All entertanment "wastes" the time of those who partake in it. That IS one of it's purposes. It keeps people distracted, occupied, but in an fun way. It's simply meant to be an enjoyable waste of time and that is part of it's attraction, compared to say ... oh... watching paint dry for instance.
What is created, built, repaired, grown, harvested, healed, born, or buried by partaking in entertainment?
Nothing. Those who create or provide entertainment do these things, not those who partake in entertainment.
When I play a MMO I accept the fact that I am wasting time, simply because I am not doing an activity that can be classified as "productive".
The one good thing that can be said about playing MMOs is that if we do it with others, like friends and family who group together to play the game together, we are in fact socializing and forming bonds and friendships, and that is a "productive" activity.... and of course playing a MMO is fun (or should be)...
but that does not change the fact that playing a MMO or consuming any entertainment, is essentially a waste of time, especially mmos not made for grouping/enjoying with others.
"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Marthe Troly-Curtin (also attributed to John Lennon)
Entertainment has value, and that value means it's not wasted time. The only reason people choose to play games is because they have value. So the time is not wasted.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If "People don't want entertainment that wastes their time" really is your only point, there wasn't much logic in you commenting in the first place you know.
Sure there was. People deserve to know why games aren't made according to their desires. In this case a game with tedious eating/drinking was mentioned, and while that can work in the right context (the game Don't Starve), it is poorly suited to an RPG for the same underlying reason that Tolkien didn't recount a year's worth of eating and drinking during the Fellowship's journey. And that reason is that the activity simply wasn't important enough, in the context of an epic journey. Some eating and drinking is mentioned, but generally only as the backdrop to a meaningful scene (the council of Elrond.)
Ah yes, because "games shouldn't be made to entertain people" really coincides well with the notion that people prefer to be entertained.
As for compatibility with RPGs, that's purely an opinion and in no way realistic to the fact that those game elements exist with no exclusivity or inability to be integrated together.
Try sticking to one train of thought.
"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
Ah yes, because "games shouldn't be made to entertain people" really coincides well with the notion that people prefer to be entertained.
As for compatibility with RPGs, that's purely an opinion and in no way realistic to the fact that those game elements exist with no exclusivity or inability to be integrated together.
Try sticking to one train of thought.
High-cost games (MMORPGs) don't get made for low-value (niche) audiences. Sometimes the niche interest is still served in lower-cost games (plenty of survival games out there.) Sometimes the niche interest is only niche in the context of one genre (eating/drinking is not adventurous enough for people to care about it in RPGs, where it's only rarely an element, but it's a big part of The Sims and that's a huge series!)
And once someone understands these things they can avoid having expectations doomed to be left unfulfilled.
As for sticking to one train of thought, do you understand how conversation works? If you challenge my rationale I'm going to respond to that challenge. The catalyst for the topic shift was your post, not mine. If a shifting topic irks you, then don't make posts which will shift the topic. Simple enough.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. In game weather, and your character is affected by it; 2. Your character requires food and drink; 3. Items have weight and your character is affected by how much weight is being carried; 4. A stat like courage or morale, where performance is affected by how confident the character is, which in turn is affected by his or her past experiences. Killing a dragon, for example, makes you much more confident in your next challenge; 5. A character can be wounded, and once wounded the wounds need healing; 6. Mind bars, as in original SWG. I still remember gathering around a fire or in an inn, watching the performers, and receiving a benefit; 7. Improvable abilities like swimming, foraging, etc.; 8. Visual effects like seeing breath on a cold day, footsteps in snow, correct sounds for different terrain, etc. 9. Day and night, and some light source required for night; 10. Will there ever be a sense of smell, when you get feedback in the chat box on what you are smelling? Imagine an NPC is speaking to you and your chat box says "You smell fear ...."
This list could go on. My overall point is that game mechanics that reflect the character as a being with needs, as opposed to a coat hanger for gear, increases my enjoyment.
I would love to see this in an exploration/ journey-over-goal type mmo. I think it could be incredibly immersive. I am thinking of those old-school isometric RPGs made 3D, where it is about discovery and exploration rather than rushing to end game and flipping about like you have a duracell battery suppository all the way. .
Ah yes, because "games shouldn't be made to entertain people" really coincides well with the notion that people prefer to be entertained.
As for compatibility with RPGs, that's purely an opinion and in no way realistic to the fact that those game elements exist with no exclusivity or inability to be integrated together.
Try sticking to one train of thought.
High-cost games (MMORPGs) don't get made for low-value (niche) audiences. Sometimes the niche interest is still served in lower-cost games (plenty of survival games out there.) Sometimes the niche interest is only niche in the context of one genre (eating/drinking is not adventurous enough for people to care about it in RPGs, where it's only rarely an element, but it's a big part of The Sims and that's a huge series!)
And once someone understands these things they can avoid having expectations doomed to be left unfulfilled.
