Of course you could point out that travel is also can have many decisions. I've already pointed them out, but you have strategy of just being able to survive making it through the area because it's difficult to find your way and there are many dangers in it. Part of that danger is just it's vastness. You have to plan things like having enough food and drink to make it through if something goes wrong. You might need enough torches to light your way through a dark area safely. This whole combat and balance is the only important thing in a RPG or MMO is simple nonsense. If the point of the game is fun then combat and balance are in general of little importance in comparison to the original purpose of such games. Basically it is to immerse the player in the world and make them feel like they are really on an adventure. That is not possible with the way games are built today. The reason that these games are played by more people is not because they are better, but simply because (like fast food) they allow for mindless quick play where you can jump in and jump out. There is no involvement in the story at all. That is why people don't stick around. They develop no real attachment to the game because the game never accomplishes the original task of making them feel something for the characters and the world.
You avoided every question and every point and every example. You have asserted slow travel is boring ignoring every point made in this entire thread. You keep claiming to be the possessor of a better reality then everyone else in the thread.
You cannot allow your egotism to even approach the points being raised.
You can't even supply 1 game you claim to have made to prove your points.
Done.
You keep using the words "every" and "all" as though I haven't address the vast majority of your points every single response.
A point isn't "unaddressed" or "ignored" just because you don't like how inconveniently wrong it makes you look.
I'm not the possessor of reality. I'm an observer of reality. I have named many specific games like WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, and ESO to back my points. I've linked to a lot of supporting evidence of my points. What have you linked to? Not much. Your points are mostly driven by opinion.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Of course you could point out that travel is also can have many decisions. I've already pointed them out, but you have strategy of just being able to survive making it through the area because it's difficult to find your way and there are many dangers in it. Part of that danger is just it's vastness. You have to plan things like having enough food and drink to make it through if something goes wrong. You might need enough torches to light your way through a dark area safely. This whole combat and balance is the only important thing in a RPG or MMO is simple nonsense. If the point of the game is fun then combat and balance are in general of little importance in comparison to the original purpose of such games. Basically it is to immerse the player in the world and make them feel like they are really on an adventure. That is not possible with the way games are built today. The reason that these games are played by more people is not because they are better, but simply because (like fast food) they allow for mindless quick play where you can jump in and jump out. There is no involvement in the story at all. That is why people don't stick around. They develop no real attachment to the game because the game never accomplishes the original task of making them feel something for the characters and the world.
And I have pointed out that travel can involve deep gameplay. And I've also pointed out why it won't have deep gameplay in MMORPGs, because it takes them in a direction that doesn't fit the aesthetic.
As for the "dangers" that you list, those aren't travel challenges, those are combat challenges. The way you make travel offer deep gameplay wouldn't involve combat (otherwise obviously it'd be the combat being deep, not the travel.)
Travel is typically very boring gameplay, and therefore the exact opposite of "immersion". Deep travel would be more immersive, but less RPG-like (because RPGs typically don't involve excessive slow travel; not videogame RPGs, and not tabletop RPGs.)
Fast food analogies don't really apply to these games, because games like WOW are actually the most expensive, highest-quality experiences available, and still the most popular. It's objectively false that games like these are "mindless", as has been covered in many threads -- the demonology rotation in WOW still stands as the depth bar to beat, and the majority of MMORPGs (and every early MMORPG) has failed to beat it.
Players don't necessarily have to feel something for the characters and world (though that helps). The most important thing to a game is its gameplay. The MMORPG with the best gameplay unsurprisingly ended up with the highest amount of success. MMORPGs with worse gameplay unsurprisingly did worse.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Basically it is to immerse the player in the world and make them feel like they are really on an adventure. That is not possible with the way games are built today.
Exactly. Games are no longer about the world. Most MMORPGs are about hack-n-slash gameplay now.
So why bother to immerse anyone in the world when combat works? It is not like players are willing to pay to be immersed in mmo worlds, which, of course, is different from players who are willing to pay for single player open world games.
If you give children an option they will eat sweet food and fast food at ever choice. The path of least resistance does not mean path to greater good.
lol .. you are equating entertainment with health?
Sure .. children would not pick healthy food. They pick fun & tasty food right? Do you think children will pick boring non-fun games?
I mean, people are seriously using the ridiculous argument that players, when choosing ENTERTAINMENT (we are not talking about health here, or long term career, or dieting), will choose the LESS entertaining option for any reason?
So players playing Eve is because "it is the path of least resistance because it is an old and familiar game", but it is more boring compared to other modern games?
If you use that ridiculous argument, you will also get nonsensical things like "players will all just watch tv and don't play video games because that is the path of least resistance .. no need to click, or wait for load time .. and we should eliminate TV as a choice so to help video games.
If you give children an option they will eat sweet food and fast food at ever choice. The path of least resistance does not mean path to greater good.
lol .. you are equating entertainment with health?
Sure .. children would not pick healthy food. They pick fun & tasty food right? Do you think children will pick boring non-fun games?
I mean, people are seriously using the ridiculous argument that players, when choosing ENTERTAINMENT (we are not talking about health here, or long term career, or dieting), will choose the LESS entertaining option for any reason?
So players playing Eve is because "it is the path of least resistance because it is an old and familiar game", but it is more boring compared to other modern games?
If you use that ridiculous argument, you will also get nonsensical things like "players will all just watch tv and don't play video games because that is the path of least resistance .. no need to click, or wait for load time .. and we should eliminate TV as a choice so to help video games.
Really?
Do YOU pick the non-fun choice in your games too?
Yes, players will pick the path of least resistance, most convenient, most rewarding action or most "fun" actions even if it ruins the game long term.
You avoided every question and every point and every example. You have asserted slow travel is boring ignoring every point made in this entire thread. You keep claiming to be the possessor of a better reality then everyone else in the thread.
You cannot allow your egotism to even approach the points being raised.
You can't even supply 1 game you claim to have made to prove your points.
Done.
You keep using the words "every" and "all" as though I haven't address the vast majority of your points every single response.
A point isn't "unaddressed" or "ignored" just because you don't like how inconveniently wrong it makes you look.
I'm not the possessor of reality. I'm an observer of reality. I have named many specific games like WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, and ESO to back my points. I've linked to a lot of supporting evidence of my points. What have you linked to? Not much. Your points are mostly driven by opinion.
Those games are not designed to be travel based at all. You're not going to observe meaningful travel in those games. This has been stated over and over which you ignore the point. You're observing panda bears eating bamboo and claiming all bears are vegetarian. You ignore all other examples and harp to your WoW and clones observations. There are other more successful games.
If I wrote out all the corrections to this post of yours I'd literally be repeating the last post I wrote earlier. Your argument points aren't getting past the fundamental flaws they have already been shown to have, your claims have already been refuted by existing active examples in the market, and we've broken down quite clearly the distinctions between your opinions, reality, and the corrections to claims you have made.
Repeating the same flawed logic is not going to change this.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Yes, players will pick the path of least resistance, most convenient, most rewarding action or most "fun" actions even if it ruins the game long term.
lol ... as if you have proof.
