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.
Right travel can be gameplay.
Puzzle Pirates is overwhelmingly a game about playing the puzzle games (decisions), which happens to also be travel. So travel is densely filled with decisions, which means it's densely filled with gameplay.
Whereas EVE involves almost no decisions, which means it involves almost no gameplay.
Travel can be gameplay, but in EVE it isn't in any meaningful sense.
Which is a little tragic since EVE's strategic decisions, localized economies, and player-driven-everything can be achieved without tethering players to the least interesting point of view possible.
A Starcraft SCV mines minerals, but the player is not forced to sit there and do nothing while it happens. It's still a strategic concern of how you manage and protect your limited production capabilities.
When the SCV comes under attack, you can instantly snap to that location to control the defenses you've paid for to guard it.
It takes time for SCVs to mine or transport, yet the player's point of view isn't tied to a single SCV. They're free to make a lot of other decisions.
So a new MMORPG with limited automated workers could achieve EVE's major strengths while ditching its major weaknesses. All that matters is no mandatory game systems should require the player enters a mode which is nearly devoid of decisions. If it's an optional system, that's fine. (Including if travel was optional. Which I suppose is really just about where the player's point of view is: that SCV still travels, but that's fine because the player is off doing other things and not forced to sit and watch.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
More like "I wish game mechanics didn't work so hard to funnel me down a pre-determined path anymore and I miss game worlds that seemed alive enough that they were a limitless number of games unto themselves."
I'm not sure I'd really want to be a noob again. I wouldn't admit to how long I played SWG using the ARROW KEYS to move because I didn't realize I could change the default settings. I can't believe my left hand still works considering how much I had to stretch it across my keyboard!
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.
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..
Thanks! I am not bashing the features that these new games offer. In fact, I enjoy a lot about our current crop of games. I just miss that something extra those old rusted out beaters we used to drive had.
I play SWTOR. I play WoW. And I don't sit there pouting about every wall, pre-determined path or funnel I run into. I enjoy our new breed of games for what they are. And I'd agree that with the ever-increasing solo-ability, that they are kind of a SPRPG and an MMO meeting in the middle with a healthy dosed of lobby games mixed in. It is what it is, it's the nature of the beast, the beast being a business and all that.
I'd just like to see what was great about the old school get incorporated into the new.
Because I really miss great player-created content, and said content is of a much higher quality when the proper tools and settings to do that are in place.
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.
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.
INDEED. It's why I wonder if the genre's community has grown, changed and been conditioned in directions that wouldn't even allow for the old ways to make an appearance.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, the MIN/MAXing attitude is extremely unhealthy for the general fun factor of the genre. It might get you where you want to be in the game you're playing, but I think it takes the games themselves away from where they ought to be.
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.
Agree ^^ you only ever see obnoxious behaviour where games focus on 'minmax/whorepeen meters, its pretty consistent, build a game where you judge people based on Numbers and it's a fame waiting to foul a community.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Shrilly I stopped reading half way through your life story.
Thank you for stopping by to illustrate one of the very things people are discussing in this thread!
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.
Except you're wrong, and spreading a load of bunkum. Your posts are a waste of my eyes.
Well I welcome logic or evidence-based criticism. But what you've done here is entirely useless -- simply calling someone 'wrong' doesn't make it so, no matter how much you may dislike them.
Look my logic is sound, and I've presented a clear and logical definition of gameplay (decisions; but not decisions that don't relate to the game rules.) If you disagree with that or something else, then by all means say so and describe why. Otherwise you haven't said anything of concrete value.
"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.
I find the "Evolution of the MMORPG into a Questhub Net" argument to be pretty lame. It assumes that somehow the features that were stripped were somehow determined to be useless with 100% accuracy. It is more a fact that they were killed by the desire to make more money from less game.
They took away features because it saved them time and money, not because it made you happy.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
I find the "Evolution of the MMORPG into a Questhub Net" argument to be pretty lame. It assumes that somehow the features that were stripped were somehow determined to be useless with 100% accuracy. It is more a fact that they were killed by the desire to make more money from less game.
They took away features because it saved them time and money, not because it made you happy.
As a developer, I assure you quests are substantially more time-consuming to implement than an endless mob-grind:
Mob-grind game:
Place mob spawns across the world
Multiply required XP by 100.
DONE! -- go home and chill for a month without doing any additional work.
Quest game:
Place mob spawns across the world
Coordinate with narrative lead to determine the story arc of each zone.
Narrative designer creates quest text.
Create quest-specific items.
Link quest-specific items to quest and place in game world.
Script any special triggers or events in the quest. (which is a lot of special-case work and probably deserves more than one bullet point.)
Determine quest reward.
Older mechanics were killed because they were the cheapest way to create the game -- and players could tell.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.)
I know this has been reiterated at nauseam, but older games didn't have mobs like there are today. They had more complex scripts. Mobs were easy to agro and from much longer range. Most mobs wandered around the zone. Even in static areas there was at least one or two mobs wandering that could cause all kinds of trouble for you. Mobs were heavily mixed in terms of level range in a zone. Even the weakest mob could often kick your butt in melee combat if it was an even con. Caster mobs were almost impossible to kill. Especially if they had root, snare, or heal. Mobs would attack the person causing the most damage, healing the most, or CCing. Mobs didn't originally have chains in old games. We've gone over that issue before and you didn't even know why they were implemented in the first place.
In terms of exploring I don't think finding quests hubs in a consequence free environment is anything to get excited about. Sure I could go out and find a dungeon but it's boring. The devs don't put any effort into the open world environments because they know a lot of people don't give it a second glance most of the time. They are more interesting in following the GPS and Queuing for dungeons. I know your answer will be you have freedom to do what you want, but you don't realize it's not fun to explore if the zones are setup in such an artificial way. Each zone is setup for you to beat it easily. All the mobs are almost exactly the same level. There is no weather or darkness to impede you. It's not possible to get even semi lost. Everything is easy to find. Most people do not explore at all. Basically to have exploration you need the GPS turned off for everyone and the mobs/dungeons/weather setup in such a way that it is an impediment and also that there is some kind of major penalty for dying. That will make the journey across distances feel more like a real adventure.
Just a reminder... no such thing as an "MMO Vet" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Its not a field you can "serve" in. LOL. Tired of these self indulgent threads. Lets have a real conversation instead of this crap being repeated every month. Would be nice to see some content! As someone who has also been around this site a long time, these threads are sooooo tired. The OP who has also been here for a long time should know better.
What it boils down to is people complaining about games that they are not in the target audience of, thus their complaints are kinda irrelevant anyway.
Those games are made for people with a different taste, figures that the complainers won't like them. Not that hard of a concept really.
I do agree with them that it's sad that the niche is totally underserved, but that will hopefully change soon with all the mid budget titles currently in development.
In any case, pointing at the other kid's toys and yelling "Those toys suck! Those toys suck! You are stupid for playing with them!" even though he is clearly enjoying playing with them just comes across as self-centered and rude. (this applies to both sides ofcourse)
Originally posted by AlBQuirky You win. I give up...
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.
And when someone believes they know everything there is to know on a subject, there is no point in trying, right? Thus, I give up. You win.
- 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
Originally posted by madazz Just a reminder... no such thing as an "MMO Vet" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Its not a field you can "serve" in. LOL. Tired of these self indulgent threads. Lets have a real conversation instead of this crap being repeated every month. Would be nice to see some content! As someone who has also been around this site a long time, these threads are sooooo tired. The OP who has also been here for a long time should know better.
If you have no interest in a debate then don't reply. You are not contributing but rather complaining and thus trolling.
It is clear the term "mmo vet" is being used specifically to target those who have been playing mmos for around 15 years or so and have first hand experience with a wide spectrum of mmos during their peak popularity. One also has to acknowledge that players who played the first mmos came from different backgrounds (because mmos didn't exist) and this allows a contrast of opinion which is healthy in any debate. It means nothing more than that. It isn't a badge of honor or an insult to anyone who is new to mmos.
Simply fact remains though: the more you have experienced something, the more you know about it. Instead of complaining about being preached to, someone has the choice to listen and learn and expand their own knowledge base. This does not mean everyone speaks the truth as it is often bound to opinion and emotion but this also reveals information about the mmo player base which is invaluable as well.
Many so call vets here are not bitter but rather interested fans of the entire industry and thus debate related topics based on their growing experiences. The same debate last year is thus different this year due to the passage of time and ever changing face of the industry. The debate is therefore eternal.
I know this has been reiterated at nauseam, but older games didn't have mobs like there are today. They had more complex scripts. Mobs were easy to agro and from much longer range. Most mobs wandered around the zone. Even in static areas there was at least one or two mobs wandering that could cause all kinds of trouble for you. Mobs were heavily mixed in terms of level range in a zone. Even the weakest mob could often kick your butt in melee combat if it was an even con. Caster mobs were almost impossible to kill. Especially if they had root, snare, or heal. Mobs would attack the person causing the most damage, healing the most, or CCing. Mobs didn't originally have chains in old games. We've gone over that issue before and you didn't even know why they were implemented in the first place.
In terms of exploring I don't think finding quests hubs in a consequence free environment is anything to get excited about. Sure I could go out and find a dungeon but it's boring. The devs don't put any effort into the open world environments because they know a lot of people don't give it a second glance most of the time. They are more interesting in following the GPS and Queuing for dungeons. I know your answer will be you have freedom to do what you want, but you don't realize it's not fun to explore if the zones are setup in such an artificial way. Each zone is setup for you to beat it easily. All the mobs are almost exactly the same level. There is no weather or darkness to impede you. It's not possible to get even semi lost. Everything is easy to find. Most people do not explore at all. Basically to have exploration you need the GPS turned off for everyone and the mobs/dungeons/weather setup in such a way that it is an impediment and also that there is some kind of major penalty for dying. That will make the journey across distances feel more like a real adventure.
Maybe EQ or UO were different, but I played ~10 other early MMORPGs. The mob AI in those games was not significantly different from modern games. In some cases it was worse, but in no case was it better, and in no case was the overall gameplay of moving into an area and fighting mobs a more dynamic experience compared with questing.
Someparameters were different, like aggro radius or the presence of abilities or tether distance or wander distance, but not really in ways that made them play more dynamically than modern questing.
The difficulty was harder, and modern games should offer a better range of difficulty options for players so that everyone can enjoy their challenge sweet spot. But that doesn't mean the content wasn't static.
As for exploration, it's still exploration even if you're in a consequence-free environment. Exploration is exploration.
As for getting lost? I'm sorry, the internet exists now.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And when someone believes they know everything there is to know on a subject, there is no point in trying, right? Thus, I give up. You win.
I don't know everything. But as a professional game designer with hands-on experience on a lot of these concepts, I've put a lot of thought into the logic of my statements, and often they're evidence-supported too (even if it's just general observation of what games perform well, rather than specific data and articles.) So often those I discuss these topics with lack the same level of logic and evidence (logic and evidence are more important than the professional experience, naturally.) But yes, when someone uses better logic and/or evidence to disprove me, then I admit when I'm wrong. Like the time someone recently proved out the idea that smaller MMORPG teams could be profitable by running through some loose math on it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I know this has been reiterated at nauseam, but older games didn't have mobs like there are today. They had more complex scripts. Mobs were easy to agro and from much longer range. Most mobs wandered around the zone. Even in static areas there was at least one or two mobs wandering that could cause all kinds of trouble for you. Mobs were heavily mixed in terms of level range in a zone. Even the weakest mob could often kick your butt in melee combat if it was an even con. Caster mobs were almost impossible to kill. Especially if they had root, snare, or heal. Mobs would attack the person causing the most damage, healing the most, or CCing. Mobs didn't originally have chains in old games. We've gone over that issue before and you didn't even know why they were implemented in the first place.
In terms of exploring I don't think finding quests hubs in a consequence free environment is anything to get excited about. Sure I could go out and find a dungeon but it's boring. The devs don't put any effort into the open world environments because they know a lot of people don't give it a second glance most of the time. They are more interesting in following the GPS and Queuing for dungeons. I know your answer will be you have freedom to do what you want, but you don't realize it's not fun to explore if the zones are setup in such an artificial way. Each zone is setup for you to beat it easily. All the mobs are almost exactly the same level. There is no weather or darkness to impede you. It's not possible to get even semi lost. Everything is easy to find. Most people do not explore at all. Basically to have exploration you need the GPS turned off for everyone and the mobs/dungeons/weather setup in such a way that it is an impediment and also that there is some kind of major penalty for dying. That will make the journey across distances feel more like a real adventure.
Maybe EQ or UO were different, but I played ~10 other early MMORPGs. The mob AI in those games was not significantly different from modern games. In some cases it was worse, but in no case was it better, and in no case was the overall gameplay of moving into an area and fighting mobs a more dynamic experience compared with questing.
Someparameters were different, like aggro radius or the presence of abilities or tether distance or wander distance, but not really in ways that made them play more dynamically than modern questing.
The difficulty was harder, and modern games should offer a better range of difficulty options for players so that everyone can enjoy their challenge sweet spot. But that doesn't mean the content wasn't static.
As for exploration, it's still exploration even if you're in a consequence-free environment. Exploration is exploration.
As for getting lost? I'm sorry, the internet exists now.
I believe it's possible to design someone to design a game with exploration, questing, and discovery in mind.
You would need to remove the compass, GPS, and exclamation marks so that people have to actually discover something.
Another concept would be to have a forest that is actually like a real forest or desert.
There would be no zone point to give you an idea what direction you would be going in. As you traverse deeper inside you see a lot of trees that look fairly similar. There might be some landmarks to help you along, but much of the area would look fairly similar. This is the effect where people get lost in large places due to the mind being tricked by similar looking surroundings and large areas.
Have night actually be night so that it's difficult to see. There might be moonlight to provide some light or a torch/spell that provides some light, but that's it. You can only see a certain distance in the dark. This would add to the ability to get lost. It would also add to the atmospheric creepy feeling like something is going to jump out and get you. The night has always been more dangerous for humans then the day time when out in the wild. Have dangerous creatures and bandits traverse the lands/roads at night waiting to ambush people and steal their money.
Have sandstorms, rain, blizzards, and fog to occasionally impede vision.
Have food and water supplies so that if you run out you start to lose health. You can replenish the water and food supply by hunting and finding water, but in the desert you would lose health much quicker. In a cold climate you might have to worry about freezing.
Add a means to examine things. Even old MMOs didn't really have this, but a lot of old RPGs that descended from muds did. You had to examine things to discover if they provided anything useful or not.
Have people and NPCs scattered around the world. There might be a big city on top of a mountain in the middle of the jungle or a NPC that lives alone in the middle of a desert. You have to find them and talk to them to get clues about what's going on. This would be a similar approach to Dark Souls and older RPG games, but the world would be much larger aside form the 2D games which almost always had fairly large world as it was easier to design it quickly.
I doubt maps would help much in terms of killing discovery if you had situations like this in place. Having to find your way in these situations with possible vision impediments and nasty unexpected creatures would go a long way to stopping that.
To be honest I think this would be a lot more fun then the current quest design where you complete a lot of short and easy quests rapidly just to level up and hit max level as quickly as possible. It may not be entirely old school. I think it would in fact be old school if you are talking about muds/RPGs that took place in the beginning, but not in terms of old school MMORPGs entirely. It would take a lot more work to make exploration/questing/discovery viable in this day and age then it did in the past, but I'd rather they concentrate on that then on the current model with everything segregated into mini games like questing PvE, PvP, Group, and Raid.
I believe it's possible to design someone to design a game with exploration, questing, and discovery in mind.
You would need to remove the compass, GPS, and exclamation marks so that people have to actually discover something.
Another concept would be to have a forest that is actually like a real forest or desert.
There would be no zone point to give you an idea what direction you would be going in. As you traverse deeper inside you see a lot of trees that look fairly similar. There might be some landmarks to help you along, but much of the area would look fairly similar. This is the effect where people get lost in large places due to the mind being tricked by similar looking surroundings and large areas.
Have night actually be night so that it's difficult to see. There might be moonlight to provide some light or a torch/spell that provides some light, but that's it. You can only see a certain distance in the dark. This would add to the ability to get lost. It would also add to the atmospheric creepy feeling like something is going to jump out and get you. The night has always been more dangerous for humans then the day time when out in the wild. Have dangerous creatures and bandits traverse the lands/roads at night waiting to ambush people and steal their money.
Have sandstorms, rain, blizzards, and fog to occasionally impede vision.
