Howdy, Stranger!

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

Are "Good" and "Bad" Features an Absolute for You?

AmatheAmathe Member EpicPosts: 3,539
When you make decisions about what games to play (or continue playing), are you guided by a list of personal red lines? For example, naked corpse runs. However you view them, good or bad, do you always love or hate them? Or are they a fit for some games you like but not others. Perhaps it depends on how the feature is implemented?

EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

cjmarshAlBQuirky
«1

Comments

  • UngoodUngood Member RarePosts: 1,079
    This is a great question.

    For me, I have learned that some features can be put in really good, or really bad, so it's not the feature itself, but how it was implemented that really fails.

    Equally so, other features could be a really good feature, but because the rest of the game is really bad, the feature becomes bad by association.

    And yes, there are some features that just are bad pretty much, just bad ideas from their inception on forward, but because they were "first" or "ground braking" or worse yes .. "profitable", they remain around and become a staple of games that we have to deal with.
    AlBQuirky
    There is no Truth, only the Illusions we wish to Cling to. Knowing this, why do we all cling to such shitty illusions?
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 24,693
    Amathe said:
    When you make decisions about what games to play (or continue playing), are you guided by a list of personal red lines? For example, naked corpse runs. However you view them, good or bad, do you always love or hate them? Or are they a fit for some games you like but not others. Perhaps it depends on how the feature is implemented?
    It depends on how the feature is implemented.

    So, for example, I could do perma-death but it depends
    I could do FFA pvp but it depends on the game, the implementation and in some part the community
    I usually hate crafting but I really like crafting in Conan exiles ...

    etc.
    AlBQuirky



  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,441
    I have red lines probably only in the monetization area. 
    AlBQuirky
  • ScotScot Member EpicPosts: 8,601
    edited February 12
    No PvP or full world PvP would both be deal breakers. Some sort of structure to end game, does not need to be raids, but that would be fine; not awful dailies and little else. 

    Edit: One of the other posters made me remember that movement that is only point and click is not for me. For that matter it has to be 3D. :)

    But I think most posters fault lines will be on revenue system rather than in game features.
    Post edited by Scot on
    AlBQuirky

     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

  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,122
    I definitely have red lines and those red lines have kept me from playing MMOs for the last 5 years. 

    My red lines have been developed through my personal experience. They are features that I view as either harmful for the game itself long term, or harmful for me personally because without them I get bored. These are my four "must haves" that without them, I won't play:

    • Horizontal Progression - this is an absolute must for me. This is the massively multiplayer genre, games should be doing everything in their power to get us to play together and build communities. However, vertical progression does the opposite - it segregates the community, making it harder for us to group up and form social connections. Vertical progression (and the power gaps that come with it) is anathema to the genre. Yet, every MMO uses vertical progression! It's like they haven't worked out that the mechanic doesn't work in a persistent multiplayer game. 
    • Objective-based Open World PvP - Basically, fighting over keeps and objectives in an area where player numbers aren't restricted. I don't want it to be FFA, I don't want it to be the whole world. But, I personally love large scale PvP and I love fighting to control buildings. Something like the Ettenmoors in LotRO is enough to fulfil this need, but I'd prefer more. 
    • Deep Combat System - I'm a combat orientated player so I need a combat system that will keep me engaged long term. Due to my playstyle preferences, I only play 1 MMO at a time and always hope to be playing it for years, so a shallow combat system will drive me away quickly. This basically rules out all action combat games as I've yet to see a deep combat system based on action combat, but it also rules out badly designed tab-target systems like SW:TOR too. I also firmly believe that a deep, engaging combat system helps improve retention. 
    • Strong IP - again, because I hope to be living in these sorts of games for years, I've got to actually want to spend time in them. This is why I'm usually attracted to known IPs like LotR or Star Wars. This is also what usually keeps me away from eastern MMOs, I often really like the monsters in them but hate the way humans are portrayed. I just cannot connect with the androgynous men and lolita-style women. Even western RPGs struggle to get through to me! The low-fantasy, medieval style gets boring quick and I've always hated the western fantasy styles of the 80s and 90s. This is why I avoided RIFT - the style just looked awful to me!

