Enough people either enjoy enough or find the end result rewarding enough that use based progression still has a large following. Most of those people don't focus on single individual examples, so whether or not that particular example is "fun" or not is largely irrelevent as long as the system as a whole is enjoyable to them. Anyone who expects any system to be perfect and fun all of the time are setting themselves up for disappointment. The key for devs is to figure out their target audience and make sure that they are pleasing that audience; targeting a smaller audience means that the audiunce is more likely to agree on key issues and thus it will be easier (and probably cheaper) to satisfy it. Those who dont agree simply dont play and arent really much of an issue. On the other hand, a larger audience brings in more immediate money, but also is more likely to produce people that are content enough to stick around for a while, but discontented enough that the second something else new comes along, they jump ship; its more profitable in the short term, but raises difficulites on games based off of developer run servers when the inevitable mass exodus occurs. If your concern is the latter, than "fun" tends to be a much bigger issue than if your focus is on the smaller audience, meaning that realism needs to be less of a concern. If the focus is the smaller, but more focused and dedicated group, than realism tends to be more important, and fun becomes less of a dev issue and more of a player issue.
Really? If so, why mainstream games don't use that at all? Isn't the market good to focus on "large following"?
And tell me .. you like to jump off the same low cliff for hours to level up a skill? You refuse to answer that because a) it looks ridiculous if you say it is fun, and b) you can't say it is not, because it invalidate your point.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by nariusseldon...but if Justin Bieber makes a lot of people happy, isn't it a good thing?
no.Wow .. you don't like others to be happy? If you don't like something, you would rather have others to suffer and not have it?That is a very selfish attitude. I am very glad that you do not decide what happens in the market place.you missed your own point i was referring to: something that makes you happy =/= something that is good.What makes a terrorist happy? Or a child molester? Not something good.Are mainstream Americans terrorist or child molester?
And we are talking about electronic entertainment here. There is no good or bad. Just whether it is entertaining to a population.
This reminds me of the legendaries in WoW. They're truly rare, since it usually takes awhile to get them, and most people don't even want to bother. I was sad when BC was launched and my Atiesh on both my druid an warlock were pretty much useless, I still have them to this day in my bank.
Enough people either enjoy enough or find the end result rewarding enough that use based progression still has a large following. Most of those people don't focus on single individual examples, so whether or not that particular example is "fun" or not is largely irrelevent as long as the system as a whole is enjoyable to them. Anyone who expects any system to be perfect and fun all of the time are setting themselves up for disappointment. The key for devs is to figure out their target audience and make sure that they are pleasing that audience; targeting a smaller audience means that the audiunce is more likely to agree on key issues and thus it will be easier (and probably cheaper) to satisfy it. Those who dont agree simply dont play and arent really much of an issue. On the other hand, a larger audience brings in more immediate money, but also is more likely to produce people that are content enough to stick around for a while, but discontented enough that the second something else new comes along, they jump ship; its more profitable in the short term, but raises difficulites on games based off of developer run servers when the inevitable mass exodus occurs. If your concern is the latter, than "fun" tends to be a much bigger issue than if your focus is on the smaller audience, meaning that realism needs to be less of a concern. If the focus is the smaller, but more focused and dedicated group, than realism tends to be more important, and fun becomes less of a dev issue and more of a player issue.
Really? If so, why mainstream games don't use that at all? Isn't the market good to focus on "large following"?
And tell me .. you like to jump off the same low cliff for hours to level up a skill? You refuse to answer that because a) it looks ridiculous if you say it is fun, and b) you can't say it is not, because it invalidate your point.
Please quit focusing on one single skill of a much larger system because if you look for them, every system has its flaws and quirks. Also, what makes you think that everyone, especially those that prefer use based systems, wants a mainstream game? Some people actually like the more niche games, precisely becaue they allow for more customization on things like the desired level of reality.
Thats why other different styles emerged. The style worked well for many, but not for all. Clearly, not all games are going to benefit from having that level of realism, but having a few that realistic is not a bad thing. What is needed for realism, and indeed, pretty much everything, is an accepted spread rather than a single point of acceptance.
That obvious depends on the actual specifics.
Tell me, in the case of the jumping for hours to level up slowfall .. is there a case where it is fun? I cannot think of any.
It's not the effort, but the reward that makes some things worthwhile. I got the achievement for having a 400 unarmed skill on my priest, and also the achievement for having four different weapons at max level on my priest. It was pretty much useless, but I punched a shaman in the face until I won a duel one time. The achievements and winning that duel made the time I spent leveling those skills up worth it.
**
I spent a lot of time punching worms to level my unarmed skill up. That was not fun. Well, seeing people watch me do it was kind of fun. But overall, it wasn't. It was still worth it though.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Enough people either enjoy enough or find the end result rewarding enough that use based progression still has a large following. .
Really? If so, why mainstream games don't use that at all? Isn't the market good to focus on "large following"?
And tell me .. you like to jump off the same low cliff for hours to level up a skill? You refuse to answer that because a) it looks ridiculous if you say it is fun, and b) you can't say it is not, because it invalidate your point.
Because "use-based progression" is supposed to simulate a RL system. The example quoted is a fine example of a bad implementation of that simulation, because it allows a player to essentially exploit the mechanic. It's an overly simplistic modelling of the RL equivalent. In RL lots of jumping would improve your leg muscles "with use", but you could not do it indefinitely as you can with an MMO character which doesn't have stamina usage modeled as well.
Badly implemented RL simulations will be exploited by players. A perfect recent example is the rampant macroing of "use-based" skill progression in the first version of Darkfall.
Too much can be bad, but realism as a whole is a good thing. No one wants to craft a sword for hours on end, but people who enjoy crafting don't want to just walk up and hit a button that instantly makes it either. It's about balance. And obviously as mentioned earlier going to the bathroom is stupid.
Some people want less realism, some want more. But I think very few want the kind of realism that the majority considers overboard. Thing is, no one is wrong. If there is a market for it, people will be there.
That is the point. Let the market decide. From what i have observe in the market place:
1) slow travel is too much. LFD/LFR, fast travel is the norm. Even Skyrim has fast travel.
2) Crafting .... counter to what you said, it seems that large masses of players don't mind hitting-one-button to craft mechanics. No one stops playing WOW because of that. OTOH, games with complex crafting like SWG was doing poorly. So either people don't want complex crafting, or they don't care about crafting enough for it to matter.
3) Instances are not "realistic" but the market seems to decide that it should be a standard feature.
Sure there are different preferences and niche games but these seems to be the major trends in the market.
Well right now the market is showing a few things. People are tired of instances, people are tired of everything being handed to them, and people are tired of the same ol' gameplay. There will always be people who want the easy road, but right now the others have been ignored for too long (and though I play, EVE IS NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!!) and some games are catering to them.
So basically, for a long time now the people who want a bit more realism have been ignored. Times are starting to change. I don't think all games will head to one direction, but its nice to see some things heading my way. Plus, a mass amount of gamers were never even exposed to the type of gaming I grew up with... I wonder how many will be converts if a single good one comes out?
Too much can be bad, but realism as a whole is a good thing. No one wants to craft a sword for hours on end, but people who enjoy crafting don't want to just walk up and hit a button that instantly makes it either. It's about balance. And obviously as mentioned earlier going to the bathroom is stupid.
Some people want less realism, some want more. But I think very few want the kind of realism that the majority considers overboard. Thing is, no one is wrong. If there is a market for it, people will be there.
That is the point. Let the market decide. From what i have observe in the market place:
1) slow travel is too much. LFD/LFR, fast travel is the norm. Even Skyrim has fast travel.
2) Crafting .... counter to what you said, it seems that large masses of players don't mind hitting-one-button to craft mechanics. No one stops playing WOW because of that. OTOH, games with complex crafting like SWG was doing poorly. So either people don't want complex crafting, or they don't care about crafting enough for it to matter.
3) Instances are not "realistic" but the market seems to decide that it should be a standard feature.
Sure there are different preferences and niche games but these seems to be the major trends in the market.
Well right now the market is showing a few things. People are tired of instances, people are tired of everything being handed to them, and people are tired of the same ol' gameplay. There will always be people who want the easy road, but right now the others have been ignored for too long (and though I play, EVE IS NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!!) and some games are catering to them.
So basically, for a long time now the people who want a bit more realism have been ignored. Times are starting to change. I don't think all games will head to one direction, but its nice to see some things heading my way. Plus, a mass amount of gamers were never even exposed to the type of gaming I grew up with... I wonder how many will be converts if a single good one comes out?
OH.. I so agree.. The guild I was in for years have all retired from MMO'ing.. except me, I still doodle around in GW2 some.. We are all tired of quest hub hopping and dungeon hamster wheel grinding.. No more, never again..
My device when in comes to realism in games is: Always let realism guide you but you don't have to follow.
It is a good Idea to always figure out what the realistic solution to a problem would be. This will often lead to other interesting game mechanics. In the Gears of War example, just think what would you do If you wanted to get over a obstacle, would you try to jump over a fence that is 2m high? No, you would try to climb it. So if the game has realistic jumping it also needs climbing. Of course that makes things a lot more complicated because a climbing mechanic that looks good on random terrain is quite hard to do. On other occasions figuring out the realistic solution will tell you that it involves a tedious and repetitive task. Most learning involves that. The progression mechanic in Everquest would work as intended if you could only practice your safe fall skill only once a hour so you can't spam it.
If you want to figure out which daily activities should be in the game just look towards movies. You never see someone visiting the toilet, but you see people eating quite often. Eating and drinking would make a interesting side mechanic. To keep it realistic the character would only have to drink every 4 hours and eat every 8 hours of playtime and ever if he doesn't the would only suffer a small debuff at first. 8 hours is actually quite a long time when playing a video game. Refilling your water bottle before you enter a desert zone or helping out a group mate with a food ration does provide some immersive moments.
I think the problem with mmorpgs rather is that developers cut to many features because they seem to be no fun. It seems to me the trap that developers often fall into is to put play testers in their skinner box games and then ask them what the liked and what not. That is like asking a drug addict what is fun to him. The game testers will turn into reward junkies and will tell them everything that got them reward was fun and especially that they hated every small obstacle that slowed down their progression. So every activity must be quantifiable and liked to a reward to be considered fun. I honestly believe many players would think differently about boats if they would have got a rare piece of loot every time they used it.
Originally posted by nariusseldon And we are talking about electronic entertainment here. There is no good or bad. Just whether it is entertaining to a population.
And best if it is your part of the population being entertained, right? I cannot blame you, for I feel the same way. I am just in a smaller, yet not insignificant, portion of the population. Never did like being called "normal." lol
- 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
When people say realistic most don't really mean it in the literal sense. Most MMOs have magic in them or some other form of suspended disbelief. What people really mean when they say "realistic" is they want coherency. An actually game world needs to be consistent with its' own rules or it won't make sense. When designing a fictional game world it is important that certain rules are set down so it is not just anything goes. Without consistency the world and the story just isn't believable. Example IF Lord of the Rings lacked all consistency and plausibility.
Depend. Rift i.e. looked to me at that time realistic, but no more. Same for Aoc, now just bad. On the other hand Wow is still very fresh and I actually do not miss nothing. They have however been tweaking graphics many times without losing familiar feeling.
I don't really need the term realism but i like to think more in line of "believable".Simple reason is unless you keep it believable it can get way out of hand and just come off looking dumb.
One such mechanic i don't like is Fantasy type characters flying in from far away directly in front of the enemy.There is a big difference between a 3-5 foot lunge and a 30 foot lunge.
Many other ideas like flame throwing staves that look like they are rapid fire mini guns or getting a buff just because you did a somersault.
I can see a possible jump of 6 feet high but many games have characters lunging 20-30 feet in the air,looks ridiculous.
Another famous one is similar to the rapid fire stave,i see bow users auto firing at break neck speeds while seemingly pulling arrows out of thin air.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The history of computer gaming has been one where the graphics have become more realistic as the hobby has developed. This advancement mostly had nothing to do with the games needing better graphics to play them, it has been purely to add to the visual treat of the game. This is why old games which may now seem awful to look at were great when we played them.
The other side of realism is the game behaving in a realistic way, this is a fine balance between what is need for immersion and what is needed for gameplay.
So we will always need to balance immersion with gameplay. But when it comes to graphics we must push forward, to argue otherwise is to promote poorly funded games (like most F2P MMOs) which are not top notch. And mobile games, which have the same issues.
Staying somewhat behind the curve as WoW did to ensure as many PC's could handle the game is understandable. Arguing that we should never progress graphically is not, otherwise games would still be using Ascii characters.
Staying somewhat behind the curve as WoW did to ensure as many PC's could handle the game is understandable. Arguing that we should never progress graphically is not, otherwise games would still be using Ascii characters.
It is a reasonable argument to suggest that art and design, not realistic graphics can be as enjoyable.
The example of the Incredibles vs The Polar Express is a good one. Better graphics does not translate into a better visual experience.
Look at games today .. there are plenty of successful games with stylish, or even surreal graphics. When i use entertainment, i want to see something i have not seen before, not something that looks exactly like my house.
I have no problem with better graphics technology, and more detailed (which is different from more realistic) graphics. But not everyone needs to look real to look good or interesting.
completely agree.. especially that part about food and drink.. I don't like the idea of creating a camp multiple times a day to reap the benefit of food/drink.... At the same time I don't want to open up my inventory every 10 minutes or less to make sure I have that stat buff food active.. I did love how EQ did it.. You put the stat food in the inventory and it AUTO uses it as scheduled and as long as I had stacks of it, I may not have to restock for days.. Same with Ammo like WoW and EQ both used to do.. WoW has since canned Ammo..
Yeah it was embarrassing as a ranger to run out of arrows, but with foraging skill, always had food and water to share with group if people ran out. And I don't see some these arguments about a fantasy world can't have realism. They don't eat in fantasy world, or have day/night/weather is these worlds? I remember people eating in Lord of Rings, and terrain having an impact on their journey. Yes we don't nee to be bogged down with too much detail and the mechanics of realism should be done carefully to add immersion, but not be intrusive. I always liked some realism (the kind that make sense) in games, as it makes the difference between a mmo and a game like donkey kong-its in a world and there should be a living feel to being in the world, regardless if it is a game, movie, book, etc.
completely agree.. especially that part about food and drink.. I don't like the idea of creating a camp multiple times a day to reap the benefit of food/drink.... At the same time I don't want to open up my inventory every 10 minutes or less to make sure I have that stat buff food active.. I did love how EQ did it.. You put the stat food in the inventory and it AUTO uses it as scheduled and as long as I had stacks of it, I may not have to restock for days.. Same with Ammo like WoW and EQ both used to do.. WoW has since canned Ammo..
Yeah it was embarrassing as a ranger to run out of arrows, but with foraging skill, always had food and water to share with group if people ran out. And I don't see some these arguments about a fantasy world can't have realism. They don't eat in fantasy world, or have day/night/weather is these worlds? I remember people eating in Lord of Rings, and terrain having an impact on their journey. Yes we don't nee to be bogged down with too much detail and the mechanics of realism should be done carefully to add immersion, but not be intrusive. I always liked some realism (the kind that make sense) in games, as it makes the difference between a mmo and a game like donkey kong-its in a world and there should be a living feel to being in the world, regardless if it is a game, movie, book, etc.
They *can*. But why should they? And we are not talking about fantasy worlds. We are talking about fantasy GAMES.
WOW took away ammo .. it is not real .. but it is a good move. Handling ammo is just a chore. It has no challenge, and little fun factor. And we are talking about a fantasy setting here. You can always make some random mumbo jumbo about the magic quiver gives you unlimited arrows.
The key is gameplay activities need to be fun. Realism should not be in the way of that. I have no problem if they spend time to make leaves move more realistically. But don't make the game less fun in the sake of "being realistic".
But you did say some dirty words to today's modern gamer, patience and determination, went the way of the dodo along with persistence, perseverance, and a few others.
Sadly, you're more right than not, which is problematic in this genre, given the whole intent was to reward those very things.
Change the intent. Problem solved. In fact, the intent of entertainment products is to entertain.
Why would an entertainment product rewards patience and determination? If i am a dev, i certainly do not want only patient people as my audience.
Why does it have to be mutually exclusive? It's not too much to ask that a game be fun yet require patience and determination (AKA practice) to become good. Sports have always operated under that premise.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
completely agree.. especially that part about food and drink.. I don't like the idea of creating a camp multiple times a day to reap the benefit of food/drink.... At the same time I don't want to open up my inventory every 10 minutes or less to make sure I have that stat buff food active.. I did love how EQ did it.. You put the stat food in the inventory and it AUTO uses it as scheduled and as long as I had stacks of it, I may not have to restock for days.. Same with Ammo like WoW and EQ both used to do.. WoW has since canned Ammo..
Yeah it was embarrassing as a ranger to run out of arrows, but with foraging skill, always had food and water to share with group if people ran out. And I don't see some these arguments about a fantasy world can't have realism. They don't eat in fantasy world, or have day/night/weather is these worlds? I remember people eating in Lord of Rings, and terrain having an impact on their journey. Yes we don't nee to be bogged down with too much detail and the mechanics of realism should be done carefully to add immersion, but not be intrusive. I always liked some realism (the kind that make sense) in games, as it makes the difference between a mmo and a game like donkey kong-its in a world and there should be a living feel to being in the world, regardless if it is a game, movie, book, etc.
They *can*. But why should they? And we are not talking about fantasy worlds. We are talking about fantasy GAMES.
WOW took away ammo .. it is not real .. but it is a good move. Handling ammo is just a chore. It has no challenge, and little fun factor. And we are talking about a fantasy setting here. You can always make some random mumbo jumbo about the magic quiver gives you unlimited arrows.
The key is gameplay activities need to be fun. Realism should not be in the way of that. I have no problem if they spend time to make leaves move more realistically. But don't make the game less fun in the sake of "being realistic".
This is why we disagree. I see an mmo being a game in a "World" where you just see a game. It's just a difference of opinion. Can you imagine skyrim being as fun or popular if they didn't do the little things that made it feel like an actual world, instead of just pixels mashed together so you can run around and kill things. That was what makes mmo's or single player rps what they are-without the immersion factor, we might as well play diablo-style action games, justs quests without the world.
But you did say some dirty words to today's modern gamer, patience and determination, went the way of the dodo along with persistence, perseverance, and a few others.
Sadly, you're more right than not, which is problematic in this genre, given the whole intent was to reward those very things.
Change the intent. Problem solved. In fact, the intent of entertainment products is to entertain.
Why would an entertainment product rewards patience and determination? If i am a dev, i certainly do not want only patient people as my audience.
Why does it have to be mutually exclusive? It's not too much to ask that a game be fun yet require patience and determination (AKA practice) to become good. Sports have always operated under that premise.
Because it will not be fun for the impatient people with no determination.
Sports are different. People play many video games, but no one plays 10 sports. Sports are pvp while not video games are.
I can also say ... how about compare it to movies? Movies are considered too long at 3 hours, and it never rewards any patience beyond 2 hours 30 min.
At the end of the day, it depends on the market. If catering to impatient players make more money, it is how the market will proceed. I am not ruling out some niche .. but do you think it is likely for new AAA games to cater to those who want to spend hours to learn a single game?
Heck with some many games i want to play, it is a losing proposition if the tutorial itself is not some fast and immediate fun.
Realism should be at the level of "it feels right" like reloading a gun in FPS aside from that the game can be as much out-worldly and far from realism as possible as long as it feels right
Realistic graphics are only for games that are used to sell technology or marketed as "technological achievement"
other than that realistic graphics have no charm they fit FPS almost perfectly but when it comes to fantasy its just meh
and what comes to mechanics.....example, i want the ability to leap over buildings and fight and win against 20 enemy monsters if i feel like it no matter how impossible it would be in reality i want to achieve it in games
whats the point of simulating reality in games? that would defeat the purpose of games to avoid this debate
the games are divided to genres like Fantasy, action, horror, simulation and such because not all the players want the same that i want from games
I play Fantasy genre so it's not going to be real life but.... games that claim to be real usually give an option to see "blood splatters." Yeah, great. I kill mob. Blood everywhere. Five seconds later the corpse evaporates. As far as I know I have never seen anything in real life evaporate then respon in multiples to attack again. Could be wrong. Maybe I wasn't paying attention. WAIT! I remember! Cockroaches can!
Comments
Really? If so, why mainstream games don't use that at all? Isn't the market good to focus on "large following"?
And tell me .. you like to jump off the same low cliff for hours to level up a skill? You refuse to answer that because a) it looks ridiculous if you say it is fun, and b) you can't say it is not, because it invalidate your point.
Wow .. you don't like others to be happy? If you don't like something, you would rather have others to suffer and not have it? That is a very selfish attitude. I am very glad that you do not decide what happens in the market place.
you missed your own point i was referring to: something that makes you happy =/= something that is good. What makes a terrorist happy? Or a child molester? Not something good.
Are mainstream Americans terrorist or child molester?
And we are talking about electronic entertainment here. There is no good or bad. Just whether it is entertaining to a population.
Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying.
Please quit focusing on one single skill of a much larger system because if you look for them, every system has its flaws and quirks. Also, what makes you think that everyone, especially those that prefer use based systems, wants a mainstream game? Some people actually like the more niche games, precisely becaue they allow for more customization on things like the desired level of reality.
It's not the effort, but the reward that makes some things worthwhile. I got the achievement for having a 400 unarmed skill on my priest, and also the achievement for having four different weapons at max level on my priest. It was pretty much useless, but I punched a shaman in the face until I won a duel one time. The achievements and winning that duel made the time I spent leveling those skills up worth it.
**
I spent a lot of time punching worms to level my unarmed skill up. That was not fun. Well, seeing people watch me do it was kind of fun. But overall, it wasn't. It was still worth it though.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Because "use-based progression" is supposed to simulate a RL system. The example quoted is a fine example of a bad implementation of that simulation, because it allows a player to essentially exploit the mechanic. It's an overly simplistic modelling of the RL equivalent. In RL lots of jumping would improve your leg muscles "with use", but you could not do it indefinitely as you can with an MMO character which doesn't have stamina usage modeled as well.
Badly implemented RL simulations will be exploited by players. A perfect recent example is the rampant macroing of "use-based" skill progression in the first version of Darkfall.
Well right now the market is showing a few things. People are tired of instances, people are tired of everything being handed to them, and people are tired of the same ol' gameplay. There will always be people who want the easy road, but right now the others have been ignored for too long (and though I play, EVE IS NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!!) and some games are catering to them.
So basically, for a long time now the people who want a bit more realism have been ignored. Times are starting to change. I don't think all games will head to one direction, but its nice to see some things heading my way. Plus, a mass amount of gamers were never even exposed to the type of gaming I grew up with... I wonder how many will be converts if a single good one comes out?
OH.. I so agree.. The guild I was in for years have all retired from MMO'ing.. except me, I still doodle around in GW2 some.. We are all tired of quest hub hopping and dungeon hamster wheel grinding.. No more, never again..
It is a good Idea to always figure out what the realistic solution to a problem would be. This will often lead to other interesting game mechanics. In the Gears of War example, just think what would you do If you wanted to get over a obstacle, would you try to jump over a fence that is 2m high? No, you would try to climb it. So if the game has realistic jumping it also needs climbing. Of course that makes things a lot more complicated because a climbing mechanic that looks good on random terrain is quite hard to do.
On other occasions figuring out the realistic solution will tell you that it involves a tedious and repetitive task. Most learning involves that. The progression mechanic in Everquest would work as intended if you could only practice your safe fall skill only once a hour so you can't spam it.
If you want to figure out which daily activities should be in the game just look towards movies. You never see someone visiting the toilet, but you see people eating quite often. Eating and drinking would make a interesting side mechanic. To keep it realistic the character would only have to drink every 4 hours and eat every 8 hours of playtime and ever if he doesn't the would only suffer a small debuff at first. 8 hours is actually quite a long time when playing a video game. Refilling your water bottle before you enter a desert zone or helping out a group mate with a food ration does provide some immersive moments.
I think the problem with mmorpgs rather is that developers cut to many features because they seem to be no fun. It seems to me the trap that developers often fall into is to put play testers in their skinner box games and then ask them what the liked and what not. That is like asking a drug addict what is fun to him. The game testers will turn into reward junkies and will tell them everything that got them reward was fun and especially that they hated every small obstacle that slowed down their progression. So every activity must be quantifiable and liked to a reward to be considered fun.
I honestly believe many players would think differently about boats if they would have got a rare piece of loot every time they used it.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
- 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
When people say realistic most don't really mean it in the literal sense. Most MMOs have magic in them or some other form of suspended disbelief. What people really mean when they say "realistic" is they want coherency. An actually game world needs to be consistent with its' own rules or it won't make sense. When designing a fictional game world it is important that certain rules are set down so it is not just anything goes. Without consistency the world and the story just isn't believable. Example IF Lord of the Rings lacked all consistency and plausibility.
So YES some measure of realism is needed.
I don't really need the term realism but i like to think more in line of "believable".Simple reason is unless you keep it believable it can get way out of hand and just come off looking dumb.
One such mechanic i don't like is Fantasy type characters flying in from far away directly in front of the enemy.There is a big difference between a 3-5 foot lunge and a 30 foot lunge.
Many other ideas like flame throwing staves that look like they are rapid fire mini guns or getting a buff just because you did a somersault.
I can see a possible jump of 6 feet high but many games have characters lunging 20-30 feet in the air,looks ridiculous.
Another famous one is similar to the rapid fire stave,i see bow users auto firing at break neck speeds while seemingly pulling arrows out of thin air.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I would rather it take hours than replacing one every 5 minutes from quests
The history of computer gaming has been one where the graphics have become more realistic as the hobby has developed. This advancement mostly had nothing to do with the games needing better graphics to play them, it has been purely to add to the visual treat of the game. This is why old games which may now seem awful to look at were great when we played them.
The other side of realism is the game behaving in a realistic way, this is a fine balance between what is need for immersion and what is needed for gameplay.
So we will always need to balance immersion with gameplay. But when it comes to graphics we must push forward, to argue otherwise is to promote poorly funded games (like most F2P MMOs) which are not top notch. And mobile games, which have the same issues.
Staying somewhat behind the curve as WoW did to ensure as many PC's could handle the game is understandable. Arguing that we should never progress graphically is not, otherwise games would still be using Ascii characters.
And that is you. I won't spend hours watching my character hitting on an anvil to make a sword. 5 min is much better.
It is a reasonable argument to suggest that art and design, not realistic graphics can be as enjoyable.
The example of the Incredibles vs The Polar Express is a good one. Better graphics does not translate into a better visual experience.
Look at games today .. there are plenty of successful games with stylish, or even surreal graphics. When i use entertainment, i want to see something i have not seen before, not something that looks exactly like my house.
I have no problem with better graphics technology, and more detailed (which is different from more realistic) graphics. But not everyone needs to look real to look good or interesting.
Yeah it was embarrassing as a ranger to run out of arrows, but with foraging skill, always had food and water to share with group if people ran out. And I don't see some these arguments about a fantasy world can't have realism. They don't eat in fantasy world, or have day/night/weather is these worlds? I remember people eating in Lord of Rings, and terrain having an impact on their journey. Yes we don't nee to be bogged down with too much detail and the mechanics of realism should be done carefully to add immersion, but not be intrusive. I always liked some realism (the kind that make sense) in games, as it makes the difference between a mmo and a game like donkey kong-its in a world and there should be a living feel to being in the world, regardless if it is a game, movie, book, etc.
They *can*. But why should they? And we are not talking about fantasy worlds. We are talking about fantasy GAMES.
WOW took away ammo .. it is not real .. but it is a good move. Handling ammo is just a chore. It has no challenge, and little fun factor. And we are talking about a fantasy setting here. You can always make some random mumbo jumbo about the magic quiver gives you unlimited arrows.
The key is gameplay activities need to be fun. Realism should not be in the way of that. I have no problem if they spend time to make leaves move more realistically. But don't make the game less fun in the sake of "being realistic".
Why does it have to be mutually exclusive? It's not too much to ask that a game be fun yet require patience and determination (AKA practice) to become good. Sports have always operated under that premise.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
This is why we disagree. I see an mmo being a game in a "World" where you just see a game. It's just a difference of opinion. Can you imagine skyrim being as fun or popular if they didn't do the little things that made it feel like an actual world, instead of just pixels mashed together so you can run around and kill things. That was what makes mmo's or single player rps what they are-without the immersion factor, we might as well play diablo-style action games, justs quests without the world.
Because it will not be fun for the impatient people with no determination.
Sports are different. People play many video games, but no one plays 10 sports. Sports are pvp while not video games are.
I can also say ... how about compare it to movies? Movies are considered too long at 3 hours, and it never rewards any patience beyond 2 hours 30 min.
At the end of the day, it depends on the market. If catering to impatient players make more money, it is how the market will proceed. I am not ruling out some niche .. but do you think it is likely for new AAA games to cater to those who want to spend hours to learn a single game?
Heck with some many games i want to play, it is a losing proposition if the tutorial itself is not some fast and immediate fun.
Realism should be at the level of "it feels right" like reloading a gun in FPS aside from that the game can be as much out-worldly and far from realism as possible as long as it feels right
Realistic graphics are only for games that are used to sell technology or marketed as "technological achievement"
other than that realistic graphics have no charm they fit FPS almost perfectly but when it comes to fantasy its just meh
and what comes to mechanics.....example, i want the ability to leap over buildings and fight and win against 20 enemy monsters if i feel like it no matter how impossible it would be in reality i want to achieve it in games
whats the point of simulating reality in games? that would defeat the purpose of games to avoid this debate
the games are divided to genres like Fantasy, action, horror, simulation and such because not all the players want the same that i want from games
What is "real" to you?
I play Fantasy genre so it's not going to be real life but.... games that claim to be real usually give an option to see "blood splatters." Yeah, great. I kill mob. Blood everywhere. Five seconds later the corpse evaporates. As far as I know I have never seen anything in real life evaporate then respon in multiples to attack again. Could be wrong. Maybe I wasn't paying attention. WAIT! I remember! Cockroaches can!