No, I very much mean players habitually sabotage their own entertainment by seeking the path of least resistance.
That is an oxy-moron.
If players habitually choose the "least resistant" path, the other path is boring and not fun.
Do you see people, who like video games, choose the "least resistant" path by not buying and playing video games? That is the least resistant path, right? Not doing anything.
Just throw up terms like "least resistant" path does not prove that people sabotage their own entertainment, which is what you claim. It just show that whatever they are avoiding is not entertaining for them.
I do expect you will say any illogical thing just to have an argument. So I understand.
If you give children an option they will eat sweet food and fast food at ever choice. The path of least resistance does not mean path to greater good.
This is why MMORPG have lost their MMORPG goals. They catered to the influx of single player gamers WOW brought in who don't seek MMORPG play. They seek The Division. The anomaly skewed the genre until it was unsustainable unless it used marketing ploy to get a few people to actually pay for these games.
No, I very much mean players habitually sabotage their own entertainment by seeking the path of least resistance.
That is an oxy-moron.
If players habitually choose the "least resistant" path, the other path is boring and not fun.
Do you see people, who like video games, choose the "least resistant" path by not buying and playing video games? That is the least resistant path, right? Not doing anything.
Just throw up terms like "least resistant" path does not prove that people sabotage their own entertainment, which is what you claim. It just show that whatever they are avoiding is not entertaining for them.
I do expect you will say any illogical thing just to have an argument. So I understand.
It's human nature. He's not wrong because you can't or won't understand.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
The only evidence I actually need is my own gathered from playing games I like for over 30 years.
I like games that HAVE slow travel when it is part of the design of the game no matter what you say. Keep trying to persuade me what I should be finding fun or what I should like for another 25 pages all you like. Between the two of us I think I understand my MY likes and dislikes more then you do.
Anyway you have ignored every shred of evidence provided to you by myself and others and I am pretty sure you are the type of person who will stubbornly argue Black is White just because.
Also, if you really felt the need to type another wall of text to reply to a joke I would worry more about your state rather then about me. Unless of course you want to tell me what jokes I should find funny as well?
Well at least you're able to admit that you're using your solitary subjective anecdotal experiences, rather than observing the copious amount of objective data on the subject. That means you're only one step away from understanding that a conversation about good game design cannot reasonably revolve around your solitary anecdotal experiences. Logically a discussion on game design must focus on what many players enjoy.
And far more players have shown interest in "simple yet deep" game design than game designs which inject shallow tediums into gameplay.
Do you really have no interest in reality? Here in reality saying the words "you have ignored every shred of evidence" doesn't magically make it true. You have to provide evidence of your claim. The ironic part is by making a false claim with no evidence you're the one arguing black is white.
Or was your last line intended to admit that all of your posts have just been a joke? That I could believe.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, I very much mean players habitually sabotage their own entertainment by seeking the path of least resistance.
That is an oxy-moron.
If players habitually choose the "least resistant" path, the other path is boring and not fun.
Do you see people, who like video games, choose the "least resistant" path by not buying and playing video games? That is the least resistant path, right? Not doing anything.
Just throw up terms like "least resistant" path does not prove that people sabotage their own entertainment, which is what you claim. It just show that whatever they are avoiding is not entertaining for them.
I do expect you will say any illogical thing just to have an argument. So I understand.
I don't have the full context, but this did come up in the thread about questing: If a game offers questing and grinding, and they were completely equal in the rate of advancement, then the path of least resistance would obviously be grinding (where you don't have to bother moving to different locations.) However such a game would grow boring much faster, as it would involve substantially less gameplay variety (as a direct result of players choosing the path of least resistance; players would choose to repetitively grind the same mobs for hours on end.)
This problem doesn't always occur with the least-resistant path, but it is a real thing that happens sometimes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
He hasn't read that page in the dummies guide to game development yet.
I literally say the phrase "the most common type of fun" (implying pattern mastery isn't the only type of fun) so much it feels excessive.
I simplified my prior statement for curtness as it was not a subject that had needed to be expounded upon. Removing the straw man claim is as simple as pointing out that most forms of entertainment derive their value equally from a rather wide range of game mechanics.
It was covered in-depth in another thread with several good academic research sources cited on the topic. Claiming pattern mastery as the "fun above all" is simply not a true statement. It's also not the subject of the thread.
A straw man that you have yet to stop using though is "doing something boring is boring". Stating the obvious that a mechanics when in isolation suffers from lack of depth does not address the arguments others have made about integration and making interesting gameplay using a mechanic alongside the rest of them. Making an argument using an example that runs counter to the statements being made is entirely a straw man and more-so a red herring.
On the topic of "Do you really have no interest in reality?" There have been multiples links, games by name, quotes, and else-wise that refute claims you have made which fail to have a response. The reality is clear on that matter. Saying you did something when others know you have intentionally blocked out sources that refute your world view (by your admission) is very simply fallacious.
Evidence was provided. You can go to page 18 and see the links. You can go to page six and see the games. You can go to many of these pages for information you have chosen to deny. Everyone can to see the reality opposes your claim.
At least you are somewhat on-point about the "path of least resistance" issue.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
A large portion of what I post about on these forums is straight out of A Theory of Fun (Koster, 2004.) Those ideas (pattern mastery as the most common source of fun in games) have proven out in countless games.
A large portion of what I post here is my preferences, study of gaming theory, 30+ years of gaming and discussions with developers like Koster. Many of the games I have enjoyed have sold millions and been focused on different types of gameplay.
Every successful game out there is a dense weave of interesting patterns to unravel.
And travel can be, has been and will be an interesting feature in the future. Games have sold billions of dollars doing just that.
What Koster said and what he did* were two different things.
His games involved considerable downtime (periods without significant patterns) and as a result they only enjoyed moderate success. (*It's unnecessarily harsh to claim it's what "he" did and fairer to say it's "what the teams he was on did." Games are almost never solely the ideas of one game designer.)
Meanwhile games which avoid downtime and focus on providing interesting patterns (which I will interchangeably call 'gameplay' and/or 'decisions') enjoyed vastly more success.
No, he didn't create the games on his own. But as someone who I have had discussions with at various points over the years I can say that he does believe in virtual simulation over the themepark brand of gaming. His games were like that. One of his games had more fast travel than any other out on the market now. You had one that had slow travel. It means that systems are more important working together than just what's fun in isolation. Its also bigger than just your opinion you use.
The only game that had vastly more success was WoW. Its success was more than just gameplay or every other clone would have enjoyed the same success.
The reason was clarified by Bartle, who pointed out in an article or interview that Socializers don't necessarily want to Achieve (or if they do they might not want to Achieveright now.) So attempting to force Achiever gameplay on Socializers as a prerequisite to their Socializing is a Terrible Idea. (And vice-versa for every other combination of Bartle archetype.)
This genre turned near 100% achiever/killer. You can not advance outside of grinding something. Exploring, socializing have been marginalized to the point they are not needed at all.
So while Koster was right about patterns, he is wrong about attempting to force players to do something they're not interested in like socializing.
And you can see that in the successful design of WOW
What genre have you been playing where you aren't "forced" to do something? Again how do you play WoW and WoW inspired MMORPG without killing and achieving? That's all there is. There is no exploring. Socialization is marginalized.
There are principles that go into making an MMORPG. Different ones that single player games. I will trust the person who creates MMORPG and writes on theory than someone who's beliefs don't stretch beyond World of Warcraft.
Currently the very games you believe in that pretend to be single player games are shrinking. The formula never panned out outside of WoW which was popular for reason that go beyond the game itself. These games no long hold a long term viable audience out side of a handful with big IPs and no longer being developed by western market. Investors are no longer chasing fools gold.
The only evidence I actually need is my own gathered from playing games I like for over 30 years.
I like games that HAVE slow travel when it is part of the design of the game no matter what you say. Keep trying to persuade me what I should be finding fun or what I should like for another 25 pages all you like. Between the two of us I think I understand my MY likes and dislikes more then you do.
Anyway you have ignored every shred of evidence provided to you by myself and others and I am pretty sure you are the type of person who will stubbornly argue Black is White just because.
