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!

This genre is dead

1161719212234

Comments

  • kartoolkartool Hamilton, ONPosts: 472Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

     


    Originally posted by bhug
    giant graphs and pie charts showing massive profit

     

    Thanks for that. However, this is about the genre in regards to the games themselves, not the money they generate. There is a difference. There are countless examples of things that have lost their soul and make crap tons of money.

    So in other words it's about personal opinion and not any actual facts or data. Surprising.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,736Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Amaranthar

    "The fact is, you're sitting there doing virtually nothing for 5-15 minutes straight and it's the dullest experience gaming has to offer."

    Has anyone said that? I don't believe so. You're mirepresenting what people said they want, and you do this all the time in your endless arguments against anything Sandbox. Why do you do that?

    The above situation exists in EVE and Darkfall.  I criticized it as clearly bad game design.  Bunnyhopper defended it.

    Given that I've mentioned to you specifically that a gameplay-centric sandbox could be successful, I have no clue where you're getting this "endless arguments against anything Sandbox" thing.  I endlessly argue against bad game design, not sandboxes.  It's just that most sandboxes happen to also be poorly designed (see: discussion on travel), hence their mediocre success.

    "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

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,736Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    I would have thought by now that you would have understood the fact that you add far, far more depth by improving the game world and the characters interaction with it as he moves through it. 

    Travel is like 5-30% of your overall playtime, depending on the game and situation.  That is a ridiculously massive chunk of the overall game to allow to be shallow.

    So no, while improving the game world is important, you're not going to get more depth by improving it in comparison to patching this significant hole of non-gameplay.

    "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

  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,428Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Amaranthar

    "The fact is, you're sitting there doing virtually nothing for 5-15 minutes straight and it's the dullest experience gaming has to offer."

    Has anyone said that? I don't believe so. You're mirepresenting what people said they want, and you do this all the time in your endless arguments against anything Sandbox. Why do you do that?

    The above situation exists in EVE and Darkfall.  I criticized it as clearly bad game design.  Bunnyhopper defended it.

    Given that I've mentioned to you specifically that a gameplay-centric sandbox could be successful, I have no clue where you're getting this "endless arguments against anything Sandbox" thing.  I endlessly argue against bad game design, not sandboxes.  It's just that most sandboxes happen to also be poorly designed (see: discussion on travel), hence their mediocre success.

    And yet here we are talking about ways to make travel and the game worlds a better design, and here you are talking about how virtual nothingness (which we clearly are not after) is bad game design.

    Every time people try to talk about some Sandbox design, you are there. Always with the circle around, argueing against shadows this same way.

     

    Once upon a time....

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,736Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Hurvart

    Fun is very subjective. IMO, to much action all the time will just make the game boring. Travel is not intended to be some action packed experience in a virtual world game. Perhaps bandits will attack you when you travel or explore. If you are surprised and if it was unexpected it will be fun.  If it happens all the time every minute it will mean nothing. It will just be tedious to kill a million bandits when travelling from A to B. Its just like adding to much sugar when you cook... It can be to much.

    I liked travelling in games like EQ. Before Luclin... Teleportation stones in PoK ruined the interesting travelling experience for me. And I needed that to feel that I was actually part of a virtual world.

    Typically if you like games like that you are no action gamer... It means to much action and a streamlined gaming experience will be boring. A slower pace is better. The fun is not depending on action. It depends on being able to feel that you are part of the virtual world.

    With the games in question, giving depth to travel by no means runs the risk of making them "too much action all the time".

    Instead it ensures all the required systems are deep while you still have relaxing non-gameplay systems should you optionally desire them (gathering, crafting, AHing)

    "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

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,736Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Amaranthar

    And yet here we are talking about ways to make travel and the game worlds a better design, and here you are talking about how virtual nothingness (which we clearly are not after) is bad game design.

    Every time people try to talk about some Sandbox design, you are there. Always with the circle around, argueing against shadows this same way. 

    Players clearly aren't after that.

    Bunnyhopper is.  So I was talking with him about how virtual nothingness is clearly undesirable.

    Welcome to the discussion and thanks for helping support the point that obviously players don't want this sort of gameplay.

    "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

  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,428Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Amaranthar

    And yet here we are talking about ways to make travel and the game worlds a better design, and here you are talking about how virtual nothingness (which we clearly are not after) is bad game design.

