Even if Smed was not the biggest snake oil salesman in the whole industry, SOE had what many people consider to be the most immersive and deep sandbox game of all time in pre-NGE SWG, and then he and SOE wrecked it. (And no, LA is not wholly to blame, and LA did not program a single line of code, either.)
That should tell anyone all they need to know about Smed and sandboxes.
People keep falling back into drug abuse too, does not mean drugs are a good thing.
It's no worse than spending money on even a worse habit: throwing money down a bottomless hole of crappy developed games.
You're not going to find another MMO as polished as WoW, no matter where you look, and for only $15/mon, too.
Folks realize it, and come back to WoW...time after time after time.
Or they don't. It was bad the first time I tried it, it was bad the next time I got talked in to trying it even after a couple years of updates. I'm going to stand pretty firm on it just being bad in general.
Don't act like WoW was the be all and end all of MMOs for everyone. I'll give you a "for a lot of people" but there were plenty of us who weren't impressed, and just didn't find it fun or engaging enough to bother playing. I am constantly astonished that anyone would ever spend $15 a month on such a horrible game, but I have friends who still have their subscriptions from launch. Tastes abound.
Until I see a better crafted MMORPG, it's actually the best out there to date, period.
Now I will agree WoW does have it's problems (and I said tons about it on their forums), but you're not going to find a better constructed MMO, because the other publishers CUT CORNERS.
If YOU prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all, yeah, to YOU it maybe not perfect. But for gamers who prefer games to hold a candle to design standards, no, there isn't any better MMORPG out there.
That was made by Blizzard in *2008*. RL time day/night cycle, with aurora particle effects. You still won't find that even in 2014 "new" MMOs. That's only *one* zone in Northrend. Grizzly Hills has the daytime auroras. All that makes nice pretty screenshot backdrops (see my sig!).
That's the stuff YOU don't pay attention too about quality, as you concentrate on the pewpewpew. Today in WoW in places like Halfhill, those clouds are even more beautiful, not static images circling through a sky box seen in other MMOs.
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
A sandbox is USER CREATED content. Not dev directed content in a pseudo-sandbox concept.
As long as devs are directing game direction and it's content...it's NOT a sandbox, period.
In that case, I won't touch a sandbox game with a ten foot pole .. most user generated stuff is crap. I would much rather just play professionally produced content.
He's not talking about user created content like Never Winter, he's talking about MMORPGs with a high Meta Game content. Such as player driven economies and societies based on systems already implemented into the game.
Whcih brings us right back to what Smed is trying to do. Redefine what a sandbox is.
The difference is that in traditional sandbox MMORPGs, nobody was adding anything new to the game but rather working within what was already there to create a different experience.
that kind of 'content' is not interesting to me ... mostly it is either drama, or zerging ... it is impossible to coordinate anything more than 10 people without getting into bickering and arguments.
There is a reason why this never really takes off in a big way .. and it is not by without trying.
I do think "sandbox" is the true dream of the MMORPG genre, the dream us long term players have had since back in the days of EQ and UO, a dream whose embers have been stoked by games like SWG and EvE along the way...
There is no such thing. Different people want different games.
Personally, i would much rather have good professional created entertaining content. You don't speak for my taste.
I do think "sandbox" is the true dream of the MMORPG genre, the dream us long term players have had since back in the days of EQ and UO, a dream whose embers have been stoked by games like SWG and EvE along the way...
There is no such thing. Different people want different games.
Personally, i would much rather have good professional created entertaining content. You don't speak for my taste.
I don't think the developers of Everquest or Ultima Online would say that their dream was NOT to build virtual worlds.
We are arguing semantics at this point, as all games are really just a collection of professionally (some more than others) created content that is meant to entertain.
Even the "themepark" games try and create virtual worlds- with things like weather and day/night cycles and they try and give life and personality to buildings and NPCs and creatures in the wild...
I don't even LIKE the terms "sandbox" and "themepark" for MMOs as they are too limited.
I think a true sandbox you are given the tools to build, which to me means something like Minecraft or Everquest Next: Landmark not EvE Online or even my first MMO love, UO.
So they are all themeparks to me - they all have their rides.
So I'll retract and edit my statement to read "I do think virtual worlds are the true dream of the MMORPG genre"
I do think "sandbox" is the true dream of the MMORPG genre, the dream us long term players have had since back in the days of EQ and UO, a dream whose embers have been stoked by games like SWG and EvE along the way...
There is no such thing. Different people want different games.
Personally, i would much rather have good professional created entertaining content. You don't speak for my taste.
I don't think the developers of Everquest or Ultima Online would say that their dream was NOT to build virtual worlds.
