Howdy, Stranger!

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

Thoughts on "realism"

blastermasterblastermaster Member UncommonPosts: 259
I was looking at the BDO forums, and some people were complaining because the snowing they have added for the seasonal event is preventing them to do some drying (fish,etc.) more often than not.

(Please note that you can see the different weather systems on the map and can easily go somewhere outside of the snowing range...)

I personally love little things like that in my mmos, which there seems to be less and less of.. (probably because most people want to have what they want right when they want it..), but I was wondering what do most people around here think about game mechanics like that, where you can't do everything right when you want to, and where you have to either be patient or go out of your way to get something done?

ex.:  Drying when it's not raining/snowing.  Waiting for night time or day time to have access to some npcs, etc. ?

Also, do you have other examples of such things that you found pretty nice or pretty awful?


«13

Comments

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 32,084
    I'm all for this type of "realism".
    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    I think people will complain about any inconveniences these days even if the game ends up being more enjoyable for them.  In EQ it often rained or snowed and it made travel difficult as you couldn't see nasty mobs and sometimes lost your sense of direction.  There was a high level Druid spell that could stop rain and sometimes a high level Druid would cast it.  Personally I feel games set in these settings are all about hardship and what it would be like.  Not everything would be happy and safe moments where you have no annoyances.
  • BestinnaBestinna Member UncommonPosts: 190
    I think that's cool. 

    I don't really care if a game is ''real'' or not though since none of it really is and somethings you just can't make close to real and can only be explained by magic, so why bother.
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    I love things that can change what is possible at a given time and place in the game. It is more interesting to me to have to wait or to go somewhere else to do something than to have it happen just as I wanted despite the circumstances. 

    MMORPG players are among the biggest babies in the gaming world. Any deviation from the expected hits the MMORPG player like a truck with a big load of unfair bulging under the tarps. 
    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • BestinnaBestinna Member UncommonPosts: 190
    Flyte27 said:
    I think people will complain about any inconveniences these days even if the game ends up being more enjoyable for them.  In EQ it often rained or snowed and it made travel difficult as you couldn't see nasty mobs and sometimes lost your sense of direction.  There was a high level Druid spell that could stop rain and sometimes a high level Druid would cast it.  Personally I feel games set in these settings are all about hardship and what it would be like.  Not everything would be happy and safe moments where you have no annoyances.
    yeah you can't please everyone. someone will always be complaining.
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,198
    You have people who don't have time to be inconvenienced by trivials such as weather, immersion and world fleshing features.  They want games more than MMORPG.  They should probably be playing RPG epics that can incorporate smaller scale quick multiplayer and raids.  These players also largely don't contribute to genre financially either but cash shop models now subsidize these players.  You wonder why the genre has cooled.

     Unfortunately these people are the current majority.  The old guard converted or quit or sit around pinning for the old day on forums like these.  
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    You have people who don't have time to be inconvenienced by trivials such as weather, immersion and world fleshing features.  They want games more than MMORPG.  They should probably be playing RPG epics that can incorporate smaller scale quick multiplayer and raids.  These players also largely don't contribute to genre financially either but cash shop models now subsidize these players.  You wonder why the genre has cooled.

     Unfortunately these people are the current majority.  The old guard converted or quit or sit around pinning for the old day on forums like these.  
    I've been thinking about contribution some money to Pantheon Rise of the Fallen after watching some footage.  I don't have much hope for an old school game in this era, but after watching some footage it at least appears to be a lot like EQ with updated graphics.  The problem is that if a lot of modern players jump in and start asking for certain things or they can't make enough money with the old school ideas it could end up working like a modern game fairly quickly.  Luckily it's crowd funded and most people who fund the game want an experience that is like original EQ.
  • H0urg1assH0urg1ass Member EpicPosts: 2,380
    I have two separate and conflicting feelings regarding this type of realism in games.

    On one hand, I really like those extra touches.  It goes to show a level of thoughtfulness not shown by many developers.  It adds that tiny bit of detail to the game that makes it more immersive and helps draw the veil over the conductor behind the scenes.

