Where do you read that i want to change open world MMORPGs?
Of course i play the many games available for me .. i never hid that .. i play D3, PoE, STO, Dead Space 3 ......
And it is fair game to express my opinion of which games i find fun, just like the other guy. This thread is about the trend i have seen, not a plead to change things.
Gaming is pretty fun to me. Why should i want to change things? There are more games than i have time for anyway.
Hmm well this quote from your first post surely implies to me that you think they should change "MMO devs certainly should feel pressured by some of these non-MMOs where the playstyle can be quite similar to MMOs. It is a time to adapt and change."
This is a general statement about the adapting to survive in the marketplace. That is different from "I *want* them to change due to personal preference".
Don't you think devs should adapt to the market place, given the competition, no matter what you personal preference is?
No actually I don't, otherwise we will all end up with less choice, kinda like having nothing but Targets and Wal-Marts to shop at instead of specialized shops that give us those unique items that large chains don't see a "market" for. Just because the masses want something doesn't mean we all do nor should we. Just think of some of the inventions we've seen in our own lifetimes because some"one" decided the status quo wasn't quite cutting if for them? Maybe we should all go back to the days of walking... going faster, farther, and with less effort due to someone being dissatified with what the masses did, what a concept eh?
Status Quo and what the market wants ae two different issues. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not.
I would counter with your walking example and say many many were not satisfied with the status quo and so when something new came along they were intrigued enough to look anyway.
Any company that does not follow their market and change with their market will die, without exception. That doesn't mean that the companies all have to follow the herd remainor remain status quo... it does mean that once they identify their market, whichever market it is, if that market changes and they don't the company will die.
The whole problem with this whole argument is who exactly decides that the "market" has changed? Does the whole market get a say or is it strictly the bean counters that say that since some are willing to swallow hook, line and sinker anything new the rest will follow and damn the rest? Or will there be some who are willing to stand their ground and say heh, we have a loyal following that do not want to rush to endgame but want to live in our virtual world and help us develop new activities and lore as we move forward together and those players provide more than enough profit for us?
There is only one objective measure of what the market wants and that is sales. Thats it. The number of sales of a particular product is the determination of what the market wants.
And I said the company needs to determine what their market wants. In the case of MMO's a particular company's market may not be all gamers, or wow players. Eve's market is probably different than WoW's market, although there is overlap. But the rule applies if your market changes and you don't your company will go under.
Sooo, if the company is still selling their product to the same people for the same amount and noone is leaving dissatisfied, then I would argue it's not the market leading the change.
Again, the premise of this argument is that the market is dissatisfied... where's the proof other than people are curious enough to check out a new game/product, heck i may even try hundreds of new products every year but I always end up going back to the ones that have earned my loyalty. I would venture a guess that's why WoW still has such a following, even with their misteps they are still better than most of what's out there.
When I read game forums there are always the same ones screaming for change, those ones are never satisfied, but the majority seem to be posts wishing for what had been before their product had been changed for the still unsatisfied screamers that have since moved on to scream about some other product that also doesn't satisfy them, and they never will.
If a company is still selling their product to the same people for the same amoutn and no one is leaving dissatisifed then it is not a case of the market is leading the change it is a case of the company's market has not changed.
The proof of a market changing is again sales. When two products are offered that fill the same need and one has sales go up, the other has sales go down, that is evidence that the market for that particular need/product is choosing one product over the other. If all of a sudden you find that people are no longer buying your product, that is evidence that the market you were catering to before has changed in some way.
If you try hundreds of products a year but always go back, then you haven't changed. When you do change products on a more permanent basis then you've changed and the old products if they want to retain you will have to change in some way as well.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If a company is still selling their product to the same people for the same amoutn and no one is leaving dissatisifed then it is not a case of the market is leading the change it is a case of the company's market has not changed.
The proof of a market changing is again sales. When two products are offered that fill the same need and one has sales go up, the other has sales go down, that is evidence that the market for that particular need/product is choosing one product over the other. If all of a sudden you find that people are no longer buying your product, that is evidence that the market you were catering to before has changed in some way.
If you try hundreds of products a year but always go back, then you haven't changed. When you do change products on a more permanent basis then you've changed and the old products if they want to retain you will have to change in some way as well.
My underline, exactly what I've been saying. So if the market hasn't changed, then why should the company change the product unless they decide they want to try and increase their profit margin, knowing full well that it is a risk and they may well lose the loyal customers they have with no guarantee of getting let alone retaining any new customers. Iows, the premise of this whole thread, that products have to change is flawed imo.
If a company is still selling their product to the same people for the same amoutn and no one is leaving dissatisifed then it is not a case of the market is leading the change it is a case of the company's market has not changed.
The proof of a market changing is again sales. When two products are offered that fill the same need and one has sales go up, the other has sales go down, that is evidence that the market for that particular need/product is choosing one product over the other. If all of a sudden you find that people are no longer buying your product, that is evidence that the market you were catering to before has changed in some way.
If you try hundreds of products a year but always go back, then you haven't changed. When you do change products on a more permanent basis then you've changed and the old products if they want to retain you will have to change in some way as well.
My underline, exactly what I've been saying. So if the market hasn't changed, then why should the company change the product unless they decide they want to try and increase their profit margin, knowing full well that it is a risk and they may well lose the loyal customers they have with no guarantee of getting let alone retaining any new customers. Iows, the premise of this whole thread, that products have to change is flawed imo.
You are right for the first part, wrong for the 2nd. If their market hasn't changed then the company does not need to change.
However just because their particular market hasn't changed doesn't mean the greater market hasn't changed.
The overall MMO market has changed. Any company wanting to target the greatest percentage of MMO gamers in that market will need to change.
Eve's market may not change, but eve isn't targeting the larger market. It is targeting sandbox, sci-fi space games.
Last time, then I have to go, if your market changes, then yes you need to change your product to meet the market. The overall MMO market has changed, a game wanting to make a product for that greater MMO market does need to offer the things that they like. The MMO market has a whole is different than it was 10 years ago. A company that offers the same game as was available 10 years will not capture that greater marekt, they will only capture a small segment, which may be fine if that is market they are shooting for.
Once the number of sales a game has start to drop that is a sign that they are not offereing something that their particular market wants.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
hence the emphasis on flashy cutscenes, voice over and in game graphics, even if it makes the game on the rails and instanced to fuck. this is the current trend in big budget games in general though, not just mmos. Us old farts used to PLAY games, the modern trend is to EXPERIENCE games and have a story told at you.
Well the true old farts -- the ones who played games before MMORPGs -- knew what gameplay was and yes we did play games. That's partly why many of us rejected early MMORPGs, because they involved massive timesinks and minimal gameplay compared to normal games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
MMO devs certainly should feel pressured by some of these non-MMOs where the playstyle can be quite similar to MMOs. It is a time to adapt and change.
Time to adapt and change simply because the world has moved on. EVERYTHING is done in 30-second to 15-minute sessions. Facebook, Twitter, Texting, every aspect of our lives has been reduced to much smaller and much faster segments of information, entertainment and business.
The only use I ever found for social media is shorting their stock. Facebook made me a few thousand dollars.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
MMO devs certainly should feel pressured by some of these non-MMOs where the playstyle can be quite similar to MMOs. It is a time to adapt and change.
Time to adapt and change simply because the world has moved on. EVERYTHING is done in 30-second to 15-minute sessions. Facebook, Twitter, Texting, every aspect of our lives has been reduced to much smaller and much faster segments of information, entertainment and business.
But at the end of the day, is it really better?
For most people, yes. That's how they live their life so gameplay like that fits more comfortably into their schedule.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
MMO devs certainly should feel pressured by some of these non-MMOs where the playstyle can be quite similar to MMOs. It is a time to adapt and change.
Time to adapt and change simply because the world has moved on. EVERYTHING is done in 30-second to 15-minute sessions. Facebook, Twitter, Texting, every aspect of our lives has been reduced to much smaller and much faster segments of information, entertainment and business.
The only use I ever found for social media is shorting their stock. Facebook made me a few thousand dollars.
That's nice.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Wait why is everyone saying neverwinter will be lobby based like DDO was? It clearly has some content designed in traditional sense where it is 'persistent'.
While I personally prefer an immersive experience and long hours of play, this kind of thing is definitely where the companies and etc should be heading. I say so due to my own conclusion that they are incapable of making a deep game, so instead they should make casual games, which are great for those without time or focus. Not everyone can wrap themselves up in fantasy afterall, be it lack of ability, interest or other more worldly constraints.
If a butterfly learnt to speak, to live in human society, paid its bills, had a job, lived in a fancy house and married a human, is it human?
Now what if that same butterfly knew how to write code better than any human and had years of experience in the game industry, would that make it a game designer?
If u wouldn't let a construction worker design your house, then why let a programmer design your world?
Originally posted by Merilirem While I personally prefer an immersive experience and long hours of play, this kind of thing is definitely where the companies and etc should be heading. I say so due to my own conclusion that they are incapable of making a deep game, so instead they should make casual games, which are great for those without time or focus. Not everyone can wrap themselves up in fantasy afterall, be it lack of ability, interest or other more worldly constraints.
I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants. They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games. How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want? Just because you don't happen to be one of those gamers, that's not their fault or their problem. It just means you're irrelevant.
As such, the gaming populace is growing older and has an increasing amount of responsibilities. I am in that boat.
At best, I have a couple of hours a night to enjoy whatever game I would like to play. On the weekends, I can have a little more time. Between friends and other tasks, gaming has to take a back seat.
Despite this, I play few single player games (dishonored being the last). Right now, I only play GW2.
Here soon I will leave MMO's and play Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns. Maybe some TESO.
Originally posted by Cephus404 Originally posted by VengeSunsoarI don't see why we can't have short gaming sessions.There is no reason why a game can't last years, but have whatever content broken up into smaller sections.Dungeon runs that take hours to complete but can be broken up into many sections. Quests are the same. I can't see any downsides to having a short session be part of a longer experience.
Yup, just like a SP game, have checkpoints within dungeons. You should be able to reach checkpoints in 5-10 minutes so that if you only have a little while to play, you get to a checkpoint, your game is saved and you can log off. If you log off before reaching a checkpoint, you go back to the last checkpoint you reached.
That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Originally posted by VengeSunsoarI don't see why we can't have short gaming sessions.There is no reason why a game can't last years, but have whatever content broken up into smaller sections.Dungeon runs that take hours to complete but can be broken up into many sections. Quests are the same. I can't see any downsides to having a short session be part of a longer experience.
Yup, just like a SP game, have checkpoints within dungeons. You should be able to reach checkpoints in 5-10 minutes so that if you only have a little while to play, you get to a checkpoint, your game is saved and you can log off. If you log off before reaching a checkpoint, you go back to the last checkpoint you reached.
That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.
Why not. I think it's just fine. A dungeon with multiple levels. When you finish a level you can leave and do something else, then come back and start at that level again. It would work just fine.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by pacov Wait why is everyone saying neverwinter will be lobby based like DDO was? It clearly has some content designed in traditional sense where it is 'persistent'.
I don't see why someone couldn't make a game that had more in depth, longer game play experiences and the demographic for those experiences would then play that game provided they did a good job.
I don't see what depth has to do with the option of short game sessions.
Break up a dungeon of 4 bosses into 4 independent part do NOT change the depth of the combat experience with each of them. Think about a dungeon with 4 boss that takes you 2 hours to go through. What if now there is a save point after each boss, so you can kill one, go have dinner, and come back for the next one.
There is no change in terms of depth, challenge, except it is more convenient.
In fact, play-time has nothing to do with challenge. A 5 min encounter with an elite or ubder boss on MP10 in D3 (which can be played in 15 min) is more challenging than 3 hours dungeon runs.
well 5 minutes is a bit short, but say 30 mins, i kinda agree with you here.
It is a matter of degree. 5 min a bit short for a gaming session but it is about the time (or even shorter) or kill an elite in D3. I am just using that as an example.
The point is that there is no reason a dungeon cannot be broken up into smaller chunks (15 min? 30 min?) .. i think we are on the same page.
Originally posted by Merilirem While I personally prefer an immersive experience and long hours of play, this kind of thing is definitely where the companies and etc should be heading. I say so due to my own conclusion that they are incapable of making a deep game, so instead they should make casual games, which are great for those without time or focus. Not everyone can wrap themselves up in fantasy afterall, be it lack of ability, interest or other more worldly constraints.
I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants. They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games. How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want? Just because you don't happen to be one of those gamers, that's not their fault or their problem. It just means you're irrelevant.
This ^^^
And how is "long hours of play" relevant to whether a game is deep? Both D3 and WOW have theorycrafters spending tons of time working out the mechanics, and optimizing it .. how is that not deep? And making combat deep has nothing to do with long hours of play.
You can break up acquiring the right gear, and testing builds in MANY short play sessions.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoarI don't see why we can't have short gaming sessions.There is no reason why a game can't last years, but have whatever content broken up into smaller sections.Dungeon runs that take hours to complete but can be broken up into many sections. Quests are the same. I can't see any downsides to having a short session be part of a longer experience.
Yup, just like a SP game, have checkpoints within dungeons. You should be able to reach checkpoints in 5-10 minutes so that if you only have a little while to play, you get to a checkpoint, your game is saved and you can log off. If you log off before reaching a checkpoint, you go back to the last checkpoint you reached.
That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.
Why not? It works perfectly fine in SP games and since most MMOs are soloable, why shouldn't it work equally well in an MMO? Please note, we're not talking what you *WANT* to work, but what actually will work.
I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants. They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games. How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want? Just because you don't happen to be one of those gamers, that's not their fault or their problem. It just means you're irrelevant.
Actually that segment of the gaming population does want deep games. But first and foremost they want accessible games.
High-accessibility, low-depth: Lots of casual players, but they leave quickly because the game doesn't last long.
High-accessibility, high-depth: Optimal game design; attracts a ton of players and they stay for a long time. (Except for a few hardcore niche players who immediately label the game casual due to its accessibility and walk away without exploring its true depth.)
The concepts of accessibility and depth aren't entirely in tension with one another
I'm amused by the notion of a time-traveling MMORPG player being present for the latest revision of what we now know as chess and saying, "Only 16 piece types!? Clearly dumbed down for the masses!"
"Simple to learn, a lifetime to master" has been and still is the goal of good game design. Optimizing your depth-to-complexity ratio, basically. The lion's share of the most successful games on the market adhere quite closely to this rule.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants. They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games. How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want? Just because you don't happen to be one of those gamers, that's not their fault or their problem. It just means you're irrelevant.
Actually that segment of the gaming population does want deep games. But first and foremost they want accessible games.
High-accessibility, low-depth: Lots of casual players, but they leave quickly because the game doesn't last long.
High-accessibility, high-depth: Optimal game design; attracts a ton of players and they stay for a long time. (Except for a few hardcore niche players who immediately label the game casual due to its accessibility and walk away without exploring its true depth.)
The concepts of accessibility and depth aren't entirely in tension with one another
I'm amused by the notion of a time-traveling MMORPG player being present for the latest revision of what we now know as chess and saying, "Only 16 piece types!? Clearly dumbed down for the masses!"
"Simple to learn, a lifetime to master" has been and still is the goal of good game design. Optimizing your depth-to-complexity ratio, basically. The lion's share of the most successful games on the market adhere quite closely to this rule.
Where did you get the idea that MMO players want deep games? The industry is based on racing to end game as fast as possible, where can you get depth out of that? Just because *YOU* want that doesn't mean that the majority of MMO players do.
That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.
Any reason at all?
I say savepoints are fine for MMO dungeons.
I recently saw that in Sword Girls and thought it would be a nice feature for an MMO. It would change the way dungeon content is made.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Where did you get the idea that MMO players want deep games? The industry is based on racing to end game as fast as possible, where can you get depth out of that? Just because *YOU* want that doesn't mean that the majority of MMO players do.
A. MMO tic-tac-toe hasn't taken off
B. Even the simplest MMORPG is incredibly deep compared to other genres of games.
The #1 way players enjoy games is pattern mastery (learning to be skilled at something.) Game depth then becomes the measure of how long a game can hope to entertain someone before they feel like they've exhausted all the patterns a game has to offer. This is also how long the player will continue playing the game (which is important, because we're discussing subscription-based games.)
So yeah MMO players want deep, accessible games. The most successful games have always been deep, accessible games. Every smash hit from go to chess to poker to TF2 to LoL to WOW has been a deep, accessible game.
Put another way:
Marketing gets players to try your game.
Accessibility avoids dumping them back out to the street (because they perceive the game as being too complex.)
Depth keeps them playing (because the game still has a lot of patterns left to master; a lot of things left to try.)
So if you want to claim that you can score high first-month numbers without depth, you're totally right. But if you want a truly successful game you need depth to keep players around.
(This isn't absolutely true of every genre, but we're talking about MMORPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Where did you get the idea that MMO players want deep games? The industry is based on racing to end game as fast as possible, where can you get depth out of that? Just because *YOU* want that doesn't mean that the majority of MMO players do.
A. MMO tic-tac-toe hasn't taken off
B. Even the simplest MMORPG is incredibly deep compared to other genres of games.
The #1 way players enjoy games is pattern mastery (learning to be skilled at something.) Game depth then becomes the measure of how long a game can hope to entertain someone before they feel like they've exhausted all the patterns a game has to offer. This is also how long the player will continue playing the game (which is important, because we're discussing subscription-based games.)
So yeah MMO players want deep, accessible games. The most successful games have always been deep, accessible games. Every smash hit from go to chess to poker to TF2 to LoL to WOW has been a deep, accessible game.
Put another way:
Marketing gets players to try your game.
Accessibility avoids dumping them back out to the street (because they perceive the game as being too complex.)
Depth keeps them playing (because the game still has a lot of patterns left to master; a lot of things left to try.)
So if you want to claim that you can score high first-month numbers without depth, you're totally right. But if you want a truly successful game you need depth to keep players around.
(This isn't absolutely true of every genre, but we're talking about MMORPGs.)
It depends on what depth means.
If you are talking about combat system & progression system depth .. there is plenty. If a player needs a tool to optimize, and people on forums are asking for gear & tactics advice day in and day out, then the game has combat depth.
I am not sure people want all kind of depth though. For example, i doubt many people want to play cartographer, and needs to map out terrain themselves.
Comments
If a company is still selling their product to the same people for the same amoutn and no one is leaving dissatisifed then it is not a case of the market is leading the change it is a case of the company's market has not changed.
The proof of a market changing is again sales. When two products are offered that fill the same need and one has sales go up, the other has sales go down, that is evidence that the market for that particular need/product is choosing one product over the other. If all of a sudden you find that people are no longer buying your product, that is evidence that the market you were catering to before has changed in some way.
If you try hundreds of products a year but always go back, then you haven't changed. When you do change products on a more permanent basis then you've changed and the old products if they want to retain you will have to change in some way as well.
My underline, exactly what I've been saying. So if the market hasn't changed, then why should the company change the product unless they decide they want to try and increase their profit margin, knowing full well that it is a risk and they may well lose the loyal customers they have with no guarantee of getting let alone retaining any new customers. Iows, the premise of this whole thread, that products have to change is flawed imo.
You are right for the first part, wrong for the 2nd. If their market hasn't changed then the company does not need to change.
However just because their particular market hasn't changed doesn't mean the greater market hasn't changed.
The overall MMO market has changed. Any company wanting to target the greatest percentage of MMO gamers in that market will need to change.
Eve's market may not change, but eve isn't targeting the larger market. It is targeting sandbox, sci-fi space games.
Last time, then I have to go, if your market changes, then yes you need to change your product to meet the market. The overall MMO market has changed, a game wanting to make a product for that greater MMO market does need to offer the things that they like. The MMO market has a whole is different than it was 10 years ago. A company that offers the same game as was available 10 years will not capture that greater marekt, they will only capture a small segment, which may be fine if that is market they are shooting for.
Once the number of sales a game has start to drop that is a sign that they are not offereing something that their particular market wants.
Well the true old farts -- the ones who played games before MMORPGs -- knew what gameplay was and yes we did play games. That's partly why many of us rejected early MMORPGs, because they involved massive timesinks and minimal gameplay compared to normal games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only use I ever found for social media is shorting their stock. Facebook made me a few thousand dollars.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
For most people, yes. That's how they live their life so gameplay like that fits more comfortably into their schedule.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's nice.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
If a butterfly learnt to speak, to live in human society, paid its bills, had a job, lived in a fancy house and married a human, is it human?
Now what if that same butterfly knew how to write code better than any human and had years of experience in the game industry, would that make it a game designer?
If u wouldn't let a construction worker design your house, then why let a programmer design your world?
I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants. They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games. How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want? Just because you don't happen to be one of those gamers, that's not their fault or their problem. It just means you're irrelevant.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Once a gamer, always a gamer.
As such, the gaming populace is growing older and has an increasing amount of responsibilities. I am in that boat.
At best, I have a couple of hours a night to enjoy whatever game I would like to play. On the weekends, I can have a little more time. Between friends and other tasks, gaming has to take a back seat.
Despite this, I play few single player games (dishonored being the last). Right now, I only play GW2.
Here soon I will leave MMO's and play Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns. Maybe some TESO.
That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Why not. I think it's just fine. A dungeon with multiple levels. When you finish a level you can leave and do something else, then come back and start at that level again. It would work just fine.
Only "some" content. That is why.
Any reason at all?
I say savepoints are fine for MMO dungeons.
It is a matter of degree. 5 min a bit short for a gaming session but it is about the time (or even shorter) or kill an elite in D3. I am just using that as an example.
The point is that there is no reason a dungeon cannot be broken up into smaller chunks (15 min? 30 min?) .. i think we are on the same page.
This ^^^
And how is "long hours of play" relevant to whether a game is deep? Both D3 and WOW have theorycrafters spending tons of time working out the mechanics, and optimizing it .. how is that not deep? And making combat deep has nothing to do with long hours of play.
You can break up acquiring the right gear, and testing builds in MANY short play sessions.
Why not? It works perfectly fine in SP games and since most MMOs are soloable, why shouldn't it work equally well in an MMO? Please note, we're not talking what you *WANT* to work, but what actually will work.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Actually that segment of the gaming population does want deep games. But first and foremost they want accessible games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Where did you get the idea that MMO players want deep games? The industry is based on racing to end game as fast as possible, where can you get depth out of that? Just because *YOU* want that doesn't mean that the majority of MMO players do.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I recently saw that in Sword Girls and thought it would be a nice feature for an MMO. It would change the way dungeon content is made.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
A. MMO tic-tac-toe hasn't taken off
B. Even the simplest MMORPG is incredibly deep compared to other genres of games.
The #1 way players enjoy games is pattern mastery (learning to be skilled at something.) Game depth then becomes the measure of how long a game can hope to entertain someone before they feel like they've exhausted all the patterns a game has to offer. This is also how long the player will continue playing the game (which is important, because we're discussing subscription-based games.)
So yeah MMO players want deep, accessible games. The most successful games have always been deep, accessible games. Every smash hit from go to chess to poker to TF2 to LoL to WOW has been a deep, accessible game.
Put another way:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It depends on what depth means.
If you are talking about combat system & progression system depth .. there is plenty. If a player needs a tool to optimize, and people on forums are asking for gear & tactics advice day in and day out, then the game has combat depth.
I am not sure people want all kind of depth though. For example, i doubt many people want to play cartographer, and needs to map out terrain themselves.
Just because it caters to the masses does not mean it is good, it means it is profitable.
My gaming blog
Just because something caters to the masses and is profitable doesn't mean it is bad.
McDonalds also has salads, water, juice, milk...