And what do their dream have to do with anything? They made two early products that are not even that successful compared to later ones. Those two products certainly do not represent preferences of most in the market. Otherwise, we will still have endless griefing and staring at a spellbook for 5 min.
I do think "sandbox" is the true dream of the MMORPG genre, the dream us long term players have had since back in the days of EQ and UO, a dream whose embers have been stoked by games like SWG and EvE along the way...
There is no such thing. Different people want different games.
Personally, i would much rather have good professional created entertaining content. You don't speak for my taste.
I don't think the developers of Everquest or Ultima Online would say that their dream was NOT to build virtual worlds.
And what do their dream have to do with anything? They made two early products that are not even that successful compared to later ones. Those two products certainly do not represent preferences of most in the market. Otherwise, we will still have endless griefing and staring at a spellbook for 5 min.
Oh how little is known of the past...
UO got rid of the "endless griefing" with a major expansion release in 2000.
Listen, I am a big fan of World of Warcraft, and have had some good fun in many games before and since, but the MMORPG genre is far from reaching it's apex, and I believe without question that the "vision" of this genre is what makes it unique, and that is that these are virtual worlds, not just levels and lobbies like a CoD game.
In order to reach that apex, the virtual world aspects need to be expanded upon, which means NOTHING about removing the qualities associated most commonly with the "themepark" sub genre.
Better themeparks, themeparks with more/better rides AND more virtual world. What are widely considered to be "sandbox elements" can go a long way in added to the themepark elements to create a better virtual world.
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
I agree with you, and yet... The combat was what ruined WoW for me. Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the IP before WoW was released, and I expected to be a big fan. But I didn't have any fun killing stuff. Then Guild Wars came along, and was just so much better in every conceivable way, and WoW went from being a boring disappointment to a total write off only six months after release.
Don't strawman me and accuse that I "prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all". It's both insulting and incorrect. I do like fun games though, I'll just never count WoW as one of those.
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
I agree with you, and yet... The combat was what ruined WoW for me. Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the IP before WoW was released, and I expected to be a big fan. But I didn't have any fun killing stuff. Then Guild Wars came along, and was just so much better in every conceivable way, and WoW went from being a boring disappointment to a total write off only six months after release.
Don't strawman me and accuse that I "prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all". It's both insulting and incorrect. I do like fun games though, I'll just never count WoW as one of those.
I'm not using strawman arguments, I'm clearly explaining that only defining a game -- by your own words is combat related -- is not the only judge of quality.
Quality is what all is on the table, not just one piece of the pie.
I've argued for Sandbox, and I agree with everything Smed said.
But I still have a question on where it all goes. Based on content zones. If a "Sandbox" game has separate "sandboxes" based on levels, and the player is required to go to this "sandbox" first, then the next one (or even a choice of a few) next, and so on, that spoils the "world" feeling and makes it feel gamey.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some content to content, such as skilling up for greater ability. Only that a good Sandbox needs to be open. And that the way to do that is to avoid the huge power gaps that Themeparks are built on.
He makes very valid points and I think he may have finally figured it out. But do I trust him or SOE to be the one to bring it us without screwing us three ways from Sunday?
Uh, no...
By this point, he should be able to make the right Talking Points in his sleep. Like that skeevy career politician that you're not sure...why...you feel too uncomfortable to vote for.
He makes very valid points and I think he may have finally figured it out. But do I trust him or SOE to be the one to bring it us without screwing us three ways from Sunday?
Uh, no...
By this point, he should be able to make the right Talking Points in his sleep. Like that skeevy career politician that you're not sure...why...you feel too uncomfortable to vote for.
But in Smed's case, we know why.
Yeah, but EQN:L proves to be more than a talking point while also being the inevitable foundation of EQN.
I never played SWG. That was a long time ago. It's hard for me to understand the hate, just saying.
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
I agree with you, and yet... The combat was what ruined WoW for me. Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the IP before WoW was released, and I expected to be a big fan. But I didn't have any fun killing stuff. Then Guild Wars came along, and was just so much better in every conceivable way, and WoW went from being a boring disappointment to a total write off only six months after release.
Don't strawman me and accuse that I "prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all". It's both insulting and incorrect. I do like fun games though, I'll just never count WoW as one of those.
I'm not using strawman arguments, I'm clearly explaining that only defining a game -- by your own words is combat related -- is not the only judge of quality.
Quality is what all is on the table, not just one piece of the pie.
No, quality is not some magic sum of all the parts. Rather like a pie, if the apples are rotten the whole pie is bad. Same with a game. If a core mechanic as important to the game as combat is boring and lackluster, then the game is bad, no matter how good the finish, graphics, lore, etc. are. Yes you need all of them good to make a good game, but you only need one of them bad to ruin a game.
