It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar In general I agree Travel doesn't have to be that way, however it currently is. Until travel becomes intersting I'll take instant travel every time.
Which is why Oberan's original comment (that gamers are "lazy" for not wanting to engage in the shallowest game mechanic in MMORPGs) was so ridiculous.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by nomatics856 These "solo" mmorpgs today are failing hard, and are nothing more but online action games than any thing else, a company needs to try something different by focusing more on grouping and less on soloing, not getting rid of soloing all together, but maybe go the EQ route were there are more benefits to grouping than soloing. mmorpgs today if you solo, you get more exp per mobs, no fighting over loot, a faster way to level, if you group up, there is a exp shared pentaty, fighting over loot, etc etc. I dont like how mmorpgs are going these days, in SWTOR I can take on 6-7 mobs and kill almost everything in one to two hits, and really its not even SWTOR fault, its how most mmorpgs are today, how is that fun? This is how these "mmorpgs" of today are becoming boring. Trying to balance soloing and grouping in one game is proving too difficult for these companys today. One side will cry nerf, one side will cry buff. Generally the solo crowd wins and the mobs become easier. What we need is a mmorpg whos focus is on grouping seeing as its an "RPG" and "Online". Did companys seem to forget that RPGS were almost always about partying even in single player rpgs. So what we need is a mmorpg that focuses on grouping but gives soloing options, like a couple classes that excel at soloing, like EQ did with the beastlord and necromancer.
The answer is very simple....there are more "casual gamers" than there are "hardcore gamers". I use "casual" and "hardcore" only for lack of a better word.
There are more folks that enjoy some kind of gaming experience as entertainment that have too much "life stuff" that make them gravitate to casual games that they can easily pick up & put down, and get a feeling of acomplishment with very short 30 minute play cycles than there are gamers that have the luxury of being able to dedicate themselves to one singluar game for a long period of time.
There are way more gamers out there that can fit a quick 15 minute Plants vs Zombies session, or a 30 minute WOW Battleground in their busy lives than there are folks that have the time to look for group members, organize a party, move everyone out to location....have someone drop out mid way through...wait for a replacement, and then finish the event.
This isn't a knock on grouping in MMORPGs.....quite frankly, I agree with your analysis completely. The issue is that MMORPG gaming has become so profit driven (given it's success in the last decade) that developers & publishers are gearing games to appeal to the mass (and fickle) audience than to smaller niche groups of dedicated players.
The reason a new Ultima Online hasn't been re-created isn't because it was a bad game. It's because the number of gamers that would be down for a game that demanded 1-4 hours of time 4-5 days a week to make a fair amount of progress can't pay for the HUGE costs associated with delivering a super polished AAA MMORPG.
Originally posted by Axehilt Until you name multiple mainstream MMORPGs where travel isn't a shallow experience, you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. In AO, UO, DAOC, Vanguard, Shadowbane, WOW, RIFT, ToR, AC1, and AC2, travel involves no gameplay beyond avoiding monsters and spamming whatever movespeed advantages your characters have. This is not gameplay depth by any stretch of the imagination.
Why should i name some mmos that fit YOUR claim, that i dont even disagree with?
It was you who disagreed with my suggestion that the depth of any mechanic is dependent on the implementation (meaning "travel and exploration CAN be a part of gameplay like combat and dungeon running, but obviously not everyone EXPECTS it to be a part of the gameplay"), citing some fabled typical mainstream mmo where players work in concert with each other in combat as opposed to the reality of the majority of playerbase unfortunately hitting mostly memorized or random keys just to get loot, oblivious to their surroundings, playing your "deep gameplay" like everyone is playing "travelling".
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by VengeSunsoar It isn't though. Not to me. Travel is boring, it's non gameplay. Nothing exciting every happens there is no challenge, no depth, nothing interesting. It is just waiting. To me it's rediculout that to do something as dull as travel. In chess we often do limit the time for the other perons actions. The cutscenes in most games I find interesting for a short while, then it just gets annoying. Spacebar through all that stuff because it is again just waiting. If travel had things happening, dynamic events, unexpected events, something engaging than it would be part of the game. As it is, it is not, it is waiting to get back to the game. Whether it's lobby or an MMO doesn't matter to me. I want interesting gameplay, challenge, decisions puzzles. None of that happens in travel. Travel on a jetski, horse, flight is fun the first time. Not the 700th - again nothing interesting is happening.
It isn't though. Not to me. Travel is exciting. It's a break from gameplay. Lots of exciting things can be stumbled upon, easter eggs, a great placement of scenery, the sun hitting the enviorment the right way. Its just thrilling. To me it's rediculout that to do something as monotonous as the same gameplay over and over without breaking it up with actually stopping to look at the world created for you is crazy.