And now you slip through the "long term" thing. Well, MMOs are not long term anymore. You didn't know? 80% of players quit within 30 days. (And for those who doubt the number, use google, it has been posted many times).
And you also change the argument. You are no longer saying picking the non-fun option when a fun one exist (like slow travel vs fast travel). Now you try to argue long term. Well, there is no "long term" for travel ... either you fast travel now, or slow travel now .. and the experience is for the next 10 min.
Don't tell me now you want an even more ridiculous argument that slow travel today impact my fun 10 years down the road. ha ha ha ha ha ....
Repeating the same flawed logic is not going to change this.
yeh ... so are you going to insist and repeat the ridiculous argument that players are going to choose non-fun options so we need to eliminate them (like fast travel)? Or admit that they like fast travel more, and that you have to argue they don't like fun to support slow travel?
Those games are not designed to be travel based at all. You're not going to observe meaningful travel in those games. This has been stated over and over which you ignore the point. You're observing panda bears eating bamboo and claiming all bears are vegetarian. You ignore all other examples and harp to your WoW and clones observations. There are other more successful games.
Surely you have the vaguest inkling of how completely and utterly illogical your argument is here, right?
Your argument simplified is "If it's designed a certain way, that way is fine." This notion of automatic design infallibility is nonsense. Designs can be flawed.
If I design a game where the point is you being kicked in the balls, that doesn't magically make you enjoy my game. No, it's a bad design and players will avoid it due to the bad design.
If I design a game where the point is lots of tedious slow travel, that doesn't magically make players enjoy the game. It's a bad design and players have avoided such designs.
Why would you bring up "other more successful games"? Literally all of those other games support the focus on fun and depth that I've been harping on this entire thread. None of them support the idea that players enjoy tedious shallow slow travel. It's somewhat circular: reality supports my point because my point is based on the observation of reality.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Repeating the same flawed logic is not going to change this.
yeh ... so are you going to insist and repeat the ridiculous argument that players are going to choose non-fun options so we need to eliminate them (like fast travel)? Or admit that they like fast travel more, and that you have to argue they don't like fun to support slow travel?
Or you can admit that the only person participating in such a nonsensical argument is yourself, seeing as my own statement on the matter was that different games and different mechanics affect each other differently, and you have to build a game with such things in mind so that it isn't compromising the quality of the game.
So how about you try making a non-bullshit comment first.
EDIT: To clarify, this was stated to you previously;
"It's the very point of why quests are so hard-line as a framework to enforce the experience of variety. When the core driver of a game is attaining progress, you have to give players a clear incentive or reason to do many things otherwise they will seek out the most singular and direct route to achieve something. That means any shortcuts that can be taken, any high-payout rewards that can be ground, any little thing which can be turned into a process to progress faster will be sought out even if it's to the contrary of a user's entertainment because of that overarching desire for progress.
Meaning, if most of the game experience was seeded into the game world rather than directed via a quest chain, many users would end up missing a majority of the game's content and subsequent entertainment value if they used fast travel."
I've also stated this; "Variety and shallowness are only problems when you design an MMORPG to be a static user experience driven by heavily scripted content that they migrate from one scripted element to the next while the world only serves as a backdrop. For themeparks with such a rigid and finite design it's hard to make travel interesting.That's why most of the MMORPG titles shown in example, while plenty of them have quests and such, they are not given in a heavily scripted context and they will take players to all odd-ends of the world in any order as they are individual tasks associated with elements of the game world generally, not driving a singular overarching scripted user experience."
This commentary exactly points out that depending on how the content is implemented within the game the surrounding mechanics can benefit or cripple the user experience.
When the game constrains the user-experience to heavily scripted experiences and discreet actions/activities with little involving the game world, then fast travel benefits them because it curtails the time players spend in the neglected space/parts of the game. When the activities are seeded everywhere and travel is the very means for which these things are discovered and interact without a linear path to follow, then you are ultimately skipping past large chunks of content when you have a feature like fast travel to bypass the world space.
This is all things I've said before. It is only the active pursuit of ignorance at this point which would enable anyone to make the same mistaken argument no one but yourself has made.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Those games are not designed to be travel based at all. You're not going to observe meaningful travel in those games. This has been stated over and over which you ignore the point. You're observing panda bears eating bamboo and claiming all bears are vegetarian. You ignore all other examples and harp to your WoW and clones observations. There are other more successful games.
Surely you have the vaguest inkling of how completely and utterly illogical your argument is here, right?
Your argument simplified is "If it's designed a certain way, that way is fine." This notion of automatic design infallibility is nonsense. Designs can be flawed.
If I design a game where the point is you being kicked in the balls, that doesn't magically make you enjoy my game. No, it's a bad design and players will avoid it due to the bad design.
If I design a game where the point is lots of tedious slow travel, that doesn't magically make players enjoy the game. It's a bad design and players have avoided such designs.
Why would you bring up "other more successful games"? Literally all of those other games support the focus on fun and depth that I've been harping on this entire thread. None of them support the idea that players enjoy tedious shallow slow travel. It's somewhat circular: reality supports my point because my point is based on the observation of reality.
While not necessarily "more successful, there is one point previosuly made on this matter about the top grossing games worldwide (not top grossing western games).
"Aside from that though, it's interesting to point out that three of the top grossing games of all time are asian MMOs (Westward Journey $3.9b, Dungeon Fighter $4b, Lineage Series $5.7b) that you would consider grind heavy while WoW is the only western mmo on the top grossing list. Is WoW higher grossing than them at $8.5b? Sure, but it's also standalone and the userbase is not of the same spread as the previous three just mentioned. Since we're also seeing continued production of MMOs out of South Korea, Japan, and even China (and some other places like Malaysia) we can also point out where production is generally heading still."
You are also making a VERY big mistake by claiming "where the point is lots of tedious slow travel" when talking about what's been said on game design. You aren't designing a game with lots of tedious travel, you are designing a game so that travel is an integrated component and interacting with many other features like those previously cited even on the last page, making it a deep and involved mechanic rather than simply a means to reach a destination.
The very argument you stand upon is perpetual re-interpretation of the argument to turn it into something else. I do believe we can quote the wikipedia page you linked previously on this matter;
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
The entire premise of the argument you have posed is derived from an argument that only you have brought up solely for the sake of countering.
You had to go so far as to skew the premise of Vermillion's argument that travel when designed as a integrated component of the game and not as an isolated feature is interesting into saying something entirely different.
When people say "lead by example" they don't mean for you to be the example of all logical fallacies. Ask yourself the question you posed to him next time.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Those games are not designed to be travel based at all. You're not going to observe meaningful travel in those games. This has been stated over and over which you ignore the point. You're observing panda bears eating bamboo and claiming all bears are vegetarian. You ignore all other examples and harp to your WoW and clones observations. There are other more successful games.
Surely you have the vaguest inkling of how completely and utterly illogical your argument is here, right?
Your argument simplified is "If it's designed a certain way, that way is fine." This notion of automatic design infallibility is nonsense. Designs can be flawed.
