All video games are time sinks... the WHOLE objective in playing a game is to waste time... you're not playing games because you have no free time on your hands... you are playing games because you DO have free time on your hands. If you had anything else better to do, you'd be doing it. It's the ant farm nature of our society...
Originally posted by Pepeq All video games are time sinks... the WHOLE objective in playing a game is to waste time... you're not playing games because you have no free time on your hands... you are playing games because you DO have free time on your hands. If you had anything else better to do, you'd be doing it. It's the ant farm nature of our society...
the sub text is repeatable content.
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
So I stopped playing each of those early MMORPGs without subscribing, purely on the basis of their sparse gameplay. It wasn't until recently that I made the connection that the rise of the subscription model was the reason for the rise of timesink-heavy games (it's really only ever been MMORPGs, with their time-based business model, which have ever been this timesink-heavy as games.)
I dont think you really were ever involved in the MMO scene....ever
All of what you said is so foreign to me....time sinks were in a few MMOs but in very few instances and were frequented by those that had the time and will....but were in no way experienced by the majority.
The Sub model was always there...and had nothing to do with any time sink. I just dont understand the blather you posted....sorry....
Although I disagree with a lot of things Axehilt has to say a lot of the time, I know what he's saying here. In his defense, he's basically saying that older MMORPG's were heavy in time sinks, not as much for the purpose of community building, which happened through the players making that happen anyways....but more so because the game was subscription based (Monthly fee).
The more time you spent in game, the more money the company made. Longer time sinks, meant more of a chance you'd re-up that sub in order for the player to reach particular goals they wished to meet.
They were NOT time sinks...they were what we played. "Time sink" is a modern term. Something that the elite decided to come up with. Back then...we just played. Yes the definition might be the same to you....but it isn't the same.
Meaning...back then, we just played. There was no fancy terms for everything. You people are trying to apply today's jackass terms to a day when we had none of it....
So...musings of an MMO vet...from a REAL one....STOP applying today's terms to the past
Exactly. in the 80-90s there were lots of games where you repeatedly done stuff to collect currency/xp to improve. Nobody called it time sinks. In the early 2000's technology moved on, now we had persistent worlds where we quested, done dungeons, and repeated content to generate xp, faction rep, gear. We didn't call them time sinks then either. Now modern games offer very diverse gameplay including repeatable content that players can opt in to. Things move on.
Again, this is aboutintent. There is one scenario for example where I would describe something as a time-sink and that's where a development team deliberately design content to be a time filler instead of a healthy proportional investment on content for monies received from player. I call out games that release little content over time, and the content they do release is small repeatable dungeons etc rather than broad and deep extensions to the virtual world/gameplay. That's a timesink.
Of course, there were no alternatives back then. Pretty much all MMOs operated that way, and it was INTENT to operate that way to get as many 15$ allotments as they can.
Assigning xp is arbitrary, 1xp, 10, 1000, 10000000000000 is just entry in the database.
So you can assign that 10 mobs will level you or 10000. or 100000. Now what is time sink again?
Now i dont mind long leveling times....if theres content to support it. But as soon as you resort to camping/farming means game crtitically lacks content to support it and its just a time sink.
Originally posted by Pepeq All video games are time sinks... the WHOLE objective in playing a game is to waste time... you're not playing games because you have no free time on your hands... you are playing games because you DO have free time on your hands. If you had anything else better to do, you'd be doing it. It's the ant farm nature of our society...
If you didnt play video games you would probably do something else not much less wasteful.
So limiting yourself to scope of video games and what time sinks are in vidoe games is understood.
Every game has time sinks. Not every game has excessive time sinks like old school games.
They were NOT time sinks...they were what we played. "Time sink" is a modern term. Something that the elite decided to come up with. Back then...we just played. Yes the definition might be the same to you....but it isn't the same.
Meaning...back then, we just played. There was no fancy terms for everything. You people are trying to apply today's jackass terms to a day when we had none of it....
So...musings of an MMO vet...from a REAL one....STOP applying today's terms to the past
Wrong.
Here is a 2002 article about EQ which alludes to how the term's popularity had risen dramatically following EQ's release.
So the term became common precisely when I said it did.
"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 Pepeq All video games are time sinks... the WHOLE objective in playing a game is to waste time... you're not playing games because you have no free time on your hands... you are playing games because you DO have free time on your hands. If you had anything else better to do, you'd be doing it. It's the ant farm nature of our society...
All videogames take time. Not all videogames are timesinks.
The fact that the term wasn't popularized until early MMORPGs (see 2002 article from my previous post) lends evidence to that.
