You also seem to miss the point of the adventure of making things happen on your own. In SWG the origin of the term themepark you were given the choice and quest were something you did by choice. Much of the magic of old MMORPG's was not knowing. It was doing what you wanted. In EQ I leveled up a Qeynos character in Freeport because I wanted to make the journey which was dangerous and fun as a low level. Today's MMORPG's everyone levels in the same spots. In UO I robbed people at the crossroads of Vesper and fought massive wars between PK's and anti-PKs. In AC I wandered the huge map just to see what was there and died hours out to some flame spitting rat after trying to out run it.
Questing is overdone. Gameplay, the world, the genre are tied to questing. It was novel with WoW but its been 10 years and its old. There is a such thing as too much of a good thing. Most players given the option would skip all questing and be instant max levels. Most MMORPG's are essentially bad Bioware RPGs. It has even effected my single player RPG experience because I don't have much patients to hear the story anymore.
When I play a modern MMORPG, much of the magic still is in not knowing. The most common form of fun in games revolves around pattern mastery (Koster 2003), and the exploration of a game's systems is exactly that: unraveling a new unfamiliar pattern and toying with it until you master it.
Equivalents of the situations you describe happen in every game. It's just that nowadays games have cut out the most painful and most pointlessly un-fun parts. If those parts had significant purpose, they would have remained. They didn't, so they're gone.
Providing variety and getting players to the fun are the primary purposes of quests. They may provide lore in the process, but their main purpose is showing players a bunch of activities to do which are ideally fun and varied and keep the game interesting. They're wildly successful when done right. So criticizing them is a little like a puzzle enthusiast criticizing a puzzle store opening up in their area (before internet) and making it too easy to find a variety of puzzles -- no actually that puzzle store is mostly just overwhelmingly positive, and the actual fun experienced finding puzzles was minimal at best.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Anyway, ESO is the most liner game I had ever played.
This is how you play it :
First you have the starting area up to about level 3, then you move to your first real zone level 4-10. Your allowed to quest two levels at a time by moving across the map either bottom to top or left to right. Don't try going too far because you will be above your level. When the content gets a little easer proceed farther to the right. When you get to level 10 you'll be strong enough to run the entire zone to collect your crafting mats. Then you can move to the 11-20 zone and so on......Don't bother making any friends because your on a mega server and never see them again.......Don't bother joining a Guild because you don't need one its liner, just move left to right .......MMO my Butt !!
If you're a "oldschool" gamer I suspect your playstyle has changed allot?
While ESO is nothing like a oldschoolgame it definitly doesn't have to be played that linear as delete5230 makes it out to be. Atleast in my opinion.
Also in older MMORPG's we had area's/worlds/planets that were above your level/skill. And like ESO you where still able to explore but obvious not able to do much more except some harvesting.
Making friends doesn't really matter if it's a 3k server or megaserver. Multible way's to connect to them. Not really sure what your issue is on this.
Regardless if a game is linear or more open some players like to be guilded no matter what. Overcome challenges together, create their own challenges.
While I don't like the direction this genre has gone into I feel I am still that old school player, I still find my own niche even in those so-called linear games.
OP: Really enjoyed your post...brought back some great memories..
Look we know you are an avid defender of Eso but the game is as linear as he describes it. Are you telling me that from level one I can go to any top level area without doing a single quest?
Already a problem right here because you ASUME I am a defender of ESO instead of looking at it as a defender of my own playstyle. Which I know is different then how the masses seem to play these games.
And to asnwer your question: I have no idea only recall me being in the 10+ and think the highest out-level area I have gotten in too was around 40+ and as said obviously I couldn't do much just like in the old day's.
And to make it clear I didn't say ESO isn't linear, I said you don't have to play the game linear, but that has all to do with how a person wants to play the game. And for me what Delete5230 said was NOT how I experiance my time in ESO. Try to keep in mind I am sharing my personal experiance. And too be honost if ESO would feel like Delete5230 descibed I honstly wouldn't have played the game. But again that's my personal opinion. Also I am not saying Delete5320 is wrong because that was his experiance witht the game, where my only question to him was if he changed his playstyle compared to how old school games where played.
Evidenced in this discussion is the very "gamerational" gap (TM) I began to talk about.
How does one define "play"? If you google for the definition, the first definition that comes up is as follows:
verb 1 - engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose.
So in this gamerational gap we have one group who wants to define what gameplay "is." The other group seems to understand that play, by its very definition, defies such defining.
Trying to impose a purely subjective view on anyone else, which is a fallacy, since it's purely subjective what is enjoyable and not serious to a person is what is happening here. We've got old-schoolers saying that exploration, socialization and the like are enjoyable distractions from their practical, serious real world lives. We have the new schoolers here saying they are going to define what gameplay is for everyone, and it isn't the aforementioned activities. It is sticking to the practical and serious system, as far as the "game rules" are concerned, which is hilariously the opposite of the definition of play. Half of the word gameplay.
And herein lies the struggle that developers have to grapple with. A HUGE disconnect in the MMORPG community about not only what an MMO should be, but we cannot even seem to agree on the core fundamental and philosophical foundations that such a game is BASED on.
To think, 10 years ago I gave serious consideration to becoming a game designer. I would have been an abysmal failure, as I would have never guessed that the definition of the word play would get turned inside out.
This was so well said, and deserves to be quoted a few dozen times.
Originally posted by phumbaba
Originally posted by nolf
The point you are missing here, is that what seems to be left behind is the idea that the journey in and of itself can be rewarding, not just the destination.
Thanks for the nice read OP:)
The above quote is in my opinion very important, as it to some extent summarizes the difference in point of views. I still maintain my stand that gameplay can be found anywhere if the player knows where to look for (and in the ideal case, how to create it himself). Your example of that is in my opinion very good.
In modern games, players need more incentives, are used to guiding and as such Axe's view is common and feels right to most. The long term challenge still remains, how should mmorpgs tap that potential while making it feel immediate enough for players like Axe. In the meanwhile, well, you know. Diversification and so on.
Glad you folks can appreciate and enjoy the perspective! It's nice to know there's folks around who also yearn for a little more balance in what is considered gameplay in our MMOs.
I really hope that *insert game name here* will be the first game to ever live up to all of its pre-release promises, maintain a manageable hype level and have a clean release. Just don't expect me to hold my breath.
Reading what you wrote OP you spent one hour creating your character, 3 hours wandering about and then 4 hours with your new friends. That is 8 hours you spent. I am not making any judgments or trying to pour cold water on your recollection but when I started playing Everquest I too spend an inordinate amount of time on it and when it almost ended my marriage I kind of woke up.
I do spend time playing if I can everyday but I have really cut down long sessions. Much maligned are games these days perhaps they should add a turn off quest markers and locations in the options to help people but they are there to a large extent because people want to spend less time looking for quests and locations. That sounds very unromantic but that is in a nutshell the reason for the changes.
I agree with flyte where he talks about guilt. I suffer from it especially because my son was younger then when I played Everquest and I think I neglected to speak more to him. He now of course plays games but those moments with him are lost forever because I did not leave Everquest long enough to spend more time talking to him. I was not as neglectful as those parents who have starved their kids while playing but I was neglectful.
I cannot go back to those days while I may think of my times in Everquest fondly well perhaps not the 36 hours trying to get my corpses from Fear I still love that game. It was the best time of my MMORPG life. I cannot however in good conscience ever play like that again. I know that people say you can get the same thing in smaller doses but you cannot. You needed to spend large chunks of time in those games to progress. If I left my spot on Sol B I cannot get it back because there is a queue and so you stay as long as you can. When you stay as long as you can other parts of your life suffer. This is the cold hard truth of the reality why games these days do not expect more than a couple of hours at a time from you.
We are forlorn and wistful because we cannot immerse ourselves like we could in the old games but we often forget the toll it took on other aspects of our lives. Yes we hope a happy medium can be attained and what we have these days the lobby games with slices of zones and experiences doled out to us in small sizes simply cannot answer the void in us.
I think the games these days have only been borne out of the need to allow us to enjoy this genre as a hobby and their inelegant solutions are jarring and we want better solutions and we hope times improve but seriously so many of you come on these boards and start threads about the good old days and wax poetic about them do not give the current games enough of a chance. Granted some of them are bad but you need to try them harder and try to like them better because they allow you to also do other things in life.
Go back and try the games that are available now and approach them differently. I enjoy them and although I can never get back the magic of Everquest I have found some enjoyment in SWTOR,FFXIV ARR,ESO yes even Wildstar and I think TSW is rather unique. As long as you grouse and never try to find some merit in what is out there currently you will never be able to move on. I see the usual suspects starting threads about how sad they are that they cannot find anything they can like and in my opinion as long as they continue along this path no game will ever be able to satisfy them even moderately because nothing can compete with your memory.
First of all, I am definitely not forlorn. I DO enjoy the time I spend in SWTOR, and even go back and play WoW (pretty much the antithesis of my preferred gameplay style) for stints every once in a while. I try new games that show promise in what I would like to see, and often times I come across something great. I think archeage was an amazing concept, I just couldn't live with its execution. So please don't misunderstand, I'm not on here bitching. I'm on here trying to have a meaningful discussion about the state of our genre, and the community divide that is evidenced in this very thread.
As far as amount of time to invest, I never really had a problem balancing my gaming life and my real life. My social card is, generally speaking, always full. I excel in my professional life. I still to this day will clear my schedule for a day or two when an MMO I am really interested in playing launches. Yes, adulthood happens. I didn't have any children during my SWG days. But even now that I do, I am able to spend a good amount of time on an MMO responsibly. So not everyone is aging the same way as you are, as a gamer. Even when I was young and dumb, I was able to strike a balance between real life and gaming. Back then I used to look at MMOs as a $15/month expenditure that kept me from blowing my whole paycheck in the bar 4 or 5 nights a week catching STDs from drunk skanks like my contemporaries were. The fact that you feel like your offspring was neglected and your marriage suffered kind of makes me think of that college roommate I had that started all of this for me.
Perhaps my introduction to the genre being a cautionary tale was a really good thing in the long run.
I really hope that *insert game name here* will be the first game to ever live up to all of its pre-release promises, maintain a manageable hype level and have a clean release. Just don't expect me to hold my breath.
How many types of "gameplay" are there, oh wise one? Is the ONE that you enjoy most the ONLY one for all of us?
And we wonder why developers "just do not get it..."
Gameplay is decision-making, so tons of variety exists.
You should allow your wonder to transition into thought. That would cause you to look across all of gaming and realize gamers' strong overall preference of gameplay, since those are by far the majority of games being made and played. Then you'll realize developers do get it. And your journey will end in knowledge, and wonder will cease.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To this day, I have never played TERA, TSW, or ESO. If I was to pick those games up today the mystery would certainly be there. I know nothing of the lore, the classes, the combat, or really any other component outside of a few features.
The game would be a blast until it became time to group or raid. I'd walk into a dungeon with a random group of strangers and I'd be expected to know what I am doing. Stack here, avoid this mechanic, follow this mix/max build, etc. The mystery dies there, it's not enough that I don't know whats going on, I have to play with others that don't know either and that experience is gone from the genre completely.
While I can do everything in my power to avoid the 3rd party sites, not use the quest markers, and disable telegraphs, I can not stop Bobby or Jane from doing it. And I can't not stop Bobby or Jane from chatting with me about it. That's what has ruined the experience.
I go into GW2's sPvP on my warrior with a shield and get one of two responses:
1) "Haha, you scrub. Nobody uses shield noob, gtfo." -Enemy or "Oh jeez, noob is using a shield. This a lose. AFK" -Team
2) "Hey man, I saw you using a shield. You must be new to sPvP. You should check out (website) on how to play your class. BTW shield is bad. If you need any pointers, let me know!"
Both responses are equally as bad. They both take the mystery right out of the game and immediately the enjoyment is ruined. People suck, they really do.......no wonder every game is becoming solo.
Gameplay is decision-making, so tons of variety exists.
You should allow your wonder to transition into thought. That would cause you to look across all of gaming and realize gamers' strong overall preference of gameplay, since those are by far the majority of games being made and played. Then you'll realize developers do get it. And your journey will end in knowledge, and wonder will cease.
What if wonder is the sole source of fun many are able to derive from the games? Without wonder, is there any puzzle left? If there is no puzzle, where is the fun? (to use the terms you are used to:))
In this case, if the puzzle is "why devs don't get it?", the moment you know the answer (money?) is the moment there's no fun to it. Whereas, if you do not believe your answer is all there is to it, you can plan a journey to validate it or find a better answer generating a more complex puzzle and more fun.
Imagination is a great source of wonder. Perhaps the idea of allowing removal of exclamation marks, mini map etc would work as a band aid. Too bad quests are not designed for that; they are mostly designed for gating progression as disposable content.
Lower the pace with fewer and longer quests, lower power spectrum, require some understanding of lore and mechanisms to get to solutions, require some exploration and watch it burn in the cries of "too difficult, too slow"? From the corpse, pillage the exclamation marks and the radars and you are forced to attempt embalming the remains as they decay too fast?
Actually, tsw's quests are widely valued and commended. If gamers are able to accept and value such quest design, would it be possible to expand on it? More difficult gameplay such as dark souls isn't doing too bad either. Would be great to know what percentage of es fans are completely happy with eso (no offense)? I wonder.. I think many devs get it very well, but not all are able to do what they want and some do not even want to do it even if they get it.
What if wonder is the sole source of fun many are able to derive from the games? Without wonder, is there any puzzle left? If there is no puzzle, where is the fun? (to use the terms you are used to:))
In this case, if the puzzle is "why devs don't get it?", the moment you know the answer (money?) is the moment there's no fun to it. Whereas, if you do not believe your answer is all there is to it, you can plan a journey to validate it or find a better answer generating a more complex puzzle and more fun.
Imagination is a great source of wonder. Perhaps the idea of allowing removal of exclamation marks, mini map etc would work as a band aid. Too bad quests are not designed for that; they are mostly designed for gating progression as disposable content.
Lower the pace with fewer and longer quests, lower power spectrum, require some understanding of lore and mechanisms to get to solutions, require some exploration and watch it burn in the cries of "too difficult, too slow"? From the corpse, pillage the exclamation marks and the radars and you are forced to attempt embalming the remains as they decay too fast?
Actually, tsw's quests are widely valued and commended. If gamers are able to accept and value such quest design, would it be possible to expand on it? More difficult gameplay such as dark souls isn't doing too bad either. Would be great to know what percentage of es fans are completely happy with eso (no offense)? I wonder.. I think many devs get it very well, but not all are able to do what they want and some do not even want to do it even if they get it.
The context is he wondered why developers "didn't get it". I encouraged him to think the problem through and come to the realization that all of the most successful games are gameplay-focused. That knowledge will mean he'll no longer wonder why developers "don't get it", because he'll have realized they do get it.
In games wonder is great because it implies an interesting problem, which requires a solution (a decision), and decision-making is gameplay, and gameplay-focused games are the most successful games.
Wonder represents the thirst for knowledge, and that's great. However the difficulty of the problem sets an expectation for how long someone should spend wondering about something before they know about it. I'd be pretty concerned about someone who still hasn't figured out how to kill Hogger 10 years after release, and I'm pretty concerned about someone who still hasn't figured out how entertainment industries work after observing them for a decade. Often I spell it out verbatim for people to help them understand, but in this case I tried a new tact: recommending that people figure it out for themselves. The information is out there. The evidence of which games succeed is out there. The problem is not difficult, they just need to look and think.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You also seem to miss the point of the adventure of making things happen on your own. In SWG the origin of the term themepark you were given the choice and quest were something you did by choice. Much of the magic of old MMORPG's was not knowing. It was doing what you wanted. In EQ I leveled up a Qeynos character in Freeport because I wanted to make the journey which was dangerous and fun as a low level. Today's MMORPG's everyone levels in the same spots. In UO I robbed people at the crossroads of Vesper and fought massive wars between PK's and anti-PKs. In AC I wandered the huge map just to see what was there and died hours out to some flame spitting rat after trying to out run it.
Questing is overdone. Gameplay, the world, the genre are tied to questing. It was novel with WoW but its been 10 years and its old. There is a such thing as too much of a good thing. Most players given the option would skip all questing and be instant max levels. Most MMORPG's are essentially bad Bioware RPGs. It has even effected my single player RPG experience because I don't have much patients to hear the story anymore.
When I play a modern MMORPG, much of the magic still is in not knowing. The most common form of fun in games revolves around pattern mastery (Koster 2003), and the exploration of a game's systems is exactly that: unraveling a new unfamiliar pattern and toying with it until you master it.
Equivalents of the situations you describe happen in every game. It's just that nowadays games have cut out the most painful and most pointlessly un-fun parts. If those parts had significant purpose, they would have remained. They didn't, so they're gone.
Providing variety and getting players to the fun are the primary purposes of quests. They may provide lore in the process, but their main purpose is showing players a bunch of activities to do which are ideally fun and varied and keep the game interesting. They're wildly successful when done right. So criticizing them is a little like a puzzle enthusiast criticizing a puzzle store opening up in their area (before internet) and making it too easy to find a variety of puzzles -- no actually that puzzle store is mostly just overwhelmingly positive, and the actual fun experienced finding puzzles was minimal at best.
They don't generally happen. Most games you can't really aimlessly wander, band together and find things to do because everything is streamlined. Questlines/funneled worlds/queues all lead to things being predictable. If you don't like or understand that type of gameplay its fine. But unfun is subjective. Quest hubs are unfun repetitive crap I've been doing for 11 years or so.
Quest are not variety. Quest are not fun to everyone. Especially when they become grind/burden/boring. Even awful mob grinds generally give you choice where and what you want to hunt provided the NPC's have different behaviors/weakness. But all quest can be stripped down the same 7 types.
Things don't always remain because they're wanted. Cutting corners and appeasing the base wants of gamers is what has ruled most MMORPG.
They don't generally happen. Most games you can't really aimlessly wander, band together and find things to do because everything is streamlined. Questlines/funneled worlds/queues all lead to things being predictable. If you don't like or understand that type of gameplay its fine. But unfun is subjective. Quest hubs are unfun repetitive crap I've been doing for 11 years or so.
Quest are not variety. Quest are not fun to everyone. Especially when they become grind/burden/boring. Even awful mob grinds generally give you choice where and what you want to hunt provided the NPC's have different behaviors/weakness. But all quest can be stripped down the same 7 types.
Things don't always remain because they're wanted. Cutting corners and appeasing the base wants of gamers is what has ruled most MMORPG.
Eh, quest hubs are a big part of the reason exploration still exists -- and in a more meaningful capacity (there's actual content out there to find!) than what you would find in older MMORPGs where your best hope was to find another same-level mob with different art (and not even different capabilities, since mobs in those early games tended to be virtually identical in terms of gameplay)
I've found several quest hubs by just randomly choosing a direction and exploring in FFXIV so far. And also wasted my time finding a several areas that were too tough for me, which wasn't nearly as fun.
I'm interested to hear how you think doing different things (questing) isn't variety. Where I'm from that's the definition of variety. And it's variety in the most meaningful way too: it changes what you do, not merely what you see. You'd have to deliberately ignore what you're doing to pretend it isn't variety.
The status quo isn't always maintained because it's wanted, sure. But we're talking about the most common core reason players have played videogames since they became a thing. This isn't some purposeless tradition, it's the core way people have proven time and time again to enjoy games. It goes way beyond MMORPGs and applies to all interactive entertainment.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
... No one had any real idea where this supposed battlefield was. A guy apparently knew a guy who knew a guy who gave him rough coordinates to it. We wandered mostly aimlessly, in the general direction we thought we were meant to go. ...
This isn't rose coloured glasses though, games weren't min-maxed and mapped out as much and people were generally less fussy about a lot because they didn't know any better. Someone posted a few weeks ago that it is the mystery that they are trying to recapture but there is little left. I'd say ironically games are deliberately trying to remove mystery in that they seek balance and fairness which is arguably its antithesis.
This is actually false.FFXI one of the first major MMORPG's uses a same level or within a couple levels for it's pvp based system.Since that time games have actually gone the OTHER way making it LESS fair.
Some games constantly claim balancing yet have systems that make balancing not work.Perfect example is ZERG type pvp,how can you ever balance that?Some games even allow vast level differences and separate pvp gear that one might have more of or better of than it;s opponent/s.
Balance and fairness isn't just about 1v1 pvp. Loot tables are blander to reduce grinding for some rare drop, class roles are blander to reduce implicit need for a monk puller or ccer etc, one type of game play is generally not overpowered for example crafting items are generally not out of touch of pve gear and a lot of work is done to balance this out or one group or another complains. This is the entire point of my post and it is a shame many miss it.
They don't generally happen. Most games you can't really aimlessly wander, band together and find things to do because everything is streamlined. Questlines/funneled worlds/queues all lead to things being predictable. If you don't like or understand that type of gameplay its fine. But unfun is subjective. Quest hubs are unfun repetitive crap I've been doing for 11 years or so.
Quest are not variety. Quest are not fun to everyone. Especially when they become grind/burden/boring. Even awful mob grinds generally give you choice where and what you want to hunt provided the NPC's have different behaviors/weakness. But all quest can be stripped down the same 7 types.
Things don't always remain because they're wanted. Cutting corners and appeasing the base wants of gamers is what has ruled most MMORPG.
Eh, quest hubs are a big part of the reason exploration still exists -- and in a more meaningful capacity (there's actual content out there to find!) than what you would find in older MMORPGs where your best hope was to find another same-level mob with different art (and not even different capabilities, since mobs in those early games tended to be virtually identical in terms of gameplay)
I've found several quest hubs by just randomly choosing a direction and exploring in FFXIV so far. And also wasted my time finding a several areas that were too tough for me, which wasn't nearly as fun.
I'm interested to hear how you think doing different things (questing) isn't variety. Where I'm from that's the definition of variety. And it's variety in the most meaningful way too: it changes what you do, not merely what you see. You'd have to deliberately ignore what you're doing to pretend it isn't variety.
The status quo isn't always maintained because it's wanted, sure. But we're talking about the most common core reason players have played videogames since they became a thing. This isn't some purposeless tradition, it's the core way people have proven time and time again to enjoy games. It goes way beyond MMORPGs and applies to all interactive entertainment.
Exploring
to traverse or range over (a outcome.
an electronic system that uses these satellites to <span oneclick-available"="">determine the position of a vehicle, person, etc.:
Discovery
to sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown):
Quest
a search or pursuit made in order to find or obtain something:
Basically you can't explore, adventure, discover, or quest with a GPS because you have already discovered it with the GPS.
Sheep
a person who is too easily influenced or led.
Static
lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting.
Pattern
A natural or accidental arrangement or sequence.
When you combine Sheep, Static, and Pattern you have a quest hub in MMOs.
They don't generally happen. Most games you can't really aimlessly wander, band together and find things to do because everything is streamlined. Questlines/funneled worlds/queues all lead to things being predictable. If you don't like or understand that type of gameplay its fine. But unfun is subjective. Quest hubs are unfun repetitive crap I've been doing for 11 years or so.
Quest are not variety. Quest are not fun to everyone. Especially when they become grind/burden/boring. Even awful mob grinds generally give you choice where and what you want to hunt provided the NPC's have different behaviors/weakness. But all quest can be stripped down the same 7 types.
Things don't always remain because they're wanted. Cutting corners and appeasing the base wants of gamers is what has ruled most MMORPG.
Eh, quest hubs are a big part of the reason exploration still exists -- and in a more meaningful capacity (there's actual content out there to find!) than what you would find in older MMORPGs where your best hope was to find another same-level mob with different art (and not even different capabilities, since mobs in those early games tended to be virtually identical in terms of gameplay)
I've found several quest hubs by just randomly choosing a direction and exploring in FFXIV so far. And also wasted my time finding a several areas that were too tough for me, which wasn't nearly as fun.
I'm interested to hear how you think doing different things (questing) isn't variety. Where I'm from that's the definition of variety. And it's variety in the most meaningful way too: it changes what you do, not merely what you see. You'd have to deliberately ignore what you're doing to pretend it isn't variety.
The status quo isn't always maintained because it's wanted, sure. But we're talking about the most common core reason players have played videogames since they became a thing. This isn't some purposeless tradition, it's the core way people have proven time and time again to enjoy games. It goes way beyond MMORPGs and applies to all interactive entertainment.
Exploration doesn't exist in the same way because you don't really have a game world. You have areas that facilitate quest hubs. Its a matter of preference as well. Mobs did have different behaviors and strengths and weakness in most top older games. What ability mobs had in say EQ did make a difference in how you approached. I don't even like Mob grinding.
I would say that questhubs are fine when its not vast mandatory progression tools. Its bad when you're whole gaming experience and world is a quest hub. Its bad when the majority quest are half assed filler fedex quest. When you have done hundreds of quest that are the same 7 thingd repackaged and skinned it doesn't seem like variety. It becomes more of the same from game to game.
Sometimes you have can't have your cake and eat it too. MMORPG developers go by metrics. Choices of players generally will be the most instantly gratifying and easiest. Then are continued to be conditioned to expect that even if long term gameplay is undesirable because it.
an electronic system that uses these satellites to <span oneclick-available"="">determine the position of a vehicle, person, etc.:
Discovery
to sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown):
Quest
a search or pursuit made in order to find or obtain something:
Basically you can't explore, adventure, discover, or quest with a GPS because you have already discovered it with the GPS.
Sheep
a person who is too easily influenced or led.
Static
lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting.
Pattern
A natural or accidental arrangement or sequence.
When you combine Sheep, Static, and Pattern you have a quest hub in MMOs.
Perhaps you don't understand. When I explored to find quest hubs, I did it the same way as I have in most quest-based games: I traversed land for the purpose of discovery. I discovered quest hubs, then did the quests. Then I'd explore some more.
But beyond that explore means 2. to look into closely; scrutinize; examine. So even if I wasn't traversing land for the purpose of discovery, I could be traversing less literal spaces for the purposes of discovery (I explore game systems, UIs, tech trees, etc; it's just about looking into something closely for the purpose of discovery.)
So I'm not sure what point you hoped to make, as both the first two definitions of explore apply to what I do in modern MMORPGs.
Quests are static, but so was the gameplay of pre-quest MMORPGs, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. A bunch of random wandering mobs aren't exactly dynamic gameplay (at least not any more dynamic than the parts of quests which are dynamic.)
Patterns are the core of what makes games fun (Koster, 2003), so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Exploration doesn't exist in the same way because you don't really have a game world. You have areas that facilitate quest hubs. Its a matter of preference as well. Mobs did have different behaviors and strengths and weakness in most top older games. What ability mobs had in say EQ did make a difference in how you approached. I don't even like Mob grinding.
I would say that questhubs are fine when its not vast mandatory progression tools. Its bad when you're whole gaming experience and world is a quest hub. Its bad when the majority quest are half assed filler fedex quest. When you have done hundreds of quest that are the same 7 thingd repackaged and skinned it doesn't seem like variety. It becomes more of the same from game to game.
Sometimes you have can't have your cake and eat it too. MMORPG developers go by metrics. Choices of players generally will be the most instantly gratifying and easiest. Then are continued to be conditioned to expect that even if long term gameplay is undesirable because it.
It's all still exploration. I ventured places and discovered things.
Maybe EQ had better mob design than the other ~10 early MMORPGs I played. Admittedly even many modern MMORPGs don't vary mobs enough to change the way you fight.
Bad quests are bad, obviously, but quests as a general rule are a dramatically better way of varying gameplay and seeing different things than what came before. Early MMORPGs indirectly penalized you for moving around the game world, since that was time not spent earning XP.
It at least makes sense if players who dislike quests are willing to admit they're actively seeking less variety in their game. And that can be fine. For example, while Skyrim has a ton of variety, the fact that it kitchen-sinked every conceivable feature into the game means that most of its features are pretty cruddy (especially its combat.) So I didn't enjoy the game as much as if it had gone with fewer features but polished them more.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by AlBQuirky How many types of "gameplay" are there, oh wise one? Is the ONE that you enjoy most the ONLY one for all of us?And we wonder why developers "just do not get it..."
Gameplay is decision-making, so tons of variety exists.You should allow your wonder to transition into thought. That would cause you to look across all of gaming and realize gamers' strong overall preference of gameplay, since those are by far the majority of games being made and played. Then you'll realize developers do get it. And your journey will end in knowledge, and wonder will cease.
Really? The "only" way a player can play a game is to make decisions? I guess deep down, this is probably correct. You basically "decide" to watch players run by or not, "decide" to chat with someone or not, "decide" to craft some items or not, "decide" to wander on the road or off of it or not, "decide" to help another player or not, "decide" to attack a group of mobs or not, "decide" to decorate a house or not. Lots of decisions being made. And NOT just "which button do I click to do the most damage."
Listen to your own advice and "think." You definitely think some decisions make better gameplay than others. That is fine. Have the courtesy to accept that other players may differ in opinions and *your way* is not the *only way*. Just because *you* do not think moving an item in a house is gameplay does not mean it is not.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
How many types of "gameplay" are there, oh wise one? Is the ONE that you enjoy most the ONLY one for all of us?
And we wonder why developers "just do not get it..."
Gameplay is decision-making, so tons of variety exists.
You should allow your wonder to transition into thought. That would cause you to look across all of gaming and realize gamers' strong overall preference of gameplay, since those are by far the majority of games being made and played. Then you'll realize developers do get it. And your journey will end in knowledge, and wonder will cease.
So travel time can be game play then, especially if it is designed to encourage decision making by the players.
Not saying it is game play for every MMO, certainly in some it's just a time waster, but in a title such as EVE travel time is a strategic element that forces players to make choices which have consequences on their overall game play.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Really? The "only" way a player can play a game is to make decisions? I guess deep down, this is probably correct. You basically "decide" to watch players run by or not, "decide" to chat with someone or not, "decide" to craft some items or not, "decide" to wander on the road or off of it or not, "decide" to help another player or not, "decide" to attack a group of mobs or not, "decide" to decorate a house or not. Lots of decisions being made. And NOT just "which button do I click to do the most damage."
Listen to your own advice and "think." You definitely think some decisions make better gameplay than others. That is fine. Have the courtesy to accept that other players may differ in opinions and *your way* is not the *only way*. Just because *you* do not think moving an item in a house is gameplay does not mean it is not.
We're talking about gameplay, not "the way to play a game".
What makes a game a game? Interactivity.
What makes a game interactive? Decisions.
Are movies interactive entertainment because you can decide to turn them off/on or skip a chapter? No. The decision to engage with something isn't what makes it a game. A decision needs to relate to the game rules of the activity.
So that's why your list aren't gameplay decisions. They don't relate to the game rules.
Deciding whether to engage with mobs or crafting is like turning on the movie. It's not a gameplay decision. But decisions within those activities can interact with game rules (such as (a) some mobs patrol and (b) mobs will join nearby allies in combat, which means that deciding which mobs to attack and when are gameplay decisions.)
It's all related to the game rules. That's what makes something a game, and that's what makes those decisions gameplay. We could add a rule that says your character only generates 1 action point every 15 minutes, and action points are required to craft or fight, and then the decision to engage in those activities would be a gameplay decision, because it would relate to a game rule.
So it's not about thinking some decisions make better gameplay than others. This is just about what gameplay is. It's about what makes games interactive entertainment.
(But yes, some decisions do make better gameplay than others. The decisions offered by Tic-Tac-Toe are a lousy set of decisions compared to the ones offered by Chess. But that's a subjective preference related to the objective fact that Chess' decision tree is much deeper, which makes it a deeper game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Great post OP.. Sure does bring back good memories of a forgotten time, and highlights some MMO gameplay mechanics that have been placed on the back burner.. For years I played AD&D with friends and enjoyed the social interaction it brought.. For me EQ was the electronic cousin to real life pnp role playing.. I was tossed into a world ignorant of how the UI worked and clueless to some degree what to do and where to start.. Surefall Glades was a heck of place to learn how to get out thru the tunnel blind as bat until I equipped a torch.. LOL I had to learn to crawl before I can walk, and learn to walk before I can run.. I can see how some would become frustrated at a non tutorial beginning, and I'm ok that games now add that feature to get you started, but there comes a time that training wheels HAVE to come off..
The only other game that remotely gave me similar experience was SWG.. There was a game with so much potential, with so many good ideas and mechanics, but had way too many bugs and flaws that never got fixed.. WoW to me is just a good polished co-op RPG game.. Everything else on the market I wouldn't miss if they shut them down tomorrow.. Anyways.. There is always a dream that old school RPG will make a reappearance with modern day technology and polish, but I won't hold my breath..
an electronic system that uses these satellites to <span oneclick-available"="">determine the position of a vehicle, person, etc.:
Discovery
to sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown):
Quest
a search or pursuit made in order to find or obtain something:
Basically you can't explore, adventure, discover, or quest with a GPS because you have already discovered it with the GPS.
Sheep
a person who is too easily influenced or led.
Static
lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting.
Pattern
A natural or accidental arrangement or sequence.
When you combine Sheep, Static, and Pattern you have a quest hub in MMOs.
