Howdy, Stranger!

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

Players don't know whats good for them, they need direction.

124»

Comments

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Ender4

    Yes it is very much easier to make a fully realized theme park because all you have to do is create the content. A true sandbox requires building systems that can change and react to the players. UO gets called a sandbox but it really wasn't much of one. Being able to build a house doesn't make a sandbox.

    The concepts going into some of these new games are true sandbox concepts. Things like if you keep killing orcs in the forest the orcs move somewhere else. When the orcs leave maybe some wild bears move into the area because the orcs used to kill them for food. The world has just been changed in multiple ways by the players actions. I'm not talking a string of scripts like GW2 does or repeated Rifts. Those are trying to hide the theme park, not build the sandbox.

    The PvE part of the world has really been done in true sandbox style in many games at all and the few it has been done in were pretty limited games.

    1. It's well known that content-driven games (themeparks) require more work (especially on an ongoing basis) than systems-driven games.  With sandboxes, you just need systems and a tiny amount of content (art for the systems, essentially.)  With themeparks, you need systems and lots of content.

    2. Sandbox/Themepark is a spectrum.  High to low player control.  Individual features combine to create the overall mix (ie WOW's AH is purely player-driven; it's a sandbox feature;  but for most players the game is played as a sandbox.)  So drawing some arbitrary line and claiming a game isn't a sandbox (when I'm pretty sure UO was largely characterized by its sandbox traits) seems weird.

    3. Sandbox style PVE is basically nethack.  It's random systemically created dungeons and monsters.  While this works well for nethack style games, it's really just never as polished and interesting as hand-crafted stuff.  AO had randomized dungeons, and it really showed.

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

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Flyte27
    Originally posted by Gaendric
    Originally posted by Decimuss

    Well, the OP is, in a way, correct here.

    I disagree.

    a) His basic premise is based on a big fat fallacy. He is mind projecting like no tomorrow. He assumes what he likes personally is universally and unbiasedly good and the true way for everyone. 

    b) His solution of forcing own personal preferences/choices onto other people (who supposedly don't know it better and are not worthy of their freedom of choice - "they need direction") combined with his preference to silence those who might disagree is not only wong, but actually a quite dangerous way of thinking.

    I suppose you could argue companies do the exact same thing even though money is their main motivation.  They try to force their ideas on you and tell you they know whats best.  In many instances these things can harm your body like bad substances in our food or cloths.  Microsoft recently tried to force people to convert to tablets with Windows 8 and play games on the XBox.  Apple always tries to push it's locked down ideas on people trying to control what they use their computers/tablets for.

     

    Scenario A) Game developers try to force their ideas on you and tell you they know what's best.

    Scenario B) Game developers use history and data to see what people already want to spend their money on and create their variation on existing, profitable examples.

    To me, the latter seems far more likely. 

    You are missing something with this argument, game developers are doing both A and B. When they look at 'data to see what people want', they are not always looking at data from those playing MMO's. The post WoW change to making MMOs more friendly to those who play solo games in particular console players was not looking at MMO player data. The casino gameplay of the last few years has come from looking at what smartphone gamers like and bringing that into MMOs.

    Oh really?  *takes notes* Tell me more, plz.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,818

    "But I have tried the old MMOs and I didn't like them. Nothing to do with me not liking role playing because I have played PnP RPGs for years. And those sessions were highly social too. As a matter of fact, I regularly have at least 2 different VOIP programs running when I'm playing and monitoring 3 different channels of gaming friends/acquaintances. I regularly play competitive games which require a high level of team work.

    Maybe old MMOs were just bad as games? And maybe there's a lot more appreciation for good games than for virtual make-believe? Todays MMORPGs are better as games and their success is measured in their popularity.

    You are in no position to look down on anyone."

    Who am I meant to be looking down on? Old MMOs had a lot of issues, from corpse runs to simplistic questing. I assume you did not play those MMOs when they came out? If you compare them technically to modern MMOs their age sure shows. This is as much about how we used them as the games themselves. But the game design of modern MMOs is directly responsible for making grouping an irrelevance and crafting a joke. The fact that no one even says "grats" anymore let alone roleplays is down to us.