    Horizontal progression is something I've never seen implemented fully and is thus usually the biggest stumbling block. LotRO had horizontal progression at endgame for a while and it worked great, when they switched to vertical it halved the endgame population overnight. ESO promised horizontal at endgame too, I never made it that far due to shallow combat but from the articles and forums I've read it sounds like horizontal was ditched there too. 


    A deep combat system is also extremely hard to find. The modern era of action combat games has meant that shallow combat is everywhere. I don't mind action combat in single player games, but that's because you're usually done within 30 hours. With that small amount of time it doesn't matter that the combat is shallow because you aren't playing long enough to get bored (well, not true, but the boredom is tolerable short term). However, when you're playing an MMO for 500+ hours, you cannot have a combat system that gets boring within the first 3 hours. 



    I have other preferences too. As a general rule of thumb, I won't play a F2P game, however that is due to experience of piss poor quality of F2P games rather than outright hatred of the model. If F2P was done right then I'd consider it. I also prefer a crafter-driven economy, rather than loot driven. I get bored with the trinity, I find it too limited, so I prefer more diverse roles like buffers, debuffers and CC. I dislike mega servers and instanced versions of the world too, they are solutions to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. But, I can put up with not having these preferences IF my main 4 preferences are met. The only game on the horizon that will meet my preferences is CU. 
    AlBQuirky
  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 9,188
    edited February 13
    I see good features as being well implemented, and bad features as poorly implemented. With that in mind, i'm OK with well implemented features. Good or bad by itself is more personal opinion. I prefer a well implemented feature even if its not my favorite feature in the game.
    Post edited by rojoArcueid on
    AlBQuirky

    image
  • sunandshadowsunandshadow Member RarePosts: 1,860
    A few are absolute for me, most are not.  I will not play a game with mouse-only movement, period; my elbow and wrist can't take the abuse.  I strongly hesitate to play any game where first-person is the only available view because I get motion-sickness.  Top-down or 3/4 overhead views bother me severely in any RPG because I can't clearly see the characters' faces and clothes, but I don't mind them in an RTS because all the units look the same and die like flies.

    On the other hand, storyless simulations are something I really shouldn't buy, because I know that I always get bored of them really fast and I don't have the ability or inclination to tell myself a story while playing like some people do.  But I often get suckered in because they look so interesting.
    AlBQuirky
    I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story.  So PM me if you are starting one.
  • 45074507 Member UncommonPosts: 304
    Yep:

    1. Any form of cash shop

    2. 2D graphics or text-based

    3. Toxic community (I know that isn't a feature, but it's a red line nonetheless)

    AlBQuirky
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,919
    I have never understood people who are adamant about a specific game feature. Pro or Con.
    The only absolute requirement I have is that the game be fun.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 18,585
    The sum is greater than the parts

    For me how the whole game comes together - far more important than individual features.

    I mean some games have all the dream features on paper - but the game itself sucks.

    So features in themselves are far less important than how everything fits and supports overall game design.


    deniterAlBQuirky
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 18,585
    4507 said:
    Yep:

    1. Any form of cash shop

    2. 2D graphics or text-based

    3. Toxic community (I know that isn't a feature, but it's a red line nonetheless)


    1. - Eliminates 99.999% of MMOs today. Are there any popular MMOs in existence that don't have some kind of a cash shop?

    Might as well walk away from MMO genre if you are going to say "any form of cash shop"
  • 45074507 Member UncommonPosts: 304
    DMKano said:
    4507 said:
    Yep:

    1. Any form of cash shop

    2. 2D graphics or text-based

    3. Toxic community (I know that isn't a feature, but it's a red line nonetheless)


    1. - Eliminates 99.999% of MMOs today. Are there any popular MMOs in existence that don't have some kind of a cash shop?

    Might as well walk away from MMO genre if you are going to say "any form of cash shop"
    Yeah, that's why I'm not playing any MMO right now.
    AlBQuirky
  • cjmarshcjmarsh Member UncommonPosts: 299
    To me there are no features that are inherently "bad", there are just poorly designed features.
    AlBQuirky
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member UncommonPosts: 3,068
    edited February 13
    Yes, I have "red lines", and also green lines.
    They are sometimes related as opposites.
    I can budge a little on some of them, but not all.

    Mainly, I've been through all the options already and I know that those red lines are going to end badly for me. So why even bother with them now?