Also, if you really felt the need to type another wall of text to reply to a joke I would worry more about your state rather then about me. Unless of course you want to tell me what jokes I should find funny as well?
Well at least you're able to admit that you're using your solitary subjective anecdotal experiences, rather than observing the copious amount of objective data on the subject.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
That means you're only one step away from understanding that a conversation about good game design cannot reasonably revolve around your solitary anecdotal experiences.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
Logically a discussion on game design must focus on what many players enjoy.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
And far more players have shown interest in "simple yet deep" game design than game designs which inject shallow tediums into gameplay.
Do you really have no interest in reality?
- reality sure. The make believe reality you live in not so much.
Here in reality saying the words "you have ignored every shred of evidence" doesn't magically make it true.
- And yet if you go back over the posts made by myself and others you will see you HAVE ignored every piece of evidence, both personal and when citing sources such as well known and GOOD game designers who discount pretty much everything you say. I will take that EVIDENCE from KNOWN game designers then some internet no-body who makes claims that are refuted at every step.
You have to provide evidence of your claim.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
The ironic part is by making a false claim with no evidence you're the one arguing black is white.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
Or was your last line intended to admit that all of your posts have just been a joke? That I could believe.
- Of course, make personal insults because by insulting all my posts and those of everyone who has a differing opinion you somehow think you win the Internet. Dream on.
No, I very much mean players habitually sabotage their own entertainment by seeking the path of least resistance.
That is an oxy-moron.
If players habitually choose the "least resistant" path, the other path is boring and not fun.
Do you see people, who like video games, choose the "least resistant" path by not buying and playing video games? That is the least resistant path, right? Not doing anything.
Just throw up terms like "least resistant" path does not prove that people sabotage their own entertainment, which is what you claim. It just show that whatever they are avoiding is not entertaining for them.
I do expect you will say any illogical thing just to have an argument. So I understand.
I don't have the full context, but this did come up in the thread about questing: If a game offers questing and grinding, and they were completely equal in the rate of advancement, then the path of least resistance would obviously be grinding (where you don't have to bother moving to different locations.) However such a game would grow boring much faster, as it would involve substantially less gameplay variety (as a direct result of players choosing the path of least resistance; players would choose to repetitively grind the same mobs for hours on end.)
This problem doesn't always occur with the least-resistant path, but it is a real thing that happens sometimes.
You sound so arrogant. Its beyond path of least resistance. Vast majority of MMORPG quest are generally boring to most people in isolation. Especially MMORPG quest that tend to exist not to tell narrative but to give you something to do to extend the games life. Its always been about the rewards. You complete a simple task and get to get exp and or gear. We don't care about killing 10 wolves or collecting 10 mushrooms. Its not fun. Gamers care about advancement.
There is no way to prove what you're saying that the game would become more boring if players were given the choice to have quick experience from killing NPCs. Its never been done. Every game that has you grind mobs always has been extreme.
There are other reasons that people liked grinding because the NPCs tended to unique to make up for the lack of story to diversify combat. NPCs generally had strengths, weakness, special abilities and curveballs. Most modern NPCS are generally the same with new skins and models.
If you give children an option they will eat sweet food and fast food at ever choice. The path of least resistance does not mean path to greater good.
This is why MMORPG have lost their MMORPG goals. They catered to the influx of single player gamers WOW brought in who don't seek MMORPG play. They seek The Division. The anomaly skewed the genre until it was unsustainable unless it used marketing ploy to get a few people to actually pay for these games.
And this probably why I've disliked Richard Garriott coining the term MMORPG.
Been playing RPGs long before MMORPGs were a thing. RG suckered a lot of single player RPG gamers long before WoW ever did by labeling them mmoRPG.
The RPG elements were terrible in the early MMORPGs and that was the problem. The biggest one being pacing.
Well at least you're able to admit that you're using your solitary subjective anecdotal experiences, rather than observing the copious amount of objective data on the subject.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
That means you're only one step away from understanding that a conversation about good game design cannot reasonably revolve around your solitary anecdotal experiences.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
Logically a discussion on game design must focus on what many players enjoy.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
And far more players have shown interest in "simple yet deep" game design than game designs which inject shallow tediums into gameplay.
Do you really have no interest in reality?
- reality sure. The make believe reality you live in not so much.
Here in reality saying the words "you have ignored every shred of evidence" doesn't magically make it true.
- And yet if you go back over the posts made by myself and others you will see you HAVE ignored every piece of evidence, both personal and when citing sources such as well known and GOOD game designers who discount pretty much everything you say. I will take that EVIDENCE from KNOWN game designers then some internet no-body who makes claims that are refuted at every step.
You have to provide evidence of your claim.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
The ironic part is by making a false claim with no evidence you're the one arguing black is white.
- You read my 1st sentence but ignore my 3rd....as usual.
Or was your last line intended to admit that all of your posts have just been a joke? That I could believe.
- Of course, make personal insults because by insulting all my posts and those of everyone who has a differing opinion you somehow think you win the Internet. Dream on.
Your 3rd sentence? First, I specifically invalidated the concern by mentioning how game design isn't about your individual tastes. Second, this conversation has never been about trying to convince you to like something -- it's been about good travel design.
Directly invalidating your post isn't ignoring it.
Words mean nothing without evidence. My words are backed by evidence: I'm describing reality. Your words are not backed by evidence: You're describing a make-believe fantasy.
So again, if you have evidence, post it. Let's discuss reality.
The last line wasn't meant as a personal insult. You've been so far off track this entire time that I legitimately could believe all your posts were intended as a joke.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your 3rd sentence? First, I specifically invalidated the concern by mentioning how game design isn't about your individual tastes. Second, this conversation has never been about trying to convince you to like something -- it's been about good travel design.
Directly invalidating your post isn't ignoring it.
Words mean nothing without evidence. My words are backed by evidence: I'm describing reality. Your words are not backed by evidence: You're describing a make-believe fantasy.
So again, if you have evidence, post it. Let's discuss reality.
The last line wasn't meant as a personal insult. You've been so far off track this entire time that I legitimately could believe all your posts were intended as a joke.
My 3rd sentance: -
Anyway you have ignored every shred of evidence provided to you by myself and others and I am pretty sure you are the type of person who will stubbornly argue Black is White just because.
You sound so arrogant. Its beyond path of least resistance. Vast majority of MMORPG quest are generally boring to most people in isolation. Especially MMORPG quest that tend to exist not to tell narrative but to give you something to do to extend the games life. Its always been about the rewards. You complete a simple task and get to get exp and or gear. We don't care about killing 10 wolves or collecting 10 mushrooms. Its not fun. Gamers care about advancement.
There is no way to prove what you're saying that the game would become more boring if players were given the choice to have quick experience from killing NPCs. Its never been done. Every game that has you grind mobs always has been extreme.
There are other reasons that people liked grinding because the NPCs tended to unique to make up for the lack of story to diversify combat. NPCs generally had strengths, weakness, special abilities and curveballs. Most modern NPCS are generally the same with new skins and models.
What's arrogant about understanding how people behave? This is how they behave. Should I pretend it isn't how they behave just because the truth makes you uncomfortable? I'm not going to hide the truth from you.
Developers do observe this trend. If you implement a skippable tutorial and the game isn't 100% self-explanatory (which it will almost never be because a lot of players who try your game aren't well-versed in other games,) then the result is often that players choose to skip it, miss a couple critical rules, experience a loss as a result, call the game stupid, and leave. This sort of scenario really does happen, and it's the developer's fault for giving too much freedom to the player.
RPG quests are about variety of gameplay. The truth is players enjoy doing 20 different activities and killing 200 different mob types more than they enjoy excessively grinding 20 different mob types (over the course of leveling with long hours spent grinding any given mob type.) The truth is players enjoy variety.
Stating that gamers care about advancement is irrelevant. Lots of games have advancement. Progression Quest has advancement, but you don't see everyone playing that over MMORPGs. Why not? Because the gameplay isn't interesting and varied. Gameplay is decisions, and decisions are more interesting with variety.