    "I too enjoy the 15-30 minute gaming experience." Like you I have issues with this. The problem is that is all we are getting, I want a 15 min gaming experience but also a four hour one. Gameplay is overwhelmingly predominated by bite sized nibbles.

    "Oh really? *takes notes* Tell me more, plz." We have discussed these issues in the past Loktofeit. You just don't seem to rate their importance I guess.

     

     

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 7,081
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Flyte27
    Originally posted by Gaendric
    Originally posted by Decimuss

    Well, the OP is, in a way, correct here.

    I disagree.

    a) His basic premise is based on a big fat fallacy. He is mind projecting like no tomorrow. He assumes what he likes personally is universally and unbiasedly good and the true way for everyone. 

    b) His solution of forcing own personal preferences/choices onto other people (who supposedly don't know it better and are not worthy of their freedom of choice - "they need direction") combined with his preference to silence those who might disagree is not only wong, but actually a quite dangerous way of thinking.

    I suppose you could argue companies do the exact same thing even though money is their main motivation.  They try to force their ideas on you and tell you they know whats best.  In many instances these things can harm your body like bad substances in our food or cloths.  Microsoft recently tried to force people to convert to tablets with Windows 8 and play games on the XBox.  Apple always tries to push it's locked down ideas on people trying to control what they use their computers/tablets for.

     

    Scenario A) Game developers try to force their ideas on you and tell you they know what's best.

    Scenario B) Game developers use history and data to see what people already want to spend their money on and create their variation on existing, profitable examples.

    To me, the latter seems far more likely. 

    I agree with this Scenario A and B thing.......

    While A is definitely true, Scenario B is more the driving force.

     

    CEO's love to lesion to marketers more than programming nerds. Close minded data can often screw things up :

     

    - Accurate data pulled from the popular 8 million player World of Warcraft would seem valid.  HOWEVER putting aside numerical data and looking at the social.  They lost millions of players too by changing there formula after Vanilla.  Easy game play is not loved, it's a way to get you to pay for expansion's.  Cross server everything killed to social part, making it a lobby game.  And most importantly its still going strong because its considered mainstream no matter what they do !.... Close minded marketing is not always good to base a new product !

     

    - Pre-launch advertisements and cintimatics don't always paint an accurate picture of what a game will be.

    Remember Warhammer pre-launch excitement ?

    Remember Wildstar pre-launch excitement ?

     

    - Using a Popular title don't always paint an accurate picture.

    SWTOR, lets just say it's now F2P and leave it at that.

    ESO, the many faults would be it's own topic.

     

    - This is something many don't conceder. Marketing proves that THE BIG MONEY IS MADE UP FRONT. Box sales and digital downloads and maybe the first month of subs......They may not really care about retainability like many of us believe ! 

    Lay most everyone off.

    Keep a few developers for patching and F2P design.

    Keep a few phone operators.

    Turn the heat down and close half the building.....An see what little more money they can make.

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by delete5230
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Flyte27
    Originally posted by Gaendric
    Originally posted by Decimuss

    Well, the OP is, in a way, correct here.

    I disagree.

    a) His basic premise is based on a big fat fallacy. He is mind projecting like no tomorrow. He assumes what he likes personally is universally and unbiasedly good and the true way for everyone. 

    b) His solution of forcing own personal preferences/choices onto other people (who supposedly don't know it better and are not worthy of their freedom of choice - "they need direction") combined with his preference to silence those who might disagree is not only wong, but actually a quite dangerous way of thinking.

    I suppose you could argue companies do the exact same thing even though money is their main motivation.  They try to force their ideas on you and tell you they know whats best.  In many instances these things can harm your body like bad substances in our food or cloths.  Microsoft recently tried to force people to convert to tablets with Windows 8 and play games on the XBox.  Apple always tries to push it's locked down ideas on people trying to control what they use their computers/tablets for.

     

    Scenario A) Game developers try to force their ideas on you and tell you they know what's best.

    Scenario B) Game developers use history and data to see what people already want to spend their money on and create their variation on existing, profitable examples.

    To me, the latter seems far more likely. 

    I agree with this Scenario A and B thing.......

    While A is definitely true, Scenario B is more the driving force.

     

    CEO's love to lesion to marketers more than programming nerds. Close minded data can often screw things up :

     

    - Accurate data pulled from the popular 8 million player World of Warcraft would seem valid.  HOWEVER putting aside numerical data and looking at the social.  They lost millions of players too by changing there formula after Vanilla.  Easy game play is not loved, it's a way to get you to pay for expansion's.  Cross server everything killed to social part, making it a lobby game.  And most importantly its still going strong because its considered mainstream no matter what they do !.... Close minded marketing is not always good to base a new product !

     

    - Pre-launch advertisements and cintimatics don't always paint an accurate picture of what a game will be.

    Remember Warhammer pre-launch excitement ?

    Remember Wildstar pre-launch excitement ?

     

    - Using a Popular title don't always paint an accurate picture.

    SWTOR, lets just say it's now F2P and leave it at that.

    ESO, the many faults would be it's own topic.

     

    - This is something many don't conceder. Marketing proves that THE BIG MONEY IS MADE UP FRONT. Box sales and digital downloads and maybe the first month of subs......They may not really care about retainability like many of us believe ! 

    Lay most everyone off.

    Keep a few developers for patching and F2P design.

    Keep a few phone operators.

    Turn the heat down and close half the building.....An see what little more money they can make.

    This is grossly inaccurate. If you have a $100 million game, you don't make your money back on box sales, sorry. If you're delivering an MMORPG, and it's a AAA title, then you must rely on being able to retain customers. Following launch, it's customer acquisition. However, the cost to acquire a customer increases significantly after launch. Once all the launch hype dies down, people move onto the next game, so it's important to get as many people through the door at launch, as you can. 

     

    As far as layoffs go, it's all normal ebbs and flows. The SWTOR dev team was 650 people at its peak. Just for context, Blizzard's dev team is somewhere in the area of 300-400 people. Sooooooo, sorry, if you were on the SWTOR dev team and you were expecting that you'd have a job following a launch that saw a couple million box sales, you were either very naive or very good at your job. 

     

    Finally, where's the data that indicates that people even want a hardcore MMORPG? Or a hard game, at all? Dark Souls sold a couple million boxes, but Dark Souls 2 sold like half the number that the first did. Wildstar had to tone down content after launch. It's fine that some people like hard games, and there's probably a market for it, but if you want a commercially-successful game, which most people do, then you really can't do that with a small niche.

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

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

    Who am I meant to be looking down on? Old MMOs had a lot of issues, from corpse runs to simplistic questing. I assume you did not play those MMOs when they came out? If you compare them technically to modern MMOs their age sure shows. This is as much about how we used them as the games themselves. But the game design of modern MMOs is directly responsible for making grouping an irrelevance and crafting a joke. The fact that no one even says "grats" anymore let alone roleplays is down to us.

    Camping monster spawns was considered as content back then. You can't set your bar much lower than that.

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

  • Ender4Ender4 Member UncommonPosts: 2,247


    1. It's well known that content-driven games (themeparks) require more work (especially on an ongoing basis) than systems-driven games. With sandboxes, you just need systems and a tiny amount of content (art for the systems, essentially.) With themeparks, you need systems and lots of content.

    2. Sandbox/Themepark is a spectrum. High to low player control. Individual features combine to create the overall mix (ie WOW's AH is purely player-driven; it's a sandbox feature; but for most players the game is played as a sandbox.) So drawing some arbitrary line and claiming a game isn't a sandbox (when I'm pretty sure UO was largely characterized by its sandbox traits) seems weird.

    3. Sandbox style PVE is basically nethack. It's random systemically created dungeons and monsters. While this works well for nethack style games, it's really just never as polished and interesting as hand-crafted stuff. AO had randomized dungeons, and it really showed.


    You are stuck on this idea that a game like UO was a sandbox I think. There has never been a true sandbox MMORPG yet. It doesn't exist. Nobody has been able to make it. Closest we have to is EVE. These games are coming in the future still.

    1. No you have to create just as much content. You just don't leave it sitting in one place in the world. I still need to build the orc fortress, just now it can be destroyed and rebuilt in a different form. I still need to build initial dungeons etc.

