Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Story first, World first, Social first, or Gameplay first?

135

Comments

  • bbopicebbopice Member Posts: 9

    ITEMS < for sure number 1 ,   but Gameplay  and World numbers 2 and 3 :))  . 

     

    No level reqs on items =    players stay playing your game 3 X  longer!   people that twink alts.  play forever and grind twink gear for ages.!    RARe bosses.  rare items , secret stuff.  like 3 piece sets that open hidden places. etc etc etc etc.   

    prenerfed items!@!<<<<    items that got nerfed but orginals stayed.

    GM event ,< rare one time event items!

    I can keep going no  time.   

    But when it comes down to it.  The way Items are handled  is the most important thing of all.      No AH's  .No level reqs.   No lame worthless Crafting recipes. that 1000,000 people sell the same item below cost.

    Items include ,,,, spell drops ,  crafting drops , magic items , quest rewards ,  < should  not gear up by lame quest grinding , quest hubs suck.     

     

     

    Gameplay <  Smoooooooooth   and o yeah smooooth fun spells ,,  like fear , invis , speed buffs , etc etc 

     

    MASSIVE WORLD ,   Not One game is Massive yet.   I'd say at most small to tiny .    I want a world ,  not something that i can run across in a few hours  or w/e 

    JUst Frickin copy paste that stuff ,  not that hard ,  add  a few changes bam ,..   hugge worlds.   make D3  games with everyone in it. etc.

    mmorpg focus on the fine details tooo much. of the graphics.

     

     

    eq had 200 people on the screen at one time in 1999.  AND in 2013 We still can't have over 200 people on a screen or  in a zone at a time.    so lame .   Lower that fine detailed over paid for world down.   

     

    I'm right.     Sell Prenerfed twink items in any cash shop and they'd selllll soooo fast for tons.

    Game companies or so damm dumb  .  they need me :P  

     

    Don't lie to yourselfs ,   the overall population would love what i am saying.   they don't admit it though.

     

    www.myspace.com/solidwhitetuna

  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 3,717
    I voted social. I can get superior gameplay, story, and world from single player games. The social aspect is the only thing that sets MMORPGs apart from the rest, in my opinion. This genre was born with nothing more than a chatscreen and some dice modifieres. The rest is fluff for me.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • maplestonemaplestone Member UncommonPosts: 3,099
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Without gameplay, there's no game.

    And yet I've wandered around minecraft just exploring different random seeds without breaking a single block. 

    Even in your reduced-to-absurdity scenario, I'm still finding a love of worlds.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    There you go confusing your opinion with facts again.

    *You* may think that a "world" is NOT a game. Does not make it a fact. I happen to think a world IS a game.

    *You* may not think "chat" is a game, but I know of plenty of people who frequent chatrooms posing as a different person and play games with others in the room. I happen to agree with your opinion that "chat" is not a game, but I disagree that everyone and their fish thinks the same.

    Know why I have played over 2000 hours in Skyrim with more than 20 characters? The world. I still have not been everywhere there is to be. The gameplay is good, which helps a lot, but it is the world that keeps me playing.

    I just read a later response where you said,
    "If I give you the entire world (all of the source files) to the most elaborate game world out there, and let you float around it as a disembodied camera, but there's no gameplay, then there isn't a game."
    Bullcrap. Maybe *you* could not find a game in there, but *I* certainly could. Off the top of my head, "Bumper Cameras" comes to mind. "What's That Over There" is another game I could play. "How High Is The Sky?" is another game.

    Certainly gameplay adds to the game, and I agree it is very important, but your "absolute" is falling very short.

    You must have been a very boring child, with no imagination.

    This isn't an opinion.

    If I give you a game world to free-float around in as a disembodied camera, you won't be playing a game.

    Until you add gameplay, it's not a game.  You almost suggested adding gameplay towards the end of your post, but the examples you gave weren't gameplay (any more than a painter who asks, "How red can I make the sky before it looks weird?" is playing a game.  Obviously that's not a game, it's just experimentation.)  If you'd suggested gameplay, like modding the game rules so that touching the lava kills you and you have to jump between rocks in the lava flow, then you would have added gameplay and made it a game.

    It's fine if exploring the world is your favorite part of the game, but there's no opinions involved in stating simple facts like (a) the world isn't the game and (b) gameplay is the game.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by maplestone

    And yet I've wandered around minecraft just exploring different random seeds without breaking a single block. 