The fact that we have games which are grind-focused and games which are quest-focused and the quest-focused games have enjoyed substantially more success is the way to prove that's what players want. If players wanted grind, the grind games would generally perform better, and they would've won out over quest-based games. They didn't. That's reality.
I mean it should seem excessively obvious that players don't want to just do the same activity ad naseum. "Grind" isn't a word they use fondly, after all. It's a word deliberately used to negatively describe too much repetition relative to the time requirement.
These are also factors in why travel isn't popular. There's no significant variety to travel -- you may have different obstacles to navigate around, but that's not enough variety on its own. Mob aggro must be avoided, but that's always the same, and isn't something you'd really want to spend time varying because how many ways can you even vary the way that mobs aggro? Maybe you could establish a few major archetypes (beast, organized humanoids, raiders, etc) but it wouldn't be as much variety as you get in combat gameplay (which the vast majority of mob variety plays different.)
The bigger problem with travel is of course that it's dead-shallow. But even if you solved that you'd still have to address the lack of variety.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think something lost here is that even vast landscapes with only small amounts of fighting are not boring if done right. I'm not talking about gathering or looking at the scenery (though those are important). I'm talking about the general atmosphere of the area and what you are trying to portray. A large desert might block your path to another area you need to go. Every time you need to go back and fourth it's a dangerous trip. You could lose your way, fall into quicksand, get lost in a sandstorm, get attacked by snakes/scorpions/undead/etc, or die of thirst/starvation because you couldn't find your way out quickly enough. All of these are interesting game mechanics to me. You might stumble upon a pyramid and an old lost culture segregated from the rest of the world. It also has an impact on trading and having to transfer your goods across dangerous areas if there is no auction house that links everything. This is obviously also hingent there being no GPS as maps. The point is that adding fast travel impacts things in many regards and does indeed reduce the mysticism, size, danger, and excitement of the world. Something that is based on being and adventure and putting you in situations that would happen in an adventure no longer happen anymore. Instead you always feel safe and in turn there are no emotions being provoked while playing. This leads to the game relying on only fighting mechanic complexity to retain players and that is very boring for me after a while in most cases.
Developers do observe this trend. If you implement a skippable tutorial and the game isn't 100% self-explanatory (which it will almost never be because a lot of players who try your game aren't well-versed in other games,) then the result is often that players choose to skip it, miss a couple critical rules, experience a loss as a result, call the game stupid, and leave. This sort of scenario really does happen, and it's the developer's fault for giving too much freedom to the player.
Several points here.
The closest you've come to a valid argument now is this statement that players need guidance or they have a habit of skipping over meaningful content. However, that's exactly the point that was indicated about the use of fast travel in a game where the activities are seeded into the world for the user experience rather than on heavily scripted events. Meaning you're repeating the argument that gives credence to one of the points we previously made.
RPG quests are only about enforcing variety in gameplay as long as that gameplay already exists within the game, it's an incentive structure not the content itself and can be replaced by other incentive structures to deliver on the same push for variety. The quest mechanic is used generally because, again, many RPG games take a very linear and heavily scripted approach which means there's generally a finite route for one to experience the game's content within.
As far as grind vs quest that's a false division. Aside from that though, it's interesting to point out that three of the top grossing games of all time are asian MMOs (Westward Journey $3.9b, Dungeon Fighter $4b, Lineage Series $5.7b) that you would consider grind heavy while WoW is the only western mmo on the top grossing list. Is WoW higher grossing than them at $8.5b? Sure, but it's also standalone and the userbase is not of the same spread as the previous three just mentioned. Since we're also seeing continued production of MMOs out of South Korea, Japan, and even China (and some other places like Malaysia) we can also point out where production is generally heading still.
We've covered the problem you claim about travel here plenty of times. A game mechanic in isolation will always suffer. You said it yourself by pointing out that in the titles you play it doesn't interact with many other elements of the game. Hence the prior mention of integrating it with other game mechanics, not simply dwell on what few mechanics you have integrated. Hence the examples of games given back on page six that do integrate more into the travel mechanics so that it has more than just A to B riding and mob avoidance, it also ends up having deeper value to the player economy through the trade/caravaning/commerce, controls scope of the user experience, raids/capture, hunting migratory elements, chasing and being chased, territory control, resource capture/scarcity, etc. Mob avoidance is just one factor that western MMOs possess because of their design primarily because they have had the tendency to neglect the game world to deliver heavily scripted content instead.
The bigger problem is not that travel is a shallow mechanic, it's that in the games you choose to play it's a poorly integrated mechanic, which is what leads to shallow gameplay because there is no interaction with other game elements. Games were mentioned that have better integrated travel within the MMO genre back on page 3 and then more successful/popular eastern titles (note, only two of the titles mentioned there exist in the western market) over on page 10. Variety and shallowness are only problems when you design an MMORPG to be a static user experience driven by heavily scripted content that they migrate from one scripted element to the next while the world only serves as a backdrop. For themeparks with such a rigid and finite design it's hard to make travel interesting. That's why most of the MMORPG titles shown in example, while plenty of them have quests and such, they are not given in a heavily scripted context and they will take players to all odd-ends of the world in any order as they are individual tasks associated with elements of the game world generally, not driving a singular overarching scripted user experience.
That alone changes the means travel has for delivering gameplay quite a lot when the goal of travel isn't so clear as point A to point B, but to instead meander the world to find the success you desire.
When you deign to ignore massive market components such as the giant that is eastern gaming and design. When you deign to ignore the nature of different game designs and philosophies. When you deign to ignore the very mechanics driving the gameplay you espouse. When you deign to ignore the referenced titles from pages 3 and 10, the links on page 18, the quotes offered from other devs, etc. With the sheer volume of things you have failed to observe already, there is no capacity for you to claim understanding or mastery over any observable factors.
Also the case of your sig "Unlike most, I reject bad ideas because they're bad and accept good ideas because they're good, and it doesn't matter who's saying it; only the truth matters."
Considering what was just indicated...
One's capacity to judge good and bad is exceptionally finite and dependent upon individual experience. When you are only seeking to reaffirm your world view, then any idea that runs contrary to that is going to be "bad" regardless of the reality of the circumstance. The truth is very far removed from such judgement calls. It's only the illusion of knowledge.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If you give children an option they will eat sweet food and fast food at ever choice. The path of least resistance does not mean path to greater good.
This is why MMORPG have lost their MMORPG goals. They catered to the influx of single player gamers WOW brought in who don't seek MMORPG play. They seek The Division. The anomaly skewed the genre until it was unsustainable unless it used marketing ploy to get a few people to actually pay for these games.
And this probably why I've disliked Richard Garriott coining the term MMORPG.
Been playing RPGs long before MMORPGs were a thing. RG suckered a lot of single player RPG gamers long before WoW ever did by labeling them mmoRPG.
The RPG elements were terrible in the early MMORPGs and that was the problem. The biggest one being pacing.
Could you elaborate on this blanket statement a bit? I admit I never played UO, but what roleplaying elements were terrible or missing? Especially compared to today's games.
In my experiences, roleplaying mostly took place between the players while in game, not so much with NPCs. That was the draw for me with the whole MMORPG genre. I could roleplay with other players, instead of just NPCs with a lot of imagination involved.
A large portion of what I post here is my preferences, study of gaming theory, 30+ years of gaming and discussions with developers like Koster. Many of the games I have enjoyed have sold millions and been focused on different types of gameplay.
And travel can be, has been and will be an interesting feature in the future. Games have sold billions of dollars doing just that.
No, he didn't create the games on his own. But as someone who has discussions at various points over the years I can say that he does believe in virtual simulation over the themepark brand of gaming. His games were like that. One of his games had more fast travel than any other out on the market now. You had one that had slow travel. It means that systems are more important working together than just your opinion.
The only game that had vastly more success was WoW. Its success was more than just gameplay or every other clone would have enjoyed the same success.
This genre turn near 100% achiever/killer. You can not advance outside of grinding something. Exploring, socializing have been marginalized to the point they are not needed at all.