If I design a game where the point is you being kicked in the balls, that doesn't magically make you enjoy my game. No, it's a bad design and players will avoid it due to the bad design.
If I design a game where the point is lots of tedious slow travel, that doesn't magically make players enjoy the game. It's a bad design and players have avoided such designs.
Why would you bring up "other more successful games"? Literally all of those other games support the focus on fun and depth that I've been harping on this entire thread. None of them support the idea that players enjoy tedious shallow slow travel. It's somewhat circular: reality supports my point because my point is based on the observation of reality.
While not necessarily "more successful, there is one point previosuly made on this matter about the top grossing games worldwide (not top grossing western games).
"Aside from that though, it's interesting to point out that three of the top grossing games of all time are asian MMOs (Westward Journey $3.9b, Dungeon Fighter $4b, Lineage Series $5.7b) that you would consider grind heavy while WoW is the only western mmo on the top grossing list. Is WoW higher grossing than them at $8.5b? Sure, but it's also standalone and the userbase is not of the same spread as the previous three just mentioned. Since we're also seeing continued production of MMOs out of South Korea, Japan, and even China (and some other places like Malaysia) we can also point out where production is generally heading still."
You are also making a VERY big mistake by claiming "where the point is lots of tedious slow travel" when talking about what's been said on game design. You aren't designing a game with lots of tedious travel, you are designing a game so that travel is an integrated component and interacting with many other features like those previously cited even on the last page, making it a deep and involved mechanic rather than simply a means to reach a destination.
The very argument you stand upon is perpetual re-interpretation of the argument to turn it into something else. I do believe we can quote the wikipedia page you linked previously on this matter;
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
The entire premise of the argument you have posed is derived from an argument that only you have brought up solely for the sake of countering.
You had to go so far as to skew the premise of Vermillion's argument that travel when designed as a integrated component of the game and not as an isolated feature is interesting into saying something entirely different.
When people say "lead by example" they don't mean for you to be the example of all logical fallacies. Ask yourself the question you posed to him next time.
Deny, ignore and reframe the discussion into a strawman argument based on non objective opinion nobody is talking about. That is all he can do because there really is not argument to be made directly to the point.
Travel is travel. Everything else is a subjective adjective added. He attempts to taint travel as boring, slow and tedious to reframe the argument from a point of a negative. To concede anything his argument falls apart. Thus he must deny,ignore and push a strawman.
Its like saying MMORPG has slow unresponsive combat compared to other genres. Keep repeating it no matter what when debating if combat in MMORPGs can be enjoyable. Ignore any evidence and keep asking for evidence to the point nobody is going to repeat the same thing over and over.
This is an interesting experiment though. I wonder if some posters serve some purpose here.
Surely you have the vaguest inkling of how completely and utterly illogical your argument is here, right?
Nobody is going to repeat the same argument over and over. You can go back and read. You have been given pages of examples you clearly ignore to continue you're strawman.
Your argument simplified is "If it's designed a certain way, that way is fine." This notion of automatic design infallibility is nonsense. Designs can be flawed.
Of course because if you concede that then your argument is flat out wrong. You are using a talking point that is a tainted non objective view that travel is boring, slow and tedious. Travel is travel. How its used and accepted by gamers requires function and design.
I could repeat combat is slow, boring and tedious over and over and only accept the worst case scenarios of combat. You showed your hand that you're only talking about WOW and clones by the games you listed.
If I design a game where the point is you being kicked in the balls, that doesn't magically make you enjoy my game. No, it's a bad design and players will avoid it due to the bad design.
Case in point here. This is totally meaningless argument. I am guessing you're comparing this to combat or questing here right? The dying western themepark MMORPG genre gets a lot of complaints about combat and meaningless questing. MMORPGquesting is slow, boring and tedious. That's why no developers are making themepark games and they're losing population right?
None of them support the idea that players enjoy tedious shallow slow travel. It's somewhat circular: reality supports my point because my point is based on the observation of reality.
Another strawman. Of course, those games support fun and exciting long travel. You're the only one talking about slow tedious travel. You have no reality to observe because you're reframing the argument into strawman.
We say that MMORPG travel would be slow and tedious in the current dying themepark genre. You say travel is slow and tedious by your observation that aren't themepark then use themeparks as your examples. You halfway concede that successful games based around travel don't have slow tedious travel. Then turn around and say travel is slow and tedious. Get it together.
Deny, ignore and reframe the discussion into a strawman argument based on non objective opinion nobody is talking about. That is all he can do because there really is not argument to be made directly to the point.
Travel is travel. Everything else is a subjective adjective added. He attempts to taint travel as boring, slow and tedious to reframe the argument from a point of a negative. To concede anything his argument falls apart. Thus he must deny,ignore and push a strawman.
Its like saying MMORPG has slow unresponsive combat compared to other genres. Keep repeating it no matter what when debating if combat in MMORPGs can be enjoyable. Ignore any evidence and keep asking for evidence to the point nobody is going to repeat the same thing over and over.
This is an interesting experiment though. I wonder if some posters serve some purpose here.
Put forth a real argument then. You strongly disagree with me with no opinion of your own, so I assume you're just taking up the opposite side of the discussion.
Throwing up your hands and implying we can't know the depth of travel (because "everything else is subjective") is nonsense. The objective measure of depth is a combination of the size of the decision set of a game, and the number of viable strategies within that set (and how frequently those viable decisions change due to dynamic factors.)
If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn.
Meanwhile the reality is that travel in MMORPGs is inarguably shallow. Are you really suggesting that a discussion on travel in MMORPGs should ignore the current reality of travel in MMORPGs?
It would move conversation forward for you to simply admit the obvious objective truth that travel is shallow in all MMORPGs. A recognition of the most obvious traits of travel would allow conversation to move into addressing or avoiding the problem of shallow travel.
I mean it's not like that's something you can disagree with, right? The decision set and difficulty of mastering travel in MMORPGs has never been even remotely deep. You have never called someone "skilled" at travel in MMORPGs, nor have you heard anyone else ever say that.
Also what's that nonsense about "unresponsive" combat in MMORPGs? The better MMORPGs have combat which is plenty responsive. It's slower paced, but pacing doesn't inhibit depth if the right game mechanics are employed (though sure you have to employ crisper, tighter game mechanics as you distance yourself from real-time combat, because real-time decision-making is inherently harder to master than slow turn-based decision-making.) In MMORPGs where combat actually is less responsive, that's not a depth thing so much as it's an awful controls implementation that will cause the game to be less fun to play. But several games have WOW-quality responsiveness, so this isn't really a modern problem in MMORPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes, players will pick the path of least resistance, most convenient, most rewarding action or most "fun" actions even if it ruins the game long term.
lol ... as if you have proof.
And now you slip through the "long term" thing. Well, MMOs are not long term anymore. You didn't know? 80% of players quit within 30 days. (And for those who doubt the number, use google, it has been posted many times).