Perhaps you don't understand. When I explored to find quest hubs, I did it the same way as I have in most quest-based games: I traversed land for the purpose of discovery. I discovered quest hubs, then did the quests. Then I'd explore some more.
But beyond that explore means 2. to look into closely; scrutinize; examine. So even if I wasn't traversing land for the purpose of discovery, I could be traversing less literal spaces for the purposes of discovery (I explore game systems, UIs, tech trees, etc; it's just about looking into something closely for the purpose of discovery.)
So I'm not sure what point you hoped to make, as both the first two definitions of explore apply to what I do in modern MMORPGs.
Quests are static, but so was the gameplay of pre-quest MMORPGs, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. A bunch of random wandering mobs aren't exactly dynamic gameplay (at least not any more dynamic than the parts of quests which are dynamic.)
Patterns are the core of what makes games fun (Koster, 2003), so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
Most mmos today you don't have to explore to find quest hubs. You are directed right to them. Then you are given all the quests and sent off to follow the GPS around.
The old MMOs were actually less static. Some of the NPCs and mobs traveled from zone to zone. They could only be found at certain times of the day in certain places. All mobs wandered in large ranges around the zones. This is not taking into consideration that they were far more aggressive and many times had far more dangerous abilities making you have to choose which mob to fight against carefully. That is another topic though.
Patterns are what sheep that are easily led around and appeased by developers follow. That is why I pointed it out. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Most mmos today you don't have to explore to find quest hubs. You are directed right to them. Then you are given all the quests and sent off to follow the GPS around.
The old MMOs were actually less static. Some of the NPCs and mobs traveled from zone to zone. They could only be found at certain times of the day in certain places. All mobs wandered in large ranges around the zones. This is not taking into consideration that they were far more aggressive and many times had far more dangerous abilities making you have to choose which mob to fight against carefully. That is another topic though.
Patterns are what sheep that are easily led around and appeased by developers follow. That is why I pointed it out. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Something doesn't have to be required in a game to be in that game. Arguably you're not required to do anything in a game.
Meanwhile in reality, I was dry on quests in FFXIV, I did explore, and I did discover a new hub of content to enjoy. This actually happened. As it has happened in nearly all the games I play which have quest hubs.
Perhaps you're providing insight into why some players call these games "linear". If you never deviate from your quest list in the slightest and never explore, you're certainly going to feel that way. But that's strange, as I would have thought that the players who dislike linearity would be the leastlikely to allow themselves to be led like that. The game doesn't force you to play that way.
Being dangerous and aggressive has nothing to do with the fact that it's still static content. Wandering helps, but I've never seen or heard indication that they were significantly different than any other MMORPGs' wandering mobs (where 95% of them have a 30-meter invisible chain, and a handful use set patrols.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Axehilt We're talking about gameplay, not "the way to play a game".What makes a game a game? Interactivity.What makes a game interactive? Decisions.
You win. I give up...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
How many types of "gameplay" are there, oh wise one? Is the ONE that you enjoy most the ONLY one for all of us?
And we wonder why developers "just do not get it..."
Gameplay is decision-making, so tons of variety exists.
You should allow your wonder to transition into thought. That would cause you to look across all of gaming and realize gamers' strong overall preference of gameplay, since those are by far the majority of games being made and played. Then you'll realize developers do get it. And your journey will end in knowledge, and wonder will cease.
So travel time can be game play then, especially if it is designed to encourage decision making by the players.
Not saying it is game play for every MMO, certainly in some it's just a time waster, but in a title such as EVE travel time is a strategic element that forces players to make choices which have consequences on their overall game play.
It is a strategic element in Eve, but lets not talk like it creates many interesting decisions or much fun gameplay.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
When I play a modern MMORPG, much of the magic still is in not knowing. The most common form of fun in games revolves around pattern mastery (Koster 2003), and the exploration of a game's systems is exactly that: unraveling a new unfamiliar pattern and toying with it until you master it.
Equivalents of the situations you describe happen in every game. It's just that nowadays games have cut out the most painful and most pointlessly un-fun parts. If those parts had significant purpose, they would have remained. They didn't, so they're gone.
Providing variety and getting players to the fun are the primary purposes of quests. They may provide lore in the process, but their main purpose is showing players a bunch of activities to do which are ideally fun and varied and keep the game interesting. They're wildly successful when done right. So criticizing them is a little like a puzzle enthusiast criticizing a puzzle store opening up in their area (before internet) and making it too easy to find a variety of puzzles -- no actually that puzzle store is mostly just overwhelmingly positive, and the actual fun experienced finding puzzles was minimal at best.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Already a problem right here because you ASUME I am a defender of ESO instead of looking at it as a defender of my own playstyle. Which I know is different then how the masses seem to play these games.
And to asnwer your question: I have no idea only recall me being in the 10+ and think the highest out-level area I have gotten in too was around 40+ and as said obviously I couldn't do much just like in the old day's.
And to make it clear I didn't say ESO isn't linear, I said you don't have to play the game linear, but that has all to do with how a person wants to play the game. And for me what Delete5230 said was NOT how I experiance my time in ESO. Try to keep in mind I am sharing my personal experiance. And too be honost if ESO would feel like Delete5230 descibed I honstly wouldn't have played the game. But again that's my personal opinion. Also I am not saying Delete5320 is wrong because that was his experiance witht the game, where my only question to him was if he changed his playstyle compared to how old school games where played.
Glad you folks can appreciate and enjoy the perspective! It's nice to know there's folks around who also yearn for a little more balance in what is considered gameplay in our MMOs.
I really hope that *insert game name here* will be the first game to ever live up to all of its pre-release promises, maintain a manageable hype level and have a clean release. Just don't expect me to hold my breath.
First of all, I am definitely not forlorn. I DO enjoy the time I spend in SWTOR, and even go back and play WoW (pretty much the antithesis of my preferred gameplay style) for stints every once in a while. I try new games that show promise in what I would like to see, and often times I come across something great. I think archeage was an amazing concept, I just couldn't live with its execution. So please don't misunderstand, I'm not on here bitching. I'm on here trying to have a meaningful discussion about the state of our genre, and the community divide that is evidenced in this very thread.
As far as amount of time to invest, I never really had a problem balancing my gaming life and my real life. My social card is, generally speaking, always full. I excel in my professional life. I still to this day will clear my schedule for a day or two when an MMO I am really interested in playing launches. Yes, adulthood happens. I didn't have any children during my SWG days. But even now that I do, I am able to spend a good amount of time on an MMO responsibly. So not everyone is aging the same way as you are, as a gamer. Even when I was young and dumb, I was able to strike a balance between real life and gaming. Back then I used to look at MMOs as a $15/month expenditure that kept me from blowing my whole paycheck in the bar 4 or 5 nights a week catching STDs from drunk skanks like my contemporaries were. The fact that you feel like your offspring was neglected and your marriage suffered kind of makes me think of that college roommate I had that started all of this for me.
Perhaps my introduction to the genre being a cautionary tale was a really good thing in the long run.
I really hope that *insert game name here* will be the first game to ever live up to all of its pre-release promises, maintain a manageable hype level and have a clean release. Just don't expect me to hold my breath.
Gameplay is decision-making, so tons of variety exists.
You should allow your wonder to transition into thought. That would cause you to look across all of gaming and realize gamers' strong overall preference of gameplay, since those are by far the majority of games being made and played. Then you'll realize developers do get it. And your journey will end in knowledge, and wonder will cease.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Mystery is only part of the problem tho.
To this day, I have never played TERA, TSW, or ESO. If I was to pick those games up today the mystery would certainly be there. I know nothing of the lore, the classes, the combat, or really any other component outside of a few features.
The game would be a blast until it became time to group or raid. I'd walk into a dungeon with a random group of strangers and I'd be expected to know what I am doing. Stack here, avoid this mechanic, follow this mix/max build, etc. The mystery dies there, it's not enough that I don't know whats going on, I have to play with others that don't know either and that experience is gone from the genre completely.
While I can do everything in my power to avoid the 3rd party sites, not use the quest markers, and disable telegraphs, I can not stop Bobby or Jane from doing it. And I can't not stop Bobby or Jane from chatting with me about it. That's what has ruined the experience.
I go into GW2's sPvP on my warrior with a shield and get one of two responses:
1) "Haha, you scrub. Nobody uses shield noob, gtfo." -Enemy or "Oh jeez, noob is using a shield. This a lose. AFK" -Team
2) "Hey man, I saw you using a shield. You must be new to sPvP. You should check out (website) on how to play your class. BTW shield is bad. If you need any pointers, let me know!"
Both responses are equally as bad. They both take the mystery right out of the game and immediately the enjoyment is ruined. People suck, they really do.......no wonder every game is becoming solo.
What if wonder is the sole source of fun many are able to derive from the games? Without wonder, is there any puzzle left? If there is no puzzle, where is the fun? (to use the terms you are used to:))
In this case, if the puzzle is "why devs don't get it?", the moment you know the answer (money?) is the moment there's no fun to it. Whereas, if you do not believe your answer is all there is to it, you can plan a journey to validate it or find a better answer generating a more complex puzzle and more fun.
Imagination is a great source of wonder. Perhaps the idea of allowing removal of exclamation marks, mini map etc would work as a band aid. Too bad quests are not designed for that; they are mostly designed for gating progression as disposable content.
Lower the pace with fewer and longer quests, lower power spectrum, require some understanding of lore and mechanisms to get to solutions, require some exploration and watch it burn in the cries of "too difficult, too slow"? From the corpse, pillage the exclamation marks and the radars and you are forced to attempt embalming the remains as they decay too fast?
Actually, tsw's quests are widely valued and commended. If gamers are able to accept and value such quest design, would it be possible to expand on it? More difficult gameplay such as dark souls isn't doing too bad either. Would be great to know what percentage of es fans are completely happy with eso (no offense)? I wonder.. I think many devs get it very well, but not all are able to do what they want and some do not even want to do it even if they get it.
The context is he wondered why developers "didn't get it". I encouraged him to think the problem through and come to the realization that all of the most successful games are gameplay-focused. That knowledge will mean he'll no longer wonder why developers "don't get it", because he'll have realized they do get it.
In games wonder is great because it implies an interesting problem, which requires a solution (a decision), and decision-making is gameplay, and gameplay-focused games are the most successful games.
Wonder represents the thirst for knowledge, and that's great. However the difficulty of the problem sets an expectation for how long someone should spend wondering about something before they know about it. I'd be pretty concerned about someone who still hasn't figured out how to kill Hogger 10 years after release, and I'm pretty concerned about someone who still hasn't figured out how entertainment industries work after observing them for a decade. Often I spell it out verbatim for people to help them understand, but in this case I tried a new tact: recommending that people figure it out for themselves. The information is out there. The evidence of which games succeed is out there. The problem is not difficult, they just need to look and think.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They don't generally happen. Most games you can't really aimlessly wander, band together and find things to do because everything is streamlined. Questlines/funneled worlds/queues all lead to things being predictable. If you don't like or understand that type of gameplay its fine. But unfun is subjective. Quest hubs are unfun repetitive crap I've been doing for 11 years or so.
Quest are not variety. Quest are not fun to everyone. Especially when they become grind/burden/boring. Even awful mob grinds generally give you choice where and what you want to hunt provided the NPC's have different behaviors/weakness. But all quest can be stripped down the same 7 types.
Things don't always remain because they're wanted. Cutting corners and appeasing the base wants of gamers is what has ruled most MMORPG.
Eh, quest hubs are a big part of the reason exploration still exists -- and in a more meaningful capacity (there's actual content out there to find!) than what you would find in older MMORPGs where your best hope was to find another same-level mob with different art (and not even different capabilities, since mobs in those early games tended to be virtually identical in terms of gameplay)
I've found several quest hubs by just randomly choosing a direction and exploring in FFXIV so far. And also wasted my time finding a several areas that were too tough for me, which wasn't nearly as fun.
I'm interested to hear how you think doing different things (questing) isn't variety. Where I'm from that's the definition of variety. And it's variety in the most meaningful way too: it changes what you do, not merely what you see. You'd have to deliberately ignore what you're doing to pretend it isn't variety.
The status quo isn't always maintained because it's wanted, sure. But we're talking about the most common core reason players have played videogames since they became a thing. This isn't some purposeless tradition, it's the core way people have proven time and time again to enjoy games. It goes way beyond MMORPGs and applies to all interactive entertainment.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Balance and fairness isn't just about 1v1 pvp. Loot tables are blander to reduce grinding for some rare drop, class roles are blander to reduce implicit need for a monk puller or ccer etc, one type of game play is generally not overpowered for example crafting items are generally not out of touch of pve gear and a lot of work is done to balance this out or one group or another complains. This is the entire point of my post and it is a shame many miss it.
Exploring
to traverse or range over (a outcome.
an electronic system that uses these satellites to <span oneclick-available"="">determine the position of a vehicle, person, etc.:
Discovery
to sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown):
Quest
a search or pursuit made in order to find or obtain something:
Basically you can't explore, adventure, discover, or quest with a GPS because you have already discovered it with the GPS.
Sheep
a person who is too easily influenced or led.
Static
lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting.
Pattern
A natural or accidental arrangement or sequence.
When you combine Sheep, Static, and Pattern you have a quest hub in MMOs.
Exploration doesn't exist in the same way because you don't really have a game world. You have areas that facilitate quest hubs. Its a matter of preference as well. Mobs did have different behaviors and strengths and weakness in most top older games. What ability mobs had in say EQ did make a difference in how you approached. I don't even like Mob grinding.
I would say that questhubs are fine when its not vast mandatory progression tools. Its bad when you're whole gaming experience and world is a quest hub. Its bad when the majority quest are half assed filler fedex quest. When you have done hundreds of quest that are the same 7 thingd repackaged and skinned it doesn't seem like variety. It becomes more of the same from game to game.
Sometimes you have can't have your cake and eat it too. MMORPG developers go by metrics. Choices of players generally will be the most instantly gratifying and easiest. Then are continued to be conditioned to expect that even if long term gameplay is undesirable because it.
Perhaps you don't understand. When I explored to find quest hubs, I did it the same way as I have in most quest-based games: I traversed land for the purpose of discovery. I discovered quest hubs, then did the quests. Then I'd explore some more.
But beyond that explore means 2. to look into closely; scrutinize; examine. So even if I wasn't traversing land for the purpose of discovery, I could be traversing less literal spaces for the purposes of discovery (I explore game systems, UIs, tech trees, etc; it's just about looking into something closely for the purpose of discovery.)
So I'm not sure what point you hoped to make, as both the first two definitions of explore apply to what I do in modern MMORPGs.
Quests are static, but so was the gameplay of pre-quest MMORPGs, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. A bunch of random wandering mobs aren't exactly dynamic gameplay (at least not any more dynamic than the parts of quests which are dynamic.)
Patterns are the core of what makes games fun (Koster, 2003), so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's all still exploration. I ventured places and discovered things.
Maybe EQ had better mob design than the other ~10 early MMORPGs I played. Admittedly even many modern MMORPGs don't vary mobs enough to change the way you fight.
Bad quests are bad, obviously, but quests as a general rule are a dramatically better way of varying gameplay and seeing different things than what came before. Early MMORPGs indirectly penalized you for moving around the game world, since that was time not spent earning XP.
It at least makes sense if players who dislike quests are willing to admit they're actively seeking less variety in their game. And that can be fine. For example, while Skyrim has a ton of variety, the fact that it kitchen-sinked every conceivable feature into the game means that most of its features are pretty cruddy (especially its combat.) So I didn't enjoy the game as much as if it had gone with fewer features but polished them more.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Listen to your own advice and "think." You definitely think some decisions make better gameplay than others. That is fine. Have the courtesy to accept that other players may differ in opinions and *your way* is not the *only way*. Just because *you* do not think moving an item in a house is gameplay does not mean it is not.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
So travel time can be game play then, especially if it is designed to encourage decision making by the players.
Not saying it is game play for every MMO, certainly in some it's just a time waster, but in a title such as EVE travel time is a strategic element that forces players to make choices which have consequences on their overall game play.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
TL;DR
"i want to be a noob again"
We're talking about gameplay, not "the way to play a game".
What makes a game a game? Interactivity.
What makes a game interactive? Decisions.
Are movies interactive entertainment because you can decide to turn them off/on or skip a chapter? No. The decision to engage with something isn't what makes it a game. A decision needs to relate to the game rules of the activity.
So that's why your list aren't gameplay decisions. They don't relate to the game rules.
Deciding whether to engage with mobs or crafting is like turning on the movie. It's not a gameplay decision. But decisions within those activities can interact with game rules (such as (a) some mobs patrol and (b) mobs will join nearby allies in combat, which means that deciding which mobs to attack and when are gameplay decisions.)
It's all related to the game rules. That's what makes something a game, and that's what makes those decisions gameplay. We could add a rule that says your character only generates 1 action point every 15 minutes, and action points are required to craft or fight, and then the decision to engage in those activities would be a gameplay decision, because it would relate to a game rule.
So it's not about thinking some decisions make better gameplay than others. This is just about what gameplay is. It's about what makes games interactive entertainment.
(But yes, some decisions do make better gameplay than others. The decisions offered by Tic-Tac-Toe are a lousy set of decisions compared to the ones offered by Chess. But that's a subjective preference related to the objective fact that Chess' decision tree is much deeper, which makes it a deeper game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Great post OP.. Sure does bring back good memories of a forgotten time, and highlights some MMO gameplay mechanics that have been placed on the back burner.. For years I played AD&D with friends and enjoyed the social interaction it brought.. For me EQ was the electronic cousin to real life pnp role playing.. I was tossed into a world ignorant of how the UI worked and clueless to some degree what to do and where to start.. Surefall Glades was a heck of place to learn how to get out thru the tunnel blind as bat until I equipped a torch.. LOL I had to learn to crawl before I can walk, and learn to walk before I can run.. I can see how some would become frustrated at a non tutorial beginning, and I'm ok that games now add that feature to get you started, but there comes a time that training wheels HAVE to come off..
The only other game that remotely gave me similar experience was SWG.. There was a game with so much potential, with so many good ideas and mechanics, but had way too many bugs and flaws that never got fixed.. WoW to me is just a good polished co-op RPG game.. Everything else on the market I wouldn't miss if they shut them down tomorrow.. Anyways.. There is always a dream that old school RPG will make a reappearance with modern day technology and polish, but I won't hold my breath..
Most mmos today you don't have to explore to find quest hubs. You are directed right to them. Then you are given all the quests and sent off to follow the GPS around.
The old MMOs were actually less static. Some of the NPCs and mobs traveled from zone to zone. They could only be found at certain times of the day in certain places. All mobs wandered in large ranges around the zones. This is not taking into consideration that they were far more aggressive and many times had far more dangerous abilities making you have to choose which mob to fight against carefully. That is another topic though.
Patterns are what sheep that are easily led around and appeased by developers follow. That is why I pointed it out. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Something doesn't have to be required in a game to be in that game. Arguably you're not required to do anything in a game.
Meanwhile in reality, I was dry on quests in FFXIV, I did explore, and I did discover a new hub of content to enjoy. This actually happened. As it has happened in nearly all the games I play which have quest hubs.
Perhaps you're providing insight into why some players call these games "linear". If you never deviate from your quest list in the slightest and never explore, you're certainly going to feel that way. But that's strange, as I would have thought that the players who dislike linearity would be the least likely to allow themselves to be led like that. The game doesn't force you to play that way.
Being dangerous and aggressive has nothing to do with the fact that it's still static content. Wandering helps, but I've never seen or heard indication that they were significantly different than any other MMORPGs' wandering mobs (where 95% of them have a 30-meter invisible chain, and a handful use set patrols.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Eh, there's no winning. All that matters is the spread of knowledge, and the establishment of clear, logical definitions for things.
I don't view discussion here as a competition, just a place to spread truth and understanding through rational discourse.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It is a strategic element in Eve, but lets not talk like it creates many interesting decisions or much fun gameplay.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky