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!

The Price of Immersion

1234568

Comments

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by ReallyNow10
    Originally posted by mrrshann618
     

    Some of the things you mentioned become "accepted realities" in the game, and therefore can be immsersive.  If you think running through Kithicor and getting lost just before the sun went down wasn't immersive, you never played EQ1.

    The lobby gamers that want fast-spam FPS play would probably better occupy their time on those games or their forums, rather than try to push the "world" out of MMO gaming.  (Not saying you, but some of the "usual suspects" on this board).

    You just reinforced my argument: Lobbies and/or fast travel are such a feature. Nobody is pushing anything out. If there's a market there will always be a game for it. If the market is not large enough for an AAA title - tough luck. Right now, there's more market for games that try to minimize/cut what the majority perceives as "the boring bits".

    Anyone playing a lobby game, a CORPG or a game with fast travel can be, and are, just as much immersed in their game as you are in yours. Don't be so arrogant as to claim that only the games you feel immersed in are the only immersive ones. To each their own.

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

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

    I mean, it's fine if people want to restrict their choices to such a narrow sliver of titles, so long as they don't also turn around an demand a remake of that one favorite title from y2k, nothing else will do, why doesn't anyone make one.

     

    They can demand whatever they like. Devs have no obligations to listen though. It is always supply & demand, and respond to the market.

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Oh yeah? I've been immersed in text based adventures. Top that.

     

    "Immersion" has always been a pretty much a never-ending argument topic on every roleplay board I've ever seen.

    /ugh roleplayers, i no rite?

    One of the hazards of gamerslang talking points, so many vaguely, subjectively defined terms to argue about. And no one ever argued quite so well, so long or so often as roleplayers judging each other.

    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.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by lizardbones Oh yeah? I've been immersed in text based adventures. Top that.  
    "Immersion" has always been a pretty much a never-ending argument topic on every roleplay board I've ever seen.

    /ugh roleplayers, i no rite?

    One of the hazards of gamerslang talking points, so many vaguely, subjectively defined terms to argue about. And no one ever argued quite so well, so long or so often as roleplayers judging each other.




    It's better than people arguing politics or religion. :-)

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

  • DeivosDeivos Mountain View, CAPosts: 1,725Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    People aren't talking about fast travel anywhere because it doesn't exist.  It means that you can, at level 1, teleport to literally any exact coordinate in the entire game.  It's a completely ridiculous, completely excessive notion.

    Because you have no interest in truth and argue for the sake for argument, I'm going to block you.  If you had the willpower to argue forever against an indisputable dictionary proving me correct in the other discussion, then I'm certainly not going to attempt to discuss something which is true but less ironclad in its truth.

    ...

    When I clearly state that this is in fact not what I'm arguing against, how does one come to the conclusion that I'm arguing for it?

    You just accused me of saying something I did not, and blocked me for something I did not say?

    Perhaps that's better off, seeing as you're the one constantly fabricating false arguments.

     

    And whatever, People keep skipping from 'lobby styled' to just 'lobby games'.

     

    I specifically noted several things, notably two points that are being thrown back at me in argument.

    One, I stated the main aspect is they 'minimize the game world'. This is a different effect from overland map type fast travel akin to Bauldr's Gate because those types of games still retain large traversable areas as a standard part of their environments.

    Two, I stated that they could retain immersion myself. I even gave example in the manner Neverwinter and DDO use particular doors within the hub location and how Vindictus wraps all travel up with hopping on a boat.

    Three, I'm not arguing that these MMOs are straight up lobby games, nor am I arguing that they are still game 'worlds'. I am stating that they very much straddle the line in the manner their game is set up and experienced, and that it has a considerable impact on how people perceive them, and the influence it has on how common elements talked about have a strongly minimized or altered factor to them.

    Four, I didn't call Immersion 'just one feature' or any kind of feature. I have called it the implementation and consistency of any given set of features.

    Hence also my previous comment "Travel in a game doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's a game element that has to play alongside many others and is one that influences and is influenced by many others." noting that many features play off one another.

     

    This is frustrating, because every argument made has effectively either been a misinterpretation or a requote of something I said now.

     

    The only person I cared to correct was Axehilt because he mischaracterized travel, and then straight up lied to me about both what I have said and has refused to even address what my actual commentary was.

     

    The rest of this was basically informational and my stance on the present range of game mechanics. On one end we have a game world, on the other we have them cutting out the game world. There ARE MMOs with strong lobby elements that aren't Global Agenda, Neverwinter is a specific example of a game that isn't a Lobby, but carries many elements of one. It's also the style of MMO that has seen more presence in the market over the years, as it's not alone in the way it's world is built and content is condensed and minimized.

    It also shows up in older titles and open world MMOs in the form of party tools such as WoW's dungeon finder. A mechanic that can shift the gameplay rather dramatically from actually exploring the world, into standing in the middle of the city waiting for a queue to pop and your character to teleport away onto adventure. They might not have removed the game world in this case, but they have almost entirely circumvented it.

     

    This is the very notion Axehilt refuses to acknowledge, instead making up that 'teleport anywhere' argument that no one but himself was arguing for or against.

     

    As I stated in my previous post with the spectrum instead of 'travel' vs 'no travel', noting that it was an element of the games stemming from how they mechanics of the game world influenced the presence or lack of the world itself and the consequent influence on the manner the players traversed and experienced it.

    It's why I state these lobby influenced MMOs to be the polar of the spectrum of 'no fast travel' because they are even more strongly the polar of full worlds.

    I never said they couldn't bear their own forms of immersion, I actually said quite the opposite, my point existed entirely in noting how they compare, contrast, and conflict with other forms of games and where they exist in relation to one another.

    Consequently, it'd become a matter of perspective to the individual in what they prefer past that point.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners."
    - Thomas B. Macaulay

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by lizardbones

    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Oh yeah? I've been immersed in text based adventures. Top that.
    "Immersion" has always been a pretty much a never-ending argument topic on every roleplay board I've ever seen./ugh roleplayers, i no rite?One of the hazards of gamerslang talking points, so many vaguely, subjectively defined terms to argue about. And no one ever argued quite so well, so long or so often as roleplayers judging each other.
    It's better than people arguing politics or religion. :-)
    HUSH! Don't give people ideas!

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Deivos
    And whatever, People keep skipping from 'lobby styled' to just 'lobby games'. 

    That's probably because it's a common refrain on this site. "WoW is just a lobby game now", type of thing.

    There definitely was a progression in MMOs, but we at least know where the progression stops in regards to travel and lobby based games. It's Global Agenda, and I guess Neverwinter, I haven't played NW so I can't be sure. Global Agenda's 'world' is a three dimensional, third person view lobby. On one side of Global Agenda, we have actual MMORPGs, who may incorporate convenience features, but not to the extent of a lobby based game. On the other side we have lobby based games like D3 or Mechwarrior.

    The end point on the spectrum for travel from slow travel to the other end would be allowing instant travel rather than fast travel, and to allow it universally without first traveling to a location. End points could still be restricted by level, because they can be in lobby based games, and end points could still be restricted by unlocks as well, because this happens in lobby based games. The world still exists, but the areas between quest areas or main attractions has been minimized. The world could be divided into zones, and open world travel between zones restricted while still retaining the "MMORPG" title.

    The question is, is that instant travel option likely to happen in an MMORPG, and is it likely to be accepted by the MMORPG populace? In keeping with the thread's subject, are more players likely to maintain immersion with slow travel, fast travel or instant travel?

    For me, it doesn't matter that much. I've been immersed in all three. I prefer fast travel with the possibility of slow travel in an open world, but having instant travel between zones hasn't broken my feeling of immersion in a game.

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

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,936Member Uncommon
    Nothing kills immersion more than cash shops, and since most games seem to have those these days, that is basically the end of any hope for a UO/SWG style game or any game with meaningful immersion.
  • ReallyNow10ReallyNow10 Pile It High Town, LAPosts: 2,010Member Common
    Originally posted by Burntvet
    Nothing kills immersion more than cash shops, and since most games seem to have those these days, that is basically the end of any hope for a UO/SWG style game or any game with meaningful immersion.

    There will always be some immersion-killing elements (cash shops, mob respawns, etc...), but there are little things you can put in to pump up immersion at minimal hassle (auto-depleting food stored in backpacks, rest buff for hanging out at tavern, arrows for bows, etc...).

    Heck, I wonder if stabling mounts should buff their speed for a time, and if you ride your mount too much, too far, it slows down and has to be stabled again. 

    Anything that grants immersion is a trade off somewhere, and the point is to find the sweet spots of what works and what does not.  And sure, players are different, but groups of players can be calibrated for, I think.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Deivos you need to acknowledge that action combat cannot be done in large scale. Therefore instances is a natural fit for such games. Or do you think it is merely a coincidence that most action combat games are largely instanced? If minimizing the world is not trend, and I don't think it is, action combat definitely is.

    It is far more attractive than to just watching dice rolls and auto attack animations although that style has its fans too. It works in some games.

    Then again, relying on instances doesn't mean there's no world.

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

  • DeivosDeivos Mountain View, CAPosts: 1,725Member Uncommon

    Planetside begs to differ.

     

    What you just referenced is tech, the back end capability of the game. And inaccurately.

    Action can be done in large scale, but it's vastly easier to compartmentalize it. People don't need to make a better server or better game architecture if the game itself is just made smaller.

    It's not coincidence, it's developers looking for the cost effective (simplest) solution. Minimizing the game world via instances and containing the game elements is consequently a choice made because it's way less effort than implementing a better game architecture.

     

    EDIT: To explain a bit better I can reference four titles. Fury, APB, Mortal Online, and MAG.

    All four are games built on the Unreal Engine.

     

    Fury was built directly on the built in architecture of the game engine, and it made it abundantly clear that the engine was not prepared to support a server with partitions the way they were trying to use it for Fury. It caused a lot of networking issues as they wanted to process more player information than the engine was prepared to sort.

     

    APB had elements rewritten to remedy this, but their solutions were not able to overcome some of the inherent limitations of the networking layer in the game engine, so instead they used workaround in the gameplay and assets to carry less information through the server. Even then they still had to instance off the game world.

     

    Mortal Online benefited from Epic Games Titan project to develop a plugin for the engine that can enable MMO play. If you haven't followed the history of that game, it's had issues.

     

    And then there's MAG. The title where Sony gutted the networking layer and rewrote it themselves so that they could support the play of 256 concurrent players shooting one another with proper weapon physics and a bunch of random abilities/tech in the same area.

     

    Sony didn't build MAG, Planetside, and Planetside 2 in a cave, using boxes of scraps. They aren't unique masterminds containing all the secrets to making this.

    The principle upon which they exist might be out of reach for a small developer to pull off, but there are many dev groups and many publishers that can support the creation of very much the same mechanics, but simply refuse to.

     

    The claim it can't be done, is only made by those not willing to do it. It can be done, it has been done, it's simply that there are far easier solutions. Each of these solutions has a considerably impact on the design of the game world and the experience players get out of it. That goes a long way too towards influencing the perception of the games immersive factors.

     

    The other factor being, this means very much that the choice to minimize the game world is not entirely one of necessity/consequence to whether or not the game is 'action' or not. It's a compromise to avoid cost and effort. As it relates to the game world, it means the minimization of the game world isn't entirely necessary but a choice born out of simplicity. It's part of the trend in these titles as a consequence, where it doesn't have to be.

     

    Not gonna disagree with your last comment.

     

    And Lizard.

    I can only chalk this up to perspective then, as I see the minimization of the world in these titles to have a direct impact on how travel is perceived. It is effectively making every time you move into an instance into a 'teleport anywhere' scenario, except I wouldn't call it such as I find that to be a terrible characterization.

    Hence my previously mentioned alternative of 'Travel vs No Travel', and how these games exist on the opposing end of the spectrum from open world games advocating travel without expedited means (aka fast travel, warping, etc).

    The question you present now, and that Axehilt presented before, stands to assume travel characterized in a very particular way with a particular world concept.

    Perhaps playing the likes of Neverwinter, Vindictus, DDO, or another in the same category a wee bit would help you to understand my point a bit better, as these titles exist in a very different form from that of Guild Wars, WoW, Everquest etc.

    I do not aim to change your opinion on the matter if you simply disagree with the notion at this point. I can only state that this is my perception of it as I see these kinds of games being made more often now and their contrast to the other kinds of MMOs I find consequential to finding what one considers immersive or a fair balance.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners."
    - Thomas B. Macaulay

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


    The question is, is that instant travel option likely to happen in an MMORPG, and is it likely to be accepted by the MMORPG populace? In keeping with the thread's subject, are more players likely to maintain immersion with slow travel, fast travel or instant travel?

     

    It is pretty obvious that instant travel is the dominant choice. Have you ever been in a group that someone suggests we should walk to the dungeon instead of click and queue?

    Not even once.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by ReallyNow10
    Originally posted by Burntvet
    Nothing kills immersion more than cash shops, and since most games seem to have those these days, that is basically the end of any hope for a UO/SWG style game or any game with meaningful immersion.

    There will always be some immersion-killing elements (cash shops, mob respawns, etc...), but there are little things you can put in to pump up immersion at minimal hassle (auto-depleting food stored in backpacks, rest buff for hanging out at tavern, arrows for bows, etc...).

    Heck, I wonder if stabling mounts should buff their speed for a time, and if you ride your mount too much, too far, it slows down and has to be stabled again. 

    Anything that grants immersion is a trade off somewhere, and the point is to find the sweet spots of what works and what does not.  And sure, players are different, but groups of players can be calibrated for, I think.

    Arrows were taken out of WOW because it is a hassle.

    auto-deplete food? What is the point .. it may as well not be there.

    need to stable mounts? I can hear the QQing about it as a chore now. Or conversely, it may not matter if most just cilck & queue their dungeons.

    Calibration already happened. The market speaks and LFD has become a standard feature. That should tell you something.

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones The question is, is that instant travel option likely to happen in an MMORPG, and is it likely to be accepted by the MMORPG populace? In keeping with the thread's subject, are more players likely to maintain immersion with slow travel, fast travel or instant travel?  
    It is pretty obvious that instant travel is the dominant choice. Have you ever been in a group that someone suggests we should walk to the dungeon instead of click and queue?

    Not even once.




    Yes, it's certainly a popular choice, but you didn't answer the question about immersion. We can assume that developers aren't going to know if players are really immersed in the game or not, only that they keep playing. So if there is an instant travel option, does it break immersion for most players?

    I would answer, "No, not really". Traveling from city to city in WoW through portals didn't seem to be an immersion breaker, and was a welcome alternative to trying to travel via flying boats that took forever. At the same time, traveling the long way to opposing faction territory gave the trip some weight and made it seem a bit more epic. Especially since you had to fight your way through opposing faction guards most of the way.

    So I don't think any one option outshines the others in terms of immersion.

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

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Deivos
    And Lizard.I can only chalk this up to perspective then, as I see the minimization of the world in these titles to have a direct impact on how travel is perceived. It is effectively making every time you move into an instance into a 'teleport anywhere' scenario, except I wouldn't call it such as I find that to be a terrible characterization.Hence my previously mentioned alternative of 'Travel vs No Travel', and how these games exist on the opposing end of the spectrum from open world games advocating travel without expedited means (aka fast travel, warping, etc).The question you present now, and that Axehilt presented before, stands to assume travel characterized in a very particular way with a particular world concept.Perhaps playing the likes of Neverwinter, Vindictus, DDO, or another in the same category a wee bit would help you to understand my point a bit better, as these titles exist in a very different form from that of Guild Wars, WoW, Everquest etc.I do not aim to change your opinion on the matter if you simply disagree with the notion at this point. I can only state that this is my perception of it as I see these kinds of games being made more often now and their contrast to the other kinds of MMOs I find consequential to finding what one considers immersive or a fair balance.

    Is Ok. I tend to nitpick details on forums and I also tend to not do much 'historical' reading in threads. I'll start at some point in a thread and move forward, not back. It might help me if you summarized what your original point was (if you want). :-)

    I still don't see how any of this has anything to do with immersion and a game mechanic. All of the games you mentioned can be immersive for the people who play them. They could even all be immersive for a single player who plays all of them.

    The idea that a particular game feature is universally immersive or universally breaks immersion is wrong because immersion is an individual state of mind resulting from the individual's triggers.

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

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

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones The question is, is that instant travel option likely to happen in an MMORPG, and is it likely to be accepted by the MMORPG populace? In keeping with the thread's subject, are more players likely to maintain immersion with slow travel, fast travel or instant travel?  
    It is pretty obvious that instant travel is the dominant choice. Have you ever been in a group that someone suggests we should walk to the dungeon instead of click and queue?

     

    Not even once.



    Yes, it's certainly a popular choice, but you didn't answer the question about immersion. We can assume that developers aren't going to know if players are really immersed in the game or not, only that they keep playing. So if there is an instant travel option, does it break immersion for most players?

    I would answer, "No, not really". Traveling from city to city in WoW through portals didn't seem to be an immersion breaker, and was a welcome alternative to trying to travel via flying boats that took forever. At the same time, traveling the long way to opposing faction territory gave the trip some weight and made it seem a bit more epic. Especially since you had to fight your way through opposing faction guards most of the way.

    So I don't think any one option outshines the others in terms of immersion.

     

    No i didn't answer that question because i don't know the answer. The fact that LFD/instance travel is popular can mean:

    a) it *is* immersion breaking, but most don't care about immersion, or

    b) it is not immersion breaking.

    Without more information, no one knows which is which.

  • ReallyNow10ReallyNow10 Pile It High Town, LAPosts: 2,010Member Common
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones The question is, is that instant travel option likely to happen in an MMORPG, and is it likely to be accepted by the MMORPG populace? In keeping with the thread's subject, are more players likely to maintain immersion with slow travel, fast travel or instant travel?  
    It is pretty obvious that instant travel is the dominant choice. Have you ever been in a group that someone suggests we should walk to the dungeon instead of click and queue?

     

    Not even once.



    Yes, it's certainly a popular choice, but you didn't answer the question about immersion. We can assume that developers aren't going to know if players are really immersed in the game or not, only that they keep playing. So if there is an instant travel option, does it break immersion for most players?

    I would answer, "No, not really". Traveling from city to city in WoW through portals didn't seem to be an immersion breaker, and was a welcome alternative to trying to travel via flying boats that took forever. At the same time, traveling the long way to opposing faction territory gave the trip some weight and made it seem a bit more epic. Especially since you had to fight your way through opposing faction guards most of the way.

    So I don't think any one option outshines the others in terms of immersion.

     

    No i didn't answer that question because i don't know the answer. The fact that LFD/instance travel is popular can mean:

    a) it *is* immersion breaking, but most don't care about immersion, or

    b) it is not immersion breaking.

    Without more information, no one knows which is which.

    "Path of least resistance" is more popular, although not necessarily more fun or immersive.

    Example:

    Imagine a game about the Old Western Frontier in 19th century America.

    In one implementation, to go West, you have to load up the Conastoga wagon with supplies and head out there.  Over quite some time, you encounter other settlers, river pirates on the Mississippi, hostile natives further west, fur trappers, cattle drives, and finally a dusty Old West town you choose to settle down near.  Lots of effort involved in getting there and fun and immersive along the way.

    In a second implementation, to go West you step onto an insta-portal and telelport immediately to that Old West town.  You skip the challenges and efforts of heading West, but you also miss out on all the adventures in between, and any sense of accomplishment you might have gained.

    I think the reality of MMORPG design is that some times your character works.  There has to be the effort, the occasional mundane or setback in order to truly appreciate the thrill of when things start moving into fast action.  If a game is all port/pop/shoot/swing, the action becomes dull very quickly, and meaningless even.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by ReallyNow10
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones The question is, is that instant travel option likely to happen in an MMORPG, and is it likely to be accepted by the MMORPG populace? In keeping with the thread's subject, are more players likely to maintain immersion with slow travel, fast travel or instant travel?  
    It is pretty obvious that instant travel is the dominant choice. Have you ever been in a group that someone suggests we should walk to the dungeon instead of click and queue?

     

    Not even once.



    Yes, it's certainly a popular choice, but you didn't answer the question about immersion. We can assume that developers aren't going to know if players are really immersed in the game or not, only that they keep playing. So if there is an instant travel option, does it break immersion for most players?

    I would answer, "No, not really". Traveling from city to city in WoW through portals didn't seem to be an immersion breaker, and was a welcome alternative to trying to travel via flying boats that took forever. At the same time, traveling the long way to opposing faction territory gave the trip some weight and made it seem a bit more epic. Especially since you had to fight your way through opposing faction guards most of the way.

    So I don't think any one option outshines the others in terms of immersion.

     

    No i didn't answer that question because i don't know the answer. The fact that LFD/instance travel is popular can mean:

    a) it *is* immersion breaking, but most don't care about immersion, or

    b) it is not immersion breaking.

    Without more information, no one knows which is which.

    "Path of least resistance" is more popular, although not necessarily more fun or immersive.

    Example:

    Imagine a game about the Old Western Frontier in 19th century America.

    In one implementation, to go West, you have to load up the Conastoga wagon with supplies and head out there.  Over quite some time, you encounter other settlers, river pirates on the Mississippi, hostile natives further west, fur trappers, cattle drives, and finally a dusty Old West town you choose to settle down near.  Lots of effort involved in getting there and fun and immersive along the way.

    In a second implementation, to go West you step onto an insta-portal and telelport immediately to that Old West town.  You skip the challenges and efforts of heading West, but you also miss out on all the adventures in between, and any sense of accomplishment you might have gained.

    I think the reality of MMORPG design is that some times your character works.  There has to be the effort, the occasional mundane or setback in order to truly appreciate the thrill of when things start moving into fast action.  If a game is all port/pop/shoot/swing, the action becomes dull very quickly, and meaningless even.

    How do you know it is not more fun?

    "path of least resistance" means very little. If it is not fun, why would people play a game at all?

    Personally, action is much more fun than walking around doing nothing. And if you can encounter pirates and stuff, just skip to that, and forget the non-fun part.

    If people think it is less fun, or they care enough about immersion, they won't choose instant travel. I don't know about you .. i only choose the fun choice in games. Anything else seem to be a defeat of purpose.

     

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by ReallyNow10
    ...There has to be the effort, the occasional mundane or setback in order to truly appreciate the thrill of when things start moving into fast action. If a game is all port/pop/shoot/swing, the action becomes dull very quickly, and meaningless even.


    Yes, exactly.

    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

  • BoneserinoBoneserino London, ONPosts: 1,614Member Uncommon

    Completely agree! 

    There is a lot of travel in Fallen Earth even with the portals.   So if someone asks you to group you need to weigh the distances and how difficult it will be to get there.   And while travelling, you will run into resistance and most likely stop a few times to check something out or find a hidden mission.   It really makes you feel you are in a world, when you you actually have to ride or drive across and you see how large it really is.

    Its a nice break from all the killing and sometimes its good just to kick back and enjoy the scenery!

     

    FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!

  • BoneserinoBoneserino London, ONPosts: 1,614Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ReallyNow10
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones The question is, is that instant travel option likely to happen in an MMORPG, and is it likely to be accepted by the MMORPG populace? In keeping with the thread's subject, are more players likely to maintain immersion with slow travel, fast travel or instant travel?  
    It is pretty obvious that instant travel is the dominant choice. Have you ever been in a group that someone suggests we should walk to the dungeon instead of click and queue?

     

    Not even once.



    Yes, it's certainly a popular choice, but you didn't answer the question about immersion. We can assume that developers aren't going to know if players are really immersed in the game or not, only that they keep playing. So if there is an instant travel option, does it break immersion for most players?

    I would answer, "No, not really". Traveling from city to city in WoW through portals didn't seem to be an immersion breaker, and was a welcome alternative to trying to travel via flying boats that took forever. At the same time, traveling the long way to opposing faction territory gave the trip some weight and made it seem a bit more epic. Especially since you had to fight your way through opposing faction guards most of the way.

    So I don't think any one option outshines the others in terms of immersion.

     

    No i didn't answer that question because i don't know the answer. The fact that LFD/instance travel is popular can mean:

    a) it *is* immersion breaking, but most don't care about immersion, or

    b) it is not immersion breaking.

    Without more information, no one knows which is which.

    "Path of least resistance" is more popular, although not necessarily more fun or immersive.

    Example:

    Imagine a game about the Old Western Frontier in 19th century America.

    In one implementation, to go West, you have to load up the Conastoga wagon with supplies and head out there.  Over quite some time, you encounter other settlers, river pirates on the Mississippi, hostile natives further west, fur trappers, cattle drives, and finally a dusty Old West town you choose to settle down near.  Lots of effort involved in getting there and fun and immersive along the way.

    In a second implementation, to go West you step onto an insta-portal and telelport immediately to that Old West town.  You skip the challenges and efforts of heading West, but you also miss out on all the adventures in between, and any sense of accomplishment you might have gained.

    I think the reality of MMORPG design is that some times your character works.  There has to be the effort, the occasional mundane or setback in order to truly appreciate the thrill of when things start moving into fast action.  If a game is all port/pop/shoot/swing, the action becomes dull very quickly, and meaningless even.

    How do you know it is not more fun?

    "path of least resistance" means very little. If it is not fun, why would people play a game at all?

    Personally, action is much more fun than walking around doing nothing. And if you can encounter pirates and stuff, just skip to that, and forget the non-fun part.

    If people think it is less fun, or they care enough about immersion, they won't choose instant travel. I don't know about you .. i only choose the fun choice in games. Anything else seem to be a defeat of purpose.

     

    And this would explain a lot about why you constantly jump from game to game as well Nari.    You are the definition of the guy who eats the frosting off the cake and leaves the rest.

    No big deal if thats what you like but I prefer to eat all my food!

    FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Boneserino
    And this would explain a lot about why you constantly jump from game to game as well Nari. You are the definition of the guy who eats the frosting off the cake and leaves the rest.No big deal if thats what you like but I prefer to eat all my food!


    That would explain the hyper-activity too. Less frosting, Nari!.

    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

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

    And this would explain a lot about why you constantly jump from game to game as well Nari.    You are the definition of the guy who eats the frosting off the cake and leaves the rest.

    No big deal if thats what you like but I prefer to eat all my food!

    Yes, that is what i like. There is no reasoning i should not only eat the best parts. Forgive me, but i am not filling myself up with bread and detract my enjoyment from the steak.

    And yes, i like to jump from steak, to lobster, to foie gras (damn the CA ban), and so on.

  • XthosXthos Columbus, OHPosts: 2,628Member

    I think the problem is that in my opinion, a MMO is not supposed to be a 100% non-stop action thrill ride.  It is supposed to be a mix, that offers plenty of fun and thrills, but it also a world that offers side things, like housing, crafting, harvesting...Those activities are generally not a thrill ride, but they offer the world 'substance'.  Some only want the thrill ride, but I think this blurs the line of what a mmo is.

     

    People do not like definitions on what a game is, but with anything that can be hybridized, like a comedy and action movie, if you have both, it can be a action/comedy, too much of one, it is not both.  Too much single player amenities, you lose the MMO imo.

     

    Now you can not care what something is categorized as, and want it to just be fun, and that is fine, but their are different types of games for a reason, because you expect certain types of things from that type of game. 

     

    People look for different types of immersion, in different types of games, in a FPS game, you are more worried about feeling like you are part of the combat, how real things look/sound, quality of combat/graphics.  In a traditional mmo, you usually worry more aspects that are not part of the combat.

     

    The long and short of it is, immersion expectations are driven by what you want the game to be, traditional mmo, lobby mmo, fps mmo, or just a lobby/single player game of various types.

     

    I do not think trying to be everything, for everyone works, you end up with a bastardized product that ends up not doing any of it too well imo.  So you gotta aim/shoot and pick your audience, which cannot be 'everyone'.

     

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

     

    People do not like definitions on what a game is, but with anything that can be hybridized, like a comedy and action movie, if you have both, it can be a action/comedy, too much of one, it is not both.  Too much single player amenities, you lose the MMO imo.

    Now you can not care what something is categorized as, and want it to just be fun, and that is fine, but their are different types of games for a reason, because you expect certain types of things from that type of game. 

     

    The reason is for easy communication. There is no reason to shy away from hybrid just because it is more difficult to find a term for it. In fact, hybrids are more likely to have innovations, and new kind of experiences.

    Do you call Borderland a RPG, or a FPS? Like you say, i don't care. How about MOBA, a new term which did not exists couple of years back. Precisely because devs innovate and try new things, now we have those games, which add to the enjoyment to many (even not to you).

    And "you expect certain types of things from that type of game" is exactly the reason why games shouldn't follow the genre lines. New experiences should be unexpected.

    I am very glad that Destiny is not going to be called a MMO, and hopefully they will do things differently.

    And so what if "oo much single player amenities, you lose the MMO imo" ... the question, as you have pointed out, is whether the game is fun. If it is 90% Sp game, and 10% MMO (i.e. lose the MMO), so? I don't only play MMOs.

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.