Have food and water supplies so that if you run out you start to lose health. You can replenish the water and food supply by hunting and finding water, but in the desert you would lose health much quicker. In a cold climate you might have to worry about freezing.
Add a means to examine things. Even old MMOs didn't really have this, but a lot of old RPGs that descended from muds did. You had to examine things to discover if they provided anything useful or not.
Have people and NPCs scattered around the world. There might be a big city on top of a mountain in the middle of the jungle or a NPC that lives alone in the middle of a desert. You have to find them and talk to them to get clues about what's going on. This would be a similar approach to Dark Souls and older RPG games, but the world would be much larger aside form the 2D games which almost always had fairly large world as it was easier to design it quickly.
I doubt maps would help much in terms of killing discovery if you had situations like this in place. Having to find your way in these situations with possible vision impediments and nasty unexpected creatures would go a long way to stopping that.
To be honest I think this would be a lot more fun then the current quest design where you complete a lot of short and easy quests rapidly just to level up and hit max level as quickly as possible. It may not be entirely old school. I think it would in fact be old school if you are talking about muds/RPGs that took place in the beginning, but not in terms of old school MMORPGs entirely. It would take a lot more work to make exploration/questing/discovery viable in this day and age then it did in the past, but I'd rather they concentrate on that then on the current model with everything segregated into mini games like questing PvE, PvP, Group, and Raid.
Ofcourse that's all possible. It would very much make a sense to design this way IF you are targeting a specific target segment in which these features are well accepted and in many cases even demanded.
Lately no game has targeted that specific segment though (it's not lucrative enough for AAA titles, so we have to wait for 'smaller' titles to fill the void) thus you didn't see those features in games. This is not a game quality issue but a market segmentation issue.
I'm pretty concerned about someone who still hasn't figured out how entertainment industries work after observing them for a decade.
There is no set behavior for it:) The impetus is money and naturally many are closely watching trends: what currently sells and how to replicate it. Of course there are other goals for developers. If you reduce entertainment market to simply a money machine, you pretty much insult many a true artist with truly impressive work.
For gaming industry, there is a lot of pent up demand for something different. If you can't see this, I feel for you:) Simply because you do not understand or support any ideas to move the genre forward, doesn't mean there is no room for it or that it shouldn't be done. Is there any mmorpg you would describe as a work of art? Why?
I believe it's possible to design someone to design a game with exploration, questing, and discovery in mind.
You would need to remove the compass, GPS, and exclamation marks so that people have to actually discover something.
Another concept would be to have a forest that is actually like a real forest or desert.
There would be no zone point to give you an idea what direction you would be going in. As you traverse deeper inside you see a lot of trees that look fairly similar. There might be some landmarks to help you along, but much of the area would look fairly similar. This is the effect where people get lost in large places due to the mind being tricked by similar looking surroundings and large areas.
Have night actually be night so that it's difficult to see. There might be moonlight to provide some light or a torch/spell that provides some light, but that's it. You can only see a certain distance in the dark. This would add to the ability to get lost. It would also add to the atmospheric creepy feeling like something is going to jump out and get you. The night has always been more dangerous for humans then the day time when out in the wild. Have dangerous creatures and bandits traverse the lands/roads at night waiting to ambush people and steal their money.
Have sandstorms, rain, blizzards, and fog to occasionally impede vision.
Have food and water supplies so that if you run out you start to lose health. You can replenish the water and food supply by hunting and finding water, but in the desert you would lose health much quicker. In a cold climate you might have to worry about freezing.
Add a means to examine things. Even old MMOs didn't really have this, but a lot of old RPGs that descended from muds did. You had to examine things to discover if they provided anything useful or not.
Have people and NPCs scattered around the world. There might be a big city on top of a mountain in the middle of the jungle or a NPC that lives alone in the middle of a desert. You have to find them and talk to them to get clues about what's going on. This would be a similar approach to Dark Souls and older RPG games, but the world would be much larger aside form the 2D games which almost always had fairly large world as it was easier to design it quickly.
I doubt maps would help much in terms of killing discovery if you had situations like this in place. Having to find your way in these situations with possible vision impediments and nasty unexpected creatures would go a long way to stopping that.