    On the other hand, it can be incredibly inconvenient when I only have a few hours to play and it happens to be raining right when I need to dry some fish.  Perhaps its hours of darkness every time I log into the game for a week, meaning that the crucial NPC I need to talk to is always in bed.

    I find that this type of realism works far better in single player games where the player has some control over whether they want to experience those situations at that time.  For instance, if it's raining in Skyrim, then I can simply push a button and "wait out" the storm; making an hour or more pass instantly.  If an NPC is asleep, then I can go take a rest myself in a nearby bed, or again, just wait out till dawn.

    This option is not available in a shared experience where one player may want the cover of darkness to help him burglarize someones home, while another player just wants the damn sun to rise so they can buy a sword.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    H0urg1ass said:
    I have two separate and conflicting feelings regarding this type of realism in games.

    On one hand, I really like those extra touches.  It goes to show a level of thoughtfulness not shown by many developers.  It adds that tiny bit of detail to the game that makes it more immersive and helps draw the veil over the conductor behind the scenes.

    On the other hand, it can be incredibly inconvenient when I only have a few hours to play and it happens to be raining right when I need to dry some fish.  Perhaps its hours of darkness every time I log into the game for a week, meaning that the crucial NPC I need to talk to is always in bed.

    I find that this type of realism works far better in single player games where the player has some control over whether they want to experience those situations at that time.  For instance, if it's raining in Skyrim, then I can simply push a button and "wait out" the storm; making an hour or more pass instantly.  If an NPC is asleep, then I can go take a rest myself in a nearby bed, or again, just wait out till dawn.

    This option is not available in a shared experience where one player may want the cover of darkness to help him burglarize someones home, while another player just wants the damn sun to rise so they can buy a sword.
    I believe this is relevant, but not every game should be made to cater to your real life restrictions.  Some people like a game where you are inconvenienced and have to wait figure out when an NPC walked from one city to another, at what point, and at what time.  These are the type of things that keep an experience from becoming common place for everyone.  In a single player game it doesn't matter as it is just one players experience.  In a multiplayer game some people might enjoy the fact that some things are very rare and not everyone gets to do them or have them.  Only those who put in the time and effort.
  • BestinnaBestinna Member UncommonPosts: 190
    Flyte27 said:
    I believe this is relevant, but not every game should be made to cater to your real life restrictions. 
    yup, I was thinking just this.
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    Flyte27 said:
    You have people who don't have time to be inconvenienced by trivials such as weather, immersion and world fleshing features.  They want games more than MMORPG.  They should probably be playing RPG epics that can incorporate smaller scale quick multiplayer and raids.  These players also largely don't contribute to genre financially either but cash shop models now subsidize these players.  You wonder why the genre has cooled.

     Unfortunately these people are the current majority.  The old guard converted or quit or sit around pinning for the old day on forums like these.  
    I've been thinking about contribution some money to Pantheon Rise of the Fallen after watching some footage.  I don't have much hope for an old school game in this era, but after watching some footage it at least appears to be a lot like EQ with updated graphics.  The problem is that if a lot of modern players jump in and start asking for certain things or they can't make enough money with the old school ideas it could end up working like a modern game fairly quickly.  Luckily it's crowd funded and most people who fund the game want an experience that is like original EQ.
    I agree, and that  is why I feel that the real problem is the culture that has been harvested by the game makers. 

    -Ever-Increasing easy play that is optimized for a short session
    -Solo-Play emphasis
    -Perceived Absolute Equality
    -Low to No Frustration in Gameplay with most situations resolving by allowing the player to simply do the same thing Again until success.
    -Responsiveness to the slightest bit of whining (with concessions or coddling) instead of encouraging more inventive or cooperative play.
    -Treating inconvenience and adversity as forbidden elements
    -Combat Success as the only focus of the games

    There will always be the big market share games that aim for the lowest common denominator, but there can be niche games that do just fine. Cloning WoW or GW2 going forward will result in failure for sure, so games should be largely made to carve their own space. Some new Big Dumb will come out to displace WoW
    eventually, but in the meantime there is some space to save the genre. A big part of the problem, however, are the players who have been conditioned to be extremely petulant creatures of comfort and routine. 
    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • MMOman101MMOman101 Member UncommonPosts: 1,787
    The problem with "realism" in some games, is that they don't add it correctly.