    2. Yes sandbox is definitely a spectrum, we haven't seen any real sandbox PvE yet in any of these games though so they are way off the pure sandbox part of the spectrum.

    3. No, nethack is a random dungeon game, not a sandbox game. In nethack I can't drive what the NPC does at all, I can't change the map in any way. nethack is a random theme park.

    Here is an example of what we will eventually see. You start in newbie town and discover an orc castle way to the west. It is in a pretty remote location so it is a pain to sell from etc so few people visit it. Merchant X realizes this and builds an outpost near the castle and hires some guards. He advertises the new outpost forming a quest so more adventures come there and fight the orcs eventually leaving the castle in ruins. The orcs via AI decide to move away and they move off to another location in the game or die out. Suddenly there is no reason for adventurers to be there and they leave so Merchant X abandons the outpost. At this point the AI decides what happens, maybe the orcs come back, mabye a necromancer comes and raises the dead orcs and it is an undead castle. Maybe a player comes and rebuilds the castle to make it his own.

    This is a story that was driven completely by the players and the AI. You still need to build all the sets. You need to build the ability for the players to modify items in game. You need to use voxels or something similar so you can destroy the castle. There is so much more work involved in this than just making another theme park.

    As an aside starting a sentence with it is well known generally means no thought was put behind it and it isn't true in my experience. Almost never see that term used in a positive way.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Ender4

    You are stuck on this idea that a game like UO was a sandbox I think. There has never been a true sandbox MMORPG yet. It doesn't exist. Nobody has been able to make it. Closest we have to is EVE. These games are coming in the future still.

    1. No you have to create just as much content. You just don't leave it sitting in one place in the world. I still need to build the orc fortress, just now it can be destroyed and rebuilt in a different form. I still need to build initial dungeons etc.

    2. Yes sandbox is definitely a spectrum, we haven't seen any real sandbox PvE yet in any of these games though so they are way off the pure sandbox part of the spectrum.

    3. No, nethack is a random dungeon game, not a sandbox game. In nethack I can't drive what the NPC does at all, I can't change the map in any way. nethack is a random theme park.

    Here is an example of what we will eventually see. You start in newbie town and discover an orc castle way to the west. It is in a pretty remote location so it is a pain to sell from etc so few people visit it. Merchant X realizes this and builds an outpost near the castle and hires some guards. He advertises the new outpost forming a quest so more adventures come there and fight the orcs eventually leaving the castle in ruins. The orcs via AI decide to move away and they move off to another location in the game or die out. Suddenly there is no reason for adventurers to be there and they leave so Merchant X abandons the outpost. At this point the AI decides what happens, maybe the orcs come back, mabye a necromancer comes and raises the dead orcs and it is an undead castle. Maybe a player comes and rebuilds the castle to make it his own.

    This is a story that was driven completely by the players and the AI. You still need to build all the sets. You need to build the ability for the players to modify items in game. You need to use voxels or something similar so you can destroy the castle. There is so much more work involved in this than just making another theme park.

    As an aside starting a sentence with it is well known generally means no thought was put behind it and it isn't true in my experience. Almost never see that term used in a positive way.

    I'm not "stuck" on the idea.  I never played UO, in fact.  But everything I read about and watched while my friend played meant that among MMORPGs it was clearly more sandbox than themepark.

    1.I've been in the industry 15 years.  In that time, everyone I've heard talk on the subject agrees that content-driven games cost more than systemic ones.   (They're still made, of course, because the hand-crafted quality of content-driven games is what sets them apart.)  You're free to disagree with the accumulated knowledge of many developers who've made both types of games over the years, but without some magic formula that totally turns the industry on its head you'd simply be wrong.

    The simple fact is that in a content-driven game the developer makes the art for those orc fortress pieces and then uses those tilesets to create many orc fortresses across the world -- whereas in a systemic game the developer simply creates the pieces and lets players do whatever they want with them.

    2. City of Heroes had some sandbox PVE content, with players able to create their own levels.  It requires very tight systemic rules (tight enough that the system is hard to make work) otherwise it's just exploited by players to create the most efficient leveling content possible.

    Your idea for a purely systemic world is not new, and after all this time it still hasn't happened.  It's not really a tech limitation but more the fact that the world will feel systemic.  It won't feel high-quality and hand-crafted, which will result in players having less fun.

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

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk

    As far as layoffs go, it's all normal ebbs and flows. 

    There is nothing normal about layoffs in the game industry.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Ender4

    I too enjoy the 15-30 minute gaming experience. It is why I play a lot of games like Rogue Legacy or Infested Planet. The problem for me personally is if that is how your MMORPG is run I'd rather just go play a different type of game. The entire point of the genre to me is to create a social construct and not just a game. It is moving D&D to a computer system, not moving Gauntlet to it. Both fun games when I was a kid but both serve a very different function to me.

    Why discriminate against MMOs?

    If i want a 15 min game session, and a MMO provides one for me (like a cosmic terminal in Marvel Heroes) and I find it fun, is there a reason not to play it?

    It is suboptimal to slot MMO for a certain purpose when they can serve another. Plus, to me, there is no point to the genre, except they are games that sometimes entertain me. If you look at games like that, you will enjoy them under more circumstances and get more out of them.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Scot
    But the game design of modern MMOs is directly responsible for making grouping an irrelevance and crafting a joke. The fact that no one even says "grats" anymore let alone roleplays is down to us.

     

     

    You make it sounds like it is a bad thing. If players want groupings to be optional, and don't need much crafting, and socializing, is there a problem if devs decide to give it to them?

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,818
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk

    As far as layoffs go, it's all normal ebbs and flows. 

    There is nothing normal about layoffs in the game industry.

    The gaming industry was one where laffoffs were relatively common but always followed by being taken on elsewhere. From the articles we have seen on here the second part is not happening as much as it used to. So indeed, it is not normal.

     

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,818
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
    But the game design of modern MMOs is directly responsible for making grouping an irrelevance and crafting a joke. The fact that no one even says "grats" anymore let alone roleplays is down to us.

     

     

    You make it sounds like it is a bad thing. If players want groupings to be optional, and don't need much crafting, and socializing, is there a problem if devs decide to give it to them?

    Optional does not mean non existent Nari, if it is only in raids, it hardly exists anymore.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
    But the game design of modern MMOs is directly responsible for making grouping an irrelevance and crafting a joke. The fact that no one even says "grats" anymore let alone roleplays is down to us.

     

     

    You make it sounds like it is a bad thing. If players want groupings to be optional, and don't need much crafting, and socializing, is there a problem if devs decide to give it to them?

    Optional does not mean non existent Nari, if it is only in raids, it hardly exists anymore.

     

    what are you talking about? The most efficient way to level in WoW is to hit the LFD button. The chat-box is available in every single MMO (heck, and many non-MMO).

    So clearly grouping and socializing are there, if people want to use it. Now if you can't find someone to chat with, that is because players don't want to do that, not that it is not available.

     

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,818
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
    But the game design of modern MMOs is directly responsible for making grouping an irrelevance and crafting a joke. The fact that no one even says "grats" anymore let alone roleplays is down to us.

     

     

    You make it sounds like it is a bad thing. If players want groupings to be optional, and don't need much crafting, and socializing, is there a problem if devs decide to give it to them?

    Optional does not mean non existent Nari, if it is only in raids, it hardly exists anymore.

     

    what are you talking about? The most efficient way to level in WoW is to hit the LFD button. The chat-box is available in every single MMO (heck, and many non-MMO).

    So clearly grouping and socializing are there, if people want to use it. Now if you can't find someone to chat with, that is because players don't want to do that, not that it is not available.

    I would say this says more about WoW than the LFG system. In the MMOs I have played over the past five years LFG is very slow. Gameplay culture has changed drastically due to changes in MMO design, people take the easy route, if you allow soloing to top level that's what they will do.

    If being a sniper was the easiest choice in a FPS that's all players would do. But as it takes patience and a lot of skill, playing in a team role is most players choice. MMO's have gone down the route where we only get to play snipers.

     

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,818

    "Your idea for a purely systemic world is not new, and after all this time it still hasn't happened. It's not really a tech limitation but more the fact that the world will feel systemic. It won't feel high-quality and hand-crafted, which will result in players having less fun."

