I loved playing tabletop RPGs. Not even the old-school MMORPG caught the same magic as tabletop RPGs did. To catch that same magic, it should be a tool, not a game. Game can never do what pen & paper did - what a living game master did.

    Roleplaying has always been (afaik) a minor driving force in videogame RPGs.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by Cuathon



    The original demographic wanted to Role Play. Your demographic wants to do esport PvP. Farmville is the new wave.

    I think that where we got lost is that we wanted to get new players for our RPGs but instead we colonized and conquered.

    I think that the goal of new games should be to maintain control over the RP space in games and let people come in and see if they like it. And if they don't they don't, but we don't let the money destroy us again. Its going to take some game developers with artistic integrity though.

    But ideally everyone will get to play the game they want to play. Except instead of us getting our games stolen the people who liked something but not all of it will be the ones who have to agitate and suffer to find an amazing game instead of repeating the cycle where RPGs get pushed out.

    Again something that will require game designers and owners who don't just chase after a buck.

    Throughout the history of videogame RPGs the focus was story, characters/development, and twitch-lite (or non-twitch) combat.  Role-play in the tabletop sense is not a central of focus of the genre.

    Also, I think you missed the point: FarmVille is EVE is FarmVille.  Time investment and friend count mean everything in these games.  Skill means little and decision-making is undermined because of the comparitive value of time investment and friend count.

    If I spend 10x as much time in any real world task I am likely to beat the other person. Even Chess. And isn't chess your go to example? Only a few genetic freaks can transcend the time investment system.

    When you fought monsters and bosses in the best RPGs over the years they were introduced right when they provided the ideal challenge (or a little stronger), which made tactical decision-making during the fight a must, and directly undermined your entire progression up til that point.

    I never fought a boss that worked the way you described. If you apply a little math they always lose. I played a lot of Dragon Warrior and bosses were pretty easy. You just set up proper healing and that was it. In MMOs the experience was relatively similar. I never did hard mode WoW raids, I spent most of my time on RTS games so I didn't get that far in WoW. Guild Wars was the MMORPG like game I played most often. Also a bunch of MMORTS games. And MMO text based games. I did play a lot of SRPG games.

    When this wasn't the case, the fight was either considered boringly easy or stupidly hard.  Neither case was desirable or intentional.

    I never played an MMORPG boss that I felt was super hard.

    If you want to offer an RP game, you create a tabletop RP game rather than banging the square peg in the round hole by trying to emulate tabletop RPing in a videogame.

    I totally disagree. Just because most people aren't roleplayers and thus don't really want to play an mmorpg, doesn't mean I can't make or play a good one.

    Until a game comes along where players are capable of creating entire worlds on the fly the same way DMs create a world on the fly out of their imagination during a session, you're not going to see tabletop-style RPing work in videogames.  Even then it's going to be a fundamentally different experience due to how it's realized (visually vs. imagination.)

    You can already make an online version of PnP games. Its easy as pie. The limitations mostly exist in the physics area of games. You can easily make a 3d dungeon and put in monsters and even puzzles.

     

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,933Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    In old school RPGs like early Final Fantasy games, the Ultima Series (including UO), or Everquest, if you wandered off the beaten path slightly, you may wind up meeting mobs that will hand you your behind on a silver platter.

    I love the addition of risk in gaming, especially unpredictable risk.

     

    Agreed completely.


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Axehilt


    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Throughout the history of videogame RPGs the focus was story, characters/development, and twitch-lite (or non-twitch) combat.  Role-play in the tabletop sense is not a central of focus of the genre.

    Until a game comes along where players are capable of creating entire worlds on the fly the same way DMs create a world on the fly out of their imagination during a session, you're not going to see tabletop-style RPing work in videogames.  Even then it's going to be a fundamentally different experience due to how it's realized (visually vs. imagination.)

    I agree with both of these and I loved playing tabletop RPGs. Not even the old-school MMORPG caught the same magic as tabletop RPGs did. To catch that same magic, it should be a tool, not a game. Game can never do what pen & paper did what a living game master did.

    Roleplaying has always been (afaik) a minor driving force in videogame RPGs.

    I contend that no one ever made an RPG game design system which was intended to empower game masters. You couldn't even do things like physics back then. I bet if someone intentionally set out to make a system to support DMs in the game space it would be pretty awesome. Currently all we really have are map making programs and such.

    I certainly agree that no computer can offer the freedom of PnP. Because PnP operates on a unique type of hardware. Wetware. But you could offer a lot of freedom in a specific sphere. Like a fantasy DM tool.

