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

1232426282934

Comments

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Scot

    Still calling these games MMORPG’s is to pretend they are of the same genre. They have changed their nature, they need a new name.

    Game genres do change you know, adventures became point and click adventures to distinguish them from the new 3D ones. Gem collecting games were originally called puzzle games or even adventure games!

    Also we used to call these games MMORPG’s right? Now it is MMO’s. That change was for abbreviation as much as anything, but it came into use as RPG became a small budget area of MMORPG’s.

    ezMMO’s are what we have today, but any negative change of name would be fought against by an industry that wants to sell, sell, sell!

    Eventually I think MMO’s will get a new name, but it will be a very positive mega hype one. How about Next Gen (NG)? that will make this easy MMO theme parks sound sexy.

    In any case "easy MMO" or "ezMMO" is not a very good term since older games weren't exactly challenging, just more complicated, inaccessible and they required a lot more time. Thats pretty much it. Whats been said over and over is that having more options does not automatically increase depth and pressing 3 buttons instead of just one to achieve the same goal makes the game hard the wrong way.

    You use the term ezMMO in a derogatory meaning and it gives you the same type of credibility as if you used terms such as "WoW-clone", "instant gratification" and "console-generation". If we'd be face to face I'd be rolling my eyes.

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

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by jusomdude

    I think something that could make travel more fun is something like random spawning loot bags, some of them have like mob ambushes attached to em though.

    Traditional travelling is hella boring. Need something to spice it up.

    One problem is to make such system invisible. For example, I picked up fairly quickly how the random encounters worked in Skyrim - and by quickly I mean about 1-2 hours into the game. I ended up anticipating when and where such encounters "emerged" and actually farmed them/abused them a little. Sure, if you are new to gaming such things may entertain you for a long time, but for me atleast, it would have to be quite elaborate to hide all the nuts and bolts.

    I'm not saying I'm anythings special, I'm saying veteran players will learn all the mechanics quite quickly and, to some degree, ruin them for others - especially when we are talking about multiplayer games. There is no mystique about a dungeon or a boss monster's behavior if someone explains it to you.

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

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    Well this thread is a clusterfuck.

     

    Personally I couldn't give a toss if a game is called MMORPG/MMOFPS/MOBA whatever, it is what the game actually does that matters. The worry is that genres become homogenized and lose aspects that are unique to them in the process. Then apsects can certainly be seen to be "dead". Not whether or not a game is called an MMORPG or not.

     

    As for travel, in the specific case of virtual world type mmos. It has already been pointed out that it can be improved upon and methods of this improvement (or at the very least the key aspects for this) have also been demonstated. Whether such things ever actually get done is another matter.

     

    If a developer can spend less time and effort, whilst at the same time developing a game which will generate more profit from short term player churn. Then it is questionable as to whether or not they are going to bother building an intricate game world, regardless as to it's merits. Especially if it affords the company the luxury of then simply creating another game, with which to churn again, much like the sequel model seen in offline games.

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

  • SoulSurferSoulSurfer Denver, COPosts: 1,248Member
    Well this thread certainly isn't dead....
  • kantseemekantseeme millville, NJPosts: 709Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by kantseeme
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by kantseeme
     

    Are you saying that travel must be interesting 100% of the time then? If so then thats just ridiculous. How interesting is your ride to work in the morning?

     Of course travel must be interesting 100% of the time IN A GAME. If i can push a button and instantly teleport to work, don't you think i will do that and skip the commute?

    Travel is travel is travel. Sometimes its interesting and sometimes its not. I dont get this travel HAS to be interesting all the time otherwise its worthless and we needz insta ports thinking.

     If it is not interesting, or fun, why would i want to do it in a GAME? There should be an option to skip.

    Travel is what you make of it. If you want to make it interesting then find ways to make it interesting.

     No. Boring is boring. If i am walking in a desert seeing nothing but sand ... there is pretty much nothing i can do to make it interesting.