Originally posted by Pilnkplonk ...Sadly, Bioware and others, so obsessed by their story-telling model where it pays if players burn through content quickly and demand more, never managed to realize this. Their answer to everything was "more story" without realizing it is exactly this story-reliance what is killing their mmos longevity. It's heartening to finally see a big name developer realize this simple fact. I must say I'm, dare I say it, cautiously optimistic tho I can't help feeling a little bit sad that so many years of development and genre evolution were wasted on this misguided obsession with stories.
Brilliant, I could not agree more, especially with the last sentence. My RL, though, has thrived as a result. I guess I should thank them.
Originally posted by MindTrigger ...we end up with these mind-numbing "casual" games that require no effort at all, and everything is more or less handed to you.That's not a game to me, it's a movie. I want interactive, and I want to have to work for my rewards...
Yes, exactly.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
I agree with you, and yet... The combat was what ruined WoW for me. Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the IP before WoW was released, and I expected to be a big fan. But I didn't have any fun killing stuff. Then Guild Wars came along, and was just so much better in every conceivable way, and WoW went from being a boring disappointment to a total write off only six months after release.
Don't strawman me and accuse that I "prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all". It's both insulting and incorrect. I do like fun games though, I'll just never count WoW as one of those.
I'm not using strawman arguments, I'm clearly explaining that only defining a game -- by your own words is combat related -- is not the only judge of quality.
Quality is what all is on the table, not just one piece of the pie.
No, quality is not some magic sum of all the parts. Rather like a pie, if the apples are rotten the whole pie is bad. Same with a game. If a core mechanic as important to the game as combat is boring and lackluster, then the game is bad, no matter how good the finish, graphics, lore, etc. are. Yes you need all of them good to make a good game, but you only need one of them bad to ruin a game.
Huh? That's your retort? What IS *a* core mechanic? Define it, because you'll see there's more than one.
It's no wonder why crappy games exist, people would consume them. Don't care about visuals. Don't care even if the model seams are sound, just a consumer of disposable content. Don't care even of the quality of the coding...just more pewpewpew.
Gives a whole new meaning to mouth breathing, truly.
Listen, I am a big fan of World of Warcraft, and have had some good fun in many games before and since, but the MMORPG genre is far from reaching it's apex, and I believe without question that the "vision" of this genre is what makes it unique, and that is that these are virtual worlds, not just levels and lobbies like a CoD game.
In order to reach that apex, the virtual world aspects need to be expanded upon, which means NOTHING about removing the qualities associated most commonly with the "themepark" sub genre.
Better themeparks, themeparks with more/better rides AND more virtual world. What are widely considered to be "sandbox elements" can go a long way in added to the themepark elements to create a better virtual world.
That is just an "apex" you prefer .. given how MMOs are becoming better games, more lobby like, more solo-able, and less virtual world, i do not think the broader market share this vision.
And why should this genre be "unique" ... the value of entertainment is not that it is unique, it is being entertaining.
I don't want a better virtual world. I want better games. (And don't tell me to go find better games in other genre ... i do ... just that there is no reason to ignore this one, if they are becoming what i like).
SoE makes too many games that fail. That is why they keep needing to fire more people.
Free Realms. Shut down
Vanguard, Shut down.
Clone Wars, Shut down.
Wizardy, Shut down.
The matrix, Shut dow
Infantry, Shut down
Closed Rift, Shut down
EQ Online adventures, Shut down
The Agency, game canned.
EQNext, all or nothing. If the game fails, SoE is over.
Dunno, PS2 hits all the right keys with me. Maybe I was lucky since I started playing just a few months ago and I have no idea what went on at release, but I really can't think of anything to complain about, either in terms of concept or execution. (Well... they really could use a rework of their vehicle model... 24th century tanks without any sunspension or gun stabilization? the ridiculous control sheme on the aircraft? O.o gripe, gripe...) Anyways, I hate what Smed and SOE did to the genre just like the next guy, but I do feel a bit of change in the air from that direction. I have no idea what happened, what made SOE finally listen to the players (and they actually do in PS2) and what made them go all player-driven sandboxy and all, but... Dunno. In the light of PS2 experience which is now very smooth, very polished with a very clear, albeit simplistic vision of what the game is supposed to be (actually, that's quite a rare find in mainstream titles nowadays), I won't expect much polish or grace from EQ games in the first year or so, in fact I'll probably avoid them altoghether in that period. But, as I said, I dare to feel cautiously optimistic.
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
I agree with you, and yet... The combat was what ruined WoW for me. Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the IP before WoW was released, and I expected to be a big fan. But I didn't have any fun killing stuff. Then Guild Wars came along, and was just so much better in every conceivable way, and WoW went from being a boring disappointment to a total write off only six months after release.