     

     

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

    Originally posted by Creslin321



    In old school RPGs like early Final Fantasy games, the Ultima Series (including UO), or Everquest, if you wandered off the beaten path slightly, you may wind up meeting mobs that will hand you your behind on a silver platter.

    I love the addition of risk in gaming, especially unpredictable risk.

     

    Agreed completely.

    The Wizardry series and even Bard's Tale offered that, as well. I enjoyed straying from the path primarily to see what kind of trouble I could find.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • RefMinorRefMinor MyTownPosts: 3,452Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt


    Originally posted by Cuathon


    The original demographic wanted to Role Play. Your demographic wants to do esport PvP. Farmville is the new wave.
    I think that where we got lost is that we wanted to get new players for our RPGs but instead we colonized and conquered.
    I think that the goal of new games should be to maintain control over the RP space in games and let people come in and see if they like it. And if they don't they don't, but we don't let the money destroy us again. Its going to take some game developers with artistic integrity though.
    But ideally everyone will get to play the game they want to play. Except instead of us getting our games stolen the people who liked something but not all of it will be the ones who have to agitate and suffer to find an amazing game instead of repeating the cycle where RPGs get pushed out.
    Again something that will require game designers and owners who don't just chase after a buck.

    Throughout the history of videogame RPGs the focus was story, characters/development, and twitch-lite (or non-twitch) combat.  Role-play in the tabletop sense is not a central of focus of the genre.

    Also, I think you missed the point: FarmVille is EVE is FarmVille.  Time investment and friend count mean everything in these games.  Skill means little and decision-making is undermined because of the comparitive value of time investment and friend count.

    When you fought monsters and bosses in the best RPGs over the years they were introduced right when they provided the ideal challenge (or a little stronger), which made tactical decision-making during the fight a must, and directly undermined your entire progression up til that point.

    When this wasn't the case, the fight was either considered boringly easy or stupidly hard.  Neither case was desirable or intentional.

    If you want to offer an RP game, you create a tabletop RP game rather than banging the square peg in the round hole by trying to emulate tabletop RPing in a videogame.

    Until a game comes along where players are capable of creating entire worlds on the fly the same way DMs create a world on the fly out of their imagination during a session, you're not going to see tabletop-style RPing work in videogames.  Even then it's going to be a fundamentally different experience due to how it's realized (visually vs. imagination.)

     

    Wow, I bet you weren't very good at EvE.
  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,753Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Loktofeit

     Who said anything about Farmville or anything even remotely related to its design?

    90s gamers wanted fairness too, because gamers have always wanted interesting decisions.  You don't achieve interesting decisions by letting things be unbalanced, such as in C&C:RA where all you did was mass tanks because the other strategies were too weak to work.   You achieved interesting decisions by having things be fair, like RA2 or Starcraft where many viable strategies exist (as a direct result of the games being well-balanced.)

    "The reality is" "90s gamers want" .. can you link to the information you're basing this on?

    To put it simply:

    Fairness = balance = interesting decisions = what gamers want

    There's a market for players who just want a FarmVille-style relaxation activity (EVE PVE or EVE mining), but most players are clearly choosing the games where they can't succeed while falling asleep at the keyboard, where the game wants to play with them and not just use them.

    Again, where did the Farmville/EVE stuff come from? Was this post meant for another thread?

     

    It's a discussion about fairness in games.  

    Fair vs. Unfair always revolves around whether skill is a central element (because "fair" refers to a game where the skilled player wins.)

    So you either have a fair game, focused on skill (decision-making, strategy, tactics, and/or twitch) or you have an unfair game where skill is diluted.  EVE/FarmVille just happen to be clear examples of games where skill is unimportant due to a focus on time investment and friend count.

    As for 90's games, just look at all the direction of RPGs over the years.  The ones that did best were consistently the ones advancing the genre to where we are now, with tactical decisions being important.  Almost no RPG exists which didn't strive to throw exactly the right boss at you to challenge you.

    That was probably a big reason behind the explosion of tactics-style games back then, as these RPGs made every battle a series of important decision-making (or at least far more so than typical RPGs of the day.)

    We've thankfully evolved out of attrition-based gameplay too.  As much as I loved FF2/3 for their time, the experience of making it halfway through a dungeon only to realize you don't have enough potions/mana/etc to complete it is not enjoyable or necessary -- and it makes each individual fight a lot less interesting since each non-boss is only intended to prick you a little and not be an interesting fight.

    Obviously taking these scaling to the extreme (auto-scaling in Oblivion) was proven to be bad.  This allowed the genre to zero in closer to the sweet spot with Dragon Age, Fallout 3, Deus Ex, and Mass Effect using far more popular variants of auto-scaling.