    Plus, a game is an ENTERTAINMENT product. It is the dev's job to make it interesting for me, it is not my job to find ways to make it interesting.

    Travel IS game play. Make it interesting yourself. Dont rely on the devs to make it interesting.

     No. Bad gameplay is bad gameplay (for me). It is dev's job to entertain me. If i can do that (like sing a song when i walk), why do i have to play a GAME.

     

     

    Your posts should be sent to game companys as prof of the reasons why games last for 1 month. Everything you spew Is evadence to it.

     

    I will say it again. The type of game YOU want to play are not MMOs. There Single player lobby co-op games like D3 / black ops. The only reason your playing MMOs are because a horde of your kind crept into MMOs and started crying for features found in the games i pointed out.

     

    Bad gameplay are features like insta porting. Why make a gameworld at all if you dont want to travel through it. Just stick to D3.

    No more arguing about my points about travel?

    Whats to argue? You dont like travel AT ALL. You dont travel. You insta port your way through games. Thats not travel.

    Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one.

    This is the mentality of a console gamer. 4 weeks is what it takes to beat games like Metal Gear, Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Dex. Not MMOs. MMOs use to have a shelf life of 2 years but now people like you have reduced them to these throw-a-way games we have today. Shame really the industry caved in to your ADHD approach to MMOs.

    I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features?

    Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".

     

    Everything you justed described is the opposite of what a MMO should be. Your not even desribing MMOs anymore. There is a whole genre out there for you to play in. GameStop carries thousands of titles of single player console games for you to loose yourself in for 10 mins. ( if you can muster up the stamina to play that long)

     

    By now if no one can see WHY this genre is in the state its in now, just refer yourself to every post nariusseldon has ever posted and read them. HE and his kind ARE the majority now and is the reason why the genre is the way it is.

  • kantseemekantseeme millville, NJPosts: 709Member
    Originally posted by SoulSurfer
    Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

    Its a tender topic for some of us.

  • sidebustersidebuster Pesce, CAPosts: 1,753Member

    I've been playing MMOs for a long time now and watched the genre move away from what it was always meant to be (a virtual world). It always started good, but then people complained and the developers tried to accomodate. The problem was that the people who were complaining were jump in jump out types of gamers. Meaning that they  jump in to a game, complain they have no time to play or this persons over powered, etc. then quit as soon as the devs fixed the game for them leaving a former shell of a game in the process. 

    I'd say SWG was THE right path to what MMORPGs should have been. All they should have done was fix the memory leaks, balance the doctor buffs and continue developing items and content. Instead, they listen to people complaining about the difficulty and tried to make it easier. Well those people only play games for a short while anyways and conforming to them was the wrong thing to do. I don't think MMORPG developers realized these gamers are used to 8 hour action games. The quick jump in jump out instant gratification; finish the game and on to the next one. Maybe if they knew those types of gamers would come and go so quickly in their games they wouldn't have listened to their complaints. Now since WoW they tried MAKING the games out of the complaints from those earlier times. That's what caused these newer MMORPGs to be so throwaway.

    I've been away from the scene for a while but still tried to play the games. I've yet to last the 30 days. Lately I've been on a retro kick and yearning for those games of yor. Unfortunately they've all becomee jokes and ghosts of what they used to be. I'm still trying to find a game that's out that is what SWG used to be.

  • SagasaintSagasaint Miami, FLPosts: 460Member
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    The irony is that console games today are actually more open and diverse than these so called mmorpgs.

    for example?

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Sagasaint
    Originally posted by Foomerang The irony is that console games today are actually more open and diverse than these so called mmorpgs.
    for example?

    Yakuza series, Sleeping Dogs, Deadly Premonition, LA Noire, Heavy Rain...

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,762Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by SoulSurfer
    Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

    Yeah, unfortunately for the gaming companies old gamers did not die when the decided to redesign MMO's for console and now social network players.

    Once we do everyone can live in the la la land that modern MMO's are the best ever! Pre-order your copy of the one that is going to be this months five minute wonder today!

  • odinsrathodinsrath louisville, KYPosts: 814Member Uncommon

    i agree ...i have to admit that everything out there is just lolly pops / rainbows / glitter ...the same product being released over n over n over again ..sure with a lil tweaking hear n there but not enuff to make a huge diff between them the only thing that catches my pvpness every once in awhile is LoL and even then thats a meh* ..the genra has been throw into a sewer drain like a dead body for everyone to see and the only ones that stop by to take a look are the kiddies pokeing it with sticks

    image

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by kantseeme

    Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one.

    This is the mentality of a console gamer. 4 weeks is what it takes to beat games like Metal Gear, Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Dex. Not MMOs. MMOs use to have a shelf life of 2 years but now people like you have reduced them to these throw-a-way games we have today. Shame really the industry caved in to your ADHD approach to MMOs.

    More like a gamer. I play more PC games than console. I do NOT apologize for my preference. So what if i am a "console gamer". Games are entertainment products and i use them as i see fit. Many console games, such as Dead Space, are much better games than MMOs.

    I go to fun games, not specific genre. And if this style of MMO fits my play style, i do not see why i should/would not play & support them.

    If you want so-so long term repetitive games, it is your perogative. I do not see having to stick to a GAME for 2 years as a virtue.

    I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features?

    Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".

     

    Everything you justed described is the opposite of what a MMO should be. Your not even desribing MMOs anymore. There is a whole genre out there for you to play in. GameStop carries thousands of titles of single player console games for you to loose yourself in for 10 mins. ( if you can muster up the stamina to play that long)

    "should be"? You decide that? News flash .. MMOs are more and more like that now, and I like it. And i will actively participate. Why even travel to gamestop? I can get many games, INCLUDING f2p mmos, on STEAM, which is a click away.

    By now if no one can see WHY this genre is in the state its in now, just refer yourself to every post nariusseldon has ever posted and read them. HE and his kind ARE the majority now and is the reason why the genre is the way it is.

    Thank you for boosting my readership. This genre is just progressing nicely. The next one i am watching out for, Marvel Heroes, will be like a Marvel Ultimate Alliance with MMO features. Definitely a must-play for me, particularly it is F2P.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by SoulSurfer
    Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

    Yeah, unfortunately for the gaming companies old gamers did not die when the decided to redesign MMO's for console and now social network players.

    Once we do everyone can live in the la la land that modern MMO's are the best ever! Pre-order your copy of the one that is going to be this months five minute wonder today!

    "Pre-order"? YOu are kidding me. MMOs are going F2P. Just click on STEAM and download.

    And you don't have to exaggerate .... good fun f2p MMOs can last a few weeks.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,474Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    @Bunnyhopper: So if psuedo-AFKable travel requires maybe 1-3 decisions in 5-15 minutes, you think that's enough decisions for travel itself to be interesting?

    The frequency of decisions isn't some absolute "more is always better" metric.

    However a baseline of decisions is required to achieve the desired amount of game depth.

    That baseline is greater than 1 decision every 5 minutes.

    Well, what if travel could be tied into the game of playing the market?  Rather than a global AH, you have a lot of local markets where people can up a items to sell.  Someone could take items from one market travel a long ways away to another market to resell at a higher price. That makes it more a virtual world.   With the got to have it now crowd, you teleport everywhere making that game play meaningless.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,734Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Well, what if travel could be tied into the game of playing the market?  Rather than a global AH, you have a lot of local markets where people can up a items to sell.  Someone could take items from one market travel a long ways away to another market to resell at a higher price. That makes it more a virtual world.   With the got to have it now crowd, you teleport everywhere making that game play meaningless.

    The root problem is travel itself isn't fun, and is extremely shallow.

    You would have to have a consistent and almost constant stream of these types of interactions for travel's shallowness to be ignorable (because in that case you'd consistently be engaging in some deep system, even if it wasn't travel itself.)  Obviously it would be more types of interactions than just a local market (and local markets aren't even all that deep or fun a system compared to some of the other alternatives.)

    As for the "got to have it now" crowd?  The alternative is a game which deliberately wastes players' time (which is what's happening with excessive travel.)  So we have the "gotta have it now" crowd and the "enjoys having their time wasted" crowd.  Which would you rather be in?  The former crowd gets to experience games just as deep (or deeper, given that they're actually interacting with game systems rather than having their time wasted) than the latter.

     

    "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 waynejr2
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    @Bunnyhopper: So if psuedo-AFKable travel requires maybe 1-3 decisions in 5-15 minutes, you think that's enough decisions for travel itself to be interesting?

    The frequency of decisions isn't some absolute "more is always better" metric.

    However a baseline of decisions is required to achieve the desired amount of game depth.

    That baseline is greater than 1 decision every 5 minutes.

    Well, what if travel could be tied into the game of playing the market?  Rather than a global AH, you have a lot of local markets where people can up a items to sell.  Someone could take items from one market travel a long ways away to another market to resell at a higher price. That makes it more a virtual world.   With the got to have it now crowd, you teleport everywhere making that game play meaningless.

    You could still have meaningful trade like that, with travel, if you can't carry the weight/volume by teleports.

    That would leave the game world feeling like it's actually there, offering the chance to go explore for adventure or just travel and see the scenery if one wants, while still keeping meaning for trade and such. Or they can instantly travel to a dungeon to meet up with friends or check out a mystery or grind for X.

    It can even add an element to the last, grinding for X. If weights and volumes require overland travel, then encampments outside of Dungeons for storage can be implemented, and caravans back to cities, homes, or guild headquarters also. These can be player run, or at least player built or owned. And added game play can be in the form of these encampments and caravans attracting random NPC raids, so that having players involved in the defense of them is game play. Player caravan Masters and Camp Quartermasters can be "jobs" for players, and NPC hireling guards can add to their professions.

    You wouldn't need very many players, percentage wise, to want to do these things to make a name for themselves, as well as their fortunes, in this way. From my experiences from UO, there were plenty of players crying for the chance to be a little unique and establish a "place" in the game world. Whole guilds wanted to make a name for themselves like this.

    Once upon a time....

  • UhwopUhwop Wilm, DEPosts: 1,663Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rayshe
    Originally posted by thekid1

    All I know is I''m tired of doing quests. LAME quests. Singe player games have much better quests (and NPC, creatures AI) then mmorpg's. So in that respect the OP is right when he says mmorpgs are ten year old console games.

    I don't get it. Why is is so hard to take advantage of the fact you can have 5000 people on one server and design a game for that which does not involve LAME quests and annoying raids.

    I only know two games which are designed properly; Eve online and Planetside (dead now)

    And neither of them are rpg's.

    There is a simple awnser to that. you dont like theme park games. its pretty obvious, The problem with having missions that have things like open world PVP is that it forces people who don't want it while they are leveling (the majority i assure you) to get randomly killed by somone as they finish fighting a mob, then in return be corpse camped until logging to boost someones Epeen.

     

    My opinion is that if they changed PvP servers to that they had more quests for random killing of players, less people would complain. sadly when it comes to AI based quests you are somewhat limited in what you can do.

     Haven't been killed by another player in EVE in a few years now.

    Just because a bunch of companies do/ did it wrong, doesn't mean that ti's not possible to do it right.  You seem to have the same mentality as a lot of developers do, it's all or nothing.  Either the game degrades into a massive free for all deathmatch (MO, Darkfall) or it's completely structured to ensure that no player can impact any other players experience (basically every PvE focused themepark). 

    CCP is the only company that gets it right, and shows that it's possible to make a game were players can co-exist.  The carebear miners, mission runers, and manufacturers are as important to the world as the PvPers who blow each other up en mass to drive the economy.

    Whenever a group of guys comes along and says, "we want to make a game that is like UO" the inevitably end up with a game were there is little content outside of killing one another.  They want to forgo questing, because they think that a sandbox should be all about the players, they lax on punishing killing one another because they have no quests and players need something to do, they build robust crafting systems that require players to go out and try and kill stuff endlessly; while avoiding being killed by other players in order to drive the economy within the game.  It always leads to failure.

    EVE caters to every play style, and that's why it works.  If more devs would start paying attention to this, and stop trying to focus on one thing over the other in an effort to stand out, we would see more engaging MMO's being developed and fewer themeparks that attract a bunch of people for the first couple of months before switching to free to play to get all those people to come back after they leave.

    It's all about safety in the known.  Look at Zenimax Online, they take one of the best single player, sandbox RPG's of all time and decided it was best to make another themepark MMO that banks on standing out by being a 3 faction PvP game ala DAoC.  Instead of different and creative, they're choosing safe and secure in a model that they THINK works well. 

    EVE has been going for 9 years, and only when they do something stupid do they see any kind of drop in subscribers.  WoW just dropped to almost 9 million subs, they used to have over 11 million.  Bioware decided to make ToR a F2P game, has it even been out a year?  And yes, free to play does indicate a certian level of failure, if you're profitting on a subscription model you don't switch to free to play. 

    A lot of MMO's don't even bother trying subsciptions anyomre, and I don't believe for a minute that has anything to do with developers getting smart and realizing that F2P is the way to go.  It has more to do with entering a market were you offer nothing new.  Only so many people are going to play your MMO, and if those people have already played it before it ever got installed on their PC, you're going to be hard pressed to convince them to pay monthly for it.  If you're only giving people what they've already got, or you're only offering MMO lite gameplay (world of tanks) then the only option you have is free to play. 

    It's not a dead genre, it's a stale, old, boring one.  People will only pay you to play the same game for so long, eventually they get tired of it, and stop paying you, and that is exactly what we've been seeing happen in the genre.  People have decided to stop paying.

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by waynejr2 Well, what if travel could be tied into the game of playing the market?  Rather than a global AH, you have a lot of local markets where people can up a items to sell.  Someone could take items from one market travel a long ways away to another market to resell at a higher price. That makes it more a virtual world.   With the got to have it now crowd, you teleport everywhere making that game play meaningless.
    The root problem is travel itself isn't fun, and is extremely shallow.

    You would have to have a consistent and almost constant stream of these types of interactions for travel's shallowness to be ignorable (because in that case you'd consistently be engaging in some deep system, even if it wasn't travel itself.)  Obviously it would be more types of interactions than just a local market (and local markets aren't even all that deep or fun a system compared to some of the other alternatives.)

    As for the "got to have it now" crowd?  The alternative is a game which deliberately wastes players' time (which is what's happening with excessive travel.)  So we have the "gotta have it now" crowd and the "enjoys having their time wasted" crowd.  Which would you rather be in?  The former crowd gets to experience games just as deep (or deeper, given that they're actually interacting with game systems rather than having their time wasted) than the latter.

     



    Actually, Uncharted Waters Online has a system like this and it works pretty well.
  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,734Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Actually, Uncharted Waters Online has a system like this and it works pretty well.

     

    There's nothing wrong with open markets.  What's wrong is if there's a significant amount of non-gameplay consistently being experienced by players in the form of a lot of time spent travel which lacks any significant gameplay or game depth.

    "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

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by Foomerang Actually, Uncharted Waters Online has a system like this and it works pretty well.  
    There's nothing wrong with open markets.  What's wrong is if there's a significant amount of non-gameplay consistently being experienced by players in the form of a lot of time spent travel which lacks any significant gameplay or game depth.
    What is your definition of gameplay? Its probably different than mine.

    edit: im getting off work now, so I probably wont see your response for a while.

  • AbndnAbndn OsloPosts: 53Member

    You guys don't understand, you JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND GODAMNIT. GRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAHRRRRRRRRRRR

    All I will contribute to this is this: It is my sincere opinion that if you enjoy questing on rails, token farming, battlegrounds and dailies -- yes, that's YOU I am talking to -- YOU MORON YOU. You dull, mechanical, organized, oh-ho-fiddle-with-a-project model airplane autist assembly line freak. Did the carrot teach you nothing? You had it equipped all that time! They were mocking you, FOOL.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,734Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    What is your definition of gameplay? Its probably different than mine.

     

    edit: im getting off work now, so I probably wont see your response for a while.

    Do you consider watching your avatar's walking animation "gameplay"?

    Gameplay is when the player makes interesting decisions.  It's better gameplay if the decisions remain interesting for a long period of time.

    Travel lacks almost all gameplay because the only decision you're typically presented with is avoiding mobs.  This is an alright minigame for about the first week we all encountered it in MMORPGs (if that.)  After which, travel essentially becomes devoid of any interesting interactions -- it essentially just becomes a massive shallow timesink.  Hence my argument in favor of either (a) removing it (fast travel), or (b) improving it (giving it deeper gameplay.)  Since there are several game mechanics which require travel, option B is a possibility which should get explored more often.

    "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

  • SoulSurferSoulSurfer Denver, COPosts: 1,248Member
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by SoulSurfer
    Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

    Yeah, unfortunately for the gaming companies old gamers did not die when the decided to redesign MMO's for console and now social network players.

    Once we do everyone can live in the la la land that modern MMO's are the best ever! Pre-order your copy of the one that is going to be this months five minute wonder today!

    I just pre-purchased GW2 today, and got to play the stress test.  It's the last themepark style I will buy.  So, far it seems promising, and fun.  The genre has definently evolved... (but yeah, mmo's of yester-decade are dead)

  • SoulSurferSoulSurfer Denver, COPosts: 1,248Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by SoulSurfer
    Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

    Yeah, unfortunately for the gaming companies old gamers did not die when the decided to redesign MMO's for console and now social network players.

    Once we do everyone can live in the la la land that modern MMO's are the best ever! Pre-order your copy of the one that is going to be this months five minute wonder today!

    "Pre-order"? YOu are kidding me. MMOs are going F2P. Just click on STEAM and download.

    And you don't have to exaggerate .... good fun f2p MMOs can last a few weeks.

    In the famous words of the Star Craft Battlecruiser captain: "TAKE IT SLOW"

    =P

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Foomerang What is your definition of gameplay? Its probably different than mine.   edit: im getting off work now, so I probably wont see your response for a while.
    Do you consider watching your avatar's walking animation "gameplay"?

    Gameplay is when the player makes interesting decisions.  It's better gameplay if the decisions remain interesting for a long period of time.

    Travel lacks almost all gameplay because the only decision you're typically presented with is avoiding mobs.  This is an alright minigame for about the first week we all encountered it in MMORPGs (if that.)  After which, travel essentially becomes devoid of any interesting interactions -- it essentially just becomes a massive shallow timesink.  Hence my argument in favor of either (a) removing it (fast travel), or (b) improving it (giving it deeper gameplay.)  Since there are several game mechanics which require travel, option B is a possibility which should get explored more often.


    Travel is(was) part of the experience. Maybe you ran into a mob or two. Maybe you took in the scenery. Maybe it gave you downtime to chat. Or perhaps organize your inventory and plan out the rest of your gaming session. It was all part of the gameplay.

    Think about it this way: When you play poker with a group of people and its not your turn, are you no longer playing cards? No. You're still playing cards. You're still in the game and participating even if you're not constantly betting or drawing. Maybe you're talking to another player, or looking at your pot or planning your next move. Its part of the experience.

Sign In or Register to comment.