To be honest I think this would be a lot more fun then the current quest design where you complete a lot of short and easy quests rapidly just to level up and hit max level as quickly as possible. It may not be entirely old school. I think it would in fact be old school if you are talking about muds/RPGs that took place in the beginning, but not in terms of old school MMORPGs entirely. It would take a lot more work to make exploration/questing/discovery viable in this day and age then it did in the past, but I'd rather they concentrate on that then on the current model with everything segregated into mini games like questing PvE, PvP, Group, and Raid.
Ofcourse that's all possible. It would very much make a sense to design this way IF you are targeting a specific target segment in which these features are well accepted and in many cases even demanded.
Lately no game has targeted that specific segment though (it's not lucrative enough for AAA titles, so we have to wait for 'smaller' titles to fill the void) thus you didn't see those features in games. This is not a game quality issue but a market segmentation issue.
I believe there is a market for something like this. I doubt many people would play a game where you grind mobs a lot, but a game about exploration and hints could be a big hit IMO. We have games like Dark Souls and games like Minecraft. Combine them together with a focus on exploration, discovery, and quests and you have a game a lot of people could play and enjoy without the trademark MMO structure.
I believe there is a market for something like this. I doubt many people would play a game where you grind mobs a lot, but a game about exploration and hints could be a big hit IMO. We have games like Dark Souls and games like Minecraft. Combine them together with a focus on exploration, discovery, and quests and you have a game a lot of people could play and enjoy without the trademark MMO structure.
With the uprise of more focussed mid budget titles there is hope.
I prefer a smaller scope focussed game over the "please everyone and their mother (literally)" types of games.
The real question is that a game with a smaller scope by necessity had a smaller budget. This means it can't have a great many things we have come to expect (no matter if its themepark or sandbox).
How many people would now be willing to play andpay for it abd is that enough?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Right travel can be gameplay.
Puzzle Pirates is overwhelmingly a game about playing the puzzle games (decisions), which happens to also be travel. So travel is densely filled with decisions, which means it's densely filled with gameplay.
Whereas EVE involves almost no decisions, which means it involves almost no gameplay.
Travel can be gameplay, but in EVE it isn't in any meaningful sense.
Which is a little tragic since EVE's strategic decisions, localized economies, and player-driven-everything can be achieved without tethering players to the least interesting point of view possible.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Hahahaha, good one!
More like "I wish game mechanics didn't work so hard to funnel me down a pre-determined path anymore and I miss game worlds that seemed alive enough that they were a limitless number of games unto themselves."
I'm not sure I'd really want to be a noob again. I wouldn't admit to how long I played SWG using the ARROW KEYS to move because I didn't realize I could change the default settings. I can't believe my left hand still works considering how much I had to stretch it across my keyboard!
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.
*shudder* Surefall Glades noobness...*blank horrified stare*
Thanks! I am not bashing the features that these new games offer. In fact, I enjoy a lot about our current crop of games. I just miss that something extra those old rusted out beaters we used to drive had.
I play SWTOR. I play WoW. And I don't sit there pouting about every wall, pre-determined path or funnel I run into. I enjoy our new breed of games for what they are. And I'd agree that with the ever-increasing solo-ability, that they are kind of a SPRPG and an MMO meeting in the middle with a healthy dosed of lobby games mixed in. It is what it is, it's the nature of the beast, the beast being a business and all that.
I'd just like to see what was great about the old school get incorporated into the new.
Because I really miss great player-created content, and said content is of a much higher quality when the proper tools and settings to do that are in place.
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.
INDEED. It's why I wonder if the genre's community has grown, changed and been conditioned in directions that wouldn't even allow for the old ways to make an appearance.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, the MIN/MAXing attitude is extremely unhealthy for the general fun factor of the genre. It might get you where you want to be in the game you're playing, but I think it takes the games themselves away from where they ought to be.
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.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Thank you for stopping by to illustrate one of the very things people are discussing in this thread!
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.
Always a pleasure.
Except you're wrong, and spreading a load of bunkum. Your posts are a waste of my eyes.
Well I welcome logic or evidence-based criticism. But what you've done here is entirely useless -- simply calling someone 'wrong' doesn't make it so, no matter how much you may dislike them.
Look my logic is sound, and I've presented a clear and logical definition of gameplay (decisions; but not decisions that don't relate to the game rules.) If you disagree with that or something else, then by all means say so and describe why. Otherwise you haven't said anything of concrete value.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I find the "Evolution of the MMORPG into a Questhub Net" argument to be pretty lame. It assumes that somehow the features that were stripped were somehow determined to be useless with 100% accuracy. It is more a fact that they were killed by the desire to make more money from less game.
They took away features because it saved them time and money, not because it made you happy.
As a developer, I assure you quests are substantially more time-consuming to implement than an endless mob-grind:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I know this has been reiterated at nauseam, but older games didn't have mobs like there are today. They had more complex scripts. Mobs were easy to agro and from much longer range. Most mobs wandered around the zone. Even in static areas there was at least one or two mobs wandering that could cause all kinds of trouble for you. Mobs were heavily mixed in terms of level range in a zone. Even the weakest mob could often kick your butt in melee combat if it was an even con. Caster mobs were almost impossible to kill. Especially if they had root, snare, or heal. Mobs would attack the person causing the most damage, healing the most, or CCing. Mobs didn't originally have chains in old games. We've gone over that issue before and you didn't even know why they were implemented in the first place.
In terms of exploring I don't think finding quests hubs in a consequence free environment is anything to get excited about. Sure I could go out and find a dungeon but it's boring. The devs don't put any effort into the open world environments because they know a lot of people don't give it a second glance most of the time. They are more interesting in following the GPS and Queuing for dungeons. I know your answer will be you have freedom to do what you want, but you don't realize it's not fun to explore if the zones are setup in such an artificial way. Each zone is setup for you to beat it easily. All the mobs are almost exactly the same level. There is no weather or darkness to impede you. It's not possible to get even semi lost. Everything is easy to find. Most people do not explore at all. Basically to have exploration you need the GPS turned off for everyone and the mobs/dungeons/weather setup in such a way that it is an impediment and also that there is some kind of major penalty for dying. That will make the journey across distances feel more like a real adventure.
What it boils down to is people complaining about games that they are not in the target audience of, thus their complaints are kinda irrelevant anyway.
Those games are made for people with a different taste, figures that the complainers won't like them. Not that hard of a concept really.
I do agree with them that it's sad that the niche is totally underserved, but that will hopefully change soon with all the mid budget titles currently in development.
In any case, pointing at the other kid's toys and yelling "Those toys suck! Those toys suck! You are stupid for playing with them!" even though he is clearly enjoying playing with them just comes across as self-centered and rude. (this applies to both sides ofcourse)
- 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
If you have no interest in a debate then don't reply. You are not contributing but rather complaining and thus trolling.
It is clear the term "mmo vet" is being used specifically to target those who have been playing mmos for around 15 years or so and have first hand experience with a wide spectrum of mmos during their peak popularity. One also has to acknowledge that players who played the first mmos came from different backgrounds (because mmos didn't exist) and this allows a contrast of opinion which is healthy in any debate. It means nothing more than that. It isn't a badge of honor or an insult to anyone who is new to mmos.
Simply fact remains though: the more you have experienced something, the more you know about it. Instead of complaining about being preached to, someone has the choice to listen and learn and expand their own knowledge base. This does not mean everyone speaks the truth as it is often bound to opinion and emotion but this also reveals information about the mmo player base which is invaluable as well.
Many so call vets here are not bitter but rather interested fans of the entire industry and thus debate related topics based on their growing experiences. The same debate last year is thus different this year due to the passage of time and ever changing face of the industry. The debate is therefore eternal.
You stay sassy!
Maybe EQ or UO were different, but I played ~10 other early MMORPGs. The mob AI in those games was not significantly different from modern games. In some cases it was worse, but in no case was it better, and in no case was the overall gameplay of moving into an area and fighting mobs a more dynamic experience compared with questing.
Some parameters were different, like aggro radius or the presence of abilities or tether distance or wander distance, but not really in ways that made them play more dynamically than modern questing.
The difficulty was harder, and modern games should offer a better range of difficulty options for players so that everyone can enjoy their challenge sweet spot. But that doesn't mean the content wasn't static.
As for exploration, it's still exploration even if you're in a consequence-free environment. Exploration is exploration.
As for getting lost? I'm sorry, the internet exists now.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't know everything. But as a professional game designer with hands-on experience on a lot of these concepts, I've put a lot of thought into the logic of my statements, and often they're evidence-supported too (even if it's just general observation of what games perform well, rather than specific data and articles.) So often those I discuss these topics with lack the same level of logic and evidence (logic and evidence are more important than the professional experience, naturally.) But yes, when someone uses better logic and/or evidence to disprove me, then I admit when I'm wrong. Like the time someone recently proved out the idea that smaller MMORPG teams could be profitable by running through some loose math on it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I believe it's possible to design someone to design a game with exploration, questing, and discovery in mind.
You would need to remove the compass, GPS, and exclamation marks so that people have to actually discover something.
Another concept would be to have a forest that is actually like a real forest or desert.
There would be no zone point to give you an idea what direction you would be going in. As you traverse deeper inside you see a lot of trees that look fairly similar. There might be some landmarks to help you along, but much of the area would look fairly similar. This is the effect where people get lost in large places due to the mind being tricked by similar looking surroundings and large areas.
Have night actually be night so that it's difficult to see. There might be moonlight to provide some light or a torch/spell that provides some light, but that's it. You can only see a certain distance in the dark. This would add to the ability to get lost. It would also add to the atmospheric creepy feeling like something is going to jump out and get you. The night has always been more dangerous for humans then the day time when out in the wild. Have dangerous creatures and bandits traverse the lands/roads at night waiting to ambush people and steal their money.
Have sandstorms, rain, blizzards, and fog to occasionally impede vision.
Have food and water supplies so that if you run out you start to lose health. You can replenish the water and food supply by hunting and finding water, but in the desert you would lose health much quicker. In a cold climate you might have to worry about freezing.
Add a means to examine things. Even old MMOs didn't really have this, but a lot of old RPGs that descended from muds did. You had to examine things to discover if they provided anything useful or not.
Have people and NPCs scattered around the world. There might be a big city on top of a mountain in the middle of the jungle or a NPC that lives alone in the middle of a desert. You have to find them and talk to them to get clues about what's going on. This would be a similar approach to Dark Souls and older RPG games, but the world would be much larger aside form the 2D games which almost always had fairly large world as it was easier to design it quickly.
I doubt maps would help much in terms of killing discovery if you had situations like this in place. Having to find your way in these situations with possible vision impediments and nasty unexpected creatures would go a long way to stopping that.
To be honest I think this would be a lot more fun then the current quest design where you complete a lot of short and easy quests rapidly just to level up and hit max level as quickly as possible. It may not be entirely old school. I think it would in fact be old school if you are talking about muds/RPGs that took place in the beginning, but not in terms of old school MMORPGs entirely. It would take a lot more work to make exploration/questing/discovery viable in this day and age then it did in the past, but I'd rather they concentrate on that then on the current model with everything segregated into mini games like questing PvE, PvP, Group, and Raid.
Ofcourse that's all possible. It would very much make a sense to design this way IF you are targeting a specific target segment in which these features are well accepted and in many cases even demanded.
Lately no game has targeted that specific segment though (it's not lucrative enough for AAA titles, so we have to wait for 'smaller' titles to fill the void) thus you didn't see those features in games. This is not a game quality issue but a market segmentation issue.
There is no set behavior for it:) The impetus is money and naturally many are closely watching trends: what currently sells and how to replicate it. Of course there are other goals for developers. If you reduce entertainment market to simply a money machine, you pretty much insult many a true artist with truly impressive work.
For gaming industry, there is a lot of pent up demand for something different. If you can't see this, I feel for you:) Simply because you do not understand or support any ideas to move the genre forward, doesn't mean there is no room for it or that it shouldn't be done. Is there any mmorpg you would describe as a work of art? Why?
I believe there is a market for something like this. I doubt many people would play a game where you grind mobs a lot, but a game about exploration and hints could be a big hit IMO. We have games like Dark Souls and games like Minecraft. Combine them together with a focus on exploration, discovery, and quests and you have a game a lot of people could play and enjoy without the trademark MMO structure.
With the uprise of more focussed mid budget titles there is hope.
I prefer a smaller scope focussed game over the "please everyone and their mother (literally)" types of games.
How many people would now be willing to play andpay for it abd is that enough?