    Even in your reduced-to-absurdity scenario, I'm still finding a love of worlds.

    Nobody said you can't love worlds.

    I'm only pointing out what should be excessively obvious: without gameplay there is no game.  Gameplay is the game.  The world isn't the game, and chat isn't the game.  A world without gameplay is basically a level editor.  Chat without gameplay is just a chatroom.  Without gameplay there's no game.

    So depending on your level of engagement with Minecraft seeds, you might not be playing a game at all (if using a free-floating camera.)

    Which is fine.  People paint.  People meditate.  People do all sorts of things that aren't games, and manage to love them.

    But they don't claim those things are games.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • maplestonemaplestone Member UncommonPosts: 3,099
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    I'm only pointing out what should be excessively obvious: without gameplay there is no game.

    If you want to claim the mere act of walking through a game and looking at things falls under your definition of "gameplay" then ok, but then I don't understand what exactly are you leaving behind to fulfill the definition of "world". 

     

  • jdlamson75jdlamson75 Member UncommonPosts: 1,010

    As I could only vote for one, I chose "World".

     

    I might be alone in this, but the way the world seizes me defines my gameplay.  The mechanics can be a bit off, but if the world itself is engaging, I can forgive the gameplay.  If the world is of generic origin, I'll know right off he bat that it isn't meant for me.

     

     

  • xeniarxeniar Member UncommonPosts: 805

    Humz alot of people seem to be confused about what an MMORPG is or should be.

    for any normal game gameplay comes first and if you have stunning grapichs to boot wel thats awesome.

    For an MMORPG what defines the game is the world you play in. there are now countless MMORPG's with the exact same features. What makes them diffrent is the world you (live) in. How you can react with that world is determened by gameplay but if the world is really lacking then you might have the best gameplay on our planet. that game will fail.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,072

    OP, your poll is missing one option.... All Four.

     

    IF you are making an mmo that have those four features included you want to do all of them right. If you focus on just making one of them strong then the rest of the game will be garbage filled with mediocre and weak content.

     

    In my opinion that mentality of one preferred feature is what is hurting the most in the mmo industry. That is what happens with most of these latest mmos that claim to have one glorious feature that will change your life forever (Tera's combat, Swtors storytelling, etc) then the rest of the game is beyond mediocre and generic.

     

    Creating mmos take too much time and effort. If you are not going to focus on making all features strong then dont waste your time and effort making a bad mmo.





  • TheHavokTheHavok Member UncommonPosts: 2,423
    Originally posted by maplestone
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    I'm only pointing out what should be excessively obvious: without gameplay there is no game.

    If you want to claim the mere act of walking through a game and looking at things falls under your definition of "gameplay" then ok, but then I don't understand what exactly are you leaving behind to fulfill the definition of "world". 

     

    I'm not really sure how you guys fell into your argument, but the original question I asked was, what is the MAIN DRAW for you in an MMORPG.

    Not what is the most important feature to make a game.

    Not what is the least important feature to make a game.

    Not what makes a game.

    Not what doesn't make a game.

     

    Obviously you cannot have a game without gameplay.  Obviously you cannot have a game without a world.  But this has nothing to do with the topic. 

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,104
    You subverted the white cats thread you naughty lot. :)

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • maplestonemaplestone Member UncommonPosts: 3,099
    Originally posted by TheHavok

    Obviously you cannot have a game without gameplay. 

    Yeah, I went down the rabbit hole in this thread, but it's really all about this line. 

    To me there's a whole spectrum of things going on in a fantasy world between events (written or simulated) which passively add to lore at one extreme and events for which I have gameplay as my interface to probe and alter the world on the other extreme.  Yet I call the whole thing "the game" and you could even cut out gameplay bit by bit until you have nothing left but a passive story unforlding for me and I would still call it "the game".

    So I'm only arguing because this statement that may look obvious is actually getting in the way of my attempts to communicate how I see worlds.

    ( sorry )

  • TheHavokTheHavok Member UncommonPosts: 2,423
    Haha - sorry, I didn't mean to come off as an angry narcissistic forum poster.
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,519


    Originally posted by TheHavok
    Haha - sorry, I didn't mean to come off as an angry narcissistic forum poster.
    You're not coming across that way at all :)

    Sorry for my own part in that derailment :)

    - Al

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


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by maplestone

    If you want to claim the mere act of walking through a game and looking at things falls under your definition of "gameplay" then ok, but then I don't understand what exactly are you leaving behind to fulfill the definition of "world".  

    Depends on the gameplay involved.

    A free-floating camera is not gameplay.

    Even the limitations of a walk speed and obstacle navigation doesn't count as gameplay.  This Dear Esther commentary rightly points out that while the experience can be enjoyable, it's not a game.

    In that article Tadh draws a line in the sand regarding the Game vs. Experience definition, saying, " A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. "

    Tadh also points out that you shouldn't care (as I've been saying.)  You don't try to claim that painting, hiking, or meditation are games, so why would you try to claim that walking around a gameplay-less game world was a game too?  It doesn't stop you from enjoying the experience to admit the truth.  It's not a game, but that doesn't prevent you from enjoying it.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by maplestone

    If you want to claim the mere act of walking through a game and looking at things falls under your definition of "gameplay" then ok, but then I don't understand what exactly are you leaving behind to fulfill the definition of "world".  

    Depends on the gameplay involved.

    A free-floating camera is not gameplay.

    Even the limitations of a walk speed and obstacle navigation doesn't count as gameplay.  This Dear Esther commentary rightly points out that while the experience can be enjoyable, it's not a game.

    In that article Tadh draws a line in the sand regarding the Game vs. Experience definition, saying, " A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. "

    Tadh also points out that you shouldn't care (as I've been saying.)  You don't try to claim that painting, hiking, or meditation are games, so why would you try to claim that walking around a gameplay-less game world was a game too?  It doesn't stop you from enjoying the experience to admit the truth.  It's not a game, but that doesn't prevent you from enjoying it.

    I would argue that painting, hiking and meditation are all games with progression  like this

     

    painting is horizontal the more style you learn the more your style progresses

     

    hiking is vertical you need stamina to hike farther and that takes grinding

     

    meditation is a hybrid of both that again takes time to be good at

     

    you really need to broaden your minimal definition of game is,  and please get some experience with the real world before you post such silly shit, you this all the time on here with the kids.  

     

    ps your link is bullshit as the game is exploration in your example, your not re-inventing the wheel like you think you are.

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by noturpal
    Originally posted by Axehilt
     

    I would argue that painting, hiking and meditation are all games with progression  like this

     

    painting is horizontal the more style you learn the more your style progresses

     

    hiking is vertical you need stamina to hike farther and that takes grinding

     

    meditation is a hybrid of both that again takes time to be good at

     

    you really need to broaden your minimal definition of game is,  and please get some experience with the real world before you post such silly shit, you this all the time on here with the kids.  

     

    ps your link is bullshit as the game is exploration in your example, your not re-inventing the wheel like you think you are.

    Nobody is re-inventing anything and you could argue that, but then you shouldn't act surprised if people started laughing at your expense.

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

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,519


    Originally posted by Axehilt
    In that article Tadh draws a line in the sand regarding the Game vs. Experience definition, saying, " A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. "
    So you found an author says what you wish to hear/read. Yea. How many "games" can you list that do not affect meaningful change?

    I can think of:
    Tag.
    Red Light / Green Light.
    Hide and Go Seek.

    Do you consider these games? Can you add to that list?

    Or are you now going to nit-pik "meaningful change?"

    - Al

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


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • GorweGorwe Member EpicPosts: 6,240

    What one must ask himself when answering questions such as this one is:

    Do I enjoy games that are VERY heavy on one aspect at the cost of the lack of the other one?

    Now I know that this is one of those IDIC(Infinite Diversity in Infinite Comboinations) questions, as Vulcans would put it. I can only offer my view based on my own experiences. I'll write how I felt about certain games that could be indicative of the category that they represent. The games that I have played are going to be bolded. Right! Onto it:

    STORY: TSW, The Old Republic, ESO(upcoming), hell even LOTRO. What I can say about these two games that I played(TSW, LoTR:O) is that they both forsake gameplay for the sake of the story-a rather poor choice imo. They are both average in social and world scores(actually LOTRO is quite above average). I LOVED stories and all the juicy parts of both of them, but the game kept reminding me that I was playing a game every minute by having either bad animations(LOTRO) or having sluggish combat that's about as interesting as calculating this: sin(2x+1) + cos(x+1) = 1. Both had sluggish combat and it irritated the sh it out of me. Besides, there are LOADS of ggod books just waiting to be read. I've got to read at least 7 Warhammer books(Omnibuses mind you!) still and not mentioning other nice books(reread LoTR, Song of Ice n Fire, the Witchers etc). Stories are a book medium-it's LOVELY if the game has a good story, but it can't fill voids that are present elsewhere. It just...can't.

    WORLD: EvE, Vanguard, WoW. I have played last two games(who REALLY hasn't played that mamoothadont at the end ;) ) and I can say that world design when it's done logically and immersively helps me enjoy a game a metric ton more. That there are quite scenic locations, variety of areas to play, open world etc. Also that world feels like a world and not like some island in middle of nowhere. It is very important that world's done correctly when talking about IPs(the bridge over Baranduin{eh Brandywine ;) } was simply BEAUTIFUL in LOTRO. Meanwhile I IMMEDIATELY noticed TWO illogical things in WAR: a piece of land connecting Chrace and the Blighted Isle{wtf? wouldn't it be called the Blighted PENINSULA then???} and the piece of land connecting Nordland and Norsca{Gottland advance if you will->that windmill by the god forsaken town-nice irony in the name btw!} tho I didn't like how both games were instanced->it doesn't matter if they're big instances. But if it's beautifully AND correctly done{LOTRO, AoC}, I am willing to look past instances). Seeing clouds form in the distance by the sun in Vanguard is simply...absent in today's games. Well...mostly.

    SOCIAL: most MMOs. This part is not terribly important to me. It governs the need to play with others(but NOT OVERRELIANCE on others, mind you!), the fun derived from teamwork etc. I mean it's bloody nice when something goes as planned in a group enviroment, but it mostly doesn't and even then...ask yourself this: would enjoy this as much if you had done it with bots(GW 1 style)? More? Less? I know that I bloody LOVED GW 1 and their Heroes/Henchies and subsequently think that more games should adopt that mechanic(GW 2 ESPECIALLY!!!). Props to SWTOR on the implementation of this one. When I want a social experience, I just fire up MOBAs-a genre made of 60/40 mixture of Gameplay and Social stuff. MMOs can't really beat MOBAs on this one-at least imo.

    GAMEPLAY: WoW, Guild Wars series, Rift, plenty of others, but most notably those four. Gameplay is a bloody important part of a game to me! Who would've guessed eh? I know that it is popular to hate all of those three games(four ok :p), but especially for the first one the difference in polish and various gameplay elements is OBVIOUS when compared to the others(even those other three). One wouldn't give such importance to the stuff like 0.1s delay or bugged abilities or broken quests. But the effect on human psyche is INCREMENTAL here. So, for every delay, for every bug you hit, you are THIS much closer to abandoning the game: I. It really doesn't look like much, but let's say the gameplay is sluggish(TSW) and after mere 2 hours this: I has become this: IIIIIIIIIIIIIII. See what I mean? Of course, there has got to be reason to gameplay because otherwise I wouldn't play that game, but if the gameplay itself is bad...oh boy! No going back now. I also value freedom within both looks and builds highly, but that's the part of World score(or Exploration score whatever). The simple fact that I can play whatever MOBA you throw at me for at least 1/2 a year, while I can't play TSW or such for more than 2 months, just proves my point. ANd the explosion in popularity of MOBAs while storyline MMOs are steadily waning in their popularity.

    So the order of importance of elements to me is:

    1. WORLD

    2. GAMEPLAY

    3. STORY

    4. SOCIAL

    I was always ESAK on Bartle, but I could also be EASK. ENFP by the MBTI. I'll also mention that IP names quite catch my attention-I'll add that to the World score as well(they really do! Why would I otherwise even play {formerly} mediocre games such as WAR, LoTR:O, AoC or ESO?). IP obviously shaping the whole game, let alone the gameworld.

    Take care!

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     


    Originally posted by Axehilt
    In that article Tadh draws a line in the sand regarding the Game vs. Experience definition, saying, " A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. "

    So you found an author says what you wish to hear/read. Yea. How many "games" can you list that do not affect meaningful change?

     

    I can think of:
    Tag.
    Red Light / Green Light.
    Hide and Go Seek.

    Do you consider these games? Can you add to that list?

    Or are you now going to nit-pik "meaningful change?"

    Do those games have...

    • interaction (gameplay)
    • rules
    • objective
    • or competition/conflict
    ...in an isolated environment, then yes, those are games. The last of the four is not strictly mandatory since there are cooperative games, but then again one could argue that the players are then competing against the game/rules/GM.
     
    Any useful definition would not include mere camera movement as gameplay.

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

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky
    So you found an author says what you wish to hear/read. Yea. How many "games" can you list that do not affect meaningful change?

    I can think of:
    Tag.
    Red Light / Green Light.
    Hide and Go Seek.

    Do you consider these games? Can you add to that list?

    Or are you now going to nit-pik "meaningful change?"

    Tag is a game because your decisions do enact meaningful change on the game state.  The way your decisions of where you run, how you dodge, and how you predict others' dodges results in either a win or loss depending on how well you do it. 

    The same can be said of the other games.  The decisions are meaningful because they relate to each games' rules and goal.

    Walking around an empty world has no goal.

    He's not just some random author.  He's a designer (and techcrunch author) who's been building out that site for years which is a fantastic accumulation of definitions and pretty reliable commentary on game design (I think once or twice I've disagreed with his postings, but that's over the course of many many articles.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Member CommonPosts: 2,556

    The only thing MMOs do better than other games are social and world.

     

    If I want good gameplay, I generally don't go to an MMO (unless it does something that other games can't, like 400 man sieges). Story will always be better in a singleplayer game, because what you do actually impacts the game world forever and there isn't as much filler.

     

    The entire point of MMOs is the other players. If the social is lacking, and if the world is limited and instanced, there's literally no point. It goes in the bin.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by noturpal

    I would argue that painting, hiking and meditation are all games with progression  like this 

    painting is horizontal the more style you learn the more your style progresses 

    hiking is vertical you need stamina to hike farther and that takes grinding 

    meditation is a hybrid of both that again takes time to be good at 

    you really need to broaden your minimal definition of game is,  and please get some experience with the real world before you post such silly shit, you this all the time on here with the kids.   

    ps your link is bullshit as the game is exploration in your example, your not re-inventing the wheel like you think you are.

    Wow, you just claimed painting, hiking, and meditation are games!

    Given that, I'm not sure a logic- and evidence-backed argument (like pointing out the definitions of game include the important element of game rules; without game rules, there's no gameplay, so there's no game) will matter to you.

    Dear Esther is an experience which only includes the game world.  (This makes it an even better example of what we're talking about than my "level editor" from earlier posts)  Exploration is not gameplay, so it's not a game.

    Not sure how you can accuse me of re-inventing the wheel when I'm the one saying, "A wheel is a wheel" and you're the one saying "Everything is a wheel!" by implying that sharing a trait with a game (like progression or exploration) makes it a game.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,519


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by AlBQuirky
    So you found an author says what you wish to hear/read. Yea. How many "games" can you list that do not affect meaningful change?I can think of:
    Tag.
    Red Light / Green Light.
    Hide and Go Seek.Do you consider these games? Can you add to that list?Or are you now going to nit-pik "meaningful change?"

    Tag is a game because your decisions do enact meaningful change on the game state.  The way your decisions of where you run, how you dodge, and how you predict others' dodges results in either a win or loss depending on how well you do it. The same can be said of the other games.  The decisions are meaningful because they relate to each games' rules and goal.Walking around an empty world has no goal.He's not just some random author.  He's a designer (and techcrunch author) who's been building out that site for years which is a fantastic accumulation of definitions and pretty reliable commentary on game design (I think once or twice I've disagreed with his postings, but that's over the course of many many articles.)
    Raph Koster does not agree. To him, World is the top priority. Does that mean "My Dad is bigger than your Dad!"?

    I give up. It's like conversing with a wall. Why do I even bother responding...

    Again, sorry OP :)

    - Al

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


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    Raph Koster does not agree. To him, World is the top priority. Does that mean "My Dad is bigger than your Dad!"?

    I give up. It's like conversing with a wall. Why do I even bother responding...

    Again, sorry OP :)

    Raph Koster wouldn't claim that a world devoid of gameplay was a game, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

Sign In or Register to comment.