    Every time people try to talk about some Sandbox design, you are there. Always with the circle around, argueing against shadows this same way. 

    Players clearly aren't after that.

    Bunnyhopper is.  So I was talking with him about how virtual nothingness is clearly undesirable.

    Welcome to the discussion and thanks for helping support the point that obviously players don't want this sort of gameplay.

    "Players clearly aren't after that."

    Prove that statement.

     

    Once upon a time....

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    I would have thought by now that you would have understood the fact that you add far, far more depth by improving the game world and the characters interaction with it as he moves through it. 

    Travel is like 5-30% of your overall playtime, depending on the game and situation.  That is a ridiculously massive chunk of the overall game to allow to be shallow.

    So no, while improving the game world is important, you're not going to get more depth by improving it in comparison to patching this significant hole of non-gameplay.

    That is a shockingly poor comeback. You are simply arguing for arguings sake at this point (well for the past few pages in all honesty).

     

    I have "patched that gameplay" by making the movement through the game world interesting in the most natural and most intuitive way. As opposed to tacking on some crappy minigame.

    When you are engaging with the game world (which is what I have been constantly advocating and have demonstrated how) then no, it is not "shallow". Travelling through interesting terrain, making you jump, sprint and dodge through it, making that matter. Travelling through dynamic areas with dynamic encounters. No, that is not "shallow". Not having ten extra buttons to press in order to move along does not make the system shallow.

     

    Frankly, thinking that ladling on extraneous hotbar movement "skills" or a minigame on top of the usual movement abilities will add more depth to a virtual world than actually improving said virtual world, is a bit of a #laughinggirls.jpg moment.

     

    Btw, saying the player should be actively engaged with the game world, saying that travel through it should matter as opposed to adding superflous button pressing minigames is quite, quite different from suggesting that "people do nothing for 15 minutes".

     

    I notice you are speaking for all players again. Good work.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,736Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Amaranthar

    "Players clearly aren't after that."

    Prove that statement.

    If they didn't want interaction, they wouldn't be playing games obviously!

    "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

  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,428Member Uncommon

    Curiously I just went to The Bartle Test and it shows 8 of the last 10 are "Explorers".

    I'd admit that that doesn't mean a whole lot, but I do think there are many gamers who do indeed want interesting game worlds and travel.

    Disclaimer: my use of the term "travel" does not mean many minutes of nothing else, just empty movement. I only make this disclaimer because SOME posters here like to tell everyone else what I mean by the words I choose, causing many of threads to be derailed.

    Once upon a time....

  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,428Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Amaranthar

    "Players clearly aren't after that."

    Prove that statement.

    If they didn't want interaction, they wouldn't be playing games obviously!

     

    We're talking about interaction with the game world.

    Once upon a time....

  • TrionicusTrionicus Fort Lauderdale, FLPosts: 497Member

    Hate to say it but the ppls have a point. No one even wanted to admit swtor would go F2P in less than a year, seem to be all the same ppl saying that the genre isn't dead.

     

    I'm pretty sure, while Bioware made have made an RPG, they forgot the MMO, and other games forget the RPG and only have half an MMO. This is just in general, there are some games around that are gems. Do not forget though, there is a real possibility that asain interests will dominiate, if they don't already, the multiplayer market space and leave us with nothin but korean grindfest MU online level 1-465 kill kill kills.

     

    There are a lot of issues with MMORPG's, some that cannot be fixed through design. Players these days have less time to spend gaming. People in general gave less time to spend on anything other than work. Forcing game makers to consider the more accessible gaming route.

     

    I don't think the genre is dead, maybe dying, and maybe it can make a comback but I don't know if the direction it's going is leading to the light or to the void.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,736Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    That is a shockingly poor comeback. You are simply arguing for arguings sake at this point (well for the past few pages in all honesty). 

    I have "patched that gameplay" by making the movement through the game world interesting in the most natural and most intuitive way. As opposed to tacking on some crappy minigame.

    When you are engaging with the game world (which is what I have been constantly advocating and have demonstrated how) then no, it is not "shallow". Travelling through interesting terrain, making you jump, sprint and dodge through it, making that matter. Travelling through dynamic areas with dynamic encounters. No, that is not "shallow". Not having ten extra buttons to press in order to move along does not make the system shallow.

     Frankly, thinking that ladling on extraneous hotbar movement "skills" or a minigame on top of the usual movement abilities will add more depth to a virtual world than actually improving said virtual world, is a bit of a #laughinggirls.jpg moment. 

    Btw, saying the player should be actively engaged with the game world, saying that travel through it should matter as opposed to adding superflous button pressing minigames is quite, quite different from suggesting that "people do nothing for 15 minutes". 

    I notice you are speaking for all players again. Good work.

    If your suggestion involves gameplay on its own, without the outside world encounters, then it is a minigame. Whether or not it involves a hotbar is irrelevant, if it involves depth and mastery it's a minigame.  It's still not clear whether that actually was your suggestion, because you diluted it with the idea that dynamic world encounters would also help things -- and they'll help, but the gameplay of traveling itself is what the focus of the discussion is on because that's the giant hole in gameplay.

    In fact the hotbar was never critical to what I'm suggesting, only that AFK traveling is solved, one way or another.  If travel becomes optional (fast travel) that's one solution.  If travel becomes deep, interesting gameplay, that's the other solution.  But allowing it to be this dead space of non-gameplay doesn't appeal to players because it forces them to deal with an uninteresting system at length (bad game design.)

    So yeah...if you're fixated on my calling it a "minigame" or having a hotbar, you're arguing irrelevant points.  All that matters is the game doesnt' force significant periods of non-gameplay on players.  What matters is either limiting shallow gameplay (fast travel), or making gameplay deeper (deep travel.)  Anything else is an argument for shallow gameplay.

    The only way I'm speaking for all players is by making the assumption that they're playing an interactive form of entertainment because they want interaction.  Not only a safe assumption, but an obvious conclusion.

    "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

  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,428Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by Razeekster
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
     

    I always thought it would be neat if they made the mob vs. player experience feel more real. Like say running from mobs. You can do that now, but there's something unreal about it in most MMOs. You know that there's a way to do it to get away and you're not really worried. It would be nice to somehow add a more sense of realism to it by making you scared of that said mob's ability to catch you. Something to do with the AI maybe? I am not sure, I'm just throwing out an idea really,

    Improving the AI would certainly be the best bet, not just ramping up things like hit points etc.  But I think the key thing is not to have static spawns, if you know the area and you know exactly where a mob will always be, then you can learn easy ways of killing them safely.

     

    I quite like the idea of randomly spawn x mobs in an rough area (that makes sense, not just dumping any old spawn anywhere). When they spawn the mobs have a mob "rating". This group of mobs then dynamically roams about within a set radius. If within that set radius they encounter players, other "good npcs" or villages, they will attack them. Should the mobs defeat the "goodies" then the mobs rating increases. When this happens one of two things can occur:

     

    Either other mobs within a set radius migrate to the higher score mobs and join forces.

    Or the mob simply gets more mobs spawned in.

    Either way the power and the size of the group increases as does their roam range. This carries on until they either wipe everything out or the players get together and wipe them out. Interestingly this means in the more dangerous, wilderness areas, you may get massively dangerous groups coming together and essentially launching attacks on safer land etc.

     

    That or have GM lead monster run events, even allowing other players to jump into the role of the monsters for a bit within these events and have a bit of a rampage around.


    I agree with the idea of AI. MOBs should have at least a basic ability to recognize some basic tacical circumstances like "losing this battle" and react by fleeing, or a tactical retreat.

    I think this situation can also be greatly enhanced by the design of the MOBs, game world, and player capabilities. It would get too involved to try to spell it out, but basically I think evade maneuvers against faster MOBs while being chased could add a lot to game play and excitement. Also tactical choices like paralizing spells or special attacks or poisons, things that give a player a little bit of time to make some distance.

    In this sense, I've always felt that "Escape Tactics" in all forms and circumstances should be given much more game play than simply Hit Button = Kill = Loot = Guaranteed Win.

    I also am a strong proponent of randon encounters and wondering MOBs. There's a lot of leeway here, depending on the rest of the game and financing and all that.

    Once upon a time....

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,736Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Amaranthar 
    We're talking about interaction with the game world.

    Don't see how the type of interaction matters.  Players could've chosen non-interactive entertainment, but didn't.  They want interaction.

    Travel gameplay can involve any sort of interaction.  Interaction with the world (rough terrain slowing movement), interaction with the game (a hotbar to maximize speed), or interaction with other players (roads/rough terrain can be setup by other players.)

    "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

  • JimmyYOJimmyYO Columbus, OHPosts: 520Member
    The concept of MMO's feeling like a world is dying for sure.
  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,428Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Amaranthar 
    We're talking about interaction with the game world.

    Don't see how the type of interaction matters.  Players could've chosen non-interactive entertainment, but didn't.  They want interaction.

    Travel gameplay can involve any sort of interaction.  Interaction with the world (rough terrain slowing movement), interaction with the game (a hotbar to maximize speed), or interaction with other players (roads/rough terrain can be setup by other players.)


    And diversity is critical, in my opinion. Diversity and random possibilities.

     

    Once upon a time....

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    If your suggestion involves gameplay on its own, without the outside world encounters, then it is a minigame. Whether or not it involves a hotbar is irrelevant, if it involves depth and mastery it's a minigame.  It's still not clear whether that actually was your suggestion, because you diluted it with the idea that dynamic world encounters would also help things -- and they'll help, but the gameplay of traveling itself is what the focus of the discussion is on because that's the giant hole in gameplay.

    In fact the hotbar was never critical to what I'm suggesting, only that AFK traveling is solved, one way or another.  If travel becomes optional (fast travel) that's one solution.  If travel becomes deep, interesting gameplay, that's the other solution.  But allowing it to be this dead space of non-gameplay doesn't appeal to players because it forces them to deal with an uninteresting system at length (bad game design.)

    So yeah...if you're fixated on my calling it a "minigame" or having a hotbar, you're arguing irrelevant points.  All that matters is the game doesnt' force significant periods of non-gameplay on players.  What matters is either limiting shallow gameplay (fast travel), or making gameplay deeper (deep travel.)  Anything else is an argument for shallow gameplay.

    The only way I'm speaking for all players is by making the assumption that they're playing an interactive form of entertainment because they want interaction.  Not only a safe assumption, but an obvious conclusion.

    The interaction comes via engagement with the gaming world. Whether that is purely down to the player engaging with the game space, or via the player engaging with dynamic encounters and other players (or using the terrain to avoid said encounters). A good virtual world interlinks the two, makes the player think about and interact with the game world.

    That is not a "minigame", nor does it require extraneous movement abilities or hotbar skills.

    You can AFK travel if you like, but you will more then likely end up dead, either via falling foul of the game world (dropping off a cliff, slipping off an icy slope or drowning etc). Or by falling foul of dynamic npcs or players.

    "Deeper travel" is best generated by engaging the player with the game world and the agents within it. Not by adding what will essentially be superfluous extra movement skills, or by skipping sections of the game world. That is what I have been repeatedly positing after orignally pointing out what a game world and travel through it can offer.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by kartool
    Originally posted by Foomerang   Originally posted by bhug giant graphs and pie charts showing massive profit
      Thanks for that. However, this is about the genre in regards to the games themselves, not the money they generate. There is a difference. There are countless examples of things that have lost their soul and make crap tons of money.
    So in other words it's about personal opinion and not any actual facts or data. Surprising.

    Its about looking at what mmos were trying to be ten years ago and looking at what they are trying to be now.
  • DominisiDominisi Age of Conan Correspondent Show Low, AZPosts: 95Member

    I agree with the OP.

    Developers have basically turned single player games into multiplayer games and are the ones driving all of the content held within. 8-10 years ago when the community was much better than it is today content was made by the players (See sandbox MMOs) with minor content being put in by developers, this was the golden age of the concept.

    Bring in the society of instant gratification and you have people who instead of being social require LFG/LFD tools so they don't have to talk to anybody, they can just press a button and go.

    The problem is this is a society problem with entitlements etc and nobody wants to use their imagination or do any work themsleves. Its pathetic.

    image

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Dominisi
    The problem is this is a society problem with entitlements etc and nobody wants to use their imagination or do any work themsleves. Its pathetic.

    Its a double standard that exists not just in mmorpgs, but in social interaction in general these days.


  • kantseemekantseeme millville, NJPosts: 709Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    That is a shockingly poor comeback. You are simply arguing for arguings sake at this point (well for the past few pages in all honesty). 

    I have "patched that gameplay" by making the movement through the game world interesting in the most natural and most intuitive way. As opposed to tacking on some crappy minigame.

    When you are engaging with the game world (which is what I have been constantly advocating and have demonstrated how) then no, it is not "shallow". Travelling through interesting terrain, making you jump, sprint and dodge through it, making that matter. Travelling through dynamic areas with dynamic encounters. No, that is not "shallow". Not having ten extra buttons to press in order to move along does not make the system shallow.

     Frankly, thinking that ladling on extraneous hotbar movement "skills" or a minigame on top of the usual movement abilities will add more depth to a virtual world than actually improving said virtual world, is a bit of a #laughinggirls.jpg moment. 

    Btw, saying the player should be actively engaged with the game world, saying that travel through it should matter as opposed to adding superflous button pressing minigames is quite, quite different from suggesting that "people do nothing for 15 minutes". 

    I notice you are speaking for all players again. Good work.

    If your suggestion involves gameplay on its own, without the outside world encounters, then it is a minigame. Whether or not it involves a hotbar is irrelevant, if it involves depth and mastery it's a minigame.  It's still not clear whether that actually was your suggestion, because you diluted it with the idea that dynamic world encounters would also help things -- and they'll help, but the gameplay of traveling itself is what the focus of the discussion is on because that's the giant hole in gameplay.

    In fact the hotbar was never critical to what I'm suggesting, only that AFK traveling is solved, one way or another.  If travel becomes optional (fast travel) that's one solution.  If travel becomes deep, interesting gameplay, that's the other solution.  But allowing it to be this dead space of non-gameplay doesn't appeal to players because it forces them to deal with an uninteresting system at length (bad game design.)

    So yeah...if you're fixated on my calling it a "minigame" or having a hotbar, you're arguing irrelevant points.  All that matters is the game doesnt' force significant periods of non-gameplay on players.  What matters is either limiting shallow gameplay (fast travel), or making gameplay deeper (deep travel.)  Anything else is an argument for shallow gameplay.

    The only way I'm speaking for all players is by making the assumption that they're playing an interactive form of entertainment because they want interaction.  Not only a safe assumption, but an obvious conclusion.

    Traveling IS game play. To forsake it because some find it boring or tediaus is rediculous. Insta porting to places are killing these game worlds by taking people out of it plain and simple. If you cant spare  5 - 10 mins of travle time to get to a location then MMOs arent what you should be playing.

     

    Dont care if you like what i have to say or not. Getting tired of these "give you everything now now now" MMOs. These games have be come nothing but pieces of shit lobby based co - op single player games. There not MMOs anymore. There not even RPGs anymore. If iv pissed you off oh well.

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,943Member Uncommon
    Travelling is gameplay and I enjoy it because it allows me to absorb myself in a game. Other don't like it, that's fine. Trying to tell someone that the thing they enjoy is impossible is just ignorance , stupidity, lack of social awareness and simply flawed.

    rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar

    Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,736Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Amaranthar


    And diversity is critical, in my opinion. Diversity and random possibilities. 

    Sure but even if travel is only deep in one of those ways it's not like the game isn't going to be deep in the other ways.  Travel's not the only game feature, it's just the shallowest one most in need of help.

    "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

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,736Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    The interaction comes via engagement with the gaming world. Whether that is purely down to the player engaging with the game space, or via the player engaging with dynamic encounters and other players (or using the terrain to avoid said encounters). A good virtual world interlinks the two, makes the player think about and interact with the game world.

    That is not a "minigame", nor does it require extraneous movement abilities or hotbar skills.

    You can AFK travel if you like, but you will more then likely end up dead, either via falling foul of the game world (dropping off a cliff, slipping off an icy slope or drowning etc). Or by falling foul of dynamic npcs or players.

    "Deeper travel" is best generated by engaging the player with the game world and the agents within it. Not by adding what will essentially be superfluous extra movement skills, or by skipping sections of the game world. That is what I have been repeatedly positing after orignally pointing out what a game world and travel through it can offer.

    Ironically it's not a step in the right direction to point out that travel isn't actually AFKable.  It's psuedo-AFKable.  And that makes things worse.  Because you can't simply step away from the game and do something else.  No, you don't have that player freedom.  You're instead forced to sit there making virtually no interesting decisions.  It's even worse than if the activity was actually AFKable.

    As long as the "engagement via the gaming world" you're talking about solves that psuedo-AFK situation, then that's a real solution.  Otherwise we end up with an EVE, DF, etc game where sure 1% of the time something dynamic happens, but the overwhelming majority of your travel time is utterly shallow non-gameplay.

    So the engagement via the gaming world would need to be consistently deep/engaging system to actually address the problem.

     

    "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

Sign In or Register to comment.