As for sticking to one train of thought, do you understand how conversation works? If you challenge my rationale I'm going to respond to that challenge. The catalyst for the topic shift was your post, not mine. If a shifting topic irks you, then don't make posts which will shift the topic. Simple enough.
Incorrect. Anyone that deigns to read my comment and where it lies in this can see that the only point I made in that instance was directly at a component you were making, to which you expounded sideways (not to mention, at all, to the response to my response prior to that which would have addressed the assertion you've made now).
Like your eating and drinking example. It'd work if not for the fact that those survival elements were components of many classic RPG systems. For a modern title you can even look at the fact it was incorporated as a component of Fallout New Vegas.
That it splintered off as an element with stronger focus in the survival genre does not in any way preclude it as a mechanic that has been and can be incorporated into RPG systems, and in that regard as a meaningful component. To disagree with that is to form an opinion rather than to give an objective argument.
MMOs are by no means a genre that is or has to be defined by a singular design. It's wholly unintelligent to say that a title doesn't deserve to exist simply because it deviates from the most popular iteration within a genre that is defined by the platform on which it is constructed rather than the specificity of it's contents.
Your first sentence is again a contradiction of the remarks you've already made even. Either MMOs are a niche within a niche as you were claiming with the prior statistic, or they're not and only exist to serve the largest most generic swathe of gamers available.
At this point your argument is simply a pile of contradictions.
"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
Incorrect. Anyone that deigns to read my comment and where it lies in this can see that the only point I made in that instance was directly at a component you were making, to which you expounded sideways (not to mention, at all, to the response to my response prior to that which would have addressed the assertion you've made now).
Like your eating and drinking example. It'd work if not for the fact that those survival elements were components of many classic RPG systems. For a modern title you can even look at the fact it was incorporated as a component of Fallout New Vegas.
That it splintered off as an element with stronger focus in the survival genre does not in any way preclude it as a mechanic that has been and can be incorporated into RPG systems, and in that regard as a meaningful component. To disagree with that is to form an opinion rather than to give an objective argument.
MMOs are by no means a genre that is or has to be defined by a singular design. It's wholly unintelligent to say that a title doesn't deserve to exist simply because it deviates from the most popular iteration within a genre that is defined by the platform on which it is constructed rather than the specificity of it's contents.
Your first sentence is again a contradiction of the remarks you've already made even. Either MMOs are a niche within a niche as you were claiming with the prior statistic, or they're not and only exist to serve the largest most generic swathe of gamers available.
At this point your argument is simply a pile of contradictions.
Your post was one sentence. So if they read it, they'd see I responded to the challenge that there wasn't a reason for my originally posting. You're a participant in this conversation too: act like it and pay attention.
And it doesn't register at all that food/water might be entirely fitting of an RPG about survival in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Meanwhile most RPGs are fantasy where it's poorly fitting of their aesthetic (because most fantasy RPGs are about heroics and adventure; they don't try to simulate the life of a peasant trying to survive; for some reason people find heroic dragon-slaying more compelling than an awful peasant life.)
Nobody said MMORPGs require a singular design. I'm only pointing out the simple truths that game elements which don't match the aesthetic and which consume significant time without providing significant entertainment, are bad ideas. No game is perfect (they all have some bad ideas) but some bad ideas are more impactful than others and we're discussing the type of idea that adds significant downtime without adding significant entertainment.
Your "wholly unintelligent" comment is hot air. It fails at one of the most basic concepts in business. Big-budget products are not made for niche audiences. When you take over a giant company you're free to retool your production based on the whims of a vocal minority of forum posters somewhere and watch the company go down the drain.
Niche products can and do exist, but they're made with niche budgets.
As for your grasping-at-straws comment that this is a contradiction with my earlier comments? It's obviously not. Everything is relative, and that includes what is considered niche. In the context of all entertainment, yes all interest in MMORPGs is niche and you're not going to see Time-Warner retool its entire company to create MMORPGs. In the context of all RPGs, yes interest in timesink-heavy gameplay is niche and you're not going to see Blizzard retool its company to serve that niche.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
One sentence to a commentary you were making, don't pretend I'm the one not paying attention.
Your RPG commentary is again, rather sideways, as if one cared to re-read my commentary I pointed out it's source as well, which was not a "wasteland survival" game.
As for the claim on budget. I'd have to say you're the one blowing hot air on this endeavor. A good chunk of budget is overblown production that has contributed nothing to the success of the titles. Realistically, there are a lot of smaller budget MMO titles that can exist in a much more controlled scope and expected niche compared to those that blew crap tons of money.
For example Neverwinter versus ESO.
As you say, niche products do exist. And your misinformed stance that MMOs are singularly such is more than a little meaningless. "When I take over a giant company" is itself a hyperbolic argument (and ironically one I can point towards a title currently running which actually survived due to intervention on if you'd like). My understanding of gaming, MMOs , and business operation is something that's seen multiple titles launch already and I've done due diligence on several rather large companies now. You trying to tout authority over me in any manner is not simply a false argument, but an aggravating insult.
Fact is, as you've worded your stuff it's apparent your stance is that you want your niche, not some other iteration. That is not objective argumentation, it's a vaguely masked opinion, and not meaningful discussion. The claims you're making beyond the core case mentioned previously is largely specious at best, and rather completely conjecture at worst as you're referring to elements that have only a finite window of development and present implementation to begin with, neglecting any trends in game development that would be affecting or playing into why that's even happening.
"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
One sentence to a commentary you were making, don't pretend I'm the one not paying attention.
Your RPG commentary is again, rather sideways, as if one cared to re-read my commentary I pointed out it's source as well, which was not a "wasteland survival" game.
As for the claim on budget. I'd have to say you're the one blowing hot air on this endeavor. A good chunk of budget is overblown production that has contributed nothing to the success of the titles. Realistically, there are a lot of smaller budget MMO titles that can exist in a much more controlled scope and expected niche compared to those that blew crap tons of money.
For example Neverwinter versus ESO.
As you say, niche products do exist. And your misinformed stance that MMOs are singularly such is more than a little meaningless. "When I take over a giant company" is itself a hyperbolic argument (and ironically one I can point towards a title currently running which actually survived due to intervention on if you'd like). My understanding of gaming, MMOs , and business operation is something that's seen multiple titles launch already and I've done due diligence on several rather large companies now. You trying to tout authority over me in any manner is not simply a false argument, but an aggravating insult.
Fact is, as you've worded your stuff it's apparent your stance is that you want your niche, not some other iteration. That is not objective argumentation, it's a vaguely masked opinion, and not meaningful discussion. The claims you're making beyond the core case mentioned previously is largely specious at best, and rather completely conjecture at worst as you're referring to elements that have only a finite window of development and present implementation to begin with, neglecting any trends in game development that would be affecting or playing into why that's even happening.
Doesn't really matter why you wrote the one sentence. You wrote it, I directly replied to it, and you seemed to panic that the reply wasn't exactly the same discussion topic we'd been having up til that point. That's how conversation works.
So Fallout isn't about surviving in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Intriguing.
You aren't going to magically solve the inefficiencies inherent to big-budget games, so it's just more hot air to cite their "overblown production". That inefficiency is unavoidable and cannot be completely eliminated. Also if you lump things like art quality in with "overblown production" then it's more than just hot air, it's outright false, as a game which has professional AAA-quality graphics will attract and retain players more than the same game with worse graphics.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wrote it as a response to a discussion topic already being discussed. There was no panic when you went astray, as I already know it's what you do when you have no point.
The fallout rebuttal you just made doesn't even make sense, as it seems you erred to conjecture that it was the only game referenced and not in fact simply the only thing listed explicitly by name. So this snap of your is predicated only on poor reading skills.
And your last point is an amazing attempt at dodging that doesn't even get out of it's own way. That all you can refer to is "big budget games" is an error unto it's own, and proves you completely missed or failed to acknowledged the point of my commentary there. The only "hot air" being blown in that manner is you trying to evacuate from having to address any of it.
Things like art quality don't really go one way or another if you're going to break down the actual points of production. Where it often fails in budget and even in major titles is the distinct lack of art talent being a component or mechanical limitations imposed on it from other aspects. That combined with the notion of "big budget" being the only budget are massive holes in your irrational argument.
"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
I wrote it as a response to a discussion topic already being discussed. There was no panic when you went astray, as I already know it's what you do when you have no point.
The fallout rebuttal you just made doesn't even make sense, as it seems you erred to conjecture that it was the only game referenced and not in fact simply the only thing listed explicitly by name. So this snap of your is predicated only on poor reading skills.
And your last point is an amazing attempt at dodging that doesn't even get out of it's own way. That all you can refer to is "big budget games" is an error unto it's own, and proves you completely missed or failed to acknowledged the point of my commentary there. The only "hot air" being blown in that manner is you trying to evacuate from having to address any of it.
Things like art quality don't really go one way or another if you're going to break down the actual points of production. Where it often fails in budget and even in major titles is the distinct lack of art talent being a component or mechanical limitations imposed on it from other aspects. That combined with the notion of "big budget" being the only budget are massive holes in your irrational argument.
Do you really fail to understand how a challenge to my reason for posting resulted in an explanation of the reason for my posting?
Do you really fail to see how food/water fits better with Fallout (a game about surviving a post-apocalyptic wasteland) than with fantasy RPGs (which are about heroics and adventure, not medieval bathroom breaks and food-scavenging)?
Do you really fail to comprehend the tiny size of the vocal minority requesting inefficient entertainment, in spite of the entire history of human entertainment showing that this clearly isn't something people like?
I assume you understand all these things and argue just for the sake of arguing.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And this last post of yours cleanly illustrates just how far off you are.