    In this case it sounds like they added this in.  Great they have more weather affects.  The problem seems to lie in that players can only dry fish in certain areas.  No that is not real.  So by adding "realism" in one area they made something else broken and less real.

    As a general rule if you add "realism" into a game and it makes other actions fail because the player cannot circumvent a narrow mechanic then adding that realism without changing the other is a bad idea. 

    “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

    --John Ruskin







  • H0urg1assH0urg1ass Member EpicPosts: 2,380
    Flyte27 said:
    H0urg1ass said:
    I have two separate and conflicting feelings regarding this type of realism in games.

    On one hand, I really like those extra touches.  It goes to show a level of thoughtfulness not shown by many developers.  It adds that tiny bit of detail to the game that makes it more immersive and helps draw the veil over the conductor behind the scenes.

    On the other hand, it can be incredibly inconvenient when I only have a few hours to play and it happens to be raining right when I need to dry some fish.  Perhaps its hours of darkness every time I log into the game for a week, meaning that the crucial NPC I need to talk to is always in bed.

    I find that this type of realism works far better in single player games where the player has some control over whether they want to experience those situations at that time.  For instance, if it's raining in Skyrim, then I can simply push a button and "wait out" the storm; making an hour or more pass instantly.  If an NPC is asleep, then I can go take a rest myself in a nearby bed, or again, just wait out till dawn.

    This option is not available in a shared experience where one player may want the cover of darkness to help him burglarize someones home, while another player just wants the damn sun to rise so they can buy a sword.
    I believe this is relevant, but not every game should be made to cater to your real life restrictions.  Some people like a game where you are inconvenienced and have to wait figure out when an NPC walked from one city to another, at what point, and at what time.  These are the type of things that keep an experience from becoming common place for everyone.  In a single player game it doesn't matter as it is just one players experience.  In a multiplayer game some people might enjoy the fact that some things are very rare and not everyone gets to do them or have them.  Only those who put in the time and effort.
    Sure, but then you run into another problem as a developer and a publisher; paying players.  If I'm a publisher, then the only thing that I really care about is how many dollars are rolling in.  If the developer has introduced a feature such as realistic night and day schedules and that night schedule happens to fall on the east coast US starting at 6pm and ending at 10pm every day, then you can pretty much guarantee that many of those players will uninstall.

    So there has to be a careful balancing act between realism and an inconvenience which would cost the company a paying player.  To be harshly literal, the publisher does not care that someone who can play 12 hours a day doesn't mind the inconvenience. Especially when the guy who works 8-12 hour days, with a significant disposable income, stops paying because the four hours he can play after work are inconvenient.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    H0urg1ass said:
    Flyte27 said:
    H0urg1ass said:
    I have two separate and conflicting feelings regarding this type of realism in games.

    On one hand, I really like those extra touches.  It goes to show a level of thoughtfulness not shown by many developers.  It adds that tiny bit of detail to the game that makes it more immersive and helps draw the veil over the conductor behind the scenes.

    On the other hand, it can be incredibly inconvenient when I only have a few hours to play and it happens to be raining right when I need to dry some fish.  Perhaps its hours of darkness every time I log into the game for a week, meaning that the crucial NPC I need to talk to is always in bed.

    I find that this type of realism works far better in single player games where the player has some control over whether they want to experience those situations at that time.  For instance, if it's raining in Skyrim, then I can simply push a button and "wait out" the storm; making an hour or more pass instantly.  If an NPC is asleep, then I can go take a rest myself in a nearby bed, or again, just wait out till dawn.

    This option is not available in a shared experience where one player may want the cover of darkness to help him burglarize someones home, while another player just wants the damn sun to rise so they can buy a sword.
    I believe this is relevant, but not every game should be made to cater to your real life restrictions.  Some people like a game where you are inconvenienced and have to wait figure out when an NPC walked from one city to another, at what point, and at what time.  These are the type of things that keep an experience from becoming common place for everyone.  In a single player game it doesn't matter as it is just one players experience.  In a multiplayer game some people might enjoy the fact that some things are very rare and not everyone gets to do them or have them.  Only those who put in the time and effort.
    Sure, but then you run into another problem as a developer and a publisher; paying players.  If I'm a publisher, then the only thing that I really care about is how many dollars are rolling in.  If the developer has introduced a feature such as realistic night and day schedules and that night schedule happens to fall on the east coast US starting at 6pm and ending at 10pm every day, then you can pretty much guarantee that many of those players will uninstall.