Don't strawman me and accuse that I "prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all". It's both insulting and incorrect. I do like fun games though, I'll just never count WoW as one of those.
I'm not using strawman arguments, I'm clearly explaining that only defining a game -- by your own words is combat related -- is not the only judge of quality.
Quality is what all is on the table, not just one piece of the pie.
No, quality is not some magic sum of all the parts. Rather like a pie, if the apples are rotten the whole pie is bad. Same with a game. If a core mechanic as important to the game as combat is boring and lackluster, then the game is bad, no matter how good the finish, graphics, lore, etc. are. Yes you need all of them good to make a good game, but you only need one of them bad to ruin a game.
Huh? That's your retort? What IS *a* core mechanic? Define it, because you'll see there's more than one.
It's no wonder why crappy games exist, people would consume them. Don't care about visuals. Don't care even if the model seams are sound, just a consumer of disposable content. Don't care even of the quality of the coding...just more pewpewpew.
Gives a whole new meaning to mouth breathing, truly.
:shakes head:
Dude, there is such a thing as core concept of the game. Of course there are many facets and factors contributing to the game's overall quality but there is a core concept in each and every succesful game. It can usually be expressed in terms of what the player is supposed to experience, both in terms of emotion as well as time, money and effort. Core concept a) 20 hour intense cinematic joyride that can be replayed several times for added value b) an online virtual space that can be visited occasionally over an indefinite period c) a game of light chance, heavily influenced by psychology and social skills, played for real money d) an abstract intellectual 2-player game whose outcome's consequences do not extend beoyond playing time... yes, there are core concepts behind games and they are of critical importance, just like the clarity of a film's core concept is crucial for its success.
No, quality is not some magic sum of all the parts. Rather like a pie, if the apples are rotten the whole pie is bad. Same with a game. If a core mechanic as important to the game as combat is boring and lackluster, then the game is bad, no matter how good the finish, graphics, lore, etc. are. Yes you need all of them good to make a good game, but you only need one of them bad to ruin a game.
Huh? That's your retort? What IS *a* core mechanic? Define it, because you'll see there's more than one.
It's no wonder why crappy games exist, people would consume them. Don't care about visuals. Don't care even if the model seams are sound, just a consumer of disposable content. Don't care even of the quality of the coding...just more pewpewpew.
Gives a whole new meaning to mouth breathing, truly.
:shakes head:
So now you have abandoned strawman for semantics. Way to go.
Nobody cares about the quality of the coding, that would be ridiculous unless you were a fellow programmer critiquing source code. People care about if it works, and if it's fun. WoW mostly works, and some people think it's fun. That's about all you can say for it.
People go back to WoW because it mostly works(and it should after all these years) and they think it's fun. Also because the parts of it that aren't fun, they are already acclimated to and willing to live with.
In short, it's not quality that brings people back to WoW, it's familiarity and laziness.
That's not a bad thing. I keep some games on my computer that are truely awful compared to their modern counterparts, because my down time doesn't always have to be new and exciting. But don't kid yourself that WoW is some kind of golden standard. It's just the biggest, oldest fish in the pond, and it launched with a phenominal PR campaign that convinced lots of people to try it who previously had never considered playing UO, AC or EQ. With the right ad and media push, any of those early games could have been where WoW is today. It had a lot more to do with convincing high school and college kids that MMORPGs weren't just for nerds than it did with the quality of the product.
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
I agree with you, and yet... The combat was what ruined WoW for me. Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the IP before WoW was released, and I expected to be a big fan. But I didn't have any fun killing stuff. Then Guild Wars came along, and was just so much better in every conceivable way, and WoW went from being a boring disappointment to a total write off only six months after release.
Don't strawman me and accuse that I "prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all". It's both insulting and incorrect. I do like fun games though, I'll just never count WoW as one of those.
I'm not using strawman arguments, I'm clearly explaining that only defining a game -- by your own words is combat related -- is not the only judge of quality.
Quality is what all is on the table, not just one piece of the pie.
No, quality is not some magic sum of all the parts. Rather like a pie, if the apples are rotten the whole pie is bad. Same with a game. If a core mechanic as important to the game as combat is boring and lackluster, then the game is bad, no matter how good the finish, graphics, lore, etc. are. Yes you need all of them good to make a good game, but you only need one of them bad to ruin a game.
Huh? That's your retort? What IS *a* core mechanic? Define it, because you'll see there's more than one.
It's no wonder why crappy games exist, people would consume them. Don't care about visuals. Don't care even if the model seams are sound, just a consumer of disposable content. Don't care even of the quality of the coding...just more pewpewpew.
Gives a whole new meaning to mouth breathing, truly.
:shakes head:
Dude, there is such a thing as core concept of the game. Of course there are many facets and factors contributing to the game's overall quality but there is a core concept in each and every succesful game. It can usually be expressed in terms of what the player is supposed to experience, both in terms of emotion as well as time, money and effort. Core concept a) 20 hour intense cinematic joyride that can be replayed several times for added value b) an online virtual space that can be visited occasionally over an indefinite period c) a game of light chance, heavily influenced by psychology and social skills, played for real money d) an abstract intellectual 2-player game whose outcome's consequences do not extend beoyond playing time... yes, there are core concepts behind games and they are of critical importance, just like a film's core concept is crucial for its success.
Please read, first...
What IS *a* core mechanic?
When did concepts become *a* MECHANIC again???
As you also are flip flopping, interchanging single with plural definitions (as underlined above).
With games like Blizzard's WoW is much more complex, as there ARE many concepts they use (some we still don't know), just like we found out in Cata that shapes defined one of their core game DESIGNS (how about that!), which is why they were reluctant to have appearance armor, as each class had an unique character profile to visually know what enemy was an enemy.
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
I agree with you, and yet... The combat was what ruined WoW for me. Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the IP before WoW was released, and I expected to be a big fan. But I didn't have any fun killing stuff. Then Guild Wars came along, and was just so much better in every conceivable way, and WoW went from being a boring disappointment to a total write off only six months after release.
Don't strawman me and accuse that I "prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all". It's both insulting and incorrect. I do like fun games though, I'll just never count WoW as one of those.
I'm not using strawman arguments, I'm clearly explaining that only defining a game -- by your own words is combat related -- is not the only judge of quality.
Quality is what all is on the table, not just one piece of the pie.
No, quality is not some magic sum of all the parts. Rather like a pie, if the apples are rotten the whole pie is bad. Same with a game. If a core mechanic as important to the game as combat is boring and lackluster, then the game is bad, no matter how good the finish, graphics, lore, etc. are. Yes you need all of them good to make a good game, but you only need one of them bad to ruin a game.
Huh? That's your retort? What IS *a* core mechanic? Define it, because you'll see there's more than one.
It's no wonder why crappy games exist, people would consume them. Don't care about visuals. Don't care even if the model seams are sound, just a consumer of disposable content. Don't care even of the quality of the coding...just more pewpewpew.
Gives a whole new meaning to mouth breathing, truly.
:shakes head:
Dude, there is such a thing as core concept of the game. Of course there are many facets and factors contributing to the game's overall quality but there is a core concept in each and every succesful game. It can usually be expressed in terms of what the player is supposed to experience, both in terms of emotion as well as time, money and effort. Core concept a) 20 hour intense cinematic joyride that can be replayed several times for added value b) an online virtual space that can be visited occasionally over an indefinite period c) a game of light chance, heavily influenced by psychology and social skills, played for real money d) an abstract intellectual 2-player game whose outcome's consequences do not extend beoyond playing time... yes, there are core concepts behind games and they are of critical importance, just like a film's core concept is crucial for its success.
Please read, first...
What IS *a* core mechanic?
When did concepts become *a* MECHANIC again???
As you also are flip flopping, interchanging single with plural definitions (as underlined above).
With games like Blizzard's WoW is much more complex, as there ARE many concepts they use (some we still don't know), just like we found out in Cata that shapes defined one of their core game DESIGNS (how about that!), which is why they were reluctant to have appearance armor, as each class had an unique character profile to visually know what enemy was an enemy.
But in itself it's NOT *A* CORE MECHANIC.
Man, I suspect you a programmer by trade. You deal with specifics, the trees, and I respect that. However, out of my experience I'll tell you that there is such a thing as core concepts and they are as crucial as their execution is. They're not just a PR gimmick, they're very real. As a golden-age hollywood producer once said, "If you can't describe what your movie is about on the back of a matchbox, I have no time for you." One of the reasons for WoW's success, (and for the success of ALL blizzard games) is exactly that the devs knew how to define their core concepts down to one or two sentences and then completely subserved the execution to those concepts. No matter how some particular mechanic might sound or look cool, if it doesn't fit the core concept - the one sentence idea of what the game is aboout - it's out. That enabled them to really polish what mechanics they decided to keep and saved them from the dreaded feature creep, the bane of many a promising game.
The sandbox solves nothing. You just try to offload your content creation to players - and they create shitty content. Some sandbox elements like PvP work to a limited extent but players still get bored of it.