For one, that "challenge to your reason for posting" mandated a response that would address the point, not give a tangent that would fail to do so. In your tangent, you changed your stance and in doing so, lost any relevant point.
Point in case, your subsequent claim right here. "Heroics and adventure". There are many RPG systems still in which the notion of rations and survival skills are a component of them. Survival is itself an aspect that can and does get utilized in adventure systems and stories as a way to give focus, emphasis, and meaning to certain scenes and moments of play.
Do you really fail to comprehend that every preference in personal entertainment save for only the most global aspects, are a minority preference? The only claim you have is that people prefer "efficient entertainment" and yet there has been a myriad of contradictions into what entertains people and the forms in which they take.
Your opinion and preference does not dictate a system that supports a myriad of genres and play styles. Your irrationality on this is becoming boundless.
To quote you.
"I assume you know all these things and argue just for the sake of arguing."
"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 this last post of yours cleanly illustrates just how far off you are.
For one, that "challenge to your reason for posting" mandated a response that would address the point, not give a tangent that would fail to do so. In your tangent, you changed your stance and in doing so, lost any relevant point.
Point in case, your subsequent claim right here. "Heroics and adventure". There are many RPG systems still in which the notion of rations and survival skills are a component of them. Survival is itself an aspect that can and does get utilized in adventure systems and stories as a way to give focus, emphasis, and meaning to certain scenes and moments of play.
Do you really fail to comprehend that every preference in personal entertainment save for only the most global aspects, are a minority preference? The only claim you have is that people prefer "efficient entertainment" and yet there has been a myriad of contradictions into what entertains people and the forms in which they take.
Your opinion and preference does not dictate a system that supports a myriad of genres and play styles. Your irrationality on this is becoming boundless.
To quote you.
"I assume you know all these things and argue just for the sake of arguing."
Hopefully you can understand how "Why go to the moon?" and "What would make a moon voyage successful?" are completely different questions and will result in unrelated answers.
You essentially challenged "Why post on this topic?" after we'd discussed "What makes entertainment successful?" and those are also completely different questions with unrelated answers.
Are you more likely to describe fantasy RPGs as being about adventure, or being about food management? These are not food management games where you're a hungry peasant looking for food to survive. They're about adventure.
The audience's preference to avoid entertainment which deliberately wastes their time is pretty obvious. We've gone over many discrete examples throughout the thread.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Also, my comment wasn't a question, it was neither written in the form of a question nor posing an inquiry to be answered. For you to take it and run on a tangent, is again, your own doing.
And here we have you again running away from the point, as I rather clearly stated "Survival is itself an aspect that can and does get utilized in adventure systems and stories as a way to give focus, emphasis, and meaning to certain scenes and moments of play." Why would you call a game by one of the components of it's function as opposed to the global aspect under which many of those things fall or are incorporated?
Sure, adventure games are about adventure, see my previous post that you apparently didn't read for why that doesn't address the point.
"The audience's preference to avoid entertainment which deliberately wastes their time is pretty obvious. We've gone over many discrete examples throughout the thread." And in doing so, we've found that the concept of time/entertainment is rather flexible, that aspects that drive entertainment are varied, and that preferences in such are equally varied. Those "discrete examples" being many such point in case scenarios.
"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
Also, my comment wasn't a question, it was neither written in the form of a question nor posing an inquiry to be answered. For you to take it and run on a tangent, is again, your own doing.
And here we have you again running away from the point, as I rather clearly stated "Survival is itself an aspect that can and does get utilized in adventure systems and stories as a way to give focus, emphasis, and meaning to certain scenes and moments of play." Why would you call a game by one of the components of it's function as opposed to the global aspect under which many of those things fall or are incorporated?
Sure, adventure games are about adventure, see my previous post that you apparently didn't read for why that doesn't address the point.
"The audience's preference to avoid entertainment which deliberately wastes their time is pretty obvious. We've gone over many discrete examples throughout the thread." And in doing so, we've found that the concept of time/entertainment is rather flexible, that aspects that drive entertainment are varied, and that preferences in such are equally varied. Those "discrete examples" being many such point in case scenarios.
You challenged my reason for posting. Whether or not it was worded as a question, the implied question was "Why post?" Justification was provided. The justification happened to be of a slightly different topic, and to avoid having to accept the uncomfortably logical reason I provided, you chose to distract with the 'different train of thought' angle, which you've now further distracted with the 'it wasn't a question!' angle. And yet amid these distractions you ironically choose to accuse me of "running away" from the point.
You followed up with a straw man. Food management is thematically a poor fit for a fantasy RPG about adventures. It can and does get implemented, but that's not the problem. The problem is when it's a fantasy RPG about heroics, and then you're tasked with something as menial as food management. So "can and does" is a straw man; it just doesn't matter; what matters is that a game's mechanics should fit its aesthetic, and fantasy RPGs are rarely presented as peasant survival games.
I'm fairly certain you're just agreeing with me for the last part. The concept of value / time is indeed flexible and applies equally well to all forms of entertainment we've examined. The factors influencing value do indeed vary wildly, but the core problem the concept identifies (wasteful entertainment) has a clear correlation to successful products and unsuccessful ones. There are no successful products which are blatantly wasteful with the audience's valuable time, and the most successful products tend to be those which are chock full of entertainment value per hour invested.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Negative. The comment was "if that's all you had to say, then there was not much meaning to posting". Whether or not you take umbrage to that and feel the need to respond is entirely upon you.
And in the regard, you did indeed run away from the point. You went for an argument you thought more defensible, to which I corrected and since then you've been bouncing back and forth on this little tirade trying to dodge any resolution to the argument.
Like for example your new attempt at discrediting a game mechanic which spawned out of fantasy adventure and still makes it's home inside many, as "not fitting the aesthetic". You go so far as to brand it "peasant survival, which is itself a hyperbolic claim and considerably more of a straw man than anything you're asserting of mine right now.
As for the last point, this would be where I stated a while ago that you seemed to have been catching on. By your own admission "certain types of downtime effectively aren't downtime for the purposes of being densely entertaining" as well as "We don't live in a binary world where everything is either 100% or 0%." This is a big part of where your claim breaks down, entertainment value per hour invested is not a constant, it's not a concrete variable for every individual, and this compounds against the very metrics you showed previously about the genres. MMOs are not bound to a specific sort of RPG or a specific genre beyond the platform upon which it is constructed, which means already that it's appeal is functionally being stifled by the notion you want to make of it having to operate within such a finite window. If maximum efficiency in entertainment was the ole governing force, then the MMO genre and every other one would behave drastically different. It's simply illogical to make that claim and think it excuses anything.
"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
1. In game weather, and your character is affected by it; 2. Your character requires food and drink; 3. Items have weight and your character is affected by how much weight is being carried; 4. A stat like courage or morale, where performance is affected by how confident the character is, which in turn is affected by his or her past experiences. Killing a dragon, for example, makes you much more confident in your next challenge; 5. A character can be wounded, and once wounded the wounds need healing; 6. Mind bars, as in original SWG. I still remember gathering around a fire or in an inn, watching the performers, and receiving a benefit; 7. Improvable abilities like swimming, foraging, etc.; 8. Visual effects like seeing breath on a cold day, footsteps in snow, correct sounds for different terrain, etc. 9. Day and night, and some light source required for night; 10. Will there ever be a sense of smell, when you get feedback in the chat box on what you are smelling? Imagine an NPC is speaking to you and your chat box says "You smell fear ...."
This list could go on. My overall point is that game mechanics that reflect the character as a being with needs, as opposed to a coat hanger for gear, increases my enjoyment.
Project Gorgon has many things on your list. -1. PG has game changing weather, though it currently varies by zone rather than the passing of day. It's planned to be far more in depth than it is currently. -2. In PG, it's almost a necessity to have a food buff active in high-level content, and eating meat will prevent you from making high-quality milk as a cow since you will no longer be a vegetarian. There's no 'hunger' yet though. In the desert. you need to drink fluid or you'll be dehydrated eventually. -3. There's no item weight, per se, but some mechanics will take away inventory slots as a penalty. If you go over your limit, you move at a crawl. -4. PG sort of has stuff like this. Rakshasa get an experience penalty if they kill too many sentients. If you eat a corpse as a werewolf, you'll gain a healing buff. You also get experience bonuses if you listen to music from other players, or admire player created statues. -5. In PG, there are curses. You have to kill the boss that cursed you to remove them. Also, some mobs such as ogres will break your limbs, and others will give you diseases if they kill you. All of these require healing. Ogres can require a huge time investment worth of first aid kits to cure all the broken bones they give you. -6. PG has performance appreciation bonuses, as well as a variety of instruments. Unfortunately, there's no custom music yet. There are several tracks per instrument that you can play, and they mesh well together like peas in a pod. -7. PG's entire system is based on leveling different skills like Endurance, First Aid, Foraging, Combat Skills, Crafting Skills, Civic Skills, Reputation, Anatomy, the list goes on. -8. PG doesn't have amazing graphics, but these are possible changes. I personally would like to see the character breathing, and having that breath make a small visual effect in cold areas such as the desert at night or Kur Mouintain. The dev listens, so if there's demand he'll put it on the list. Just log in and suggest it. -9. Players can buy lamp oil to light lamps with to get civic experience, and some areas can be quite dark such as a small area in Yeti Cave. However, I don't think the Dev has had enough time to come up with meaningful day vs night penalties beyond the time of day change already in game. I think stuff like this is being worked on. -10. PG has hygiene. Some NPC's won't talk to you if you're too filthy. It varies as to why, but for some it may be smell or the guts on your clothing from all the mosnters you slew.
TL;DR Gorgon has or will have most of what you desire. I don't know if graphics are a huge deal for you, since Gorgon's are mediocre. But hey, the game feels like a Sandbox to me. The dungeons are never private or instanced. 'Tis great. Game won't hold your hand, either.
Uhm, are we talking about RPG or FPS? Surely you can't sit there and say RP fans want to have nothing more than strictly combat scenarios in their games. That is what fans of FPS games want. Don't confuse the genres and definitely don't confuse the fans. I seriously don't think you are grasping the concept of what RP is. I mean you definitely seem intelligent enough, but if that was the case, you can't seriously expect anyone to believe what you are saying as being even remotely accurate about the genre.
This isn't one game genre we're talking about. This isn't even just games we're talking about. It's basically all entertainment. No entertainment is characterized by deliberately wasting the audience's time. From games to movies to books.
Golf, you hit the ball, you walk, you hit the ball. Lots of people play the game, spend large amounts of money watch it on TV etc. Yet it is mostly "wasting time" yet again your blinkered view of the world shuts out any alternative way of thinking.
Uhm, are we talking about RPG or FPS? Surely you can't sit there and say RP fans want to have nothing more than strictly combat scenarios in their games. That is what fans of FPS games want. Don't confuse the genres and definitely don't confuse the fans. I seriously don't think you are grasping the concept of what RP is. I mean you definitely seem intelligent enough, but if that was the case, you can't seriously expect anyone to believe what you are saying as being even remotely accurate about the genre.
This isn't one game genre we're talking about. This isn't even just games we're talking about. It's basically all entertainment. No entertainment is characterized by deliberately wasting the audience's time. From games to movies to books.
Golf, you hit the ball, you walk, you hit the ball. Lots of people play the game, spend large amounts of money watch it on TV etc. Yet it is mostly "wasting time" yet again your blinkered view of the world shuts out any alternative way of thinking.
No no no no!
Golf may not be your entertainment, but it is for someone else. You may see it AS a waste of time. Just as WoW is or certain Expacs were, maybe you couldn't get into EQ or Wildstar.... but it's someone else entertainment and YOUR waste of time.
Comments
"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Marthe Troly-Curtin (also attributed to John Lennon)
Entertainment has value, and that value means it's not wasted time. The only reason people choose to play games is because they have value. So the time is not wasted.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As for compatibility with RPGs, that's purely an opinion and in no way realistic to the fact that those game elements exist with no exclusivity or inability to be integrated together.
Try sticking to one train of thought.
"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 once someone understands these things they can avoid having expectations doomed to be left unfulfilled.
As for sticking to one train of thought, do you understand how conversation works? If you challenge my rationale I'm going to respond to that challenge. The catalyst for the topic shift was your post, not mine. If a shifting topic irks you, then don't make posts which will shift the topic. Simple enough.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Like your eating and drinking example. It'd work if not for the fact that those survival elements were components of many classic RPG systems. For a modern title you can even look at the fact it was incorporated as a component of Fallout New Vegas.
That it splintered off as an element with stronger focus in the survival genre does not in any way preclude it as a mechanic that has been and can be incorporated into RPG systems, and in that regard as a meaningful component. To disagree with that is to form an opinion rather than to give an objective argument.
MMOs are by no means a genre that is or has to be defined by a singular design. It's wholly unintelligent to say that a title doesn't deserve to exist simply because it deviates from the most popular iteration within a genre that is defined by the platform on which it is constructed rather than the specificity of it's contents.
Your first sentence is again a contradiction of the remarks you've already made even. Either MMOs are a niche within a niche as you were claiming with the prior statistic, or they're not and only exist to serve the largest most generic swathe of gamers available.
At this point your argument is simply a pile of contradictions.
"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 it doesn't register at all that food/water might be entirely fitting of an RPG about survival in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Meanwhile most RPGs are fantasy where it's poorly fitting of their aesthetic (because most fantasy RPGs are about heroics and adventure; they don't try to simulate the life of a peasant trying to survive; for some reason people find heroic dragon-slaying more compelling than an awful peasant life.)
Nobody said MMORPGs require a singular design. I'm only pointing out the simple truths that game elements which don't match the aesthetic and which consume significant time without providing significant entertainment, are bad ideas. No game is perfect (they all have some bad ideas) but some bad ideas are more impactful than others and we're discussing the type of idea that adds significant downtime without adding significant entertainment.
Your "wholly unintelligent" comment is hot air. It fails at one of the most basic concepts in business. Big-budget products are not made for niche audiences. When you take over a giant company you're free to retool your production based on the whims of a vocal minority of forum posters somewhere and watch the company go down the drain.
Niche products can and do exist, but they're made with niche budgets.
As for your grasping-at-straws comment that this is a contradiction with my earlier comments? It's obviously not. Everything is relative, and that includes what is considered niche. In the context of all entertainment, yes all interest in MMORPGs is niche and you're not going to see Time-Warner retool its entire company to create MMORPGs. In the context of all RPGs, yes interest in timesink-heavy gameplay is niche and you're not going to see Blizzard retool its company to serve that niche.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your RPG commentary is again, rather sideways, as if one cared to re-read my commentary I pointed out it's source as well, which was not a "wasteland survival" game.
As for the claim on budget. I'd have to say you're the one blowing hot air on this endeavor. A good chunk of budget is overblown production that has contributed nothing to the success of the titles. Realistically, there are a lot of smaller budget MMO titles that can exist in a much more controlled scope and expected niche compared to those that blew crap tons of money.
For example Neverwinter versus ESO.
As you say, niche products do exist. And your misinformed stance that MMOs are singularly such is more than a little meaningless. "When I take over a giant company" is itself a hyperbolic argument (and ironically one I can point towards a title currently running which actually survived due to intervention on if you'd like). My understanding of gaming, MMOs , and business operation is something that's seen multiple titles launch already and I've done due diligence on several rather large companies now. You trying to tout authority over me in any manner is not simply a false argument, but an aggravating insult.
Fact is, as you've worded your stuff it's apparent your stance is that you want your niche, not some other iteration. That is not objective argumentation, it's a vaguely masked opinion, and not meaningful discussion. The claims you're making beyond the core case mentioned previously is largely specious at best, and rather completely conjecture at worst as you're referring to elements that have only a finite window of development and present implementation to begin with, neglecting any trends in game development that would be affecting or playing into why that's even happening.
"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
So Fallout isn't about surviving in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Intriguing.
You aren't going to magically solve the inefficiencies inherent to big-budget games, so it's just more hot air to cite their "overblown production". That inefficiency is unavoidable and cannot be completely eliminated. Also if you lump things like art quality in with "overblown production" then it's more than just hot air, it's outright false, as a game which has professional AAA-quality graphics will attract and retain players more than the same game with worse graphics.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The fallout rebuttal you just made doesn't even make sense, as it seems you erred to conjecture that it was the only game referenced and not in fact simply the only thing listed explicitly by name. So this snap of your is predicated only on poor reading skills.
And your last point is an amazing attempt at dodging that doesn't even get out of it's own way. That all you can refer to is "big budget games" is an error unto it's own, and proves you completely missed or failed to acknowledged the point of my commentary there. The only "hot air" being blown in that manner is you trying to evacuate from having to address any of it.
Things like art quality don't really go one way or another if you're going to break down the actual points of production. Where it often fails in budget and even in major titles is the distinct lack of art talent being a component or mechanical limitations imposed on it from other aspects. That combined with the notion of "big budget" being the only budget are massive holes in your irrational argument.
"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
Do you really fail to see how food/water fits better with Fallout (a game about surviving a post-apocalyptic wasteland) than with fantasy RPGs (which are about heroics and adventure, not medieval bathroom breaks and food-scavenging)?
Do you really fail to comprehend the tiny size of the vocal minority requesting inefficient entertainment, in spite of the entire history of human entertainment showing that this clearly isn't something people like?
I assume you understand all these things and argue just for the sake of arguing.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For one, that "challenge to your reason for posting" mandated a response that would address the point, not give a tangent that would fail to do so. In your tangent, you changed your stance and in doing so, lost any relevant point.
Point in case, your subsequent claim right here. "Heroics and adventure". There are many RPG systems still in which the notion of rations and survival skills are a component of them. Survival is itself an aspect that can and does get utilized in adventure systems and stories as a way to give focus, emphasis, and meaning to certain scenes and moments of play.
Do you really fail to comprehend that every preference in personal entertainment save for only the most global aspects, are a minority preference? The only claim you have is that people prefer "efficient entertainment" and yet there has been a myriad of contradictions into what entertains people and the forms in which they take.
Your opinion and preference does not dictate a system that supports a myriad of genres and play styles. Your irrationality on this is becoming boundless.
To quote you.
"I assume you know all these things and argue just for the sake of arguing."
"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
You essentially challenged "Why post on this topic?" after we'd discussed "What makes entertainment successful?" and those are also completely different questions with unrelated answers.
Are you more likely to describe fantasy RPGs as being about adventure, or being about food management? These are not food management games where you're a hungry peasant looking for food to survive. They're about adventure.
The audience's preference to avoid entertainment which deliberately wastes their time is pretty obvious. We've gone over many discrete examples throughout the thread.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Also, my comment wasn't a question, it was neither written in the form of a question nor posing an inquiry to be answered. For you to take it and run on a tangent, is again, your own doing.
And here we have you again running away from the point, as I rather clearly stated "Survival is itself an aspect that can and does get utilized in adventure systems and stories as a way to give focus, emphasis, and meaning to certain scenes and moments of play." Why would you call a game by one of the components of it's function as opposed to the global aspect under which many of those things fall or are incorporated?
Sure, adventure games are about adventure, see my previous post that you apparently didn't read for why that doesn't address the point.