    So there has to be a careful balancing act between realism and an inconvenience which would cost the company a paying player.  To be harshly literal, the publisher does not care that someone who can play 12 hours a day doesn't mind the inconvenience. Especially when the guy who works 8-12 hour days, with a significant disposable income, stops paying because the four hours he can play after work are inconvenient.
    I suppose you could have another solution that like having servers that are in Europe, America, Asia, etc.  If the player wants to play with someone in America or vice versa they are likely already playing in off hours.  By choosing a server in their own time zone it's likely the times in game would reflect that.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    MMOman101 said:
    The problem with "realism" in some games, is that they don't add it correctly.

    In this case it sounds like they added this in.  Great they have more weather affects.  The problem seems to lie in that players can only dry fish in certain areas.  No that is not real.  So by adding "realism" in one area they made something else broken and less real.

    As a general rule if you add "realism" into a game and it makes other actions fail because the player cannot circumvent a narrow mechanic then adding that realism without changing the other is a bad idea. 
    I think realism may be the wrong way to put it.  Perhaps it's better to say inconveniences that are set in place to make things more difficult for the players.  This might be to simulate somewhat what it would be like to wade through a real storm and try to accomplish a task or it might just be to keep certain items/events in game rare and not accessible to everyone so that their value increases.
  • H0urg1assH0urg1ass Member EpicPosts: 2,380
    edited December 2016
    Bestinna said:
    Flyte27 said:
    I believe this is relevant, but not every game should be made to cater to your real life restrictions. 
    yup, I was thinking just this.
    Wish real hard in one hand and reach for some cold hard cash in the other hand and see which one fills up first.  Purposeful inconvenience as a game feature is a nice wish, but it won't put dollars in a bank account. Now ask the publisher to pick a hand.  

    I'd be surprised if BDO keeps this game feature in.  Someone out there is thinking to themselves right now, is it really worth playing this game if I can't do what I want right now because it's raining?  That's never a question that any publisher with two brain cells ever wants their player base asking themselves.

    Personally, I think that these types of realism features should be for niche titles, or single player games.  Neither of which fits BDO's description.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    That is true, but developers who are fans of the genre and don't have a gun to their heads from big name publishers might have a chance to make such games.  For instance Pantheon Rise of the Fallen is crowd funded so there is no pressure from above to make the most money.  That's why I'm hopeful it will include such inconveniences.
  • H0urg1assH0urg1ass Member EpicPosts: 2,380
    Flyte27 said:
    That is true, but developers who are fans of the genre and don't have a gun to their heads from big name publishers might have a chance to make such games.  For instance Pantheon Rise of the Fallen is crowd funded so there is no pressure from above to make the most money.  That's why I'm hopeful it will include such inconveniences.
    Pantheon is also a niche title.  Looking over what it plans to offer, I cannot imagine that it will ever come near the subscriber base of ESO, SWTOR, BDO or other top performers.  This kind of game is the better game for this feature to begin with, so I agree with you on two levels concerning this game; no pressure from a publisher and it's going to have a more hardcore player base to begin with.
  • BestinnaBestinna Member UncommonPosts: 190
    edited December 2016
    H0urg1ass said:
    Sure, but then you run into another problem as a developer and a publisher; paying players.  If I'm a publisher, then the only thing that I really care about is how many dollars are rolling in. 
    Yeah, this is another problem with devs; only caring about the money.
    Flyte27 said:
    That is true, but developers who are fans of the genre and don't have a gun to their heads from big name publishers might have a chance to make such games.  For instance Pantheon Rise of the Fallen is crowd funded so there is no pressure from above to make the most money.  That's why I'm hopeful it will include such inconveniences.
    or this; better put
  • MMOman101MMOman101 Member UncommonPosts: 1,787
    Flyte27 said:
    MMOman101 said:
    The problem with "realism" in some games, is that they don't add it correctly.