And you also change the argument. You are no longer saying picking the non-fun option when a fun one exist (like slow travel vs fast travel). Now you try to argue long term. Well, there is no "long term" for travel ... either you fast travel now, or slow travel now .. and the experience is for the next 10 min.
Don't tell me now you want an even more ridiculous argument that slow travel today impact my fun 10 years down the road. ha ha ha ha ha ....
Maybe I should explain it to you in simple terms. It doesn't have to be long term. Just that all fun immediate actions does not lead to fun beyond that action. You claimed before to have an adult life. I am certain you understand how immediate actions can have negative effects on the immediate and long term. future
Of course most people quit themeparks in 30 days. Themeparks are designed to be completed in a week to month as a single player game. This was done get immediate funds from players. Problem is these games have on going cost. You know this though.
Maybe I should explain it to you in simple terms. It doesn't have to be long term. Just that all fun immediate actions does not lead to fun beyond that action.
lol .. and you think when people make choices, they don't maximize fun in the next 15 min (or whatever the play session last)? Really?
So I am choosing between playing Eve and D3 ... oh well, i don't really like fun .. so I choose Eve ... really?
The experience of slow travel is identical whether the option of fast travel is there or not. If people choose to fast travel, you really think that they ACTUALLY PREFER slow travel? You are arguing they are missing the slow travel experience .. which is true .. but asserting that they actually like it but choose to skip it anyway ... ha ha ha ha ha ha .....
That makes less sense than calling World of Tank a MMO. At least websites have a good reason to broaden the definition of WoT. And i thought people here are all for reasoning. I guess not.
The experience of slow travel is identical whether the option of fast travel is there or not. If people choose to fast travel, you really think that they ACTUALLY PREFER slow travel? You are arguing they are missing the slow travel experience .. which is true .. but asserting that they actually like it but choose to skip it anyway ... ha ha ha ha ha ha .....
What are you talking about? If you gave players a death gun that destroyed all balance in Call of Duty and ruined online matches... do you think players would get together to stop using the weapon to make the game fun again? Or would developers have to remove it or nerf it? They would continue to cheese just like the do with every exploit in online gaming.
You know you're kind of proving the point about path of least resistance? Players will always opt to do the easiest things unless they're set on doing the hardest.
What are you talking about? If you gave players a death gun that destroyed all balance in Call of Duty and ruined online matches... do you think players would get together to stop using the weapon to make the game fun again?
You are confused between fun for the players who use the gun, and those who do not.
Those players who use the gun are having fun .. more fun than not using the gun. Only those who do not have the fun are not having fun. The dev is not protecting the players who use the death gun, he is protecting those on the receiving end.
And this is just a red herring .. because slow/fast travel affect no one else except the player who is making the decision.
But nice try ... it is funny to see people keeping arguing that people will choose the less fun option. I am quite sure that is how you choose you games. That is why you play sandbox MMORPGs, right? ha ha ha ha ha ha .....
What are you talking about? If you gave players a death gun that destroyed all balance in Call of Duty and ruined online matches... do you think players would get together to stop using the weapon to make the game fun again?
You are confused between fun for the players who use the gun, and those who do not.
Those players who use the gun are having fun .. more fun than not using the gun. Only those who do not have the fun are not having fun. The dev is not protecting the players who use the death gun, he is protecting those on the receiving end.
And this is just a red herring .. because slow/fast travel affect no one else except the player who is making the decision.
But nice try ... it is funny to see people keeping arguing that people will choose the less fun option. I am quite sure that is how you choose you games. That is why you play sandbox MMORPGs, right? ha ha ha ha ha ha .....
You're not talking about the most fun option. You're talking about the most convenient option. Yes, players will ruin their own fun to do something more convenient or give them better options or being forced to compete. In the situation with an out of balanced guns other players are forced to pick the deathgun to compete. Trust me cheese and exploits get boring very fast to most players involved.
In a game based around slow travel it could easily effect other players. Take Archeage for example. If you could fast travel trade packs it would effect PvP. Thus the same situation as the gun. If allowed to quick travel players would do it.
But if you're so right how come there are no more themepark MMORPGs being made for your line of thinking anymore? Oh, that's right they've done exactly what you've said to do. Now there isn't a profitable audience to sell to. Seems to speak for itself that the millions pumped into themepark branch and its still declining. Only handful of games can even claim not to be highly niche and that's debatable.
Deny, ignore and reframe the discussion into a strawman argument based on non objective opinion nobody is talking about. That is all he can do because there really is not argument to be made directly to the point.
Travel is travel. Everything else is a subjective adjective added. He attempts to taint travel as boring, slow and tedious to reframe the argument from a point of a negative. To concede anything his argument falls apart. Thus he must deny,ignore and push a strawman.
Its like saying MMORPG has slow unresponsive combat compared to other genres. Keep repeating it no matter what when debating if combat in MMORPGs can be enjoyable. Ignore any evidence and keep asking for evidence to the point nobody is going to repeat the same thing over and over.
This is an interesting experiment though. I wonder if some posters serve some purpose here.
Put forth a real argument then. You strongly disagree with me with no opinion of your own, so I assume you're just taking up the opposite side of the discussion.
Throwing up your hands and implying we can't know the depth of travel (because "everything else is subjective") is nonsense. The objective measure of depth is a combination of the size of the decision set of a game, and the number of viable strategies within that set (and how frequently those viable decisions change due to dynamic factors.)
If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn.
Meanwhile the reality is that travel in MMORPGs is inarguably shallow. Are you really suggesting that a discussion on travel in MMORPGs should ignore the current reality of travel in MMORPGs?
It would move conversation forward for you to simply admit the obvious objective truth that travel is shallow in all MMORPGs. A recognition of the most obvious traits of travel would allow conversation to move into addressing or avoiding the problem of shallow travel.
I mean it's not like that's something you can disagree with, right? The decision set and difficulty of mastering travel in MMORPGs has never been even remotely deep. You have never called someone "skilled" at travel in MMORPGs, nor have you heard anyone else ever say that.
Also what's that nonsense about "unresponsive" combat in MMORPGs? The better MMORPGs have combat which is plenty responsive. It's slower paced, but pacing doesn't inhibit depth if the right game mechanics are employed (though sure you have to employ crisper, tighter game mechanics as you distance yourself from real-time combat, because real-time decision-making is inherently harder to master than slow turn-based decision-making.) In MMORPGs where combat actually is less responsive, that's not a depth thing so much as it's an awful controls implementation that will cause the game to be less fun to play. But several games have WOW-quality responsiveness, so this isn't really a modern problem in MMORPGs.
Well at least axe isn't denying that his argument is a logical fallacy, now he's just attacking you. XD
So to correct a couple points axe made...
MMOs were offered by-name which have more involved travel mechanics than A to B movement. You having not played them does not make them not exist.
"Mastering travel" only applies when the user experience has travel to master. In titles like WoW of course that will be lacking. However, good pilots in Planetside, good mounted technique in BDO, good gliding skills in AA, good driving skills in APB or GTA, good tracking/hunting skills in Ryzom or survival games, etc are all mechanics driven by travel which players can in fact be noted as skilled with.