"The audience's preference to avoid entertainment which deliberately wastes their time is pretty obvious. We've gone over many discrete examples throughout the thread." And in doing so, we've found that the concept of time/entertainment is rather flexible, that aspects that drive entertainment are varied, and that preferences in such are equally varied. Those "discrete examples" being many such point in case scenarios.
"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
You followed up with a straw man. Food management is thematically a poor fit for a fantasy RPG about adventures. It can and does get implemented, but that's not the problem. The problem is when it's a fantasy RPG about heroics, and then you're tasked with something as menial as food management. So "can and does" is a straw man; it just doesn't matter; what matters is that a game's mechanics should fit its aesthetic, and fantasy RPGs are rarely presented as peasant survival games.
I'm fairly certain you're just agreeing with me for the last part. The concept of value / time is indeed flexible and applies equally well to all forms of entertainment we've examined. The factors influencing value do indeed vary wildly, but the core problem the concept identifies (wasteful entertainment) has a clear correlation to successful products and unsuccessful ones. There are no successful products which are blatantly wasteful with the audience's valuable time, and the most successful products tend to be those which are chock full of entertainment value per hour invested.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And in the regard, you did indeed run away from the point. You went for an argument you thought more defensible, to which I corrected and since then you've been bouncing back and forth on this little tirade trying to dodge any resolution to the argument.
Like for example your new attempt at discrediting a game mechanic which spawned out of fantasy adventure and still makes it's home inside many, as "not fitting the aesthetic". You go so far as to brand it "peasant survival, which is itself a hyperbolic claim and considerably more of a straw man than anything you're asserting of mine right now.
As for the last point, this would be where I stated a while ago that you seemed to have been catching on. By your own admission "certain types of downtime effectively aren't downtime for the purposes of being densely entertaining" as well as "We don't live in a binary world where everything is either 100% or 0%." This is a big part of where your claim breaks down, entertainment value per hour invested is not a constant, it's not a concrete variable for every individual, and this compounds against the very metrics you showed previously about the genres. MMOs are not bound to a specific sort of RPG or a specific genre beyond the platform upon which it is constructed, which means already that it's appeal is functionally being stifled by the notion you want to make of it having to operate within such a finite window. If maximum efficiency in entertainment was the ole governing force, then the MMO genre and every other one would behave drastically different. It's simply illogical to make that claim and think it excuses anything.
"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
/smith forge cider
/long-chair
-1. PG has game changing weather, though it currently varies by zone rather than the passing of day. It's planned to be far more in depth than it is currently.
-2. In PG, it's almost a necessity to have a food buff active in high-level content, and eating meat will prevent you from making high-quality milk as a cow since you will no longer be a vegetarian. There's no 'hunger' yet though. In the desert. you need to drink fluid or you'll be dehydrated eventually.
-3. There's no item weight, per se, but some mechanics will take away inventory slots as a penalty. If you go over your limit, you move at a crawl.
-4. PG sort of has stuff like this. Rakshasa get an experience penalty if they kill too many sentients. If you eat a corpse as a werewolf, you'll gain a healing buff. You also get experience bonuses if you listen to music from other players, or admire player created statues.
-5. In PG, there are curses. You have to kill the boss that cursed you to remove them. Also, some mobs such as ogres will break your limbs, and others will give you diseases if they kill you. All of these require healing. Ogres can require a huge time investment worth of first aid kits to cure all the broken bones they give you.
-6. PG has performance appreciation bonuses, as well as a variety of instruments. Unfortunately, there's no custom music yet. There are several tracks per instrument that you can play, and they mesh well together like peas in a pod.
-7. PG's entire system is based on leveling different skills like Endurance, First Aid, Foraging, Combat Skills, Crafting Skills, Civic Skills, Reputation, Anatomy, the list goes on.
-8. PG doesn't have amazing graphics, but these are possible changes. I personally would like to see the character breathing, and having that breath make a small visual effect in cold areas such as the desert at night or Kur Mouintain. The dev listens, so if there's demand he'll put it on the list. Just log in and suggest it.
-9. Players can buy lamp oil to light lamps with to get civic experience, and some areas can be quite dark such as a small area in Yeti Cave. However, I don't think the Dev has had enough time to come up with meaningful day vs night penalties beyond the time of day change already in game. I think stuff like this is being worked on.
-10. PG has hygiene. Some NPC's won't talk to you if you're too filthy. It varies as to why, but for some it may be smell or the guts on your clothing from all the mosnters you slew.
TL;DR Gorgon has or will have most of what you desire. I don't know if graphics are a huge deal for you, since Gorgon's are mediocre. But hey, the game feels like a Sandbox to me. The dungeons are never private or instanced. 'Tis great. Game won't hold your hand, either.
Golf may not be your entertainment, but it is for someone else. You may see it AS a waste of time. Just as WoW is or certain Expacs were, maybe you couldn't get into EQ or Wildstar.... but it's someone else entertainment and YOUR waste of time.
"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