In an example that does not apply, I am going to try to prove my point. As it is, it is not.
Whether it's lobby or an MMO doesnt matter to me. I want a game thats going to provide a great many different types of things to do...and that includes things that players that are not like me will enjoy. Because I am not every gamer...and I know not everyone likes what I like.
So in the end, im going to contradict myself and ask to limit my gameplay because apparently the thing I am arguing against is the only thing that becomes uninteresting the 700th time doing it.
Again no real issues with that. The first time for me it was exciting. But I've seen that sunrise hundreds of times now, I've seen that tree, that easter egg, that landscape, that environment hundreds of times now. It is no longer interesting.
I also would like many different things to do. Which is why I would like interesting travel, however it isn't there. It is the same travel over and over and over... again. It is not a different thing to do. Even EQ, going through kitchikor at night was interesting the first few times - not the 27th...
However maybe someday in the future, there will be enough varied events that travel will be interesting.
If the travel to point X is uninteresting the 700th time, how is it that whatever you are traveling to point X to do is not ?
Using repetition as the measuring stick for whether or not something is uninteresting compared to the rest of a game doesn't work when what you are comparing it to is just repetition of another sort.
When all has been said and done, more will have been said than done.
Let me try to predict this thread. Ten pages of popular opinion with every reason imaginable other than 'base human instinct'. I'm right, you're wrong, no, I'M right, YOU'RE wrong. Black and white, black and white.
Why even present a reason to these people? I can see no point in doing so. I could give a well-founded argument but in terms of argument it would simply fall to 'I'm right, you're wrong' with some reason or another.
The simplest thing that can be said is that pre-industrial worlds are not believable in which people don't band together. You could solo in Everquest, but who did? The lone wolf. The masses grouped together. Sheep stick to their flock, cows stay to their herd. Once you violate this basic rule your world suffers. World of Warcraft was the Great Dupe, an amazing game that broke the rules. It succeeded because it was a new idea and very well-made game. All of its followers failed; it itself failed in subsequent expansions.
History would seem to show that it is much easier to make great games with group mechanics than solo mechanics. I would go back and play Shadowbane again, even though it was an Indie RPG by today's standards, because of the grouping; the same with Vanguard, the same with Everquest 2, the same with Everquest, the same with Final Fantasy XI. History has reflected poorly on single player RPGs, mostly as hack 'n' slash games, because the mechanics don't support much else. How do you make good RPG combat without a group dynamic? You don't, generally. Hence why Wizardry 1 was more popular than Ultima 1, why Dragon Slayer, Dragon Quest, and Hydlide were the only single player JRPGs, why even in the action RPG era many games (Secret of Mana, Eye of the Beholder) had groups. Games like Daggerfall, Diablo and World of Warcraft stand out for obvious reasons, the last two because of their atmosphere more than anything else. World of Warcraft might even have had a more beautiful world than Everquest.
In terms of game design and virtual worlds, forced grouping wins in both areas. It makes for better combat and for greater realism. Of course I am just arguing for my own sake. I know about Wife-And-Career and No-Time-For-Games. I like to explore Phobos Moon Base late at night with a vintage Roland sound scape pumping through my large room where I live on independent means, just finishing Phobos Anomaly right as dawn comes up. Classic EQ, Classic FF XI, Classic EQ2 are connesuiers' games. I'd be a fool to think otherwise. But if you're talking about games that can captivate an intelligent adult and make games worth playing as a lifestyle in their own right, rather than just one of many ways that the masses choose to spend their hurried lives, I would stand by my taste.
I'm going to lay down the stright up truth. Most people do NOT like forced grouping, I like to group up but if a game does not require it the whole time chances are I won't group up unless I have to. If you can solo stuff why spend the time to gather a group right?
My fave game is still FFXI because to get levels at a decently quick level you have to group up. I loved that game because parties would last 3 or so hours at the least, not just some 30 minute zerg through a dungeon. Obviously there are enough people playing FFXI to keep it from closing or going F2P, so why isn't there a company making more games like it.. Oh thats right everyone is trying to be the next WoW.
FFXIV should have just been an upgraded XI forced grouping and all, I would have been playing it still. Devs need to quit trying to be the next WoW and make a good forced grouping and or quality sandbox game. While they might not make milions upon billions but if they do it right they will make a game that is enjoyable for the few and still make money.
FFXIV didn't fail because it was forced grouping, it failed because people thought it was gonna be like XI but better and it was nothing like XI. I really hope a realm reborn will be a step in the right direction, because I don't see my self playing anything else besides Neverwinter until ArcheAge comes out.