The rest of the dialogue is either tangential or insults.
Like the ramble he runs off on combat after Ver uses is simply as an example of how one can assert a statement and blind out any counterpoints or refutations. Somehow axe completely missed the obvious there and instead took it as another opportunity to attempt to look smart. I guess it's good for a lark though.
Seriously, if your only capabilities is stating the obvious and then bullshitting for days, you're not helping anyone. Take your own advice axe;
"If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn."
You proved you're unwilling to learn, you proved you don't even vet your own sources since we can quote them against you, you proved your "objective observations" are merely anecdotal opinions of a sliver of the market, and you proved your entire premise of argumentation is built on logical fallacies.
This is far removed from a rational manner of discussion. Time and travel were already shown to be fundamental components of gameplay, they were shown how they can be integrated with many other mechanics to create game depth, they were given examples of actual MMOs which do such things, and there were quotations and links in support of the points made. Everyone can see this as everyone can click about to pages like 4 where the games were first mentioned, or 18 which has a bundle of links, or many of these pages with the quotations.
You have to deny a very clear and apparent reality to make any claim of yours at this point.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Deny, ignore and reframe the discussion into a strawman argument based on non objective opinion nobody is talking about. That is all he can do because there really is not argument to be made directly to the point.
Travel is travel. Everything else is a subjective adjective added. He attempts to taint travel as boring, slow and tedious to reframe the argument from a point of a negative. To concede anything his argument falls apart. Thus he must deny,ignore and push a strawman.
Its like saying MMORPG has slow unresponsive combat compared to other genres. Keep repeating it no matter what when debating if combat in MMORPGs can be enjoyable. Ignore any evidence and keep asking for evidence to the point nobody is going to repeat the same thing over and over.
This is an interesting experiment though. I wonder if some posters serve some purpose here.
Put forth a real argument then. You strongly disagree with me with no opinion of your own, so I assume you're just taking up the opposite side of the discussion.
Throwing up your hands and implying we can't know the depth of travel (because "everything else is subjective") is nonsense. The objective measure of depth is a combination of the size of the decision set of a game, and the number of viable strategies within that set (and how frequently those viable decisions change due to dynamic factors.)
If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn.
Meanwhile the reality is that travel in MMORPGs is inarguably shallow. Are you really suggesting that a discussion on travel in MMORPGs should ignore the current reality of travel in MMORPGs?
It would move conversation forward for you to simply admit the obvious objective truth that travel is shallow in all MMORPGs. A recognition of the most obvious traits of travel would allow conversation to move into addressing or avoiding the problem of shallow travel.
I mean it's not like that's something you can disagree with, right? The decision set and difficulty of mastering travel in MMORPGs has never been even remotely deep. You have never called someone "skilled" at travel in MMORPGs, nor have you heard anyone else ever say that.
Also what's that nonsense about "unresponsive" combat in MMORPGs? The better MMORPGs have combat which is plenty responsive. It's slower paced, but pacing doesn't inhibit depth if the right game mechanics are employed (though sure you have to employ crisper, tighter game mechanics as you distance yourself from real-time combat, because real-time decision-making is inherently harder to master than slow turn-based decision-making.) In MMORPGs where combat actually is less responsive, that's not a depth thing so much as it's an awful controls implementation that will cause the game to be less fun to play. But several games have WOW-quality responsiveness, so this isn't really a modern problem in MMORPGs.
"If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn." Are you arguing with yourself?
I think everyone has acknowledged that in the Themepark era travel is shallow or even most MMORPG in general. You have yet to acknowledge that other games have meaningful, fun travel or the possibility of it in MMORPG. I would say that Archeage for one has fun travel with gliders and boats in the open seas. You have yet to even admit that nobody is even arguing that current MMORPG has shallow travel. Its your strawman
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent." Current MMORPG do not have shallow travel = argument not advanced by anyone in this thread. You bring up and we don't care because we never mentioned it.
And yes, MMORPG combat is slow shallow and unresponsive. You can look at Destiny selling 500 million in one day. The Division also sold millions. Both of these games have fluid combat. Obviously I observed this and it must be true because I say so.
Deny, ignore and reframe the discussion into a strawman argument based on non objective opinion nobody is talking about. That is all he can do because there really is not argument to be made directly to the point.
Travel is travel. Everything else is a subjective adjective added. He attempts to taint travel as boring, slow and tedious to reframe the argument from a point of a negative. To concede anything his argument falls apart. Thus he must deny,ignore and push a strawman.
Its like saying MMORPG has slow unresponsive combat compared to other genres. Keep repeating it no matter what when debating if combat in MMORPGs can be enjoyable. Ignore any evidence and keep asking for evidence to the point nobody is going to repeat the same thing over and over.
This is an interesting experiment though. I wonder if some posters serve some purpose here.
Put forth a real argument then. You strongly disagree with me with no opinion of your own, so I assume you're just taking up the opposite side of the discussion.
Throwing up your hands and implying we can't know the depth of travel (because "everything else is subjective") is nonsense. The objective measure of depth is a combination of the size of the decision set of a game, and the number of viable strategies within that set (and how frequently those viable decisions change due to dynamic factors.)
If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn.
Meanwhile the reality is that travel in MMORPGs is inarguably shallow. Are you really suggesting that a discussion on travel in MMORPGs should ignore the current reality of travel in MMORPGs?
It would move conversation forward for you to simply admit the obvious objective truth that travel is shallow in all MMORPGs. A recognition of the most obvious traits of travel would allow conversation to move into addressing or avoiding the problem of shallow travel.
I mean it's not like that's something you can disagree with, right? The decision set and difficulty of mastering travel in MMORPGs has never been even remotely deep. You have never called someone "skilled" at travel in MMORPGs, nor have you heard anyone else ever say that.
Also what's that nonsense about "unresponsive" combat in MMORPGs? The better MMORPGs have combat which is plenty responsive. It's slower paced, but pacing doesn't inhibit depth if the right game mechanics are employed (though sure you have to employ crisper, tighter game mechanics as you distance yourself from real-time combat, because real-time decision-making is inherently harder to master than slow turn-based decision-making.) In MMORPGs where combat actually is less responsive, that's not a depth thing so much as it's an awful controls implementation that will cause the game to be less fun to play. But several games have WOW-quality responsiveness, so this isn't really a modern problem in MMORPGs.
Well at least axe isn't denying that his argument is a logical fallacy, now he's just attacking you. XD
So to correct a couple points axe made...
MMOs were offered by-name which have more involved travel mechanics than A to B movement. You having not played them does not make them not exist.
"Mastering travel" only applies when the user experience has travel to master. In titles like WoW of course that will be lacking. However, good pilots in Planetside, good mounted technique in BDO, good gliding skills in AA, good driving skills in APB or GTA, good tracking/hunting skills in Ryzom or survival games, etc are all mechanics driven by travel which players can in fact be noted as skilled with.
The rest of the dialogue is either tangential or insults.