    In this case it sounds like they added this in.  Great they have more weather affects.  The problem seems to lie in that players can only dry fish in certain areas.  No that is not real.  So by adding "realism" in one area they made something else broken and less real.

    As a general rule if you add "realism" into a game and it makes other actions fail because the player cannot circumvent a narrow mechanic then adding that realism without changing the other is a bad idea. 
    I think realism may be the wrong way to put it.  Perhaps it's better to say inconveniences that are set in place to make things more difficult for the players.  This might be to simulate somewhat what it would be like to wade through a real storm and try to accomplish a task or it might just be to keep certain items/events in game rare and not accessible to everyone so that their value increases.
    An inconvenience is nothing more than a time sink.  A studio should decide how much of a time sink they want their game to be and then build it with that idea in mind.  People who like that level of time sink will play the game if it suits them.  People who not like that level of time sink won't.  The game should have a similar time sink throughout. 

    Not saying this is the case in this game, but if a game has a low a time sink and then they suddenly add a high time sink mechanic that is a failure on the studios part.  It would not fit with the rest of the game and the player base who plays a low time sink game is most likely not interested in a high time sink mechanic. 

    Adding something just for the sake of adding it useless.  It should fit with the rest of the game and foster a desired emotional response from the player base. 


    “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

    --John Ruskin







  • DreadToothDreadTooth Member UncommonPosts: 150
    Bestinna said:
    H0urg1ass said:
    Sure, but then you run into another problem as a developer and a publisher; paying players.  If I'm a publisher, then the only thing that I really care about is how many dollars are rolling in. 
    Yeah, this is another problem with devs; only caring about the money.


    Agreed.

    I could be wrong, but I think there was a time, a long period of time, where people made something of quality both for the ability to sell it and as a point of pride in one's work. This includes games. Games used to be, how shall I say this without getting the "new isn't worse than old" crowd going crazy and ignoring existence, 'better put together'. Yes, things were made to be sold. Yes, things were better made. Yes, both can and did exist at the same time.

    People used to make things better. Real materials, real consideration, real effort. Things are just, cheaper now, in quality and not so much in price. The price has stayed basically the same, in my opinion.

    I think people made things better because they were trying to sell it, because they were spending a considerable portion of their time in their limited life working on it.

    Now, and I could be wrong, it seems people are making things cheaper in quality and trying to get as many people to buy it as possible. Things used to sell themselves, somewhat, based solely off of quality and availability. Now, things are being pushed into our view and it is clear there is less effort, less consideration, less quality put into these products. Yet, they are still asking for the price of what used to be considerably better built.

    Currently Playing:

    Fallout 4 (Xbox One)

    Puzzle Pirates (PC)
    Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean

    "Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    H0urg1ass said:
    Pantheon is also a niche title.  Looking over what it plans to offer, I cannot imagine that it will ever come near the subscriber base of ESO, SWTOR, BDO or other top performers.  This kind of game is the better game for this feature to begin with, so I agree with you on two levels concerning this game; no pressure from a publisher and it's going to have a more hardcore player base to begin with.
    That is very doubtful, yes. You do need to consider that it also just have a fraction of the budget of those games.

    Still, we need games like it. I am rather tired that all game only cateer to a specific group of players, a group while is the largest it is not such huge percentage of the playerbase as some here think.

    I like realism, I wish MMOs had seasons as well. A season could last 1 Irl month and have specific plants, mobs and even some npcs and shops (A harvest shop for cooking mats in the autumn for instance). Yes, getting off season crafting mats and drops from off season mobs could get expensive but it would make the game feel more alive.
  • BestinnaBestinna Member UncommonPosts: 190
    edited December 2016
    Agreed. I could be wrong, but I think there was a time, a long period of time, where people made something of quality both for the ability to sell it and as a point of pride in one's work. This includes games. Games used to be, how shall I say this without getting the "new isn't worse than old" crowd going crazy and ignoring existence, 'better put together'. Yes, things were made to be sold. Yes, things were better made. Yes, both can and did exist at the same time.