What genre have you been playing where you aren't "forced" to do something? Again how do you play WoW and WoW inspired MMORPG without killing and achieving? That's all there is. There is no exploring. Socialization is marginalized.
There are principles that go into making an MMORPG. I will trust the person who creates MMORPG and writes on theory than someone who's beliefs don't stretch beyond World of Warcraft.
Currently the very games you believe games that pretend to be single player games are shrinking. The formula never panned out outside of WoW which was popular for reason that go beyond the game itself. These games no long hold a long term viable audience and no longer being developed by western market. Investors are no longer chasing fools gold.
I wonder what causes people to be unable to differentiate "this kinda worked" from "this consistently works amazing".
Because I consistently see arguments on this board of games which "sold millions" and meanwhile next to them are the stack of games which have sold hundreds of millions all combined. Yet these posters probably honestly believe they've made a legitimate point which disputes what I've said.
It's the equivalent of my describing the successful design attributes of a Boeing Airliner, and then someone posting "Nuh-uh, the Wright Flyer proves planes are just fine with a little bit of spruce wood and a 12hp engine!"
Travel hasn't been and isn't interesting MMORPGs currently. And I've pointed out why it won't be interesting in MMORPGs in the future. And because travel isn't interesting in MMORPGs, the better MMORPGs let you skip it and are more successful as a result (because players play games for the gameplay, not to watch a run animation.)
I wonder what causes people to assume beliefs are always right. (If Koster believed virtual worlds were the right direction, that doesn't mean the belief is automatically right.)
We're not discussing subjective beliefs (or the mild-but-probably-safe assumption that Koster believes that in the first place). We're discussing how his book describes the most common way players have fun in games, and how the vast majority of highly successful games are successful because of that type of gameplay. And because we see that pattern, we realize that big swaths of empty non-gameplay smack dab in the middle of our MMORPGs are a bad design (if we didn't instinctively jump to the conclusion that "sit and do nothing for a while" was a bad idea in the first place.)
Complaints about a lack of socialization or exploration are nonsense. Want to socialize? Then socialize! Want to explore? Then explore! Nothing stops you.
The significant change that was made is achievers aren't forced to socialize as much, and vice-versa. Each player archetype is more isolated from one another, and Bartle himself points out this is a better way to do things (though I do still need to find time to track down the video/talk where he makes this point; he's made a lot of talks which makes it hard to track down the one where he made this comment.)
Although your comment about "you cannot advance outside of grinding something" strikes me as you possibly not knowing even the basics of what you're talking about. Socializers don't want a "social XP" system (which is Achiever gameplay) to measure their socialization. They just want to socialize! That's what socialization is!
What are you even talking about regarding "someone whose beliefs don't stretch beyond WOW"? I'm literally the person in this thread who has mentioned the broadest breadth of games across many genres. So hopefully you weren't refering to me with that comment, as you would just objectively look wrong.
Citing that the genre is shrinking is pretty irrelevant. Weaker games do worse, and so far nobody has released a MMORPG that provided the same variety and depth as WOW. So logically none of those less-interesting games did as well as WOW (and in fact you'd have to surpass WOW in that regard to overcome the question "Why should I play this instead of WOW?")
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think something lost here is that even vast landscapes with only small amounts of fighting are not boring if done right. I'm not talking about gathering or looking at the scenery (though those are important). I'm talking about the general atmosphere of the area and what you are trying to portray. A large desert might block your path to another area you need to go. Every time you need to go back and fourth it's a dangerous trip. You could lose your way, fall into quicksand, get lost in a sandstorm, get attacked by snakes/scorpions/undead/etc, or die of thirst/starvation because you couldn't find your way out quickly enough. All of these are interesting game mechanics to me. You might stumble upon a pyramid and an old lost culture segregated from the rest of the world. It also has an impact on trading and having to transfer your goods across dangerous areas if there is no auction house that links everything. This is obviously also hingent there being no GPS as maps. The point is that adding fast travel impacts things in many regards and does indeed reduce the mysticism, size, danger, and excitement of the world. Something that is based on being and adventure and putting you in situations that would happen in an adventure no longer happen anymore. Instead you always feel safe and in turn there are no emotions being provoked while playing. This leads to the game relying on only fighting mechanic complexity to retain players and that is very boring for me after a while in most cases.
Are you arguing that most players are interested in sitting passively and watching scenery, or would you agree that all evidence shows that isn't the case?
Games can be fun via interactive (decisions/gameplay) or non-interactive (cinematics) elements. While telling a good story can still be entertaining, showing players a bunch of scenery (also a non-interactive element) isn't very entertaining. At least not for long lengths of time -- Halo uses "vistas" (nice scenery moments) to split up its gameplay now and then, and that works, but Halo isn't spending 4+ minutes where you can't do anything but watch what's going on while your interaction is limited to walking.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pawns are boring in Chess because they only move 1 space at a time.
So lets make Pawns move like Queens, they are so much more exciting pieces to play with.
...
Just because you think something is boring in isolation doesn't make your assessment that you should just do away with it the correct thing to do. Subjectively OR objectively.
Rather you should look at the ENTIRE design of the game and realize "hey, the Pawn only moves 1 space for a reason. A damn important reason that requires you to play the game using tactical choices".
It is the same with a game designed with slow travel. It is because the game designer realizes that you have to design the ENTIRE game holistically and not just take pieces off the shelf, put them together and say "hey presto, this game will be great".
Stop using the dummies guide to game design and thinking it will work.
This genre used to be about a lot of different things to a lot of
different people. Now it is just one kind of thing for one kind of
person.
It used to be a kind of game for those who like to create content.
Games like City of Heroes gave you tools: base building tools, mission
creation tools, character design tools so that you could produce content, rather than just consume content. There's no such tools in Destiny; it is a place where your job as a player is to consume the content the developers give you and, after you've had your fill, you leave.
If we look at games as things where the purpose is to consume content, than Axehilt, Nariusseldon and Quirhid are correct; there's no point in offering space if there's nothing there.
But if the games are for players to both consume content and produce content, you need space. You need distance. You need this space and this distance so that players will have room to build their own things, from structures, to plots to entire environments.
This is why building games, simulations and survival games work well with large worlds where distance is a factor...and they are not hurting for players. Why we can't have this in MMORPGs today is less a matter of what MMORPGs are or what they should be; like I said, we had plenty of systems for those who want to produce content in the early days. And we have plenty of people who want that sort of gameplay, as seen in the popularity of the building, survival and simulation genres.
It has to do with what developers and some players want them to be; games where the only content that is produced is from the developer. Games where the purpose is to consume the content as efficiently as possible and leave.
If that's your idea of what massive, multiplayer online role play should be about, then it is no wonder why you see no point in big worlds. But to say that massive, multiplayer online role play cannot be about anything else is, given all the variety I see in computer entertainment, rather myopic.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Could you elaborate on this blanket statement a bit? I admit I never played UO, but what roleplaying elements were terrible or missing? Especially compared to today's games.
In my experiences, roleplaying mostly took place between the players while in game, not so much with NPCs. That was the draw for me with the whole MMORPG genre. I could roleplay with other players, instead of just NPCs with a lot of imagination involved.
Videogame RPGs were never like that (and MMORPGs are a videogame RPG.)
Videogames which try to emulate tabletopRPGs (a distinct genre from videogame RPGs) have never enjoyed all that much success because it's not the right format. The latest attempt (Sword Coast Legends) is par for the course.
The difference is that one takes place in players' imaginations, and the other doesn't. So with videogame RPGs the focus is automatically going to be less improv-like and dynamic than sitting around a table listening to a DM tell an improv story and reacting dynamically as the players make their various decisions.
Pursuing that tabletop RPG direction has stifled the success of every game that's attempted it.
Meanwhile videogame RPGs (the genre) by their nature have evolved to be optimized for the format over many decades.
So it came as no surprise when WOW eliminated/minimized a lot of the tabletop-like cruft of MMORPGs, they enjoyed substantially more success. It was the right game for the MMORPG format, instead of trying to be something it could never do well.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pawns are boring in Chess because they only move 1 space at a time.
So lets make Pawns move like Queens, they are so much more exciting pieces to play with.
...
Just because you think something is boring in isolation doesn't make your assessment that you should just do away with it the correct thing to do. Subjectively OR objectively.
Rather you should look at the ENTIRE design of the game and realize "hey, the Pawn only moves 1 space for a reason. A damn important reason that requires you to play the game using tactical choices".
It is the same with a game designed with slow travel. It is because the game designer realizes that you have to design the ENTIRE game holistically and not just take pieces off the shelf, put them together and say "hey presto, this game will be great".
Stop using the dummies guide to game design and thinking it will work.
You're not thinking like a game designer at all and seem to have no hope of developing a serious understanding of the topic.
Suggesting a giant buff to pawns is like saying that Renew (a priest's heal over time spell) should be that class' best damage ability. No, we're talking about one small sub-set of your available decisions and that one part doesn't need to be as strong as the strongest part. Just like pawns in chess.
So that analogy isn't like MMORPG travel at all. Travel in chess would be like if you input your move into a Chess program and then it took 10 minutes for that move to happen (in the meantime your opponent is just waiting 10 minutes doing nothing, and can't plan moves around your move because he can't see it until it finishes.) In other words, the same purposeless timesink as travel in MMORPGs is.
If a game element is boring, make a case for NOT removing it. The purpose of games isn't boredom, it's fun. Pruning out dead or unproductive game elements is a natural part of game genre evolution, and why some games thrive (WOW and it's pruned features) while other games enjoy worse success (or fail entirely.)
A vague allusion to "designing holistically" doesn't make your case. Designing things holistically doesn't require deliberately shallow and tedious game mechanics. The reality is this isn't really about designing holistically, but about designing the game, and what you want the game experience to be about. There is no argument to be made for deliberately interrupting PVE gameplay with empty timesinks, and there is only a very weak argument to be made for trying to shift RPGs to be less about combat depth and more about travel depth (it's a weak argument because that's just not what RPGs are about as games; another genre could do that (and they do: racing games do it) but not RPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your entire post is a personal attack and yet again you avoid all my points so I have reported this post. I will report every other post you make that avoids the points I make and just resort to insulting me.
Do you understand that by addressing your 3rd sentence, the claim that I "avoid all points" is objectively false?
Want to try to name another point of yours I haven't addressed? Go for it!
(Note that your 3rd paragraph wasn't unaddressed. It was just a hilariously vague and recursive claim that the point of yours I hadn't addressed was that I hadn't addressed a point your made.)
You need to cite evidence of your claims, or stop posting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pawns are boring in Chess because they only move 1 space at a time.
So lets make Pawns move like Queens, they are so much more exciting pieces to play with.
...
Just because you think something is boring in isolation doesn't make your assessment that you should just do away with it the correct thing to do. Subjectively OR objectively.
Rather you should look at the ENTIRE design of the game and realize "hey, the Pawn only moves 1 space for a reason. A damn important reason that requires you to play the game using tactical choices".
It is the same with a game designed with slow travel. It is because the game designer realizes that you have to design the ENTIRE game holistically and not just take pieces off the shelf, put them together and say "hey presto, this game will be great".
Stop using the dummies guide to game design and thinking it will work.
You're not thinking like a game designer at all and seem to have no hope of developing a serious understanding of the topic.
- I am quite happy with the results I got studying game design. So were the tutors. So were the board who marked my exam papers.
Suggesting a giant buff to pawns is like saying that Renew (a priest's heal over time spell) should be that class' best damage ability. No, we're talking about one small sub-set of your available decisions and that one part doesn't need to be as strong as the strongest part. Just like pawns in chess.
- Again you failed to understand the point I made and go off on another completely unrelated tangent. The point was the ENTIRE game of chess is designed to incorporate every aspect of the game to work together as a single element. Changing one part of that design, such as how the Pawn moves, changes the entire dynamic of the game. If the entire game is designed with the Pawns movement being one part of that over all design, then changing the movement capabilities of the Pawn affects the rest of the game.
The same way if you design a game where slow travel is there to compliment the overall game design then changing how the travel mechanic works will affect other parts of the game. Because each lement is not seperate from the entire game design.
So that analogy isn't like MMORPG travel at all. Travel in chess would be like if you input your move into a Chess program and then it took 10 minutes for that move to happen (in the meantime your opponent is just waiting 10 minutes doing nothing, and can't plan moves around your move because he can't see it until it finishes.) In other words, the same purposeless timesink as travel in MMORPGs is.
- So tell me, when you are playing Chess on a clock and you cannot move during the other players turn does that stop you from thinking about the possible moves they might make, the possible counters and strategise your next move? Sounds a lot like what you said what you just described.
If a game element is boring, make a case for NOT removing it. The purpose of games isn't boredom, it's fun. Pruning out dead or unproductive game elements is a natural part of game genre evolution, and why some games thrive (WOW and it's pruned features) while other games enjoy worse success (or fail entirely.)
- Again, you keep referring to boredom when that is NOT the argument at all. The argument is that slow or fast travel is NOT something to consider in isolation from the rest of the game. If you design the game with slow travel in mind you do it fora REASON.
That reason might be because time is a factor such as having to reach a destination within a certain period of time to prevent something bad happening such as in games with territorial control.
You might need resources to travel great distances like food and water such as in survival games.
You might have to travel across dangerous lands where night time is even more dangerous so choosing a good route and leaving at the right time will be very important.
There are any number of REASONS why slow travel is a requirement for the game design to work.
A vague allusion to "designing holistically" doesn't make your case.Designing things holistically doesn't require deliberately shallow and tedious game mechanics. The reality is this isn't really about designing holistically, but about designing the game, and what you want the game experience to be about.
- It isn't a vague allusion. It is necessary for making sure the game experience is actually achieved. Again, it isn't about CHOOSING deliberate shallow or tedious game mechanics. It is about choosing the CORRECT game mechanics for your game design.
There is no argument to be made for deliberately interrupting PVE gameplay with empty timesinks, and there is only a very weak argument to be made for trying to shift RPGs to be less about combat depth and more about travel depth (it's a weak argument because that's just not what RPGs are about as games; another genre could do that (and they do: racing games do it) but not RPGs.)
- Again you totally miss the point (are you sure you are a game designer because seriously, you make it hard for me to believe). It is NOT an interruption if it is part of the overall game design. I just don't see how you can just ignore every point raised to counter your position and still claim to be a game designer.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Please cite the 'perfect' game you have designed so that I can judge for myself if you are being belligerent and rude on purpose of if I really should listen to another word you say.
- I am quite happy with the results I got studying game design. So were the tutors. So were the board who marked my exam papers.
- Again you failed to understand the point I made and go off on another completely unrelated tangent. The point was the ENTIRE game of chess is designed to incorporate every aspect of the game to work together as a single element. Changing one part of that design, such as how the Pawn moves, changes the entire dynamic of the game. If the entire game is designed with the Pawns movement being one part of that over all design, then changing the movement capabilities of the Pawn affects the rest of the game.
The same way if you design a game where slow travel is there to compliment the overall game design then changing how the travel mechanic works will affect other parts of the game. Because each lement is not seperate from the entire game design.
- So tell me, when you are playing Chess on a clock and you cannot move during the other players turn does that stop you from thinking about the possible moves they might make, the possible counters and strategise your next move? Sounds a lot like what you said what you just described. - Again, you keep referring to boredom when that is NOT the argument at all. The argument is that slow or fast travel is NOT something to consider in isolation from the rest of the game. If you design the game with slow travel in mind you do it fora REASON.
That reason might be because time is a factor such as having to reach a destination within a certain period of time to prevent something bad happening such as in games with territorial control.
You might need resources to travel great distances like food and water such as in survival games.
You might have to travel across dangerous lands where night time is even more dangerous so choosing a good route and leaving at the right time will be very important.
There are any number of REASONS why slow travel is a requirement for the game design to work.
- It isn't a vague allusion. It is necessary for making sure the game experience is actually achieved. Again, it isn't about CHOOSING deliberate shallow or tedious game mechanics. It is about choosing the CORRECT game mechanics for your game design.
- Again you totally miss the point (are you sure you are a game designer because seriously, you make it hard for me to believe). It is NOT an interruption if it is part of the overall game design. I just don't see how you can just ignore every point raised to counter your position and still claim to be a game designer.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Please cite the 'perfect' game you have designed so that I can judge for myself if you are being belligerent and rude on purpose of if I really should listen to another word you say.
No, you're definitely failing to think like a designer.
Even after it was spelled out that pawns are a subset of your decisions and that chess doesn't involve arbitrary timesinks, you've failed to understand how to create a chess-based analogy for what you're trying to describe. Changing Renew to be your best damage spell would ruin the overall dynamic of MMORPGs in exactly the same way that changing pawns would ruin chess. It would take one of your decisions and make that the dominant decision every time. Whereas adding a tedious timesink to chess would be more like how travel functions in MMORPGs.
Of course you can strategize during your opponent's turn. Unlike how travel works in MMORPGs (it interrupts gameplay with non-gameplay, and there is very little strategizing you can do while waiting for travel to end.)
Granted, you don't have the full picture of the board when it'll become your turn in chess, because you don't know with certainty what move they're about to make, which is actually an imperfection in chess' overall flow. I often refer to this as the "load time" of board games (basically the time it takes after ending your turn before you can start making meaningful decisions again.) Some games (like Citadels where your entire turn can be randomized right before it's your turn) are much worse than others (like Dominion you pick up cards at the end of your turn and can plan out your entire next turn, and only very infrequently will that turn be disrupted by other players' decisions.) So chess' load time isn't optimal, and this does put a limit on its popularity.
You keep pretending slow travel cannot be examined in isolation, but it's experienced in isolation and can be eliminated in isolation, so you're basically just wrong about that. The reason developers implemented slow travel was money, as previously covered. (Though that turned out to be a bad idea, given the lukewarm success.)
The reality is that slow travel is boring in MMORPGs. That reality must be addressed. It's not something you can simply claim "is NOT the argument at all" and ignore. It's an actual trait of the system, and a trait that will cause players to quit or avoid the game. An argument for slow travel without describing a deeper-than-typical form of slow travel will automatically be an argument for the tedium and shallow gameplay that comes along with it.
A period of mandatory shallow gameplay won't really "compliment" any type of gameplay. In short bursts it can be a necessary evil. But any significant chunk of time wasted traveling just indicates a bad overall design to a game, unless the game has made travel a core system that actually involves deep gameplay.
A "requirement" isn't an excuse. If the design for something involves a "requirement" which makes the overall design unworkable, then from a holistic perspective the design itself is flawed.
The 'correct' mechanics for a game are almost never deliberately shallow mechanics. There is a larger market for deep, intellectually-stimulating games than for shallow wastes of time.
Interrupting a steady flow of interesting decisions with a period of mandatory shallowness (heavily characterized by a lack of decisions) is indeed an interruption. Again, "requirements" are not excuses for bad gameplay. If you design a car which requires a fusion reactor and we haven't invented fusion reactors yet, then you've designed a bad car. If you design a game whose design requires substantial periods of shallow gameplay, then you've designed a bad game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You avoided every question and every point and every example. You have asserted slow travel is boring ignoring every point made in this entire thread. You keep claiming to be the possessor of a better reality then everyone else in the thread.
You cannot allow your egotism to even approach the points being raised.
You can't even supply 1 game you claim to have made to prove your points.
Comments
This is why MMORPG have lost their MMORPG goals. They catered to the influx of single player gamers WOW brought in who don't seek MMORPG play. They seek The Division. The anomaly skewed the genre until it was unsustainable unless it used marketing ploy to get a few people to actually pay for these games.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
And far more players have shown interest in "simple yet deep" game design than game designs which inject shallow tediums into gameplay.
Do you really have no interest in reality? Here in reality saying the words "you have ignored every shred of evidence" doesn't magically make it true. You have to provide evidence of your claim. The ironic part is by making a false claim with no evidence you're the one arguing black is white.
Or was your last line intended to admit that all of your posts have just been a joke? That I could believe.
"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 have the full context, but this did come up in the thread about questing: If a game offers questing and grinding, and they were completely equal in the rate of advancement, then the path of least resistance would obviously be grinding (where you don't have to bother moving to different locations.) However such a game would grow boring much faster, as it would involve substantially less gameplay variety (as a direct result of players choosing the path of least resistance; players would choose to repetitively grind the same mobs for hours on end.)
This problem doesn't always occur with the least-resistant path, but it is a real thing that happens sometimes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It was covered in-depth in another thread with several good academic research sources cited on the topic. Claiming pattern mastery as the "fun above all" is simply not a true statement. It's also not the subject of the thread.
A straw man that you have yet to stop using though is "doing something boring is boring". Stating the obvious that a mechanics when in isolation suffers from lack of depth does not address the arguments others have made about integration and making interesting gameplay using a mechanic alongside the rest of them. Making an argument using an example that runs counter to the statements being made is entirely a straw man and more-so a red herring.
On the topic of "Do you really have no interest in reality?" There have been multiples links, games by name, quotes, and else-wise that refute claims you have made which fail to have a response. The reality is clear on that matter. Saying you did something when others know you have intentionally blocked out sources that refute your world view (by your admission) is very simply fallacious.
Evidence was provided. You can go to page 18 and see the links. You can go to page six and see the games. You can go to many of these pages for information you have chosen to deny. Everyone can to see the reality opposes your claim.
At least you are somewhat on-point about the "path of least resistance" issue.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And travel can be, has been and will be an interesting feature in the future. Games have sold billions of dollars doing just that.
No, he didn't create the games on his own. But as someone who I have had discussions with at various points over the years I can say that he does believe in virtual simulation over the themepark brand of gaming. His games were like that. One of his games had more fast travel than any other out on the market now. You had one that had slow travel. It means that systems are more important working together than just what's fun in isolation. Its also bigger than just your opinion you use.
The only game that had vastly more success was WoW. Its success was more than just gameplay or every other clone would have enjoyed the same success.
This genre turned near 100% achiever/killer. You can not advance outside of grinding something. Exploring, socializing have been marginalized to the point they are not needed at all.
What genre have you been playing where you aren't "forced" to do something? Again how do you play WoW and WoW inspired MMORPG without killing and achieving? That's all there is. There is no exploring. Socialization is marginalized.
There are principles that go into making an MMORPG. Different ones that single player games. I will trust the person who creates MMORPG and writes on theory than someone who's beliefs don't stretch beyond World of Warcraft.
Currently the very games you believe in that pretend to be single player games are shrinking. The formula never panned out outside of WoW which was popular for reason that go beyond the game itself. These games no long hold a long term viable audience out side of a handful with big IPs and no longer being developed by western market. Investors are no longer chasing fools gold.
There is no way to prove what you're saying that the game would become more boring if players were given the choice to have quick experience from killing NPCs. Its never been done. Every game that has you grind mobs always has been extreme.
There are other reasons that people liked grinding because the NPCs tended to unique to make up for the lack of story to diversify combat. NPCs generally had strengths, weakness, special abilities and curveballs. Most modern NPCS are generally the same with new skins and models.
Been playing RPGs long before MMORPGs were a thing. RG suckered a lot of single player RPG gamers long before WoW ever did by labeling them mmoRPG.
The RPG elements were terrible in the early MMORPGs and that was the problem. The biggest one being pacing.
Directly invalidating your post isn't ignoring it.
Words mean nothing without evidence. My words are backed by evidence: I'm describing reality. Your words are not backed by evidence: You're describing a make-believe fantasy.
So again, if you have evidence, post it. Let's discuss reality.
The last line wasn't meant as a personal insult. You've been so far off track this entire time that I legitimately could believe all your posts were intended as a joke.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Anyway you have ignored every shred of evidence provided to you by myself and others and I am pretty sure you are the type of person who will stubbornly argue Black is White just because.
Thanks for proving my point.
What's arrogant about understanding how people behave? This is how they behave. Should I pretend it isn't how they behave just because the truth makes you uncomfortable? I'm not going to hide the truth from you.
Developers do observe this trend. If you implement a skippable tutorial and the game isn't 100% self-explanatory (which it will almost never be because a lot of players who try your game aren't well-versed in other games,) then the result is often that players choose to skip it, miss a couple critical rules, experience a loss as a result, call the game stupid, and leave. This sort of scenario really does happen, and it's the developer's fault for giving too much freedom to the player.
RPG quests are about variety of gameplay. The truth is players enjoy doing 20 different activities and killing 200 different mob types more than they enjoy excessively grinding 20 different mob types (over the course of leveling with long hours spent grinding any given mob type.) The truth is players enjoy variety.
Stating that gamers care about advancement is irrelevant. Lots of games have advancement. Progression Quest has advancement, but you don't see everyone playing that over MMORPGs. Why not? Because the gameplay isn't interesting and varied. Gameplay is decisions, and decisions are more interesting with variety.
The fact that we have games which are grind-focused and games which are quest-focused and the quest-focused games have enjoyed substantially more success is the way to prove that's what players want. If players wanted grind, the grind games would generally perform better, and they would've won out over quest-based games. They didn't. That's reality.
I mean it should seem excessively obvious that players don't want to just do the same activity ad naseum. "Grind" isn't a word they use fondly, after all. It's a word deliberately used to negatively describe too much repetition relative to the time requirement.
These are also factors in why travel isn't popular. There's no significant variety to travel -- you may have different obstacles to navigate around, but that's not enough variety on its own. Mob aggro must be avoided, but that's always the same, and isn't something you'd really want to spend time varying because how many ways can you even vary the way that mobs aggro? Maybe you could establish a few major archetypes (beast, organized humanoids, raiders, etc) but it wouldn't be as much variety as you get in combat gameplay (which the vast majority of mob variety plays different.)
The bigger problem with travel is of course that it's dead-shallow. But even if you solved that you'd still have to address the lack of variety.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
- The closest you've come to a valid argument now is this statement that players need guidance or they have a habit of skipping over meaningful content. However, that's exactly the point that was indicated about the use of fast travel in a game where the activities are seeded into the world for the user experience rather than on heavily scripted events. Meaning you're repeating the argument that gives credence to one of the points we previously made.
- RPG quests are only about enforcing variety in gameplay as long as that gameplay already exists within the game, it's an incentive structure not the content itself and can be replaced by other incentive structures to deliver on the same push for variety. The quest mechanic is used generally because, again, many RPG games take a very linear and heavily scripted approach which means there's generally a finite route for one to experience the game's content within.
- As far as grind vs quest that's a false division. Aside from that though, it's interesting to point out that three of the top grossing games of all time are asian MMOs (Westward Journey $3.9b, Dungeon Fighter $4b, Lineage Series $5.7b) that you would consider grind heavy while WoW is the only western mmo on the top grossing list. Is WoW higher grossing than them at $8.5b? Sure, but it's also standalone and the userbase is not of the same spread as the previous three just mentioned. Since we're also seeing continued production of MMOs out of South Korea, Japan, and even China (and some other places like Malaysia) we can also point out where production is generally heading still.
- We've covered the problem you claim about travel here plenty of times. A game mechanic in isolation will always suffer. You said it yourself by pointing out that in the titles you play it doesn't interact with many other elements of the game. Hence the prior mention of integrating it with other game mechanics, not simply dwell on what few mechanics you have integrated. Hence the examples of games given back on page six that do integrate more into the travel mechanics so that it has more than just A to B riding and mob avoidance, it also ends up having deeper value to the player economy through the trade/caravaning/commerce, controls scope of the user experience, raids/capture, hunting migratory elements, chasing and being chased, territory control, resource capture/scarcity, etc. Mob avoidance is just one factor that western MMOs possess because of their design primarily because they have had the tendency to neglect the game world to deliver heavily scripted content instead.
The bigger problem is not that travel is a shallow mechanic, it's that in the games you choose to play it's a poorly integrated mechanic, which is what leads to shallow gameplay because there is no interaction with other game elements. Games were mentioned that have better integrated travel within the MMO genre back on page 3 and then more successful/popular eastern titles (note, only two of the titles mentioned there exist in the western market) over on page 10. Variety and shallowness are only problems when you design an MMORPG to be a static user experience driven by heavily scripted content that they migrate from one scripted element to the next while the world only serves as a backdrop. For themeparks with such a rigid and finite design it's hard to make travel interesting. That's why most of the MMORPG titles shown in example, while plenty of them have quests and such, they are not given in a heavily scripted context and they will take players to all odd-ends of the world in any order as they are individual tasks associated with elements of the game world generally, not driving a singular overarching scripted user experience.That alone changes the means travel has for delivering gameplay quite a lot when the goal of travel isn't so clear as point A to point B, but to instead meander the world to find the success you desire.
When you deign to ignore massive market components such as the giant that is eastern gaming and design. When you deign to ignore the nature of different game designs and philosophies. When you deign to ignore the very mechanics driving the gameplay you espouse. When you deign to ignore the referenced titles from pages 3 and 10, the links on page 18, the quotes offered from other devs, etc. With the sheer volume of things you have failed to observe already, there is no capacity for you to claim understanding or mastery over any observable factors.
Also the case of your sig "Unlike most, I reject bad ideas because they're bad and accept good ideas because they're good, and it doesn't matter who's saying it; only the truth matters."
Considering what was just indicated...
One's capacity to judge good and bad is exceptionally finite and dependent upon individual experience. When you are only seeking to reaffirm your world view, then any idea that runs contrary to that is going to be "bad" regardless of the reality of the circumstance. The truth is very far removed from such judgement calls. It's only the illusion of knowledge.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
In my experiences, roleplaying mostly took place between the players while in game, not so much with NPCs. That was the draw for me with the whole MMORPG genre. I could roleplay with other players, instead of just NPCs with a lot of imagination involved.
VG
Because I consistently see arguments on this board of games which "sold millions" and meanwhile next to them are the stack of games which have sold hundreds of millions all combined. Yet these posters probably honestly believe they've made a legitimate point which disputes what I've said.
It's the equivalent of my describing the successful design attributes of a Boeing Airliner, and then someone posting "Nuh-uh, the Wright Flyer proves planes are just fine with a little bit of spruce wood and a 12hp engine!"
Travel hasn't been and isn't interesting MMORPGs currently. And I've pointed out why it won't be interesting in MMORPGs in the future. And because travel isn't interesting in MMORPGs, the better MMORPGs let you skip it and are more successful as a result (because players play games for the gameplay, not to watch a run animation.)
I wonder what causes people to assume beliefs are always right. (If Koster believed virtual worlds were the right direction, that doesn't mean the belief is automatically right.)
We're not discussing subjective beliefs (or the mild-but-probably-safe assumption that Koster believes that in the first place). We're discussing how his book describes the most common way players have fun in games, and how the vast majority of highly successful games are successful because of that type of gameplay. And because we see that pattern, we realize that big swaths of empty non-gameplay smack dab in the middle of our MMORPGs are a bad design (if we didn't instinctively jump to the conclusion that "sit and do nothing for a while" was a bad idea in the first place.)
Complaints about a lack of socialization or exploration are nonsense. Want to socialize? Then socialize! Want to explore? Then explore! Nothing stops you.
The significant change that was made is achievers aren't forced to socialize as much, and vice-versa. Each player archetype is more isolated from one another, and Bartle himself points out this is a better way to do things (though I do still need to find time to track down the video/talk where he makes this point; he's made a lot of talks which makes it hard to track down the one where he made this comment.)
Although your comment about "you cannot advance outside of grinding something" strikes me as you possibly not knowing even the basics of what you're talking about. Socializers don't want a "social XP" system (which is Achiever gameplay) to measure their socialization. They just want to socialize! That's what socialization is!
What are you even talking about regarding "someone whose beliefs don't stretch beyond WOW"? I'm literally the person in this thread who has mentioned the broadest breadth of games across many genres. So hopefully you weren't refering to me with that comment, as you would just objectively look wrong.
Citing that the genre is shrinking is pretty irrelevant. Weaker games do worse, and so far nobody has released a MMORPG that provided the same variety and depth as WOW. So logically none of those less-interesting games did as well as WOW (and in fact you'd have to surpass WOW in that regard to overcome the question "Why should I play this instead of WOW?")
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Games can be fun via interactive (decisions/gameplay) or non-interactive (cinematics) elements. While telling a good story can still be entertaining, showing players a bunch of scenery (also a non-interactive element) isn't very entertaining. At least not for long lengths of time -- Halo uses "vistas" (nice scenery moments) to split up its gameplay now and then, and that works, but Halo isn't spending 4+ minutes where you can't do anything but watch what's going on while your interaction is limited to walking.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So lets make Pawns move like Queens, they are so much more exciting pieces to play with.
...
Just because you think something is boring in isolation doesn't make your assessment that you should just do away with it the correct thing to do. Subjectively OR objectively.
Rather you should look at the ENTIRE design of the game and realize "hey, the Pawn only moves 1 space for a reason. A damn important reason that requires you to play the game using tactical choices".
It is the same with a game designed with slow travel. It is because the game designer realizes that you have to design the ENTIRE game holistically and not just take pieces off the shelf, put them together and say "hey presto, this game will be great".
Stop using the dummies guide to game design and thinking it will work.
It used to be a kind of game for those who like to create content. Games like City of Heroes gave you tools: base building tools, mission creation tools, character design tools so that you could produce content, rather than just consume content. There's no such tools in Destiny; it is a place where your job as a player is to consume the content the developers give you and, after you've had your fill, you leave.
If we look at games as things where the purpose is to consume content, than Axehilt, Nariusseldon and Quirhid are correct; there's no point in offering space if there's nothing there.
But if the games are for players to both consume content and produce content, you need space. You need distance. You need this space and this distance so that players will have room to build their own things, from structures, to plots to entire environments.
This is why building games, simulations and survival games work well with large worlds where distance is a factor...and they are not hurting for players. Why we can't have this in MMORPGs today is less a matter of what MMORPGs are or what they should be; like I said, we had plenty of systems for those who want to produce content in the early days. And we have plenty of people who want that sort of gameplay, as seen in the popularity of the building, survival and simulation genres.
It has to do with what developers and some players want them to be; games where the only content that is produced is from the developer. Games where the purpose is to consume the content as efficiently as possible and leave.
If that's your idea of what massive, multiplayer online role play should be about, then it is no wonder why you see no point in big worlds. But to say that massive, multiplayer online role play cannot be about anything else is, given all the variety I see in computer entertainment, rather myopic.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Videogames which try to emulate tabletop RPGs (a distinct genre from videogame RPGs) have never enjoyed all that much success because it's not the right format. The latest attempt (Sword Coast Legends) is par for the course.
The difference is that one takes place in players' imaginations, and the other doesn't. So with videogame RPGs the focus is automatically going to be less improv-like and dynamic than sitting around a table listening to a DM tell an improv story and reacting dynamically as the players make their various decisions.
Pursuing that tabletop RPG direction has stifled the success of every game that's attempted it.
Meanwhile videogame RPGs (the genre) by their nature have evolved to be optimized for the format over many decades.
So it came as no surprise when WOW eliminated/minimized a lot of the tabletop-like cruft of MMORPGs, they enjoyed substantially more success. It was the right game for the MMORPG format, instead of trying to be something it could never do well.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're not thinking like a game designer at all and seem to have no hope of developing a serious understanding of the topic.
Suggesting a giant buff to pawns is like saying that Renew (a priest's heal over time spell) should be that class' best damage ability. No, we're talking about one small sub-set of your available decisions and that one part doesn't need to be as strong as the strongest part. Just like pawns in chess.
So that analogy isn't like MMORPG travel at all. Travel in chess would be like if you input your move into a Chess program and then it took 10 minutes for that move to happen (in the meantime your opponent is just waiting 10 minutes doing nothing, and can't plan moves around your move because he can't see it until it finishes.) In other words, the same purposeless timesink as travel in MMORPGs is.
If a game element is boring, make a case for NOT removing it. The purpose of games isn't boredom, it's fun. Pruning out dead or unproductive game elements is a natural part of game genre evolution, and why some games thrive (WOW and it's pruned features) while other games enjoy worse success (or fail entirely.)
A vague allusion to "designing holistically" doesn't make your case. Designing things holistically doesn't require deliberately shallow and tedious game mechanics. The reality is this isn't really about designing holistically, but about designing the game, and what you want the game experience to be about. There is no argument to be made for deliberately interrupting PVE gameplay with empty timesinks, and there is only a very weak argument to be made for trying to shift RPGs to be less about combat depth and more about travel depth (it's a weak argument because that's just not what RPGs are about as games; another genre could do that (and they do: racing games do it) but not RPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Want to try to name another point of yours I haven't addressed? Go for it!
(Note that your 3rd paragraph wasn't unaddressed. It was just a hilariously vague and recursive claim that the point of yours I hadn't addressed was that I hadn't addressed a point your made.)
You need to cite evidence of your claims, or stop posting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Even after it was spelled out that pawns are a subset of your decisions and that chess doesn't involve arbitrary timesinks, you've failed to understand how to create a chess-based analogy for what you're trying to describe. Changing Renew to be your best damage spell would ruin the overall dynamic of MMORPGs in exactly the same way that changing pawns would ruin chess. It would take one of your decisions and make that the dominant decision every time. Whereas adding a tedious timesink to chess would be more like how travel functions in MMORPGs.
Of course you can strategize during your opponent's turn. Unlike how travel works in MMORPGs (it interrupts gameplay with non-gameplay, and there is very little strategizing you can do while waiting for travel to end.)
Granted, you don't have the full picture of the board when it'll become your turn in chess, because you don't know with certainty what move they're about to make, which is actually an imperfection in chess' overall flow. I often refer to this as the "load time" of board games (basically the time it takes after ending your turn before you can start making meaningful decisions again.) Some games (like Citadels where your entire turn can be randomized right before it's your turn) are much worse than others (like Dominion you pick up cards at the end of your turn and can plan out your entire next turn, and only very infrequently will that turn be disrupted by other players' decisions.) So chess' load time isn't optimal, and this does put a limit on its popularity.
You keep pretending slow travel cannot be examined in isolation, but it's experienced in isolation and can be eliminated in isolation, so you're basically just wrong about that. The reason developers implemented slow travel was money, as previously covered. (Though that turned out to be a bad idea, given the lukewarm success.)
The reality is that slow travel is boring in MMORPGs. That reality must be addressed. It's not something you can simply claim "is NOT the argument at all" and ignore. It's an actual trait of the system, and a trait that will cause players to quit or avoid the game. An argument for slow travel without describing a deeper-than-typical form of slow travel will automatically be an argument for the tedium and shallow gameplay that comes along with it.
A period of mandatory shallow gameplay won't really "compliment" any type of gameplay. In short bursts it can be a necessary evil. But any significant chunk of time wasted traveling just indicates a bad overall design to a game, unless the game has made travel a core system that actually involves deep gameplay.
A "requirement" isn't an excuse. If the design for something involves a "requirement" which makes the overall design unworkable, then from a holistic perspective the design itself is flawed.
The 'correct' mechanics for a game are almost never deliberately shallow mechanics. There is a larger market for deep, intellectually-stimulating games than for shallow wastes of time.
Interrupting a steady flow of interesting decisions with a period of mandatory shallowness (heavily characterized by a lack of decisions) is indeed an interruption. Again, "requirements" are not excuses for bad gameplay. If you design a car which requires a fusion reactor and we haven't invented fusion reactors yet, then you've designed a bad car. If you design a game whose design requires substantial periods of shallow gameplay, then you've designed a bad game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You avoided every question and every point and every example. You have asserted slow travel is boring ignoring every point made in this entire thread. You keep claiming to be the possessor of a better reality then everyone else in the thread.
You cannot allow your egotism to even approach the points being raised.
You can't even supply 1 game you claim to have made to prove your points.
Done.