Like the ramble he runs off on combat after Ver uses is simply as an example of how one can assert a statement and blind out any counterpoints or refutations. Somehow axe completely missed the obvious there and instead took it as another opportunity to attempt to look smart. I guess it's good for a lark though.
Seriously, if your only capabilities is stating the obvious and then bullshitting for days, you're not helping anyone. Take your own advice axe;
"If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn."
You proved you're unwilling to learn, you proved you don't even vet your own sources since we can quote them against you, you proved your "objective observations" are merely anecdotal opinions of a sliver of the market, and you proved your entire premise of argumentation is built on logical fallacies.
This is far removed from a rational manner of discussion. Time and travel were already shown to be fundamental components of gameplay, they were shown how they can be integrated with many other mechanics to create game depth, they were given examples of actual MMOs which do such things, and there were quotations and links in support of the points made. Everyone can see this as everyone can click about to pages like 4 where the games were first mentioned, or 18 which has a bundle of links, or many of these pages with the quotations.
You have to deny a very clear and apparent reality to make any claim of yours at this point.
Its hard to imagine he's blind to it. Apparently he's either trying to save face or a plant or just trolling.
"If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn." Are you arguing with yourself?
I think everyone has acknowledged that in the Themepark era travel is shallow or even most MMORPG in general. You have yet to acknowledge that other games have meaningful, fun travel or the possibility of it in MMORPG. I would say that Archeage for one has fun travel with gliders and boats in the open seas. You have yet to even admit that nobody is even arguing that current MMORPG has shallow travel. Its your strawman
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent." Current MMORPG do not have shallow travel = argument not advanced by anyone in this thread. You bring up and we don't care because we never mentioned it.
And yes, MMORPG combat is slow shallow and unresponsive. You can look at Destiny selling 500 million in one day. The Division also sold millions. Both of these games have fluid combat. Obviously I observed this and it must be true because I say so.
From page 1 where I describe other genres using deep travel: "There are genres of games where location [travel] is the point. We call them racing games. The reason the best racing games are enjoyable is travel is interesting gameplay in them. (Though notably they don't make you drive the semi to haul your car to the next race location. They skip to the races.) In typical MMORPGs, travel is not interesting gameplay."
Everyone is blindly disagreeing with me without consistently describing their ideal travel. Given that players almost never creatively imagine better versions of things, it's definitely a safe assumption that if someone is in favor of slow travel in MMORPGs, they're in favor of the status quo type of slow travel.
These players aren't imagining turning MMORPG travel into racing game-tier depth and quality. They're imagining shallow travel like they've seen in MMORPGs before, including Archeage. AA having variety to its travel doesn't provide enough depth to its travel to keep it from being boring. Game depth is related to decisions and skill. Having different speed attributes to mounts doesn't change the decisions made in travel. The mount ability provides a teeny little increase to depth, but not enough (travel is still overwhelmingly shallow.)
Earlier in the thread where I did coax someone into basically saying 'yeah, let's do travel in MMORPGs to the same depth that combat is, or that travel is in a racing game!' that just turns conversation into how impossible it would be to achieve that in a MMORPG (the act of spending enough time to make travel that deep would cause the other aspects of the game to be much shallower, and now you have a game which is mostly about travel, and as a result isn't considered a MMORPG because it's nothing like any existing RPGs.) I pointed out it'd be fine for a game to try that out (basically some variation on an MMO Racing game) since it's fine for a game not to be a MMORPG, but you couldn't actually create an MMORPG that way since the very act of trying to do that would cause the game to no longer be recognizable as an MMORPG.
"Unresponsive" is a word with meaning. When you hit a button in WOW to execute an ability, the ability comes out immediately and does its thing, and the responsiveness of WOW (and most MMORPGs nowadays) is at the same level as Destiny. Pretending WOW is less responsive is just wrong.
Destiny has about 2.1 million players who've played recently on Xbox and Playstation combined. WOW has about 5.5 million. The "500 million" number was dollars, not players. The latest install number mentioned is 25 million Destiny accounts (compared with 100 million WOW accounts in 2014)
FPSes do tend to automatically inherit a great amount of depth just from the basic aiming mechanics (especially in games without insta-hit hitscan weapons), but this doesn't speak to the overall depth of play as turn-based games can definitely still be deeper than FPSes. Fully mastering a rotation under all conditions in WOW definitely causes WOW to be one of the deeper games out on the market, but I haven't played Destiny to know if there is anything close to the same amount of depth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
A point isn't "unaddressed" or "ignored" just because you don't like how inconveniently wrong it makes you look.
I'm not the possessor of reality. I'm an observer of reality. I have named many specific games like WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, and ESO to back my points. I've linked to a lot of supporting evidence of my points. What have you linked to? Not much. Your points are mostly driven by opinion.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And I have pointed out that travel can involve deep gameplay. And I've also pointed out why it won't have deep gameplay in MMORPGs, because it takes them in a direction that doesn't fit the aesthetic.
As for the "dangers" that you list, those aren't travel challenges, those are combat challenges. The way you make travel offer deep gameplay wouldn't involve combat (otherwise obviously it'd be the combat being deep, not the travel.)
Travel is typically very boring gameplay, and therefore the exact opposite of "immersion". Deep travel would be more immersive, but less RPG-like (because RPGs typically don't involve excessive slow travel; not videogame RPGs, and not tabletop RPGs.)
Fast food analogies don't really apply to these games, because games like WOW are actually the most expensive, highest-quality experiences available, and still the most popular. It's objectively false that games like these are "mindless", as has been covered in many threads -- the demonology rotation in WOW still stands as the depth bar to beat, and the majority of MMORPGs (and every early MMORPG) has failed to beat it.
Players don't necessarily have to feel something for the characters and world (though that helps). The most important thing to a game is its gameplay. The MMORPG with the best gameplay unsurprisingly ended up with the highest amount of success. MMORPGs with worse gameplay unsurprisingly did worse.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So why bother to immerse anyone in the world when combat works? It is not like players are willing to pay to be immersed in mmo worlds, which, of course, is different from players who are willing to pay for single player open world games.
Sure .. children would not pick healthy food. They pick fun & tasty food right? Do you think children will pick boring non-fun games?
I mean, people are seriously using the ridiculous argument that players, when choosing ENTERTAINMENT (we are not talking about health here, or long term career, or dieting), will choose the LESS entertaining option for any reason?
So players playing Eve is because "it is the path of least resistance because it is an old and familiar game", but it is more boring compared to other modern games?
If you use that ridiculous argument, you will also get nonsensical things like "players will all just watch tv and don't play video games because that is the path of least resistance .. no need to click, or wait for load time .. and we should eliminate TV as a choice so to help video games.
Really?
Do YOU pick the non-fun choice in your games too?
Repeating the same flawed logic is not going to change this.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And now you slip through the "long term" thing. Well, MMOs are not long term anymore. You didn't know? 80% of players quit within 30 days. (And for those who doubt the number, use google, it has been posted many times).
And you also change the argument. You are no longer saying picking the non-fun option when a fun one exist (like slow travel vs fast travel). Now you try to argue long term. Well, there is no "long term" for travel ... either you fast travel now, or slow travel now .. and the experience is for the next 10 min.