What developers really need to be doing is designing good procedurally driven content. Thats the real MMO holy grail - you want the game to be able to respond to players needs and desires and make the world more interesting. The borderlands Director is as close as we have to this now.
He's only discussing the sandbox specific aspects of it.
It's going to also have procedural content implemented.. Stories and events that develop dynamically based on player actions. They've discussed that in other articles and such. They just haven't put much emphasis on exactly what they mean by "sandbox", so that's what Smed is discussing here.
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
I agree with you, and yet... The combat was what ruined WoW for me. Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the IP before WoW was released, and I expected to be a big fan. But I didn't have any fun killing stuff. Then Guild Wars came along, and was just so much better in every conceivable way, and WoW went from being a boring disappointment to a total write off only six months after release.
Don't strawman me and accuse that I "prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all". It's both insulting and incorrect. I do like fun games though, I'll just never count WoW as one of those.
I'm not using strawman arguments, I'm clearly explaining that only defining a game -- by your own words is combat related -- is not the only judge of quality.
Quality is what all is on the table, not just one piece of the pie.
No, quality is not some magic sum of all the parts. Rather like a pie, if the apples are rotten the whole pie is bad. Same with a game. If a core mechanic as important to the game as combat is boring and lackluster, then the game is bad, no matter how good the finish, graphics, lore, etc. are. Yes you need all of them good to make a good game, but you only need one of them bad to ruin a game.
Huh? That's your retort? What IS *a* core mechanic? Define it, because you'll see there's more than one.
It's no wonder why crappy games exist, people would consume them. Don't care about visuals. Don't care even if the model seams are sound, just a consumer of disposable content. Don't care even of the quality of the coding...just more pewpewpew.
Gives a whole new meaning to mouth breathing, truly.
:shakes head:
Dude, there is such a thing as core concept of the game. Of course there are many facets and factors contributing to the game's overall quality but there is a core concept in each and every succesful game. It can usually be expressed in terms of what the player is supposed to experience, both in terms of emotion as well as time, money and effort. Core concept a) 20 hour intense cinematic joyride that can be replayed several times for added value b) an online virtual space that can be visited occasionally over an indefinite period c) a game of light chance, heavily influenced by psychology and social skills, played for real money d) an abstract intellectual 2-player game whose outcome's consequences do not extend beoyond playing time... yes, there are core concepts behind games and they are of critical importance, just like a film's core concept is crucial for its success.
Please read, first...
What IS *a* core mechanic?
When did concepts become *a* MECHANIC again???
As you also are flip flopping, interchanging single with plural definitions (as underlined above).
With games like Blizzard's WoW is much more complex, as there ARE many concepts they use (some we still don't know), just like we found out in Cata that shapes defined one of their core game DESIGNS (how about that!), which is why they were reluctant to have appearance armor, as each class had an unique character profile to visually know what enemy was an enemy.
But in itself it's NOT *A* CORE MECHANIC.
Man, I suspect you a programmer by trade. You deal with specifics, the trees, and I respect that. However, out of my experience I'll tell you that there is such a thing as core concepts
Comments
Even if Smed was not the biggest snake oil salesman in the whole industry, SOE had what many people consider to be the most immersive and deep sandbox game of all time in pre-NGE SWG, and then he and SOE wrecked it. (And no, LA is not wholly to blame, and LA did not program a single line of code, either.)
That should tell anyone all they need to know about Smed and sandboxes.
/endthread
Until I see a better crafted MMORPG, it's actually the best out there to date, period.
Now I will agree WoW does have it's problems (and I said tons about it on their forums), but you're not going to find a better constructed MMO, because the other publishers CUT CORNERS.
If YOU prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all, yeah, to YOU it maybe not perfect. But for gamers who prefer games to hold a candle to design standards, no, there isn't any better MMORPG out there.
Case in point...
http://s970.photobucket.com/user/Kevyne-Shandris/media/WoW-Effects/KEVYNEKEVYNE_Storm_Peaks.mp4.html
That was made by Blizzard in *2008*. RL time day/night cycle, with aurora particle effects. You still won't find that even in 2014 "new" MMOs. That's only *one* zone in Northrend. Grizzly Hills has the daytime auroras. All that makes nice pretty screenshot backdrops (see my sig!).
That's the stuff YOU don't pay attention too about quality, as you concentrate on the pewpewpew. Today in WoW in places like Halfhill, those clouds are even more beautiful, not static images circling through a sky box seen in other MMOs.
Games are NOT defined solely on combat mechanics. It's the whole package.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
that kind of 'content' is not interesting to me ... mostly it is either drama, or zerging ... it is impossible to coordinate anything more than 10 people without getting into bickering and arguments.
There is a reason why this never really takes off in a big way .. and it is not by without trying.
There is no such thing. Different people want different games.
Personally, i would much rather have good professional created entertaining content. You don't speak for my taste.
I don't think the developers of Everquest or Ultima Online would say that their dream was NOT to build virtual worlds.
We are arguing semantics at this point, as all games are really just a collection of professionally (some more than others) created content that is meant to entertain.
Even the "themepark" games try and create virtual worlds- with things like weather and day/night cycles and they try and give life and personality to buildings and NPCs and creatures in the wild...
I don't even LIKE the terms "sandbox" and "themepark" for MMOs as they are too limited.
I think a true sandbox you are given the tools to build, which to me means something like Minecraft or Everquest Next: Landmark not EvE Online or even my first MMO love, UO.
So they are all themeparks to me - they all have their rides.
So I'll retract and edit my statement to read "I do think virtual worlds are the true dream of the MMORPG genre"
And what do their dream have to do with anything? They made two early products that are not even that successful compared to later ones. Those two products certainly do not represent preferences of most in the market. Otherwise, we will still have endless griefing and staring at a spellbook for 5 min.
Oh how little is known of the past...
UO got rid of the "endless griefing" with a major expansion release in 2000.
Listen, I am a big fan of World of Warcraft, and have had some good fun in many games before and since, but the MMORPG genre is far from reaching it's apex, and I believe without question that the "vision" of this genre is what makes it unique, and that is that these are virtual worlds, not just levels and lobbies like a CoD game.
In order to reach that apex, the virtual world aspects need to be expanded upon, which means NOTHING about removing the qualities associated most commonly with the "themepark" sub genre.
Better themeparks, themeparks with more/better rides AND more virtual world. What are widely considered to be "sandbox elements" can go a long way in added to the themepark elements to create a better virtual world.
I agree with you, and yet... The combat was what ruined WoW for me. Keep in mind, I was a huge fan of the IP before WoW was released, and I expected to be a big fan. But I didn't have any fun killing stuff. Then Guild Wars came along, and was just so much better in every conceivable way, and WoW went from being a boring disappointment to a total write off only six months after release.
Don't strawman me and accuse that I "prefer a disposable MMO to race to end just fighting through it all". It's both insulting and incorrect. I do like fun games though, I'll just never count WoW as one of those.
I'm not using strawman arguments, I'm clearly explaining that only defining a game -- by your own words is combat related -- is not the only judge of quality.
Quality is what all is on the table, not just one piece of the pie.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I've argued for Sandbox, and I agree with everything Smed said.
But I still have a question on where it all goes. Based on content zones. If a "Sandbox" game has separate "sandboxes" based on levels, and the player is required to go to this "sandbox" first, then the next one (or even a choice of a few) next, and so on, that spoils the "world" feeling and makes it feel gamey.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some content to content, such as skilling up for greater ability. Only that a good Sandbox needs to be open. And that the way to do that is to avoid the huge power gaps that Themeparks are built on.
Once upon a time....
By this point, he should be able to make the right Talking Points in his sleep. Like that skeevy career politician that you're not sure...why...you feel too uncomfortable to vote for.
But in Smed's case, we know why.
Yeah, but EQN:L proves to be more than a talking point while also being the inevitable foundation of EQN.
I never played SWG. That was a long time ago. It's hard for me to understand the hate, just saying.
No, quality is not some magic sum of all the parts. Rather like a pie, if the apples are rotten the whole pie is bad. Same with a game. If a core mechanic as important to the game as combat is boring and lackluster, then the game is bad, no matter how good the finish, graphics, lore, etc. are. Yes you need all of them good to make a good game, but you only need one of them bad to ruin a game.
Brilliant, I could not agree more, especially with the last sentence. My RL, though, has thrived as a result. I guess I should thank them.
Yes, exactly.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Don't know why ppl trust Smedley person.
SoE makes too many games that fail. That is why they keep needing to fire more people.
Free Realms. Shut down
Vanguard, Shut down.
Clone Wars, Shut down.
Wizardy, Shut down.
The matrix, Shut dow
Infantry, Shut down
Closed Rift, Shut down
EQ Online adventures, Shut down
The Agency, game canned.
EQNext, all or nothing. If the game fails, SoE is over.
Huh? That's your retort? What IS *a* core mechanic? Define it, because you'll see there's more than one.
It's no wonder why crappy games exist, people would consume them. Don't care about visuals. Don't care even if the model seams are sound, just a consumer of disposable content. Don't care even of the quality of the coding...just more pewpewpew.
Gives a whole new meaning to mouth breathing, truly.
:shakes head:
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
That is just an "apex" you prefer .. given how MMOs are becoming better games, more lobby like, more solo-able, and less virtual world, i do not think the broader market share this vision.
And why should this genre be "unique" ... the value of entertainment is not that it is unique, it is being entertaining.
I don't want a better virtual world. I want better games. (And don't tell me to go find better games in other genre ... i do ... just that there is no reason to ignore this one, if they are becoming what i like).
Dunno, PS2 hits all the right keys with me. Maybe I was lucky since I started playing just a few months ago and I have no idea what went on at release, but I really can't think of anything to complain about, either in terms of concept or execution. (Well... they really could use a rework of their vehicle model... 24th century tanks without any sunspension or gun stabilization? the ridiculous control sheme on the aircraft? O.o gripe, gripe...) Anyways, I hate what Smed and SOE did to the genre just like the next guy, but I do feel a bit of change in the air from that direction. I have no idea what happened, what made SOE finally listen to the players (and they actually do in PS2) and what made them go all player-driven sandboxy and all, but... Dunno. In the light of PS2 experience which is now very smooth, very polished with a very clear, albeit simplistic vision of what the game is supposed to be (actually, that's quite a rare find in mainstream titles nowadays), I won't expect much polish or grace from EQ games in the first year or so, in fact I'll probably avoid them altoghether in that period. But, as I said, I dare to feel cautiously optimistic.
Dude, there is such a thing as core concept of the game. Of course there are many facets and factors contributing to the game's overall quality but there is a core concept in each and every succesful game. It can usually be expressed in terms of what the player is supposed to experience, both in terms of emotion as well as time, money and effort. Core concept a) 20 hour intense cinematic joyride that can be replayed several times for added value b) an online virtual space that can be visited occasionally over an indefinite period c) a game of light chance, heavily influenced by psychology and social skills, played for real money d) an abstract intellectual 2-player game whose outcome's consequences do not extend beoyond playing time... yes, there are core concepts behind games and they are of critical importance, just like the clarity of a film's core concept is crucial for its success.
So now you have abandoned strawman for semantics. Way to go.
Nobody cares about the quality of the coding, that would be ridiculous unless you were a fellow programmer critiquing source code. People care about if it works, and if it's fun. WoW mostly works, and some people think it's fun. That's about all you can say for it.
People go back to WoW because it mostly works(and it should after all these years) and they think it's fun. Also because the parts of it that aren't fun, they are already acclimated to and willing to live with.
In short, it's not quality that brings people back to WoW, it's familiarity and laziness.
That's not a bad thing. I keep some games on my computer that are truely awful compared to their modern counterparts, because my down time doesn't always have to be new and exciting. But don't kid yourself that WoW is some kind of golden standard. It's just the biggest, oldest fish in the pond, and it launched with a phenominal PR campaign that convinced lots of people to try it who previously had never considered playing UO, AC or EQ. With the right ad and media push, any of those early games could have been where WoW is today. It had a lot more to do with convincing high school and college kids that MMORPGs weren't just for nerds than it did with the quality of the product.
Please read, first...
What IS *a* core mechanic?
When did concepts become *a* MECHANIC again???
As you also are flip flopping, interchanging single with plural definitions (as underlined above).
With games like Blizzard's WoW is much more complex, as there ARE many concepts they use (some we still don't know), just like we found out in Cata that shapes defined one of their core game DESIGNS (how about that!), which is why they were reluctant to have appearance armor, as each class had an unique character profile to visually know what enemy was an enemy.
But in itself it's NOT *A* CORE MECHANIC.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Man, I suspect you a programmer by trade. You deal with specifics, the trees, and I respect that. However, out of my experience I'll tell you that there is such a thing as core concepts and they are as crucial as their execution is. They're not just a PR gimmick, they're very real. As a golden-age hollywood producer once said, "If you can't describe what your movie is about on the back of a matchbox, I have no time for you." One of the reasons for WoW's success, (and for the success of ALL blizzard games) is exactly that the devs knew how to define their core concepts down to one or two sentences and then completely subserved the execution to those concepts. No matter how some particular mechanic might sound or look cool, if it doesn't fit the core concept - the one sentence idea of what the game is aboout - it's out. That enabled them to really polish what mechanics they decided to keep and saved them from the dreaded feature creep, the bane of many a promising game.
He's only discussing the sandbox specific aspects of it.
It's going to also have procedural content implemented.. Stories and events that develop dynamically based on player actions. They've discussed that in other articles and such. They just haven't put much emphasis on exactly what they mean by "sandbox", so that's what Smed is discussing here.
Oh, wow. Really, again???
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Funny cartoon.
Only one problem... Horizons is still running. It's just called Istaria now.
Still a funny, and relevant, cartoon otherwise.