    People used to make things better. Real materials, real consideration, real effort. Things are just, cheaper now, in quality and not so much in price. The price has stayed basically the same, in my opinion.

    I think people made things better because they were trying to sell it, because they were spending a considerable portion of their time in their limited life working on it.

    Now, and I could be wrong, it seems people are making things cheaper in quality and trying to get as many people to buy it as possible. Things used to sell themselves, somewhat, based solely off of quality and availability. Now, things are being pushed into our view and it is clear there is less effort, less consideration, less quality put into these products. Yet, they are still asking for the price of what used to be considerably better built.

    this has to do with Money Ego and Greed. Money and Ego have always been important throughout time but Greed goes up and down, right now it's UP which causes the cheap products, while, while it's down the quality of products go up. Loke666 can describe it better and I couldn't agree with it more.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    edited December 2016
    MMOman101 said:
    Flyte27 said:
    MMOman101 said:
    The problem with "realism" in some games, is that they don't add it correctly.

    In this case it sounds like they added this in.  Great they have more weather affects.  The problem seems to lie in that players can only dry fish in certain areas.  No that is not real.  So by adding "realism" in one area they made something else broken and less real.

    As a general rule if you add "realism" into a game and it makes other actions fail because the player cannot circumvent a narrow mechanic then adding that realism without changing the other is a bad idea. 
    I think realism may be the wrong way to put it.  Perhaps it's better to say inconveniences that are set in place to make things more difficult for the players.  This might be to simulate somewhat what it would be like to wade through a real storm and try to accomplish a task or it might just be to keep certain items/events in game rare and not accessible to everyone so that their value increases.
    An inconvenience is nothing more than a time sink.  A studio should decide how much of a time sink they want their game to be and then build it with that idea in mind.  People who like that level of time sink will play the game if it suits them.  People who not like that level of time sink won't.  The game should have a similar time sink throughout. 

    Not saying this is the case in this game, but if a game has a low a time sink and then they suddenly add a high time sink mechanic that is a failure on the studios part.  It would not fit with the rest of the game and the player base who plays a low time sink game is most likely not interested in a high time sink mechanic. 

    Adding something just for the sake of adding it useless.  It should fit with the rest of the game and foster a desired emotional response from the player base. 


    Aren't we talking about why most players want to have no inconveniences in their games here?  What you said is fairly obvious, but we don't have many people on the (time sink) side these days.  When a game pops up like that (Pantheon) it's like a miracle happened.  Most people don't have the patience and these games encourage not having patience or persistence.  I've already stated that these time sinks do serve a purpose.  They give great value to items and events that take place in game.  Instead of something just being a common event that everyone completes or gets throughout the majority of the game there are many items and events right from the start have great value.  Even traveling from one place to another becomes something not easily accomplished because there might be a dungeon in the way or there might be some nasty mobs in this zone that could aggro and you might not see them because the rain storm is blocking your vision.  Then you have to try to run back to your corpse and collect it which may not be easy either because you now have no weapons or armor.  You will now have to be very cautious in your return trip.  An epic quest might require a lot of research on where to go and what to do.  It might require specific timing, going to dangerous places, and getting help from other people.  This is what makes things valuable.  Having things that are finite, take time, require some thought, require some effort, and you have to compete with others for them.
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,198
    H0urg1ass said:
    Bestinna said:
    Flyte27 said:
    I believe this is relevant, but not every game should be made to cater to your real life restrictions. 
    yup, I was thinking just this.
    Wish real hard in one hand and reach for some cold hard cash in the other hand and see which one fills up first.  Purposeful inconvenience as a game feature is a nice wish, but it won't put dollars in a bank account. Now ask the publisher to pick a hand.  

    I'd be surprised if BDO keeps this game feature in.  Someone out there is thinking to themselves right now, is it really worth playing this game if I can't do what I want right now because it's raining?  That's never a question that any publisher with two brain cells ever wants their player base asking themselves.

    Personally, I think that these types of realism features should be for niche titles, or single player games.  Neither of which fits BDO's description.
    Maybe...  just maybe you get players who will stick with it and like it to play it or you dumb the game down to the point nobody feels anything for your game.  Nobody but people with tons of cash are spending on your game.
Sign In or Register to comment.