Pink - But they DID start as P&P style games because that is who they were targeting in the beginning. But yes...sadly now they are catered to the WoW/console generation. And I know some will jump in and say I am slandering and name calling, blah blah...but I am not...it's what I see has happened since 2004. HOWEVER...probably a bit more so than that, they cater to.....waaaaaaait fooooor it....the old school crowd who want to hold onto playing MMORPG's, but don't have the time for them based on their RL obligations. So of course they don't mind them being turned into fast paced single playerish RPG's and lobby games.
But also...once they were commercialized to the populace...they went the way of speed and fast rewards. It's like watching a LotR movie where everyone is on crack and the movie lasts 10 minutes and they save the world. Ho-hum and lack luster IMO.
You seem to be forgetting that most of these "inconveniences" were not really present in P&P games and were only added once the games transitioned to computers. When I played D&D or Shadowrun with pen and paper, we did not have long travel times or mob grinds. If the GM told us that we had to spend an hour of real time on traveling with no action in between and just described the scenery, we would have laughed at him.
My God. No I am not forgetting. You are taking it way too literally and in depth. I was just saying they were first made with P&P players in mind. As at the time...such players and console players were for the most part actually a seperate market. I say for the most part because out of my many friends who played P&P games...I was one of 3 that also played console games (Atari 2600 at the time).
Pink - But they DID start as P&P style games because that is who they were targeting in the beginning. But yes...sadly now they are catered to the WoW/console generation. And I know some will jump in and say I am slandering and name calling, blah blah...but I am not...it's what I see has happened since 2004. HOWEVER...probably a bit more so than that, they cater to.....waaaaaaait fooooor it....the old school crowd who want to hold onto playing MMORPG's, but don't have the time for them based on their RL obligations. So of course they don't mind them being turned into fast paced single playerish RPG's and lobby games.
But also...once they were commercialized to the populace...they went the way of speed and fast rewards. It's like watching a LotR movie where everyone is on crack and the movie lasts 10 minutes and they save the world. Ho-hum and lack luster IMO.
You seem to be forgetting that most of these "inconveniences" were not really present in P&P games and were only added once the games transitioned to computers. When I played D&D or Shadowrun with pen and paper, we did not have long travel times or mob grinds. If the GM told us that we had to spend an hour of real time on traveling with no action in between and just described the scenery, we would have laughed at him.
My God. No I am not forgetting. You are taking it way too literally and in depth. I was just saying they were first made with P&P players in mind. As at the time...such players and console players were for the most part actually a seperate market. I say for the most part because out of my many friends who played P&P games...I was one of 3 that also played console games (Atari 2600 at the time).
My point is that P&P RPGs tend to have more in common with the WoW-style games than the old school MMORPGs. The first MMORPGs tried to appeal to the P&P players and they succeeded in part but had to abandom a lot of of what made P&P so exciting in favour of time sinks.
Well if the original MMO's were targeting those P&P gamers, yet the P&P games didn't have those inconveniences, one has to wonder how effective their target marketing actually was.
Not commenting on the success of the games, just that maybe they missed their market and got a different one.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Roxtarr I remember when we just played the game. When playing Pac Man didn't go around shouting, "WTF that Red Ghost is OP" we just learned to deal with it - and got better at the game. Inconvenience comes in many flavors. I don't like mindless repetition, but I'll take inconvenient challenge any day.
Brilliant. Agreed to you and the O.P.
Games today are a joke, a bad one at that.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Imo the key is finding a middle ground. If a game is too difficult, it's going to have a small audience, because that appeals to a smaller group of people. Casual games appeal to many more players. However, if you look at the chat when recent games have launched you see a ton of complaints about the lack of challenge. TOR had a poll on its forums a bit before it launched and over half the players thought the game was too easy.
I think basically what we're seeing now is that the earlier titles were too difficult to use. From the interface, to the learning curve and harsh penalties. It turned off many players before they got to the fun parts. WoW really streamlined a lot of things and made gameplay much easier. And it struck gold. But since WoW most titles have followed suit, but continuned to make things even easier. To the point where now you rarely see a game that doesn't have arrows to every quest stage, or where you should ever die in the first 10 hours without being a bonehead. And now you have players revolting against that. Maybe it's time to find a happy medium somewhere in between.
So how can change to find that medium?
The linear quest hub approach worked great for WoW, and has been cloned by pretty much everyone. It's hard to argue that it wasn't a huge upgrade from mindless grinding of mobs for experience. But as games have continued to get easier it's to the point now where players just go through the motions. They don't care about the quest descriptions, all they care about is consuming all the quests in this hub and then walking 3 minutes up the road to the next one and doing all of those there. There is absolutely no challenge, no mystique and no feeling that you aren't doing the exact same thing as every other player. Imo quests should be challenging. They shouldn't be linear. The problem is that if your making quests your way to grind to maximum level, players will gravitate towards whatever quest is the best experience in the least amount of time. They won't do difficult quests early on. That's where I feel skills based games can excel, they remove that from the equation. But I think that level based games can also use more difficult quests and less linearity but they need to make it worth the players while.
I think death penalties could be made a bit more difficult. Not going back to the experience loss of earlier games, or perma death of some newer ones. But making it a little more troublesome would help provide more of a sense of accomplishment when something is done, and prevent as many zergs. People are less likely to charge brainlessly into death when it affects their gameplay.
I think there needs to be more of a focus on group oriented content. And I'm not just talking about GW2's events, which are a step in the right direction, but are in themselves a solo act for the most part. Real grouping and socializing should be encouraged, though not forced. Part of the fun of those early games was that you had to meet people to maximize your potential, and that led to many positive things. It's just not there now. How often do players group with people they don't know unless it's just to kill a quest mob and then disband? In GW2 your often playing with 20 other people, but how often do you even talk to each other? Auto-grouping systems, experience bonuses for grouping, shared quest rewards, are a few things that can be done here and will make a huge difference.
Instant travel is a touchy subject, because it has its place. I do feel like a travel home ability that has a long recharge and casting time is important in any game. But lately games have begun to go to extremes. In GW2 the instant teleports everywhere just help to make a very large world feel small. And if you get into open world PvP, teleportation is a real problem.
That's just a few examples. But finding a middle ground is the key imo.
Good stuff.
I wonder if there will be a time when the masses will be more accepting of not-so-easy or inconvinent features or if the only way out is if a new audience that does enjoy these grow to become the masses.
My God. No I am not forgetting. You are taking it way too literally and in depth. I was just saying they were first made with P&P players in mind. As at the time...such players and console players were for the most part actually a seperate market. I say for the most part because out of my many friends who played P&P games...I was one of 3 that also played console games (Atari 2600 at the time).
PnP RPG is not even close to CRPG, in terms of game play and the lure. In a PnP RPG, you can travel 1000 miles in a second .. and still get interesting stuff on the way. If you put really 1000 miles travel in a CRPG, at horse speed, would be super boring even with the best graphics.
I wonder if there will be a time when the masses will be more accepting of not-so-easy or inconvinent features or if the only way out is if a new audience that does enjoy these grow to become the masses.
Not-so-easy .. all the time. D3 sold 10M boxes, and Inferno mode was impossible for most, when it was released. ANd we are not even talking about hard mode.
Inconvenience .. not so much. Personally i wouldn't play a game with a lot of inconvenience in my face.
And not confuse challenging and inconvenience .. they are not the same thing. Try to get to point A to ponit B with stealth gameplay can be challenging. Walking from point A to point B for 20 min doing nothing but walking is inconvenience. I want the first in my game, and not the second.
I can't believe you cannot tell the difference between inconvience and challenging.
Let's use an example. A 20 min boat ride involves zero challenge and it is inconvenient. Do you think there is a difference? Don't you think no sane person in the world will confuse 20 min boat ride as a challenging gameplay element?
On the flip side, i doubt anyone will confuse defeating a difficult boss that 99% of the players fail .. as an inconvenience but not a challenge.
It is because you and ice operate in this unreal world where challenge is defined only by discrete focused effort spikes.
A world view we fall all into at times due to laziness and/or lack of clarity, but is false in the end, armwrestling a local hell's angel member is not more challenging than winning a local athletics competition just because the hell's angel might hurt you.
As for the examples, how about the 20minute boat ride to be a alternative to a quest chain or reputation teleport? Do i really have to retort with LFR in the boss difficulty department? Inconvenience is there to be defeated, as the OP points out, this enables interesting design decisions, a flexibility that is imo very needed in the age where we fight arm and leg about 5% differences in dps and see that as depth, dont you think?
Inconvenience .. not so much. Personally i wouldn't play a game with a lot of inconvenience in my face.
And not confuse challenging and inconvenience .. they are not the same thing. Try to get to point A to ponit B with stealth gameplay can be challenging. Walking from point A to point B for 20 min doing nothing but walking is inconvenience. I want the first in my game, and not the second.
Yet you play a game that is inconvenient to the point of being laughable, identifying, forced quest dialogue, blinking inventory icon, nvstack disappearing (in b4 "after half a year they have finally decided it is a bad idea")...
It is not so easy to determine the difference between challenging and inconvenient.
I can't believe you cannot tell the difference between inconvience and challenging.
Let's use an example. A 20 min boat ride involves zero challenge and it is inconvenient. Do you think there is a difference? Don't you think no sane person in the world will confuse 20 min boat ride as a challenging gameplay element?
On the flip side, i doubt anyone will confuse defeating a difficult boss that 99% of the players fail .. as an inconvenience but not a challenge.
It is because you and ice operate in this unreal world where challenge is defined only by discrete focused effort spikes.
A world view we fall all into at times due to laziness and/or lack of clarity, but is false in the end, armwrestling a local hell's angel member is not more challenging than winning a local athletics competition just because the hell's angel might hurt you.
As for the examples, how about the 20minute boat ride to be a alternative to a quest chain or reputation teleport? Do i really have to retort with LFR in the boss difficulty department? Inconvenience is there to be defeated, as the OP points out, this enables interesting design decisions, a flexibility that is imo very needed in the age where we fight arm and leg about 5% differences in dps and see that as depth, dont you think?
Flame on!
A 20 min boat ride is still boring, trivial, lack of challenge, and inconvenient.
Lots of hoopla with no substance. It boils down to very simple gameplay choices. Tell me, will anyone with a sane mind consider a 20 min boat ride a challenge?
No matter how you design it, a 20 min boat ride .. has very little gameplay .. at most interesting things to look at .. and very far from what a normal person will call a challenge.
5% dps? How about the difference between able to stun-lock a boss, or burn him down before he reaches you? Is that what depth is? Finding different ways to defeat your enemies.
Don't tell me you think depth is sitting on a boat for 20 min doing nothing.
Inconvenience .. not so much. Personally i wouldn't play a game with a lot of inconvenience in my face.
And not confuse challenging and inconvenience .. they are not the same thing. Try to get to point A to ponit B with stealth gameplay can be challenging. Walking from point A to point B for 20 min doing nothing but walking is inconvenience. I want the first in my game, and not the second.
Yet you play a game that is inconvenient to the point of being laughable, identifying, forced quest dialogue, blinking inventory icon, nvstack disappearing (in b4 "after half a year they have finally decided it is a bad idea")...
It is not so easy to determine the difference between challenging and inconvenient.
Flame on!
At least there is no 20 min boat ride, staring at a spell book, or walking 10 min to a dungeon.
The reason these mechanics don't exist anymore is because they failed. The market selected against them. The genre evolved. Whether you like how it evolved or not, it didn't do so in a vacuum, it did it in response to market pressure. The market, the people who pay for these games to be made, the people who pay for these games to continue, decided they didn't want those features. Therefore, those features went extinct.
Interestingly, these are the same arguments marketers of DDT and Asbestos used.
The reason these mechanics don't exist anymore is because they failed. The market selected against them. The genre evolved. Whether you like how it evolved or not, it didn't do so in a vacuum, it did it in response to market pressure. The market, the people who pay for these games to be made, the people who pay for these games to continue, decided they didn't want those features. Therefore, those features went extinct.
