You have to realize that there was a major shift a few years ago in the player's mindset......MMOs went from harder core games to being viewed as entertainment......They were made to entertain and please the player instead of challenge them.....The sad thing is I dont think that too many MMOs will ever go back to the days when the games were harder.....I think we are going to continue to see Rifts, wows, lotros, and swtors because that is apparently what the people want.....They want easy games that they can play casually and get handed things easily without much hassle....They want to watch as much of the game as play it, almsot like watching a TV show or movie than playing a video game.
Originally posted by Theocritus You have to realize that there was a major shift a few years ago in the player's mindset......MMOs went from harder core games to being viewed as entertainment......They were made to entertain and please the player instead of challenge them.....The sad thing is I dont think that too many MMOs will ever go back to the days when the games were harder.....I think we are going to continue to see Rifts, wows, lotros, and swtors because that is apparently what the people want.....They want easy games that they can play casually and get handed things easily without much hassle....They want to watch as much of the game as play it, almsot like watching a TV show or movie than playing a video game.
Just to add, it's not only MMOs that change. You can see this in recent single-player games as well... except Dark Souls.
personally I like to have the challenge and it drives me to come back when I die. I like the ability to take on more then one person....real people and have a chance to take them out if they slip up. Games like UO and SB make it so you can use your skill to the max and then some if you choose to. Leveling in 80% of all MMOs puts me to sleep, MOST mmos provide the same story in some form and every now and then you get a different story which is in that case becomes interesting. Theme parks jack it up every single time, wow was one of a kind and the side quest in that game was the 1st that most people have played and enjoyed. Theme parks should do away with side quest all together and focus on one story with multiple paths, they do that and people will enjoy the leveling experience a million times more. Each dungeon should just be a extension or continuation of that story per expiation, you can make it world wide or just per group encounter, how ever the dev's want to design it.
Sandboxes are easy with the leveling experience short and not so detailed but everything after should allow you to mold the world a round you to a degree. Building cities, siege cities, RPKing, nod pvp, and then the occasional (per month) live Dev GM events. Every type of person is different and for some silly reason people believe that "if you don't think like me or agree with me you are dumb" which in it self is a dumb train of thought. Some people believe in guns for what ever reason and some don't but both think the other one is dumb. Same goes for sandbox and theme park, aggressive and passive, nether is wrong and if uneducated both can be toxic toward each other, it shows on these forums daily.
Bottom line is their are different people with different mentalities when it comes to gaming on a large scale. There is a market for both, 12 years ago people were more aggressive and now since the U.S. has become weak hearted (imo) their are more passives.
Do I find insta-win boring, Yup. I do not like to grind, if every battle is a few hits and on to the next without having to rest or take a drink (in game) then it is to easy and I do not feel like I did anything. On the other hand I remember back when playing FFXI and getting to a zone just after making it to level 10. Looking at a mob and I see "easy kill" when I scan it. That mob proceeded to mop the floor with me. So that pushed me to far in the other direction I went from a zone that was able to be played solo/with a friend or two to the next zone needing a full team for "easy" kills. Again no attraction for me felt like I cannot do anything.
PvP I do not want to have to deal with all the "fear of gankers" when I simply want to relax. Most games I've been part of have not had any "significant" penalty for those gankers. On the other hand when I played WAR I freely went into the RvR zones as for most of the times there I did not have to worry about Zerg groups, rather I'd come across small warbands and we would have a lovely cat/mouse chase that was often times fun.
I'd be all for Permadeath, Yeah it would be annoying, but at the same time it would be just as annoying to those who purposefully ganked lower levels. In other words, the Wild west was not all that Wild as everyone was packing. Conversely it was a rather civil area as there was significant penalties for shooting down people in cold blood.
Then again just my thoughts, including that while I've never been a fan of PvP, I'm not against it.
Play what you Like. I like SWOTR, Have a referral to get you going! --> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <-- Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
Perhaps the question isn't as much "why are contemporary games not challenging" but rather "why do a lot of players not find their challenges rewarding?" As other posters have stated, current MMOs do offer challenging elements, usually in the form of high-level raids and the like, but do the rewards equal the investment? For some players clearly the answer is yes, the excitement of the gear grab and/or coordinating a complex raid is sufficient. I for one am not interested in those kinds of rewards so much and enjoy a game a lot more when it's centered around some sort of player world conflict, more sandbox style. Even something as limited as DAoC's RvR managed to offer a meaningful centerpiece with keep and relics and all, and realm differentiation, which made it all seem like something worth fighting for. When you were doing PvE content, it felt like it was in service of bettering the realm on some level. You were gearing up to defend Hibernia or whatever your realm was. I haven't found this meaningful center in many recent games.
Warrior tough guy foolishly enters a higher level instant dungeon all alone and gets killed within seconds. So he goes and buys a CASH pay-to-win sword and armor and re-enters without leveling up or finding a buddy to help out. Dead again. Rinse and repeat 14 times. The guy is being utterly foolish and using no skill what so ever, no strategy in the constantly spamming the same hot bar spell/attack button over and over.
There is really no way he can survive this instanced dungeon alone unless he levels up or gets help because there really is no skill involved period. But he foolishly re-enters this instance 14 times in a row.
Where is the penalty for being stupid or making a mistake??
What "insta-win"? If he dies 14 times, it is not instance win, it is a challenge. The penalty? Waste of his time.
Sounds like it work well enough for me.
Not unlike wow raids. If you don't think wiping again and again is a penalty, just ask those who rage-quit, or rant out their guildies because of wipes.
Originally posted by PsiKahn "why are contemporary games not challenging"
What are you talking about?
Diablo 3 is challenging at MP10 HC mode.
Dishonor is challenging in hard mode
WOW is challenging in hard mode raid.
....
Games should have difficulty options. It is entertainment, not GRE or PhD qualifying exams.
Did you read my post at all? You're quoting me paraphrasing a previous poster and attributing the sentiment to me, while my post presumes just the opposite.
Originally posted by PsiKahn "why are contemporary games not challenging"
What are you talking about?
Diablo 3 is challenging at MP10 HC mode.
Dishonor is challenging in hard mode
WOW is challenging in hard mode raid.
....
Games should have difficulty options. It is entertainment, not GRE or PhD qualifying exams.
Did you read my post at all? You're quoting me paraphrasing a previous poster and attributing the sentiment to me, while my post presumes just the opposite.
Yes, should have deleted your name .. i am responding to that sentiment, not your post.
...Let's not mistake "skill" for having good enough GEAR and mashing the same one or to hot bar spells/attacks over and over and over. (Which defines most mmos today)
Those aren't challenges.
Here's an example solo boss:
You have 10 DPS and 1000 hitpoints and no abilities.
The boss has 8 DPS and 1000 hitpoints, and an interruptable spell which adds an additional 10 DPS.
In this situation, failure to interrupt means you die. Therefore the timing and frequency of the spell casts directly influences how much skill is required to defeat the challenge.
You beat the boss.
That boss drops you a new sword and now you deal 20 DPS.
Now the fight lacks challenge because you beat the boss (who can only achieve 18 DPS maximum) no matter what.
In some ficticious MMORPG where you always completely outgeared every situation, sure you'd be right. The reality is that players race past fights they outgear, which catches them up to the current most-advanced players who are struggling to defeat the game's toughest challenges -- challenges which require skill.
The only fair criticism is that it'd be nice if those pre-endgame fights continued to be good skill checks with an appropriate reward (like if the boss' stats adjusted to your new 20 DPS, but now the boss drops a 22 DPS sword.) This solution isn't problem-free, because players do desire a certain feeling of mastery over a game and it's actually somewhat beneficial to let encounters become trivial, but a solution along these lines would certainly ensure the game continues to offer interesting challenges throughout all phases of progression.
But a challenge always involves skill up until the point where you completely outgear it (which, in a well-designed game, should actually be pretty damn hard; you have to be pretty far ahead of the gear curve to be able to ignore some boss mechanics entirely in WOW.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A blacksmith has to have good enough gear. He has to mash the same metal with a hammer over and over and over. If you believe that's not a skill I urge you to try it some time. No skill is difficult once you've properly learned it.
I don't think that quite addresses his point.
What he's describing is: It takes less skill to create a car with a car factory than to create one with only a forge and hammer.
Which is true, but it doesn't really address the real point because nobody's calling it a challenge to beat an encounter which is trivialized by gear.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are so wrong about him being in the minority which enjoys "gambling-based" games. You're also really pushing it by saying that managing risks = gambling, managing risks involves a great deal of experience AND skills in a lot of modern games. In managing your risks you usually need to minimize them by making the best decisions possibles with the available information.
Just look at RTS's and MOBA these days. Take LoL, SC2 and Dota for instance. These games' player bases are much larger than the current MMO scene, everywhere in the world atm. You certainly can't call it a minority. And a big part of what makes these games so exciting to play and watch ? The risks involved in the decision making processes that you go through in a game.
For instance, most every move in starcraft 2 involves a certain amount of risk which you need to manage using your experience and "skills" which makes this game so exciting to play and watch. The "reward" is usually a certain gain of points (ladder/MMR) and the obvious feeling of a victory. If you poorly manage your risks, you lose. Losing sucks. Sucks much more than having to walk 30 seconds back to your encounter without feeling any penalties whatsoever. The same applies to LoL and many other games out there. Taking risks in a game IS exciting for A LOT of people.
Those aren't the types of risk the OP is describing. In his hyperbole, there is no risk at all to those situations.
If we discuss a more reasonable, realistic definition of risk, you're right: there's risk in absolutely every decision made with limited information. Which is to say: there's risk in every single decision about everything.
But in the context of the OP, I couldn't really discuss it that way. An in the OP's context, that style of risk is similar to gambling, and is in the minority of gaming. Because in the grand scheme of All Games People Play, gambling games are a minority.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by jpnz Let me get this straight. You want to get satisfaction from playing a VIDEO GAME?
Are you suggesting you play games intentionally and never experience any bit of satisfaction whatsoever?
For most people, being satisfied is the goal of an entertainment product. There are many types of entertainment needs to be satisfied, but they're all adequately described as satisfaction in the end.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are so wrong about him being in the minority which enjoys "gambling-based" games. You're also really pushing it by saying that managing risks = gambling, managing risks involves a great deal of experience AND skills in a lot of modern games. In managing your risks you usually need to minimize them by making the best decisions possibles with the available information.
Just look at RTS's and MOBA these days. Take LoL, SC2 and Dota for instance. These games' player bases are much larger than the current MMO scene, everywhere in the world atm. You certainly can't call it a minority. And a big part of what makes these games so exciting to play and watch ? The risks involved in the decision making processes that you go through in a game.
For instance, most every move in starcraft 2 involves a certain amount of risk which you need to manage using your experience and "skills" which makes this game so exciting to play and watch. The "reward" is usually a certain gain of points (ladder/MMR) and the obvious feeling of a victory. If you poorly manage your risks, you lose. Losing sucks. Sucks much more than having to walk 30 seconds back to your encounter without feeling any penalties whatsoever. The same applies to LoL and many other games out there. Taking risks in a game IS exciting for A LOT of people.
Those aren't the types of risk the OP is describing. In his hyperbole, there is no risk at all to those situations.
If we discuss a more reasonable, realistic definition of risk, you're right: there's risk in absolutely every decision made with limited information. Which is to say: there's risk in every single decision about everything.
But in the context of the OP, I couldn't really discuss it that way. An in the OP's context, that style of risk is similar to gambling, and is in the minority of gaming. Because in the grand scheme of All Games People Play, gambling games are a minority.
Considering people can gamble on any type of game, and its generally much easier to bet on a game than play it, I would wonder if your statement might be incorrect. Certainly in vegas i would assume there are more gambling games than any other type. How many players actually play in one football, baseball, or basketball game? How many horse riders in a race? Compared to the number of people who bet on those games, even if they are a minority, its not one worth mentioning in my opinion.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Those aren't the types of risk the OP is describing. In his hyperbole, there is no risk at all to those situations.
If we discuss a more reasonable, realistic definition of risk, you're right: there's risk in absolutely every decision made with limited information. Which is to say: there's risk in every single decision about everything.
But in the context of the OP, I couldn't really discuss it that way. An in the OP's context, that style of risk is similar to gambling, and is in the minority of gaming. Because in the grand scheme of All Games People Play, gambling games are a minority.
What I'm essentially saying is....
The risk in doing a certain quest in your average MMO vs the risk of going for a certain build without scouting in starcraft differ immensely. In starcraft, both the probability and the consequence of certain risks are to take into consideration and are a huge part of what makes this type of game exciting. For instance, we could say that a build X has a probability of .6 of failure and that the consequences of that risk occuring (build failing) would set you back 4 minutes behind your opponent. If the risk does not occur, you win. (totally made that up but it applies to A LOT of games that millions of people enjoy). This is highly exciting to a lot people and I feel that it's hugely lacking in MMOs these days.
If you look at MMOs... both the risk and the consequence of any action you take in your average MMO really is negligible to a point where any decisions you make really bears little to no consequence. And it seems to be a lot of what people what these days...
We hear a bunch of "I come back from work tired, I don't want to make complex decisions which could make me frustrated. I simply want to be entertained in a 15 minute time frame". This drives game design to the like of what we're seeing these days. Personally, when I want this kind of entertainment, I watch T.V. shows. I sit back, shut 50% of my brain off and enjoy. I'm expecting a different kind of entertainement from my games, which is why I do not play MMO anymore. They used to include many, many more elements of "risk vs reward" which have slowly disappeared over the years.
I'm not trying to turn this into a vocabulary debate or even prove/disprove OP's point, but this is what feels wrong to me in recent MMO.
Originally posted by zymurgeist Who's talking about crafting? AC may be slightly more complicated but the skills are the same. It's all just mashing buttons in sequences and timing. It's no more difficult than typing.
So in your world, all mmo games are identical, almost the same. They all are just mashing buttons and timing.
And no mmo gameplay is any more difficult then typing?!?!????
Which leaves me but one question...
Have you played ANY game that was launched BEFORE World of Warcraft?? And further if you haven't, Have you played any mmo besides World of Warcraft or a "World of Warcraft CLONE"??
Because if you have ever played Dark Age of Camelot, Eve Online, Asheron's Call, or Ultima Online before about 2001 then I don't think you'd ever make those statements.
Considering people can gamble on any type of game, and its generally much easier to bet on a game than play it, I would wonder if your statement might be incorrect. Certainly in vegas i would assume there are more gambling games than any other type. How many players actually play in one football, baseball, or basketball game? How many horse riders in a race? Compared to the number of people who bet on those games, even if they are a minority, its not one worth mentioning in my opinion.
I suppose it might come close, if you consider betting on a game to be a game about betting. If it's a game, it's right at the very boundary of what could be considered a game.
The vegas comment is a bit useless though, as we could also point out that among Hearts of Iron 3 players, 100% of them are interested in a mega-hardcore ultra-detailed simulation of WW2 -- but we can't exactly use that to draw useful conclusions about all players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The risk in doing a certain quest in your average MMO vs the risk of going for a certain build without scouting in starcraft differ immensely. In starcraft, both the probability and the consequence of certain risks are to take into consideration and are a huge part of what makes this type of game exciting. For instance, we could say that a build X has a probability of .6 of failure and that the consequences of that risk occuring (build failing) would set you back 4 minutes behind your opponent. If the risk does not occur, you win. (totally made that up but it applies to A LOT of games that millions of people enjoy). This is highly exciting to a lot people and I feel that it's hugely lacking in MMOs these days.
If you look at MMOs... both the risk and the consequence of any action you take in your average MMO really is negligible to a point where any decisions you make really bears little to no consequence. And it seems to be a lot of what people what these days...
We hear a bunch of "I come back from work tired, I don't want to make complex decisions which could make me frustrated. I simply want to be entertained in a 15 minute time frame". This drives game design to the like of what we're seeing these days. Personally, when I want this kind of entertainment, I watch T.V. shows. I sit back, shut 50% of my brain off and enjoy. I'm expecting a different kind of entertainement from my games, which is why I do not play MMO anymore. They used to include many, many more elements of "risk vs reward" which have slowly disappeared over the years.
I'm not trying to turn this into a vocabulary debate or even prove/disprove OP's point, but this is what feels wrong to me in recent MMO.
Well the decision to run through that teammate to reach the open area of the boss' room -- risking a pain field targeting and striking both of you during the movement -- is an example of one of many ways risk is involved in decisions in MMORPG combat.
I mean the combat systems (when well-designed) are overwhelmingly deterministic, so random factors have little influence over performance, but that's overwhelmingly a good thing because winning or losing randomly isn't particularly satisfying.
I was at a friend's house tonight (who happens to be a fellow designer) and we chatted briefly about Kongai, a card game by David Sirlin which is a pretty slick simulation of the underlying rock-paper-scissors beneath a fighting game. And while it's actually a pretty fun little game, it was a great example of how RPS does work with human opponents but doesn't against bots. Against bots you're basically just taking shots in the dark forever. Against humans, the first move is a shot in the dark but subsequent moves gradually reveal patterns in their thinking, which you can capitalize on.
The point being that while your examples of risky gambits in PVP situations work great, in PVE situations they end up just being random and uncompelling.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well the decision to run through that teammate to reach the open area of the boss' room -- risking a pain field targeting and striking both of you during the movement -- is an example of one of many ways risk is involved in decisions in MMORPG combat.
I mean the combat systems (when well-designed) are overwhelmingly deterministic, so random factors have little influence over performance, but that's overwhelmingly a good thing because winning or losing randomly isn't particularly satisfying.
I was at a friend's house tonight (who happens to be a fellow designer) and we chatted briefly about Kongai, a card game by David Sirlin which is a pretty slick simulation of the underlying rock-paper-scissors beneath a fighting game. And while it's actually a pretty fun little game, it was a great example of how RPS does work with human opponents but doesn't against bots. Against bots you're basically just taking shots in the dark forever. Against humans, the first move is a shot in the dark but subsequent moves gradually reveal patterns in their thinking, which you can capitalize on.
The point being that while your examples of risky gambits in PVP situations work great, in PVE situations they end up just being random and uncompelling.
Fully agreed with the PvP vs PvE part of your post.
Although, I couldn't say as much with boss fights from the last time I played WoW for instance. It was essentially learn the dungeon by watching some video or read some tutorial then apply what you learned step by step.Very little decisions had to be made and the biggest risk was that someone fucked up in your group or you forgot one of the pre-learned steps. That's the nature of the beast though, can't really complain about it. The big challenge was fitting the raid in my schedul, from my experience.
But as you said, this is essentially what PvE is in games like WoW. Can't complain about that tbh, it's a respectable model liked by quite a mass. Just not for me and many others.
If you look at MMOs... both the risk and the consequence of any action you take in your average MMO really is negligible to a point where any decisions you make really bears little to no consequence. And it seems to be a lot of what people what these days...
We hear a bunch of "I come back from work tired, I don't want to make complex decisions which could make me frustrated. I simply want to be entertained in a 15 minute time frame". This drives game design to the like of what we're seeing these days. Personally, when I want this kind of entertainment, I watch T.V. shows. I sit back, shut 50% of my brain off and enjoy.
When you look at how prolific reality TV has become, you can begin to see the parallel. In both modern MMOs and today's television shows, it's a combination of entertainment and a feeling of having accomplished something without really doing anything.
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
Originally posted by daltanious Want something really exciting? Stop playing, role for army and go to some conflict zone. That i guess will be very exciting.
Hmmm, does my question REALLY make you so angry as to suggest that if I want excitement I should go risk my real life in combat and risk DEATH?
Or perhaps you are simply using that for effect to make your point.
Either way, we have to realize that YES going to combat in the Army and battling enemies in a real life war would be much more exciting then simply pushing a button or two to shoot blasts of water at a mechanically moving air-filled balloon creature at a fair or carnival. When we kill the enemy as a soldier in the army and have survived, our heart has raced and we have beaten an intelligent human opponent in combat. When you hit that mechanically operated balloon creature three times with water blasts using your two buttons you slap down with one hand while you scratch your butt with the other, he deflates and leaves you with 1,158 shiny gold pieces, a helmet of reinforced guarding and strength +1 to help you mash those buttons down harder and an even more powerful button that shoots more water out for your next ultra exciting air filled target!
Originally posted by Axehilt The win isn't automatic -- you need to be skilled to beat a challenge. The win isn't instant -- you need to be skilled for a duration
Really? You need to be SKILLED huh?
...Let's not mistake "skill" for having good enough GEAR and mashing the same one or to hot bar spells/attacks over and over and over. (Which defines most mmos today)
- Zaxx
How is this different from how MMORPGs have always been? Overcoming a horrible UI isn't skill. Having patience isn't skill either. MMORPGs have never taken skill. They take varying degrees of patience depending on which one you're playing.
Really depends how you define "skill".
MMOs generally include a lot of 'knowledge' skills. How to acquire x, how to spec for y, where to collect z gear. Building a character to win in pvp (or pve) is a knowledge skill, so is learning the abilities of your opponents and other classes, loads of min-maxing. Generating income in mmos is an undervalued skill (and my favorite mini-game), aimed at avoiding "grinding" but still generating substantial game wealth.
And of course, there are reflex skills. How to apply what you know. And yes, overcoming horrible UIs.
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.
I agree completely with the OP on basically every point he makes, most MMO's (it is not even worth adding the RPG to them) these days are just instant gratification, shallow games. People only care about their gear and getting to max level quickly.
I do fear that a lot of people do not completely grasp the concept of what the OP is trying to explain here. There are also a lot of people that do not know how it would be like to play a game described by the OP. All they can think of is fear of gankers and griefers, I am not fond of gankers and griefers either, but back in the day in those games PK's where actually hunted down and the players themself basically acted as a police against PK's.
All of these games that we think so fondly of had one thing in common, and that was they all had an amazing sense of community, something which is severely lacking in games these days. A lot of players these days are just out doing their own thing, when they see other players they actually find it annoying or at the very least they just ignore them. Back in the day when I was traveling to a different town or out in the wildernis and I saw another player, we would actually just stop with what we were doing and just have a talk with each other. This was also the way to make friends in these games, after talking we might decide to travel together as there is safety in numbers, we might decide to gather some ingredients together or we might just say our goodbye's.
There was also the fear of PK's ofcourse, and you would from time to time meet them and even get killed. But because there was also a great risk involved for the PK's they were not as common as in games these days. Don't any of you think the reason that griefers and gankers in games these days are so plentiful is because there is no risk involved for being a griefer? These people would think twice to kill a random person if their action had actual consequences and risks involved. The biggest risk a griefer in WoW has is that the guy he killed logs onto his main and takes revenge, which would only mean 1 little corpse run and hearthstone afterwards anyway.
Before people make comments on how PvP would not work because of griefers or gankers or whatever they should try and think in what kind of game they are picturing this. Because in a game like UO there was a great risk involved in being a PK.
To me, this has also nothing to do with time constraints, people say when I come home from work I just want to have fun for 20-30 minutes. If you want to play a game for 20-30 minutes go play Call of Duty or something, if you want to play an RPG (For the people who forgot the meaning of this: Role Playing Game) you should be prepared to invest more time into it. I am not talking 6-8 hours a day but you should be able to go for at least 2 hours each gaming session. Which to me, as a guy with a lot of responsibilities, work and in a dedicated relationship seems nothing less then fair.
People who are against this should really think about it for once, instead of comparing it to the games they are used too. If you could immerse yourself in a world like back in the day, it would actually give you a very satisfying experience.
Comments
Just to add, it's not only MMOs that change. You can see this in recent single-player games as well... except Dark Souls.
personally I like to have the challenge and it drives me to come back when I die. I like the ability to take on more then one person....real people and have a chance to take them out if they slip up. Games like UO and SB make it so you can use your skill to the max and then some if you choose to. Leveling in 80% of all MMOs puts me to sleep, MOST mmos provide the same story in some form and every now and then you get a different story which is in that case becomes interesting. Theme parks jack it up every single time, wow was one of a kind and the side quest in that game was the 1st that most people have played and enjoyed. Theme parks should do away with side quest all together and focus on one story with multiple paths, they do that and people will enjoy the leveling experience a million times more. Each dungeon should just be a extension or continuation of that story per expiation, you can make it world wide or just per group encounter, how ever the dev's want to design it.
Sandboxes are easy with the leveling experience short and not so detailed but everything after should allow you to mold the world a round you to a degree. Building cities, siege cities, RPKing, nod pvp, and then the occasional (per month) live Dev GM events. Every type of person is different and for some silly reason people believe that "if you don't think like me or agree with me you are dumb" which in it self is a dumb train of thought. Some people believe in guns for what ever reason and some don't but both think the other one is dumb. Same goes for sandbox and theme park, aggressive and passive, nether is wrong and if uneducated both can be toxic toward each other, it shows on these forums daily.
Bottom line is their are different people with different mentalities when it comes to gaming on a large scale. There is a market for both, 12 years ago people were more aggressive and now since the U.S. has become weak hearted (imo) their are more passives.
Average-casual-little-time-to-play gamer here
Do I find insta-win boring, Yup. I do not like to grind, if every battle is a few hits and on to the next without having to rest or take a drink (in game) then it is to easy and I do not feel like I did anything. On the other hand I remember back when playing FFXI and getting to a zone just after making it to level 10. Looking at a mob and I see "easy kill" when I scan it. That mob proceeded to mop the floor with me. So that pushed me to far in the other direction I went from a zone that was able to be played solo/with a friend or two to the next zone needing a full team for "easy" kills. Again no attraction for me felt like I cannot do anything.
PvP I do not want to have to deal with all the "fear of gankers" when I simply want to relax. Most games I've been part of have not had any "significant" penalty for those gankers. On the other hand when I played WAR I freely went into the RvR zones as for most of the times there I did not have to worry about Zerg groups, rather I'd come across small warbands and we would have a lovely cat/mouse chase that was often times fun.
I'd be all for Permadeath, Yeah it would be annoying, but at the same time it would be just as annoying to those who purposefully ganked lower levels. In other words, the Wild west was not all that Wild as everyone was packing. Conversely it was a rather civil area as there was significant penalties for shooting down people in cold blood.
Then again just my thoughts, including that while I've never been a fan of PvP, I'm not against it.
--> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <--
Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
What "insta-win"? If he dies 14 times, it is not instance win, it is a challenge. The penalty? Waste of his time.
Sounds like it work well enough for me.
Not unlike wow raids. If you don't think wiping again and again is a penalty, just ask those who rage-quit, or rant out their guildies because of wipes.
What are you talking about?
Diablo 3 is challenging at MP10 HC mode.
Dishonor is challenging in hard mode
WOW is challenging in hard mode raid.
....
Games should have difficulty options. It is entertainment, not GRE or PhD qualifying exams.
Did you read my post at all? You're quoting me paraphrasing a previous poster and attributing the sentiment to me, while my post presumes just the opposite.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Yes, should have deleted your name .. i am responding to that sentiment, not your post.
Those aren't challenges.
Here's an example solo boss:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think that quite addresses his point.
What he's describing is: It takes less skill to create a car with a car factory than to create one with only a forge and hammer.
Which is true, but it doesn't really address the real point because nobody's calling it a challenge to beat an encounter which is trivialized by gear.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Those aren't the types of risk the OP is describing. In his hyperbole, there is no risk at all to those situations.
If we discuss a more reasonable, realistic definition of risk, you're right: there's risk in absolutely every decision made with limited information. Which is to say: there's risk in every single decision about everything.
But in the context of the OP, I couldn't really discuss it that way. An in the OP's context, that style of risk is similar to gambling, and is in the minority of gaming. Because in the grand scheme of All Games People Play, gambling games are a minority.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Are you suggesting you play games intentionally and never experience any bit of satisfaction whatsoever?
For most people, being satisfied is the goal of an entertainment product. There are many types of entertainment needs to be satisfied, but they're all adequately described as satisfaction in the end.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Considering people can gamble on any type of game, and its generally much easier to bet on a game than play it, I would wonder if your statement might be incorrect. Certainly in vegas i would assume there are more gambling games than any other type. How many players actually play in one football, baseball, or basketball game? How many horse riders in a race? Compared to the number of people who bet on those games, even if they are a minority, its not one worth mentioning in my opinion.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
What I'm essentially saying is....
The risk in doing a certain quest in your average MMO vs the risk of going for a certain build without scouting in starcraft differ immensely. In starcraft, both the probability and the consequence of certain risks are to take into consideration and are a huge part of what makes this type of game exciting. For instance, we could say that a build X has a probability of .6 of failure and that the consequences of that risk occuring (build failing) would set you back 4 minutes behind your opponent. If the risk does not occur, you win. (totally made that up but it applies to A LOT of games that millions of people enjoy). This is highly exciting to a lot people and I feel that it's hugely lacking in MMOs these days.
If you look at MMOs... both the risk and the consequence of any action you take in your average MMO really is negligible to a point where any decisions you make really bears little to no consequence. And it seems to be a lot of what people what these days...
We hear a bunch of "I come back from work tired, I don't want to make complex decisions which could make me frustrated. I simply want to be entertained in a 15 minute time frame". This drives game design to the like of what we're seeing these days. Personally, when I want this kind of entertainment, I watch T.V. shows. I sit back, shut 50% of my brain off and enjoy. I'm expecting a different kind of entertainement from my games, which is why I do not play MMO anymore. They used to include many, many more elements of "risk vs reward" which have slowly disappeared over the years.
I'm not trying to turn this into a vocabulary debate or even prove/disprove OP's point, but this is what feels wrong to me in recent MMO.
So in your world, all mmo games are identical, almost the same. They all are just mashing buttons and timing.
And no mmo gameplay is any more difficult then typing?!?!????
Which leaves me but one question...
Have you played ANY game that was launched BEFORE World of Warcraft?? And further if you haven't, Have you played any mmo besides World of Warcraft or a "World of Warcraft CLONE"??
Because if you have ever played Dark Age of Camelot, Eve Online, Asheron's Call, or Ultima Online before about 2001 then I don't think you'd ever make those statements.
- Zaxx
I suppose it might come close, if you consider betting on a game to be a game about betting. If it's a game, it's right at the very boundary of what could be considered a game.
The vegas comment is a bit useless though, as we could also point out that among Hearts of Iron 3 players, 100% of them are interested in a mega-hardcore ultra-detailed simulation of WW2 -- but we can't exactly use that to draw useful conclusions about all players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well the decision to run through that teammate to reach the open area of the boss' room -- risking a pain field targeting and striking both of you during the movement -- is an example of one of many ways risk is involved in decisions in MMORPG combat.
I mean the combat systems (when well-designed) are overwhelmingly deterministic, so random factors have little influence over performance, but that's overwhelmingly a good thing because winning or losing randomly isn't particularly satisfying.
I was at a friend's house tonight (who happens to be a fellow designer) and we chatted briefly about Kongai, a card game by David Sirlin which is a pretty slick simulation of the underlying rock-paper-scissors beneath a fighting game. And while it's actually a pretty fun little game, it was a great example of how RPS does work with human opponents but doesn't against bots. Against bots you're basically just taking shots in the dark forever. Against humans, the first move is a shot in the dark but subsequent moves gradually reveal patterns in their thinking, which you can capitalize on.
The point being that while your examples of risky gambits in PVP situations work great, in PVE situations they end up just being random and uncompelling.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Fully agreed with the PvP vs PvE part of your post.
Although, I couldn't say as much with boss fights from the last time I played WoW for instance. It was essentially learn the dungeon by watching some video or read some tutorial then apply what you learned step by step.Very little decisions had to be made and the biggest risk was that someone fucked up in your group or you forgot one of the pre-learned steps. That's the nature of the beast though, can't really complain about it. The big challenge was fitting the raid in my schedul, from my experience.
But as you said, this is essentially what PvE is in games like WoW. Can't complain about that tbh, it's a respectable model liked by quite a mass. Just not for me and many others.
I find satisfaction PLAYING not RUNNING back to corpse or WAITING hour to be able to play again.
Want something really exciting? Stop playing, role for army and go to some conflict zone. That i guess will be very exciting.
When you look at how prolific reality TV has become, you can begin to see the parallel. In both modern MMOs and today's television shows, it's a combination of entertainment and a feeling of having accomplished something without really doing anything.
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
Hmmm, does my question REALLY make you so angry as to suggest that if I want excitement I should go risk my real life in combat and risk DEATH?
Or perhaps you are simply using that for effect to make your point.
Either way, we have to realize that YES going to combat in the Army and battling enemies in a real life war would be much more exciting then simply pushing a button or two to shoot blasts of water at a mechanically moving air-filled balloon creature at a fair or carnival. When we kill the enemy as a soldier in the army and have survived, our heart has raced and we have beaten an intelligent human opponent in combat. When you hit that mechanically operated balloon creature three times with water blasts using your two buttons you slap down with one hand while you scratch your butt with the other, he deflates and leaves you with 1,158 shiny gold pieces, a helmet of reinforced guarding and strength +1 to help you mash those buttons down harder and an even more powerful button that shoots more water out for your next ultra exciting air filled target!
- Zaxx
Really depends how you define "skill".
MMOs generally include a lot of 'knowledge' skills. How to acquire x, how to spec for y, where to collect z gear. Building a character to win in pvp (or pve) is a knowledge skill, so is learning the abilities of your opponents and other classes, loads of min-maxing. Generating income in mmos is an undervalued skill (and my favorite mini-game), aimed at avoiding "grinding" but still generating substantial game wealth.
And of course, there are reflex skills. How to apply what you know. And yes, overcoming horrible UIs.
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.
I agree completely with the OP on basically every point he makes, most MMO's (it is not even worth adding the RPG to them) these days are just instant gratification, shallow games. People only care about their gear and getting to max level quickly.
I do fear that a lot of people do not completely grasp the concept of what the OP is trying to explain here. There are also a lot of people that do not know how it would be like to play a game described by the OP. All they can think of is fear of gankers and griefers, I am not fond of gankers and griefers either, but back in the day in those games PK's where actually hunted down and the players themself basically acted as a police against PK's.
All of these games that we think so fondly of had one thing in common, and that was they all had an amazing sense of community, something which is severely lacking in games these days. A lot of players these days are just out doing their own thing, when they see other players they actually find it annoying or at the very least they just ignore them. Back in the day when I was traveling to a different town or out in the wildernis and I saw another player, we would actually just stop with what we were doing and just have a talk with each other. This was also the way to make friends in these games, after talking we might decide to travel together as there is safety in numbers, we might decide to gather some ingredients together or we might just say our goodbye's.
There was also the fear of PK's ofcourse, and you would from time to time meet them and even get killed. But because there was also a great risk involved for the PK's they were not as common as in games these days. Don't any of you think the reason that griefers and gankers in games these days are so plentiful is because there is no risk involved for being a griefer? These people would think twice to kill a random person if their action had actual consequences and risks involved. The biggest risk a griefer in WoW has is that the guy he killed logs onto his main and takes revenge, which would only mean 1 little corpse run and hearthstone afterwards anyway.
Before people make comments on how PvP would not work because of griefers or gankers or whatever they should try and think in what kind of game they are picturing this. Because in a game like UO there was a great risk involved in being a PK.
To me, this has also nothing to do with time constraints, people say when I come home from work I just want to have fun for 20-30 minutes. If you want to play a game for 20-30 minutes go play Call of Duty or something, if you want to play an RPG (For the people who forgot the meaning of this: Role Playing Game) you should be prepared to invest more time into it. I am not talking 6-8 hours a day but you should be able to go for at least 2 hours each gaming session. Which to me, as a guy with a lot of responsibilities, work and in a dedicated relationship seems nothing less then fair.
People who are against this should really think about it for once, instead of comparing it to the games they are used too. If you could immerse yourself in a world like back in the day, it would actually give you a very satisfying experience.