Don't tell me now you want an even more ridiculous argument that slow travel today impact my fun 10 years down the road. ha ha ha ha ha ....
yeh ... so are you going to insist and repeat the ridiculous argument that players are going to choose non-fun options so we need to eliminate them (like fast travel)? Or admit that they like fast travel more, and that you have to argue they don't like fun to support slow travel?
Your argument simplified is "If it's designed a certain way, that way is fine." This notion of automatic design infallibility is nonsense. Designs can be flawed.
If I design a game where the point is you being kicked in the balls, that doesn't magically make you enjoy my game. No, it's a bad design and players will avoid it due to the bad design.
If I design a game where the point is lots of tedious slow travel, that doesn't magically make players enjoy the game. It's a bad design and players have avoided such designs.
Why would you bring up "other more successful games"? Literally all of those other games support the focus on fun and depth that I've been harping on this entire thread. None of them support the idea that players enjoy tedious shallow slow travel. It's somewhat circular: reality supports my point because my point is based on the observation of reality.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So how about you try making a non-bullshit comment first.
EDIT: To clarify, this was stated to you previously;
"It's the very point of why quests are so hard-line as a framework to enforce the experience of variety. When the core driver of a game is attaining progress, you have to give players a clear incentive or reason to do many things otherwise they will seek out the most singular and direct route to achieve something. That means any shortcuts that can be taken, any high-payout rewards that can be ground, any little thing which can be turned into a process to progress faster will be sought out even if it's to the contrary of a user's entertainment because of that overarching desire for progress.
Meaning, if most of the game experience was seeded into the game world rather than directed via a quest chain, many users would end up missing a majority of the game's content and subsequent entertainment value if they used fast travel."
I've also stated this;
"Variety and shallowness are only problems when you design an MMORPG to be a static user experience driven by heavily scripted content that they migrate from one scripted element to the next while the world only serves as a backdrop. For themeparks with such a rigid and finite design it's hard to make travel interesting.That's why most of the MMORPG titles shown in example, while plenty of them have quests and such, they are not given in a heavily scripted context and they will take players to all odd-ends of the world in any order as they are individual tasks associated with elements of the game world generally, not driving a singular overarching scripted user experience."
This commentary exactly points out that depending on how the content is implemented within the game the surrounding mechanics can benefit or cripple the user experience.
When the game constrains the user-experience to heavily scripted experiences and discreet actions/activities with little involving the game world, then fast travel benefits them because it curtails the time players spend in the neglected space/parts of the game. When the activities are seeded everywhere and travel is the very means for which these things are discovered and interact without a linear path to follow, then you are ultimately skipping past large chunks of content when you have a feature like fast travel to bypass the world space.
This is all things I've said before. It is only the active pursuit of ignorance at this point which would enable anyone to make the same mistaken argument no one but yourself has made.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"Aside from that though, it's interesting to point out that three of the top grossing games of all time are asian MMOs (Westward Journey $3.9b, Dungeon Fighter $4b, Lineage Series $5.7b) that you would consider grind heavy while WoW is the only western mmo on the top grossing list. Is WoW higher grossing than them at $8.5b? Sure, but it's also standalone and the userbase is not of the same spread as the previous three just mentioned. Since we're also seeing continued production of MMOs out of South Korea, Japan, and even China (and some other places like Malaysia) we can also point out where production is generally heading still."
You are also making a VERY big mistake by claiming "where the point is lots of tedious slow travel" when talking about what's been said on game design. You aren't designing a game with lots of tedious travel, you are designing a game so that travel is an integrated component and interacting with many other features like those previously cited even on the last page, making it a deep and involved mechanic rather than simply a means to reach a destination.
The very argument you stand upon is perpetual re-interpretation of the argument to turn it into something else. I do believe we can quote the wikipedia page you linked previously on this matter;
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
The entire premise of the argument you have posed is derived from an argument that only you have brought up solely for the sake of countering.
You had to go so far as to skew the premise of Vermillion's argument that travel when designed as a integrated component of the game and not as an isolated feature is interesting into saying something entirely different.
When people say "lead by example" they don't mean for you to be the example of all logical fallacies. Ask yourself the question you posed to him next time.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Travel is travel. Everything else is a subjective adjective added. He attempts to taint travel as boring, slow and tedious to reframe the argument from a point of a negative. To concede anything his argument falls apart. Thus he must deny,ignore and push a strawman.
Its like saying MMORPG has slow unresponsive combat compared to other genres. Keep repeating it no matter what when debating if combat in MMORPGs can be enjoyable. Ignore any evidence and keep asking for evidence to the point nobody is going to repeat the same thing over and over.
This is an interesting experiment though. I wonder if some posters serve some purpose here.
Of course because if you concede that then your argument is flat out wrong. You are using a talking point that is a tainted non objective view that travel is boring, slow and tedious. Travel is travel. How its used and accepted by gamers requires function and design.
I could repeat combat is slow, boring and tedious over and over and only accept the worst case scenarios of combat. You showed your hand that you're only talking about WOW and clones by the games you listed.
Case in point here. This is totally meaningless argument. I am guessing you're comparing this to combat or questing here right? The dying western themepark MMORPG genre gets a lot of complaints about combat and meaningless questing. MMORPGquesting is slow, boring and tedious. That's why no developers are making themepark games and they're losing population right?
Another strawman. Of course, those games support fun and exciting long travel. You're the only one talking about slow tedious travel. You have no reality to observe because you're reframing the argument into strawman.
We say that MMORPG travel would be slow and tedious in the current dying themepark genre. You say travel is slow and tedious by your observation that aren't themepark then use themeparks as your examples. You halfway concede that successful games based around travel don't have slow tedious travel. Then turn around and say travel is slow and tedious. Get it together.
Throwing up your hands and implying we can't know the depth of travel (because "everything else is subjective") is nonsense. The objective measure of depth is a combination of the size of the decision set of a game, and the number of viable strategies within that set (and how frequently those viable decisions change due to dynamic factors.)
If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn.
Meanwhile the reality is that travel in MMORPGs is inarguably shallow. Are you really suggesting that a discussion on travel in MMORPGs should ignore the current reality of travel in MMORPGs?
It would move conversation forward for you to simply admit the obvious objective truth that travel is shallow in all MMORPGs. A recognition of the most obvious traits of travel would allow conversation to move into addressing or avoiding the problem of shallow travel.
I mean it's not like that's something you can disagree with, right? The decision set and difficulty of mastering travel in MMORPGs has never been even remotely deep. You have never called someone "skilled" at travel in MMORPGs, nor have you heard anyone else ever say that.