Interestingly, these are the same arguments marketers of DDT and Asbestos used.
Just saying
Flame on!
Yeah .. and DDT and abestos are no longer in the market and no one will pay for them, knowing they are so undesirable.
Just saying
Are you saying abesto is just like 20 min inconvenient boat ride in MMOs? I agree.
A 20 min boat ride is still boring, trivial, lack of challenge, and inconvenient.
Lots of hoopla with no substance. It boils down to very simple gameplay choices. Tell me, will anyone with a sane mind consider a 20 min boat ride a challenge?
No matter how you design it, a 20 min boat ride .. has very little gameplay .. at most interesting things to look at .. and very far from what a normal person will call a challenge.
5% dps? How about the difference between able to stun-lock a boss, or burn him down before he reaches you? Is that what depth is? Finding different ways to defeat your enemies.
Don't tell me you think depth is sitting on a boat for 20 min doing nothing.
Since when you can stunlock wow bosses?
Anyways, the boat ride itself is not challenging, avoiding it is, or , the other possibility, managing your time around 20minute boat rides since you refuse to participate in pve or some other content, OR have chosen to have a dps increase instead of "friendly with ferry faction".
Which is another argument which sounds so outlandish in the age of "how can i make my toddler eat later in the evening so i can raid?".
The reason these mechanics don't exist anymore is because they failed. The market selected against them. The genre evolved. Whether you like how it evolved or not, it didn't do so in a vacuum, it did it in response to market pressure. The market, the people who pay for these games to be made, the people who pay for these games to continue, decided they didn't want those features. Therefore, those features went extinct.
Interestingly, these are the same arguments marketers of DDT and Asbestos used.
Just saying
Flame on!
Yeah .. and DDT and abestos are no longer in the market and no one will pay for them, knowing they are so undesirable.
Just saying
Are you saying abesto is just like 20 min inconvenient boat ride in MMOs? I agree.
Which is false, there was no abandonment due to popular demand, just bans.
The market isn't in the hands of the niche gamer anymore. Its about mass appeal.
You can make one of these old school games and pull in 100k subs that stick with the game for 5 years - or you can make a WoW clone and pull in 2mil gamers that bail in 6 months. In the end, even if your clone fails, you've turned a larger profit faster and can move on to the next short term project.
Depth and challenge are neither the goal or a concern, so long as the carrot holds you from point A to point B.
Indie development is the last hope for gamers looking to revert back to the days of geeks and nerds being the target audience in my opinion, otherwise you're best off adapting or finding a way to make Baulder's Gate last the next forever years.
The market isn't in the hands of the niche gamer anymore. Its about mass appeal.
You can make one of these old school games and pull in 100k subs that stick with the game for 5 years - or you can make a WoW clone and pull in 2mil gamers that bail in 6 months. In the end, even if your clone fails, you've turned a larger profit faster and can move on to the next short term project.
Depth and challenge are neither the goal or a concern, so long as the carrot holds you from point A to point B.
Indie development is the last hope for gamers looking to revert back to the days of geeks and nerds being the target audience in my opinion, otherwise you're best off adapting or finding a way to make Baulder's Gate last the next forever years.
I'm currently playing Baulder's Gate.
Well, sure, if you just want to say "stop trying", you can make this a discussion about (late) Michael Bay vs Ingmar Bergmann, but what it really is (or should be) a discussion about James Cameron vs (late) George Lucas.
Some inconveniences like long travelling time, some kinds of grind, un-soloable dangers to get from A to B and so on foster communication between players, be it to make the grind or walking a long distance more entertaining, or because you can't do it alone.
I'll use two very different MMORPGs to illustrate my point.
Lineage II: It was a long long grind. And when you didn't have much adena to spare you had to walk. And what else to do when you're just walking than chatting with your clanmates.
The combat wasn't very fast and that made chatting while grinding rather easy. Even if you could solo, having another guy with you would make both your MP bars last longer.
Longer, but not forever. Eventually you both would have to sit down and wait to regen. I agree that it's boring to watch your character do nothing for some minutes, yet it gave you time and motivation to talk to the guy you were in a group with, or, if you were soloing, to chat with your clanmates.
I'm not a talkative person, not even online, but I made friends and some of them I met in RL afterwards.
Now I'm looking at my screenshots (I made screenshots for the smallest of things, all the time. Easily over a thousand) and there's hardly any where I'm not saying something in party or clan chat. In most of them there's me having some conversation with 1 or more people.
yeah i never played L2 a lot , but played EQ , FFXI to name 2 of the worst offenders in the "dead time" ,
in FFXI as mage i played my char 50% of the time , the other half was staring at my taru resting (so cute ) , what i did while i was resting? CHATTING like crazy , to the party(group) , guild (LS) , or by /tells
or waiting for shops to open ~~, or the airship/boat .....waiting for ppl to come to grind spot /mission w/e . looonnng dead times doing "nothing" , but that were the fun time come, ppl casting spells, dancing nude lol , joking around ect
or hell even talking to strangers that were near ....thats how u got lots of friends...
nowadays is go in your superspeed mount and dont stop for a second to talk to any1.
Some inconveniences like long travelling time, some kinds of grind, un-soloable dangers to get from A to B and so on foster communication between players, be it to make the grind or walking a long distance more entertaining, or because you can't do it alone.
I'll use two very different MMORPGs to illustrate my point.
Lineage II: It was a long long grind. And when you didn't have much adena to spare you had to walk. And what else to do when you're just walking than chatting with your clanmates.
The combat wasn't very fast and that made chatting while grinding rather easy. Even if you could solo, having another guy with you would make both your MP bars last longer.
Longer, but not forever. Eventually you both would have to sit down and wait to regen. I agree that it's boring to watch your character do nothing for some minutes, yet it gave you time and motivation to talk to the guy you were in a group with, or, if you were soloing, to chat with your clanmates.
I'm not a talkative person, not even online, but I made friends and some of them I met in RL afterwards.
Now I'm looking at my screenshots (I made screenshots for the smallest of things, all the time. Easily over a thousand) and there's hardly any where I'm not saying something in party or clan chat. In most of them there's me having some conversation with 1 or more people.
yeah i never played L2 a lot , but played EQ , FFXI to name 2 of the worst offenders in the "dead time" ,
in FFXI as mage i played my char 50% of the time , the other half was staring at my taru resting (so cute ) , what i did while i was resting? CHATTING like crazy , to the party(group) , guild (LS) , or by /tells
or waiting for shops to open ~~, or the airship/boat .....waiting for ppl to come to grind spot /mission w/e . looonnng dead times doing "nothing" , but that were the fun time come, ppl casting spells, dancing nude lol , joking around ect
or hell even talking to strangers that were near ....thats how u got lots of friends...
nowadays is go in your superspeed mount and dont stop for a second to talk to any1.
That's a problem of community moreso than games. If a game has to force you to interact with people with tedium and dead time, there is a larger issue at hand.
That's a problem of community moreso than games. If a game has to force you to interact with people with tedium and dead time, there is a larger issue at hand.
Question is, what kind of player interaction and cooperation does not fit these definitions?
My God. No I am not forgetting. You are taking it way too literally and in depth. I was just saying they were first made with P&P players in mind. As at the time...such players and console players were for the most part actually a seperate market. I say for the most part because out of my many friends who played P&P games...I was one of 3 that also played console games (Atari 2600 at the time).
This was discussed, at lenght, in a previous thread. MMOs were not made for PnP players and they do not resemble PnP games. MUDs maybe, MMORPGs definitely not. Looking for PnP-like experience from a MMORPG is futile.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Good point. If OP really thinks inconveniences are the key, he/she should try playing F2P games for free. There will be plenty of inconveniences there.
This argument is the exam same argument when people said "if you dislike instant-teleportation from polar opposite points of the world, then don't use that just walk!"... Do I even need to explain why this is retarded?
The difficulties in a world sets the pace of the game. It's the inter-connection between you, other players and the world. If your group were teleported in Castle Ravenloft in 1 second because they touched a blinking neon sign, it doesn't matter if you walk the path 10 minutes... because the actual distance to that dungeon is 1 second. That's it, that's the fact. Your friends, the community, everyone else can reach that point in one second it makes no sense for you to forcing yourself to take a longer route.
It's like saying "Run in circles around yourself for 10 minutes to make taking 3 steps in a city feels longer." Why would I want to do that?
No, it is not the same exact argument. One is optional free action with majority choosing fast-travel and the other is an optional purchase majority choosing not to buy. Lets face it, you want to play one way, and you want others to play just like you - to suffer with you. You should find more than enough buddies to tackle all the inconveniences in F2P games.
And lets refrain from using the R-word, OK? We don't want the mods censoring your cute comments.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
My God. No I am not forgetting. You are taking it way too literally and in depth. I was just saying they were first made with P&P players in mind. As at the time...such players and console players were for the most part actually a seperate market. I say for the most part because out of my many friends who played P&P games...I was one of 3 that also played console games (Atari 2600 at the time).
This was discussed, at lenght, in a previous thread. MMOs were not made for PnP players and they do not resemble PnP games. MUDs maybe, MMORPGs definitely not. Looking for PnP-like experience from a MMORPG is futile.
Yes, excuse me for not correcting my post fast enough. P&P players were also in mind, but yes...for MUDers as well, or mainly.
It is because you and ice operate in this unreal world where challenge is defined only by discrete focused effort spikes.
Do go on, I'm watching these wireframe models run around on my screen (you know, the real world).
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Comments
My God. No I am not forgetting. You are taking it way too literally and in depth. I was just saying they were first made with P&P players in mind. As at the time...such players and console players were for the most part actually a seperate market. I say for the most part because out of my many friends who played P&P games...I was one of 3 that also played console games (Atari 2600 at the time).
My point is that P&P RPGs tend to have more in common with the WoW-style games than the old school MMORPGs. The first MMORPGs tried to appeal to the P&P players and they succeeded in part but had to abandom a lot of of what made P&P so exciting in favour of time sinks.
Well if the original MMO's were targeting those P&P gamers, yet the P&P games didn't have those inconveniences, one has to wonder how effective their target marketing actually was.
Not commenting on the success of the games, just that maybe they missed their market and got a different one.
Brilliant. Agreed to you and the O.P.
Games today are a joke, a bad one at that.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Good stuff.
I wonder if there will be a time when the masses will be more accepting of not-so-easy or inconvinent features or if the only way out is if a new audience that does enjoy these grow to become the masses.
PnP RPG is not even close to CRPG, in terms of game play and the lure. In a PnP RPG, you can travel 1000 miles in a second .. and still get interesting stuff on the way. If you put really 1000 miles travel in a CRPG, at horse speed, would be super boring even with the best graphics.
Not-so-easy .. all the time. D3 sold 10M boxes, and Inferno mode was impossible for most, when it was released. ANd we are not even talking about hard mode.
Inconvenience .. not so much. Personally i wouldn't play a game with a lot of inconvenience in my face.
And not confuse challenging and inconvenience .. they are not the same thing. Try to get to point A to ponit B with stealth gameplay can be challenging. Walking from point A to point B for 20 min doing nothing but walking is inconvenience. I want the first in my game, and not the second.
It is because you and ice operate in this unreal world where challenge is defined only by discrete focused effort spikes.
A world view we fall all into at times due to laziness and/or lack of clarity, but is false in the end, armwrestling a local hell's angel member is not more challenging than winning a local athletics competition just because the hell's angel might hurt you.
As for the examples, how about the 20minute boat ride to be a alternative to a quest chain or reputation teleport? Do i really have to retort with LFR in the boss difficulty department? Inconvenience is there to be defeated, as the OP points out, this enables interesting design decisions, a flexibility that is imo very needed in the age where we fight arm and leg about 5% differences in dps and see that as depth, dont you think?
Flame on!
Yet you play a game that is inconvenient to the point of being laughable, identifying, forced quest dialogue, blinking inventory icon, nvstack disappearing (in b4 "after half a year they have finally decided it is a bad idea")...
It is not so easy to determine the difference between challenging and inconvenient.
Flame on!
A 20 min boat ride is still boring, trivial, lack of challenge, and inconvenient.
Lots of hoopla with no substance. It boils down to very simple gameplay choices. Tell me, will anyone with a sane mind consider a 20 min boat ride a challenge?
No matter how you design it, a 20 min boat ride .. has very little gameplay .. at most interesting things to look at .. and very far from what a normal person will call a challenge.
5% dps? How about the difference between able to stun-lock a boss, or burn him down before he reaches you? Is that what depth is? Finding different ways to defeat your enemies.
Don't tell me you think depth is sitting on a boat for 20 min doing nothing.
At least there is no 20 min boat ride, staring at a spell book, or walking 10 min to a dungeon.
Interestingly, these are the same arguments marketers of DDT and Asbestos used.
Just saying
Flame on!
Yeah .. and DDT and abestos are no longer in the market and no one will pay for them, knowing they are so undesirable.
Just saying
Are you saying abesto is just like 20 min inconvenient boat ride in MMOs? I agree.
Since when you can stunlock wow bosses?
Anyways, the boat ride itself is not challenging, avoiding it is, or , the other possibility, managing your time around 20minute boat rides since you refuse to participate in pve or some other content, OR have chosen to have a dps increase instead of "friendly with ferry faction".
Which is another argument which sounds so outlandish in the age of "how can i make my toddler eat later in the evening so i can raid?".
Flame on!
Which is false, there was no abandonment due to popular demand, just bans.
But good try.
Flame on!
The market isn't in the hands of the niche gamer anymore. Its about mass appeal.
You can make one of these old school games and pull in 100k subs that stick with the game for 5 years - or you can make a WoW clone and pull in 2mil gamers that bail in 6 months. In the end, even if your clone fails, you've turned a larger profit faster and can move on to the next short term project.
Depth and challenge are neither the goal or a concern, so long as the carrot holds you from point A to point B.
Indie development is the last hope for gamers looking to revert back to the days of geeks and nerds being the target audience in my opinion, otherwise you're best off adapting or finding a way to make Baulder's Gate last the next forever years.
I'm currently playing Baulder's Gate.
Well, sure, if you just want to say "stop trying", you can make this a discussion about (late) Michael Bay vs Ingmar Bergmann, but what it really is (or should be) a discussion about James Cameron vs (late) George Lucas.
Flame on!
yeah i never played L2 a lot , but played EQ , FFXI to name 2 of the worst offenders in the "dead time" ,
in FFXI as mage i played my char 50% of the time , the other half was staring at my taru resting (so cute
) , what i did while i was resting? CHATTING like crazy , to the party(group) , guild (LS) , or by /tells
or waiting for shops to open ~~, or the airship/boat .....waiting for ppl to come to grind spot /mission w/e . looonnng dead times doing "nothing" , but that were the fun time come, ppl casting spells, dancing nude lol , joking around ect
or hell even talking to strangers that were near ....thats how u got lots of friends...
nowadays is go in your superspeed mount and dont stop for a second to talk to any1.
That's a problem of community moreso than games. If a game has to force you to interact with people with tedium and dead time, there is a larger issue at hand.
Question is, what kind of player interaction and cooperation does not fit these definitions?
Flame on!
This was discussed, at lenght, in a previous thread. MMOs were not made for PnP players and they do not resemble PnP games. MUDs maybe, MMORPGs definitely not. Looking for PnP-like experience from a MMORPG is futile.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No, it is not the same exact argument. One is optional free action with majority choosing fast-travel and the other is an optional purchase majority choosing not to buy. Lets face it, you want to play one way, and you want others to play just like you - to suffer with you. You should find more than enough buddies to tackle all the inconveniences in F2P games.
And lets refrain from using the R-word, OK? We don't want the mods censoring your cute comments.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yes, excuse me for not correcting my post fast enough. P&P players were also in mind, but yes...for MUDers as well, or mainly.
Thanks,
Mike
Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.