    And those red lines, you know, you can't dress them up and make them prettier.
    Post edited by Amaranthar on
    AlBQuirky

    Once upon a time....

  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,441
    DMKano said:
    4507 said:
    Yep:

    1. Any form of cash shop

    2. 2D graphics or text-based

    3. Toxic community (I know that isn't a feature, but it's a red line nonetheless)


    1. - Eliminates 99.999% of MMOs today. Are there any popular MMOs in existence that don't have some kind of a cash shop?

    Might as well walk away from MMO genre if you are going to say "any form of cash shop"
    Lineage 2 Classic

    In development: Saga of Lucimia
    AlBQuirky
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member UncommonPosts: 443
    Open world PvP one can't opt out of, or at least avoid by focusing on certain elements of play, is a firm red line for me. I simply don't enjoy it enough to PvP at the whim of another.

    Also, as I mostly solo, I try to avoid games heavily focused on frequent group play, such as may be required in upcoming games meant to bring back an old school type of play.
    AlBQuirky
  • KabulozoKabulozo Member UncommonPosts: 728
    edited February 13
    I hate forced factions the most. Choose red or blue team. I prefer to let the players make their own allies and enemies.
    Post edited by Kabulozo on
    AlBQuirky
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 4,864
    edited February 13
    For me it's about whether the game is fun to play or not, not about any single feature.

    With the exception of how monetization is done. If it looks like playing at a comfortable level and getting access to all the content would later on costs more than I'm comfortable paying, then I often pre-emptively quit the game to save myself from that disappointment.
    Post edited by Vrika on
     
  • deniterdeniter Member RarePosts: 1,221
    It's not the features that are important but the design philosophy that ties them together.

    For example, i hate FFA PvP and full loot. But, if the game is designed so that dying is a rare event and it's very hard to kill a player, or a player carries nothing valuable most of the times (like in the real world no one carries everything they own when they go shopping or are having a haircut), then i wouldn't mind those features as long as the gameplay is good.
    AlBQuirky
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,122
    DMKano said:
    The sum is greater than the parts

    For me how the whole game comes together - far more important than individual features.

    I mean some games have all the dream features on paper - but the game itself sucks.

    So features in themselves are far less important than how everything fits and supports overall game design.


    Whilst the sum is definitely greater than the parts, there are features that are guaranteed to cause problems regardless of how the rest of the game is put together. 


    So, for example, if a game uses vertical progression then it is guaranteed to cause power gaps, segregating the community and making grouping harder. It's guaranteed to make 99% of the content obsolete. It's guaranteed to cause balance issues in PvP and make the PvP pretty unbearable for newbies, choking off the lifeblood of the PvP community. 


    That means that for me, as a group-focused, community minded player, vertical progression is a no-go because it is guaranteed to cause me a lot of problems in the long run. It causes me problems in my guild, because I can't group up with everyone. It causes me problems in my raids, because I can't take talented players because their gear isn't good enough. It causes me problems in the wider community, because I can't form pugs and can't recruit people. It causes me problems in PvP, because the newbies have a terrible experience and quit leaving me with a small population. It causes me problems in the game in general, because vertical progression drives players away from the game, reducing revenue and thus reducing development. 
    AlBQuirky
  • deniterdeniter Member RarePosts: 1,221
    DMKano said:
    The sum is greater than the parts

    For me how the whole game comes together - far more important than individual features.

    I mean some games have all the dream features on paper - but the game itself sucks.

    So features in themselves are far less important than how everything fits and supports overall game design.


    Whilst the sum is definitely greater than the parts, there are features that are guaranteed to cause problems regardless of how the rest of the game is put together. 


    So, for example, if a game uses vertical progression then it is guaranteed to cause power gaps, segregating the community and making grouping harder. It's guaranteed to make 99% of the content obsolete. It's guaranteed to cause balance issues in PvP and make the PvP pretty unbearable for newbies, choking off the lifeblood of the PvP community. 


    That means that for me, as a group-focused, community minded player, vertical progression is a no-go because it is guaranteed to cause me a lot of problems in the long run. It causes me problems in my guild, because I can't group up with everyone. It causes me problems in my raids, because I can't take talented players because their gear isn't good enough. It causes me problems in the wider community, because I can't form pugs and can't recruit people. It causes me problems in PvP, because the newbies have a terrible experience and quit leaving me with a small population. It causes me problems in the game in general, because vertical progression drives players away from the game, reducing revenue and thus reducing development. 
    I see where you come from but there are some problems in your thinking.

    First of all, you assume you're the only player on the server making progress. There should be several thousand other people trying to push forward as much as you do. You only need a very small part of them for group content.

    You also seem to think that you play the game to group up with other people, while the more common way to think is that you group up to play the game. Grouping is the very reason i love this genre but it's only a tool to progress and achieve things in game, not the purpose of the game itself.

    What matters is how the game is designed, how wide are the power gaps and is there any replay value. Content doesn't become obsolete as long as there are new characters progressing through it (that's the reason i dislike those games where you can do everything on one character and don't need alts), and lack of vertical progression makes the game boring very soon.

    I see the perfect MMORPG as an upside down pyramid. In order to progress vertical you also have to do some horizontal progression as well, which grows wider for every step you climb higher. The players that have progressed higher than the rest of folks on your server have more stuff to do before they can step up to next level so the others have more time to catch you up.
    AlBQuirky
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,122
    deniter said:
    DMKano said:
    The sum is greater than the parts

    For me how the whole game comes together - far more important than individual features.

    I mean some games have all the dream features on paper - but the game itself sucks.

    So features in themselves are far less important than how everything fits and supports overall game design.


    Whilst the sum is definitely greater than the parts, there are features that are guaranteed to cause problems regardless of how the rest of the game is put together. 


    So, for example, if a game uses vertical progression then it is guaranteed to cause power gaps, segregating the community and making grouping harder. It's guaranteed to make 99% of the content obsolete. It's guaranteed to cause balance issues in PvP and make the PvP pretty unbearable for newbies, choking off the lifeblood of the PvP community. 


    That means that for me, as a group-focused, community minded player, vertical progression is a no-go because it is guaranteed to cause me a lot of problems in the long run. It causes me problems in my guild, because I can't group up with everyone. It causes me problems in my raids, because I can't take talented players because their gear isn't good enough. It causes me problems in the wider community, because I can't form pugs and can't recruit people. It causes me problems in PvP, because the newbies have a terrible experience and quit leaving me with a small population. It causes me problems in the game in general, because vertical progression drives players away from the game, reducing revenue and thus reducing development. 
    I see where you come from but there are some problems in your thinking.

    First of all, you assume you're the only player on the server making progress. There should be several thousand other people trying to push forward as much as you do. You only need a very small part of them for group content.

    You also seem to think that you play the game to group up with other people, while the more common way to think is that you group up to play the game. Grouping is the very reason i love this genre but it's only a tool to progress and achieve things in game, not the purpose of the game itself.

    What matters is how the game is designed, how wide are the power gaps and is there any replay value. Content doesn't become obsolete as long as there are new characters progressing through it (that's the reason i dislike those games where you can do everything on one character and don't need alts), and lack of vertical progression makes the game boring very soon.

    I see the perfect MMORPG as an upside down pyramid. In order to progress vertical you also have to do some horizontal progression as well, which grows wider for every step you climb higher. The players that have progressed higher than the rest of folks on your server have more stuff to do before they can step up to next level so the others have more time to catch you up.
    I get your points, but I'm not sure I agree with any of them. 

    In terms of finding groups, my point is that segregation is bad. We know this to be true in real life and we've seen this to be true in MMOs. The only thing that overcomes the negative forces of segregation in MMOs is when each segment is sufficiently large enough (which you allude to). But, that's just bad game design! You should never design a game and mechanics based on a minimum number of players online and in game!

    This is the very reason why MMORPGs are now almost entirely solo until you reach endgame. If you level up with "the pack", then your segment is large enough. But, if you join late then you're fucked. I can't be the only one to have tried leveling an alt 2 years after release, only to find I can never get groups whilst leveling? It happens in every MMO that uses vertical progression. It sucks. 



    On obsolete content....I'm not sure what you're getting at really. When I hit the level cap in an MMO, 99% of the content is obsolete. That's just the way it is. Everything below level cap is no longer worth running, both for rewards (too low), story (already done it), challenge/fun (it's too easy) or experience (I'm already at cap). I can start a new character and replay it, but for my main it is obsolete. Again, this sucks! Why would you design a game where 99% of your content becomes obsolete 5 minutes after experiencing it?! What a waste of time and effort!



    Finally, on horizontal progression becoming boring....that, to me, shows a lack of imagination. I may be wrong, personally I've never played an RPG that only uses horizontal progression so there is a chance that you are correct and that it is too boring. But, I find vertical progression really boring and can only see opportunities with horizontal. Camelot Unchained is going almost entirely horizontal and I can't wait! With vertical progression, seeing bigger numbers is "false" progression because nothing changes. I'm still playing the same way, fights still take the same time, difficulty stays the same....it's dull. The only time I ever feel a sense of progress is when I unlock a new skill, but most of that progression happens early in the leveling process. 

    With horizontal progression being focused on specialising and customising your character, the progression is much more meaningful and personal. The choices you make are more important and, assuming good design, you won't end up like everyone else. 



    There are definitely pit-falls to horizontal progression. If someone happens to find their perfect build / template / style early on in the progression process, keeping them motivated to progress further might be a challenge because they have no reason to progress. My hope would be that a horizontal game could place a much bigger focus on the content, because all content would be relevant (on level) at all times so the designers would have to be much more creative than simply adding bigger numbers. 
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 18,585
    DMKano said:
    The sum is greater than the parts

    For me how the whole game comes together - far more important than individual features.

    I mean some games have all the dream features on paper - but the game itself sucks.

    So features in themselves are far less important than how everything fits and supports overall game design.


    Whilst the sum is definitely greater than the parts, there are features that are guaranteed to cause problems regardless of how the rest of the game is put together. 


    So, for example, if a game uses vertical progression then it is guaranteed to cause power gaps, segregating the community and making grouping harder. It's guaranteed to make 99% of the content obsolete. It's guaranteed to cause balance issues in PvP and make the PvP pretty unbearable for newbies, choking off the lifeblood of the PvP community. 


    That means that for me, as a group-focused, community minded player, vertical progression is a no-go because it is guaranteed to cause me a lot of problems in the long run. It causes me problems in my guild, because I can't group up with everyone. It causes me problems in my raids, because I can't take talented players because their gear isn't good enough. It causes me problems in the wider community, because I can't form pugs and can't recruit people. It causes me problems in PvP, because the newbies have a terrible experience and quit leaving me with a small population. It causes me problems in the game in general, because vertical progression drives players away from the game, reducing revenue and thus reducing development. 

    Vertical progression can be done without many of the pitfalls you list - Trove is a good example of that.

    Trove has turned the concept of grouping upside down - in most games you have to find others to group - in Trove everyone is always grouped with everyone else - the entire server is a group.

    So when people hunt near eachother - they both get full XP that's appropirate for their level no matter what levels they are (a level 1 and a lvl 30) - and both get loot that's personalized to them. So nobody loses out on XP nor loot.

    AlBQuirky
  • AmatheAmathe Member EpicPosts: 3,539
    DMKano said:

    Trove has turned the concept of grouping upside down - in most games you have to find others to group - in Trove everyone is always grouped with everyone else - the entire server is a group.

    So when people hunt near each other - they both get full XP that's appropirate for their level no matter what levels they are (a level 1 and a lvl 30) - and both get loot that's personalized to them. So nobody loses out on XP nor loot.

    This sounds cool, so I went to Trove's website. Intriguing game mechanics but I can't get past the graphics. I am ashamed to admit it, but there it is. 
    cjmarshAlBQuirky

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • cjmarshcjmarsh Member UncommonPosts: 299
    Amathe said:
    DMKano said:

    Trove has turned the concept of grouping upside down - in most games you have to find others to group - in Trove everyone is always grouped with everyone else - the entire server is a group.

    So when people hunt near each other - they both get full XP that's appropirate for their level no matter what levels they are (a level 1 and a lvl 30) - and both get loot that's personalized to them. So nobody loses out on XP nor loot.

    This sounds cool, so I went to Trove's website. Intriguing game mechanics but I can't get past the graphics. I am ashamed to admit it, but there it is. 
    I'm pretty much the same way, but I might have gotten past it if it weren't for Trion being the developer.
    AlBQuirky
Sign In or Register to comment.