Also what's that nonsense about "unresponsive" combat in MMORPGs? The better MMORPGs have combat which is plenty responsive. It's slower paced, but pacing doesn't inhibit depth if the right game mechanics are employed (though sure you have to employ crisper, tighter game mechanics as you distance yourself from real-time combat, because real-time decision-making is inherently harder to master than slow turn-based decision-making.) In MMORPGs where combat actually is less responsive, that's not a depth thing so much as it's an awful controls implementation that will cause the game to be less fun to play. But several games have WOW-quality responsiveness, so this isn't really a modern problem in MMORPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Of course most people quit themeparks in 30 days. Themeparks are designed to be completed in a week to month as a single player game. This was done get immediate funds from players. Problem is these games have on going cost. You know this though.
So I am choosing between playing Eve and D3 ... oh well, i don't really like fun .. so I choose Eve ... really?
The experience of slow travel is identical whether the option of fast travel is there or not. If people choose to fast travel, you really think that they ACTUALLY PREFER slow travel? You are arguing they are missing the slow travel experience .. which is true .. but asserting that they actually like it but choose to skip it anyway ... ha ha ha ha ha ha .....
That makes less sense than calling World of Tank a MMO. At least websites have a good reason to broaden the definition of WoT. And i thought people here are all for reasoning. I guess not.
You know you're kind of proving the point about path of least resistance? Players will always opt to do the easiest things unless they're set on doing the hardest.
Those players who use the gun are having fun .. more fun than not using the gun. Only those who do not have the fun are not having fun. The dev is not protecting the players who use the death gun, he is protecting those on the receiving end.
And this is just a red herring .. because slow/fast travel affect no one else except the player who is making the decision.
But nice try ... it is funny to see people keeping arguing that people will choose the less fun option. I am quite sure that is how you choose you games. That is why you play sandbox MMORPGs, right? ha ha ha ha ha ha .....
You're not talking about the most fun option. You're talking about the most convenient option. Yes, players will ruin their own fun to do something more convenient or give them better options or being forced to compete. In the situation with an out of balanced guns other players are forced to pick the deathgun to compete. Trust me cheese and exploits get boring very fast to most players involved.
In a game based around slow travel it could easily effect other players. Take Archeage for example. If you could fast travel trade packs it would effect PvP. Thus the same situation as the gun. If allowed to quick travel players would do it.
But if you're so right how come there are no more themepark MMORPGs being made for your line of thinking anymore? Oh, that's right they've done exactly what you've said to do. Now there isn't a profitable audience to sell to. Seems to speak for itself that the millions pumped into themepark branch and its still declining. Only handful of games can even claim not to be highly niche and that's debatable.
So to correct a couple points axe made...
- MMOs were offered by-name which have more involved travel mechanics than A to B movement. You having not played them does not make them not exist.
- "Mastering travel" only applies when the user experience has travel to master. In titles like WoW of course that will be lacking. However, good pilots in Planetside, good mounted technique in BDO, good gliding skills in AA, good driving skills in APB or GTA, good tracking/hunting skills in Ryzom or survival games, etc are all mechanics driven by travel which players can in fact be noted as skilled with.
The rest of the dialogue is either tangential or insults.Like the ramble he runs off on combat after Ver uses is simply as an example of how one can assert a statement and blind out any counterpoints or refutations. Somehow axe completely missed the obvious there and instead took it as another opportunity to attempt to look smart. I guess it's good for a lark though.
Seriously, if your only capabilities is stating the obvious and then bullshitting for days, you're not helping anyone. Take your own advice axe;
"If you're not willing to put forth a little effort to understand these concepts, why bother posting on the topic at all? To discuss things in an intelligent manner requires a certain level of knowledge on the topic, or at least a willingness to learn."
You proved you're unwilling to learn, you proved you don't even vet your own sources since we can quote them against you, you proved your "objective observations" are merely anecdotal opinions of a sliver of the market, and you proved your entire premise of argumentation is built on logical fallacies.
This is far removed from a rational manner of discussion. Time and travel were already shown to be fundamental components of gameplay, they were shown how they can be integrated with many other mechanics to create game depth, they were given examples of actual MMOs which do such things, and there were quotations and links in support of the points made. Everyone can see this as everyone can click about to pages like 4 where the games were first mentioned, or 18 which has a bundle of links, or many of these pages with the quotations.
You have to deny a very clear and apparent reality to make any claim of yours at this point.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I think everyone has acknowledged that in the Themepark era travel is shallow or even most MMORPG in general. You have yet to acknowledge that other games have meaningful, fun travel or the possibility of it in MMORPG. I would say that Archeage for one has fun travel with gliders and boats in the open seas. You have yet to even admit that nobody is even arguing that current MMORPG has shallow travel. Its your strawman
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent." Current MMORPG do not have shallow travel = argument not advanced by anyone in this thread. You bring up and we don't care because we never mentioned it.
And yes, MMORPG combat is slow shallow and unresponsive. You can look at Destiny selling 500 million in one day. The Division also sold millions. Both of these games have fluid combat. Obviously I observed this and it must be true because I say so.
Its hard to imagine he's blind to it. Apparently he's either trying to save face or a plant or just trolling.
Everyone is blindly disagreeing with me without consistently describing their ideal travel. Given that players almost never creatively imagine better versions of things, it's definitely a safe assumption that if someone is in favor of slow travel in MMORPGs, they're in favor of the status quo type of slow travel.
These players aren't imagining turning MMORPG travel into racing game-tier depth and quality. They're imagining shallow travel like they've seen in MMORPGs before, including Archeage. AA having variety to its travel doesn't provide enough depth to its travel to keep it from being boring. Game depth is related to decisions and skill. Having different speed attributes to mounts doesn't change the decisions made in travel. The mount ability provides a teeny little increase to depth, but not enough (travel is still overwhelmingly shallow.)
Earlier in the thread where I did coax someone into basically saying 'yeah, let's do travel in MMORPGs to the same depth that combat is, or that travel is in a racing game!' that just turns conversation into how impossible it would be to achieve that in a MMORPG (the act of spending enough time to make travel that deep would cause the other aspects of the game to be much shallower, and now you have a game which is mostly about travel, and as a result isn't considered a MMORPG because it's nothing like any existing RPGs.) I pointed out it'd be fine for a game to try that out (basically some variation on an MMO Racing game) since it's fine for a game not to be a MMORPG, but you couldn't actually create an MMORPG that way since the very act of trying to do that would cause the game to no longer be recognizable as an MMORPG.
"Unresponsive" is a word with meaning. When you hit a button in WOW to execute an ability, the ability comes out immediately and does its thing, and the responsiveness of WOW (and most MMORPGs nowadays) is at the same level as Destiny. Pretending WOW is less responsive is just wrong.
Destiny has about 2.1 million players who've played recently on Xbox and Playstation combined. WOW has about 5.5 million. The "500 million" number was dollars, not players. The latest install number mentioned is 25 million Destiny accounts (compared with 100 million WOW accounts in 2014)
FPSes do tend to automatically inherit a great amount of depth just from the basic aiming mechanics (especially in games without insta-hit hitscan weapons), but this doesn't speak to the overall depth of play as turn-based games can definitely still be deeper than FPSes. Fully mastering a rotation under all conditions in WOW definitely causes WOW to be one of the deeper games out on the market, but I haven't played Destiny to know if there is anything close to the same amount of depth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver