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!

Fun and challenge should exist before endgame

124

Comments

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by moosecatlol

     For instance, Path of Exile has a "decent" boss at the end of each act, but the only way to make these bosses truly challenging is by gimping yourself. This is due to the fact that you can obtain absurd amounts of survivability in this game to the point where you don't even need to try, and that's bad.

    To be fair, i dont think boss fights were intended for a constant challenge in that game, you have maps and leagues or whatwasthename for that.

    In the end i think it is about grind, drops and really testing out your build, when i played it the 1hp all es build was quite strong, but you would get your face smashed by the siren and overlord due to the freeze and lightning mechanics being tied to the amount of maxhp a charater has.

    Which was nice to see.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • ManDown717ManDown717 Clarksville, TNPosts: 4Member

    Just focusing on the fun aspect, what if we pretended that RPGs could involve more than combat?

     

    For example:

    Player housing and decorating

    Pet taming, breeding, fighting

    Crafting system that requires some thought/planning

    Exploration

    City building

    Resource farming

     

    Star Wars Galaxies was possibly my favorite MMORPG of all time for the above reasons.  It released originally as a level free, skill based character progression system which never really seemed to be that balanced to me.  But the non-combat activites couldn't be beat.  And I'll always remember hanging out in the cantinas watching players play their instruments for the dancers(with their player crafted outfits and makeup) while 3-4 medics sat around and kept their energy topped off so they wouldn't have to take rest breaks...

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,761Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Banaghran

    But why do you, its not really jumping, you have put on 7 mile boots for this one, arrive at the conclusions that it would overcomplicate things and it has to be very early? Or should we really take only the bad examples into account? Like in your progressive system dead content that is completely skipped?

    As for (a) , i will let you find out on your own why i think it is actually a bad thing, and as for (b), it made me think of an era around 7-8 years ago, when soon-to-be-bankrupt managers pranced around mobile gaming companies spewing things like "a game has to entertain just for the first 15 seconds, then people will play it and be happy", so i wont comment

    Well let's rewind a bit to the part where I already said that unless the early content is botched in some way, it's fine.  Meaning it's going to be sufficiently complex and deep.  Adding complexity to that is overcomplication.

    Not even sure what you're trying to say with the latter bit.  Just sounds like a bunch of baseless flame bait.

    "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

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Well let's rewind a bit to the part where I already said that unless the early content is botched in some way, it's fine.  Meaning it's going to be sufficiently complex and deep.  Adding complexity to that is overcomplication.

    Not even sure what you're trying to say with the latter bit.  Just sounds like a bunch of baseless flame bait.

    Well, you never said that, you said "unless previous content was botched it makes more sense to add content at the end" thus i understood "addding early content makes sense only if early content was botched", then you continued to paint a picture of a game that overwhelms players with content, which was the bad example i mentioned later, vertical progression has its own bad examples, too.

    And dunno, do you really expect to talk about this at this completely theoretical level, where N features means a good game, N-1 means a botched game and N+1 means overcomplicated?

    No game can run forever, or run in its original state forever, there will always be fragmentation, may it be vertical ("fun starts at endgame") or horizontal ("there are too many skills now so we introduced a new race that has its own dimension"), you can just prolong the time it has not yet happened.

    As for the flame, it was not intended so, if someone says that he understands the game "better" just because he understands the playstyle of the top 5% or values it the most, it concerns me. And (b) was a bait from you, not me :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,761Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Well, you never said that, you said "unless previous content was botched it makes more sense to add content at the end" thus i understood "addding early content makes sense only if early content was botched", then you continued to paint a picture of a game that overwhelms players with content, which was the bad example i mentioned later, vertical progression has its own bad examples, too.

    And dunno, do you really expect to talk about this at this completely theoretical level, where N features means a good game, N-1 means a botched game and N+1 means overcomplicated?

    No game can run forever, or run in its original state forever, there will always be fragmentation, may it be vertical ("fun starts at endgame") or horizontal ("there are too many skills now so we introduced a new race that has its own dimension"), you can just prolong the time it has not yet happened.

    As for the flame, it was not intended so, if someone says that he understands the game "better" just because he understands the playstyle of the top 5% or values it the most, it concerns me. And (b) was a bait from you, not me :)

    Right, adding early content makes sense only if early content was botched (although depending on the mistakes made, you might replace it rather than simply adding to it: painting the Mona Lisa on the same wall covered in crayon doodles won't quite have the same effect.)

    The theoretical discussion happened because someone asked why endgame existed at all, and I gave the quick recap of why it happens (make a game, watch players eventually bore of it, add new content for them, realize they're now calling the new content "endgame".)  I didn't really delve too deeply into exactly how many features are too many or too few; I was content to just call either extreme "botched" and leave it at that.  I wasn't exactly delving deeply into theoretics.

    Neither (A) nor (B) were baits.  They were calm explanations that I know what I'm talking about, after you seemed to question whether I understood depth.  To understand high-level play in a deep game is to understand game depth, and to create and modify games and observe how players react to those changes further enhances that understanding.  Both traits are quite relevant.

    "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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
     

    That's exactly what I do.  I have zero interest in endgame, I play until I max my character and then the character gets shelved.  If the game is fun enough, I'll start another character.  If not, I'll drop the game until there is more pre-endgame content to do, or I'll just go play a different game.

    Yeah. Just play whatever part of the game that entertains you .. that is what an entertainment product is about.

    And there is no lack of good games to play. Personally i like end-game progression too .. but i can totally see why some only digs level progression.

    I won't do endgame becuase I refuse to engage in PvP of any kind and I absolutely hate raiding.  Not much else to do in the endgame in most MMOs.

    Not that i blame you. I don't raid anymore. Too much work & commitment. And i want to play LFR, i may as well just farm in D3. The combat is way more fun.

    But you have options. There are so many MMOs .. you can probably keep leveling till eternity.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Right, adding early content makes sense only if early content was botched (although depending on the mistakes made, you might replace it rather than simply adding to it: painting the Mona Lisa on the same wall covered in crayon doodles won't quite have the same effect.)

    The theoretical discussion happened because someone asked why endgame existed at all, and I gave the quick recap of why it happens (make a game, watch players eventually bore of it, add new content for them, realize they're now calling the new content "endgame".)  I didn't really delve too deeply into exactly how many features are too many or too few; I was content to just call either extreme "botched" and leave it at that.  I wasn't exactly delving deeply into theoretics.

    Neither (A) nor (B) were baits.  They were calm explanations that I know what I'm talking about, after you seemed to question whether I understood depth.  To understand high-level play in a deep game is to understand game depth, and to create and modify games and observe how players react to those changes further enhances that understanding.  Both traits are quite relevant.

    Well, make up your mind, you cannot say it is fine and not fine at the same time.

    If you remember, i just questioned if it is the only way, after which we got into this discussion where you claim that it is, because N+1 automaticly means overcomplicated.

    There were calm explanations of where you are coming from and what your experiences (or expertises?) are, not whether you know what you are talking about. Detail, but important. 

    Flame on!

    :)

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
     

    That's exactly what I do.  I have zero interest in endgame, I play until I max my character and then the character gets shelved.  If the game is fun enough, I'll start another character.  If not, I'll drop the game until there is more pre-endgame content to do, or I'll just go play a different game.

    Yeah. Just play whatever part of the game that entertains you .. that is what an entertainment product is about.

    And there is no lack of good games to play. Personally i like end-game progression too .. but i can totally see why some only digs level progression.

    I won't do endgame becuase I refuse to engage in PvP of any kind and I absolutely hate raiding.  Not much else to do in the endgame in most MMOs.

    Not that i blame you. I don't raid anymore. Too much work & commitment. And i want to play LFR, i may as well just farm in D3. The combat is way more fun.

    But you have options. There are so many MMOs .. you can probably keep leveling till eternity.

    It's not so much about work and commitment, it's just boring.  A whole lot of standing around doing nothing, then a short time actually fighting, then back to standing around doing nothing, with the very real risk of getting virtually nothing for your efforts.  I'd rather go grind on my own and at least get something for my efforts.

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
     

    It's not so much about work and commitment, it's just boring.  A whole lot of standing around doing nothing, then a short time actually fighting, then back to standing around doing nothing, with the very real risk of getting virtually nothing for your efforts.  I'd rather go grind on my own and at least get something for my efforts.

    LFR is not that boring .. if fighting is what you are looking for. Usually the groups move pretty fast. I don't remember sitting around doing nothing.

    But yea .. normal or guild raiding is more boring . because more planning is needed, or waiting for people to show up.

    And it is too much work & commitment. I don't want to give up all my SAT evenings just for a game. I don't want to have to "study" and "practice hard core maneuver" for hours. Not that i cannot do it, i have done it before, but that is just not fun.

     

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,761Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Well, make up your mind, you cannot say it is fine and not fine at the same time.

    If you remember, i just questioned if it is the only way, after which we got into this discussion where you claim that it is, because N+1 automaticly means overcomplicated.

    1. No clue what you're referring to, I've said the same thing the entire time.

    2. I've been describing avoiding overcomplication in much the same way someone might say, "Avoid overeating." Is your life going to end if you do it a little?  No.  It's just bad.  Unless the restaurant screwed up and didn't provide enough food, don't have a second entree.  Unless the game screwed up and didn't provide enough early gameplay, don't add complication early.

    "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

  • MagiknightMagiknight McKinleyville, CAPosts: 782Member Common
    Totally agree with OP. Most games post WoW are all about endgame. The rest of the game is just dumb.
  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    1. No clue what you're referring to, I've said the same thing the entire time.

    2. I've been describing avoiding overcomplication in much the same way someone might say, "Avoid overeating." Is your life going to end if you do it a little?  No.  It's just bad.  Unless the restaurant screwed up and didn't provide enough food, don't have a second entree.  Unless the game screwed up and didn't provide enough early gameplay, don't add complication early.

    1. Post #79

    2. No, you didnt, you argument was, if i understood it correctly, that since it MAY lead to overcomplication, it should not be done. Vertical progression MAY also lead to some unwanted side effects, yet you say it should be done. In the rest(aurant thing) you are just reiterating the whole point, again assuming there is some N and N+1 being bad.

    Anyways, enough food for whom? And who are you to tell me i cannot have a second entree instead of the main course? :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,761Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Banaghran

    1. Post #79

    2. No, you didnt, you argument was, if i understood it correctly, that since it MAY lead to overcomplication, it should not be done. Vertical progression MAY also lead to some unwanted side effects, yet you say it should be done. In the rest(aurant thing) you are just reiterating the whole point, again assuming there is some N and N+1 being bad.

    Anyways, enough food for whom? And who are you to tell me i cannot have a second entree instead of the main course?

    1. Again, what I described there is when you've eaten enough, eating is overeating.  When a game is sufficiently complicated and deep, adding features is overcomplicating.

    2. From the start I've said things like "too much complexity early on reduces your game's retention."  I've described that same idea several ways, but you still seem eager to create false assumptions on your own, and then argue with your own assumption-based cardboard stand-in of me.

    Just read what I'm actually saying, realize they're safe and accurate statements, and either discuss what I'm actually saying or let the conversation end.

    "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

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    1. Again, what I described there is when you've eaten enough, eating is overeating.  When a game is sufficiently complicated and deep, adding features is overcomplicating.

    2. From the start I've said things like "too much complexity early on reduces your game's retention."  I've described that same idea several ways, but you still seem eager to create false assumptions on your own, and then argue with your own assumption-based cardboard stand-in of me.

    Just read what I'm actually saying, realize they're safe and accurate statements, and either discuss what I'm actually saying or let the conversation end.

    1. Again, there is no quantifiable N features when a game is  "sufficiently complex and deep", where adding features always ends up in overcomplication.

    2. I never argued agains that, i argued agains the assumption of "too much", you are just assuming it would be, which is not given.

    They are safe and accurate statements as far as a judges response to "is XYZ guilty?" would be "people who steal are guilty of theft", hoping that people will understand it as "XYZ is guilty" while avoiding the responsibility.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • HrimnirHrimnir Qeynos, COPosts: 1,597Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by waffleyone

    What?! Can't somebody develop a game where it's interesting and challenging from the start? Interesting and Challenging doesn't mean 'difficult' per se, not numerically rough or 'hardcore' or permadeath, just that you need to observe and learn and act, with an actual sense of accomplishment, rather than the ever accelerating skinner boxes.

     

    They did, It was called EverQuest.

     

    Unfortunately the industry has moved away from that golden formula to appease a bunch of entitled whiner console gamers.

     

     

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • ArakaziArakazi OxfordPosts: 889Member
    Why do we need levels at all?
  • HrimnirHrimnir Qeynos, COPosts: 1,597Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Arakazi
    Why do we need levels at all?

    Because thats part and parcel of a role playing game.  Thats like asking why a fantasy novel would need swords in it.  If you take out the swords, etc, its not fantasy anymore.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • ArakaziArakazi OxfordPosts: 889Member
    Originally posted by Hrimnir
    Originally posted by Arakazi
    Why do we need levels at all?

    Because thats part and parcel of a role playing game.  Thats like asking why a fantasy novel would need swords in it.  If you take out the swords, etc, its not fantasy anymore.

    I don't buy that. Why not drop a toon in the middle of the world armed with nothing but a stick, but no limits on where he can go or what he can do given certain conditions. Areas need a better reason than "this is where you level up 30 - 40" and after that ignore the place.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,761Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Arakazi
    Why do we need levels at all?

    We don't.  They're just a convenient centralized metric for measuring progression.

    A fair amount of RPGs don't use levels at all.

    Honestly in most level-based games there's an argument to be made for level reform.  In WOW it would be something like a formula that combines player level with item level to give a relatively accurate overall sense of your progression.

    While such a formula could become an extremely accurate indicator of character potential, opponents of such a system would be correct to point out that part of the point of games which end in Level Cap with Item Progression is to make progression vague enough that players have a harder time being assholes (by being nazis about who they take with them on raids/dungeons.)  

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,761Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Banaghran

    1. Again, there is no quantifiable N features when a game is  "sufficiently complex and deep", where adding features always ends up in overcomplication.

    2. I never argued agains that, i argued agains the assumption of "too much", you are just assuming it would be, which is not given.

    In much the same way that a person saying "I've eaten enough" isn't referring to some scientifically quantifiable number of calories that they've delicately measured, saying a game is "complex enough" isn't referring to some precise quantity of complexity.

    Since you continue to discuss things I'm not even saying, I guess this is the end of this particular thread.

    "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

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    There should never be an endgame in a mmorpg! Mmorpg= never ending adventure not an 8 hr long console RPG.
    Grind to Max lvl or grind for endgame loot, you are still grinding either way. Need to open up mmorpg's and be free to do what YOU want to do when YOU want to do it.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Onomas
    There should never be an endgame in a mmorpg! Mmorpg= never ending adventure not an 8 hr long console RPG.
    Grind to Max lvl or grind for endgame loot, you are still grinding either way. Need to open up mmorpg's and be free to do what YOU want to do when YOU want to do it.


    I agree with the sentiment, but the method used to get there is generally repetition. It's very obvious with the "end game" activities, but even sandbox style games and in theme park games before maximum level, repetition is the key mechanic being used.

    Down with repetition!

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • ThomasN7ThomasN7 87.18.7.148 1, NJPosts: 6,690Member
    MMOs should be about the journey to the end. There is no meat and potatoes in any mmo today. It is about that quick fix and straight to endgame. 
    30
  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,761Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Normandy7
    MMOs should be about the journey to the end. There is no meat and potatoes in any mmo today. It is about that quick fix and straight to endgame. 

    No meat and potatoes?  What?

    Are you claiming that you've reached not just endgame, but The End of every single recent MMORPG out there?

    If I created an MMORPG with 20,000 hours worth of content, but you hit max level after 30 seconds (max level is 2), would you say that game lacks meat and potatoes too?

    "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

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    In much the same way that a person saying "I've eaten enough" isn't referring to some scientifically quantifiable number of calories that they've delicately measured, saying a game is "complex enough" isn't referring to some precise quantity of complexity.

    Since you continue to discuss things I'm not even saying, I guess this is the end of this particular thread.

    You are missing my point on purpose, again. This time to left out "overeating" ("adding content at this pont leads to overcomplication") just to be right with no real connection to the issue at hand.

    I am saying the same thing the whole time, that adding content before "endgame" does not necessarily overcomplicate things, nor that the game has to lack in that area beforehand for it to make sense, while trying to argue against your (imo) nonsensical argument that a state of optimal complexity vs depth can be reached where adding something before "endgame" always ends up in overcomplication and thus it should not be done.

    If you find you are not trying to say those things, do tell.

    Flame on!

    :)

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.