    I am not certain people will have less fun, but the lack of quality will be obvious. As a person who expects top notch graphics this is the Achilles heel of systemic design for me.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    I would say this says more about WoW than the LFG system. In the MMOs I have played over the past five years LFG is very slow. Gameplay culture has changed drastically due to changes in MMO design, people take the easy route, if you allow soloing to top level that's what they will do.

    If being a sniper was the easiest choice in a FPS that's all players would do. But as it takes patience and a lot of skill, playing in a team role is most players choice. MMO's have gone down the route where we only get to play snipers.

     

    what about socializing? It is easy to just type in a chat-box. People don't do it.

    And what is wrong with taking the easy route? We are not enhancing our careers here ... we are using entertainment products. This is like saying it is easy to watch a movie .. and yes, it is. So?

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,818
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    I would say this says more about WoW than the LFG system. In the MMOs I have played over the past five years LFG is very slow. Gameplay culture has changed drastically due to changes in MMO design, people take the easy route, if you allow soloing to top level that's what they will do.

    If being a sniper was the easiest choice in a FPS that's all players would do. But as it takes patience and a lot of skill, playing in a team role is most players choice. MMO's have gone down the route where we only get to play snipers.

     

    what about socializing? It is easy to just type in a chat-box. People don't do it.

    And what is wrong with taking the easy route? We are not enhancing our careers here ... we are using entertainment products. This is like saying it is easy to watch a movie .. and yes, it is. So?

    I did say in a previous post that part the lack of socialising was down to us not the design. We are enhancing our careers, or at least that's what the attitude 'solo to top level as fast as possible' is more like to me. The easier route would be to take your time, chill out with some mates on the way. When I say easymode I am talking of the speed of levelling and game systems, but players are not going for an easy ride, they are flogging the horse till the finish line.

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

    "Your idea for a purely systemic world is not new, and after all this time it still hasn't happened. It's not really a tech limitation but more the fact that the world will feel systemic. It won't feel high-quality and hand-crafted, which will result in players having less fun."

    I am not certain people will have less fun, but the lack of quality will be obvious. As a person who expects top notch graphics this is the Achilles heel of systemic design for me.

    Well graphics quality is worsened by less than gameplay quality.  It still takes a hit, but it's the gameplay that takes the biggest hit.

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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    I did say in a previous post that part the lack of socialising was down to us not the design. We are enhancing our careers, or at least that's what the attitude 'solo to top level as fast as possible' is more like to me. The easier route would be to take your time, chill out with some mates on the way. When I say easymode I am talking of the speed of levelling and game systems, but players are not going for an easy ride, they are flogging the horse till the finish line.

    why would the speed of leveling considered "easy mode" if the game is mostly NOT about leveling?

    I play D3 (and of course you already know that) and no one will claim that greater rifts, of T6 right after you hit 70 are easy mode. No one complains that D3 is easy (they did complain it is too hard before they put in a difficulty slider).

    But leveling is fast .. i did 60-70 in a weekend. So what? A game does not need to be challenging in every single parts, does it? In fact, if you look at leveling at an extended tutorial, then all is good. Now you may not like this style of design, but that does not make the game "easy mode".

     

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,818
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    I did say in a previous post that part the lack of socialising was down to us not the design. We are enhancing our careers, or at least that's what the attitude 'solo to top level as fast as possible' is more like to me. The easier route would be to take your time, chill out with some mates on the way. When I say easymode I am talking of the speed of levelling and game systems, but players are not going for an easy ride, they are flogging the horse till the finish line.

    why would the speed of leveling considered "easy mode" if the game is mostly NOT about leveling?

    I play D3 (and of course you already know that) and no one will claim that greater rifts, of T6 right after you hit 70 are easy mode. No one complains that D3 is easy (they did complain it is too hard before they put in a difficulty slider).

    But leveling is fast .. i did 60-70 in a weekend. So what? A game does not need to be challenging in every single parts, does it? In fact, if you look at leveling at an extended tutorial, then all is good. Now you may not like this style of design, but that does not make the game "easy mode".

     

    We are not talking about the same thing nari, I was not talking about easymode here. The easier route I mention here is a relaxed way of levelling, not trying to grind to top level uber quickly. I do use the term easymode a lot so I can see how you think that's what I was going on about.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.