    All of these elements conspire to make fights close, fair, and balanced so that good decision-making will result in victory and bad decision-making will result in less satisfactory results (if not an outright loss, then a victory which is either partial or slow or inefficient in some way.)

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon

    Still not following what that has to do with the topic, but that could just be because it's late here. Is it that you agree that the evil (downside, negative, con, etc)  of having every battle a fair fight is that it steals away the feeling of progression or you disagree?

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • ZairuZairu Portland, ORPosts: 469Member

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by ElderRat

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    One thing that I think is way different (in a bad way) when you compare the MMORPGS and RPGs of today to their counterparts of 90's is this concept that everything should be "fair."  In themepark MMORPGs, you are guided from quest to quest in a way that ensures the mobs you fight will always be around your level, so you always have a "fair" (typically easy) fight.  The same is true of modern SPRPGs, though they sometimes use devices like level-scaling to enforce this fairness as opposed to simply guiding the player.

    This can be nice because you know you'll never be put in a fight you can't win, but it kind of kills any feeling of exploration, danger, and most importantly, PROGRESSION in the game.  For example, in WoW, I'm always fighting MOBs that are yellow or green..that's it.  The quest nodes and zone levels on the map are very careful to guide me along a carefully determined path so that this is the case.  I never really feel like I'm progressing, because my foes are almost always the exact same level as me...they increase in strength precisely proportionately to my advanacement.

    So I think this philosophy is misguided.  You see, I believe that RPGs are about progression FAR more than they are about action-packed or highly tactical combat.  And guiding the player so that they are always fighting "equal" opponents kills that sense of progression.

    In old school RPGs like early Final Fantasy games, the Ultima Series (including UO), or Everquest, if you wandered off the beaten path slightly, you may wind up meeting mobs that will hand you your behind on a silver platter.  This may seem unfair, but it really puts the danger of the world into perspective.  You KNOW that a sand giant can absolutely destroy you, because you encounter them often...they are as much a part of the world of a level 18 as they are a level 40.

    And when you finally get high enough level to kill a sand giant...man that's a good feeling.  You feel like you actually accomplished something...the deadly predator of yesterday is now your prey!

    So in conclusion, I really think (MMO)RPGs should get back to showing the player the terrifying monsters of the world at a lower level, and not being afraid to let them stumble on a dragon's lair just to put everything in perspective.  I'm not advocating the use of "grief NPCs" like Everquest had, but I think it would be good to even have a few "non-aggro" NPCs of higher levels wandering around lower level places so that players could have something to strive for.

    I agree. There is a single player game - Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, for which there was a player mod that let random monsters of any level  and number appear - Martigan's Monster Mod I believe.  One never knew if one would run into a monster much higher than one's character... or a monster of similiar level but more than 1 at a time.  It was great, one learned the age old concept of he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

    FCOM ftw!

    FCOM (which contains Martigan's Monster Mod, among other mods that completely remove the scaling), turned Oblivion from a very good RPG with a fatal flaw (scaling) into an absolutely AMAZING RPG.

    The fact that so many modders spent so long to "fix" the scaling in Oblivion, and that the mods were so popular despite their difficulty to install, provides good evidence in favor of many players preferring a less "fair" experience.

     

    i'm only excited in a video game when death seems evident.

    i did not use fcom, but i did use MMM and loved the fun of running from a pack of trolls as a fresh character. or even an ogre.

    not to mention, MMM really enhanced the oblivion gates with packs of deadra and the moddified (largest) Dremora.

  • VhalnVhaln Chicago, ILPosts: 3,159Member

    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Which do you think is the most likely scenario?

    A) Players see those mobs as a rewarding challenge

    B) Players complain the mobs are OP for their level and should be nerfed

    C) Players avoid those mobs altogether and fight the easier stuff

     

    I'd say B and C are good bets.

     

    Is that so bad?  I think it'd enhance the feel of a game, if there are some mobs that just need to be avoided.  Not everything should be xp fodder.  Maybe it'd be better if the world felt a little more dangerous, even if that means players are doing there best to avoid those dangerous parts, and even complaing about how much it sucks when they fail to do so, and get stomped.

     

    I think one of the core mistakes MMO devs make is misunderstanding different types of complaining people do.  A lot of people will complain if a game is difficult, yet will feel compelled to keep trying.  While OTOH, you can have a game that's easy, that no one complains about, but less and less people feel compelled to play at all.  I think sometimes complaining is actually a good sign.  Not just because it shows they care, but some types of frustration can even be part of what gets people to care.

     

     

    When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.