Something is called a timesink specifically when it offers too little gameplay, relative to the time involved. So it's distinct from standard time-requiring activities.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They were NOT time sinks...they were what we played. "Time sink" is a modern term. Something that the elite decided to come up with. Back then...we just played. Yes the definition might be the same to you....but it isn't the same.
Meaning...back then, we just played. There was no fancy terms for everything. You people are trying to apply today's jackass terms to a day when we had none of it....
So...musings of an MMO vet...from a REAL one....STOP applying today's terms to the past
Wrong.
Here is a 2002 article about EQ which alludes to how the term's popularity had risen dramatically following EQ's release.
So the term became common precisely when I said it did.
Hah, very nice catch.
That guy had more sense in 2002 than lot of people today.
Hmmm Interesting.. I paid to play WoW longer then I paid for EQ.. Therefore WoW must of been littered with time-sinks to keep me longer.. This is almost funny tho.. So in EQ, it took you longer to level up, so therefore there was time sinks to keep you there till the next expansion came out (2 years?).. Whereas Blizzard allowed you to level up faster, but made you grind through lockouts and dungeons for gear until the next expansion (2 years?).. Two separate paths, but either way you end up spending 2 years playing until that next expansion.. LOL
Originally posted by Rydeson Hmmm Interesting.. I paid to play WoW longer then I paid for EQ.. Therefore WoW must of been littered with time-sinks to keep me longer.. This is almost funny tho.. So in EQ, it took you longer to level up, so therefore there was time sinks to keep you there till the next expansion came out (2 years?).. Whereas Blizzard allowed you to level up faster, but made you grind through lockouts and dungeons for gear until the next expansion (2 years?).. Two separate paths, but either way you end up spending 2 years playing until that next expansion.. LOL
Why would that conclusion seem logical to you?
Timesinks have been defined over and over in the thread. Timesinks are periods of little gameplay which require significant time. This clearly distinguishes them from parts of games which simply take time (but provide a lot of gameplay). Timesinks are about the time you put into the game vs. the gameplay you get out of the game. If the gameplay is too little relative to the time required, it's a timesink.
So timesinks are only a fraction of the total playtime in a good game. The rest is just quality gameplay. What do you think keeps players playing longer in the long-run? Quality gameplay, or timesinks?
Lockouts are an interesting case. They're timesinks in relation to real-world time (so yes, they exist to sell subscriptions) but not in relation to game time (arguably more important.) So without denying that they're bad in the same way as typical timesinks, the actual experienced gameplay is at least of higher quality because droprates don't have to be incredibly low to account for grind. This means less repetition for the same reward, and obviously we understand how excessive repetition degrades gameplay (a boss is interesting until you learn it, but tedious after you've mastered it. Which means that investing 6x as much time into raiding in a non-lockout game wouldn't actually provide 6x the gameplay, which means less gameplay per time invested, which means it's more of a timesink.)
"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 Rydeson Hmmm Interesting.. I paid to play WoW longer then I paid for EQ.. Therefore WoW must of been littered with time-sinks to keep me longer.. This is almost funny tho.. So in EQ, it took you longer to level up, so therefore there was time sinks to keep you there till the next expansion came out (2 years?).. Whereas Blizzard allowed you to level up faster, but made you grind through lockouts and dungeons for gear until the next expansion (2 years?).. Two separate paths, but either way you end up spending 2 years playing until that next expansion.. LOL
And now you know why <5% of vanilla wow playerbase participated in endgame. Not that you havent been told already.
Yes Blizzard wants to take your money, yes they used time sinks in endgame (due to lack of copnent), and ever since then they are trying to put more content, more varied conten and drops between expansions are noticable. Also wow is kinda unique where its usual people stay subbed even if they dont play, luxury that no other MMO can afford.
There is travel like in Bloodborne (which I'm playing now).
It is fun to traverse an unknown place without any help or guidance. It's a big scary/frustrating not knowing where you are where exactly when you died and knowing you are back at the beginning. Once you figure things out and how something connects it feels far more satisfying then following the GPS around and instantly reviving right at the position you started at. Having the mobs respawn when you die just adds to the challenge.
Traveling is not a time sink if it's designed well. It is more a challenge of exploration and survival. It can also be a good roleplaying environment.
I've gone over examples like having to succeed in adverse environmental conditions. Conditions that may require certain items to overcome. Others you may just have to do the best you can.
One thing I'm not a huge fan of in the Dark Souls/Blood Borne games is that you feel the need to grind at times if you aren't good enough to beat it without leveling up. That can be a little boring at times if you have to do it too much. That is not so much a time sink as covered in previous posts though (since you are doing something constantly).
I do think there was a purpose to things like sitting other then to keep you playing. In D&D you had things like resting to regain your spells (they could only be cast once per day). This couldn't be simulated in MMORPGs. Instead they added a (magic) bar and this prevented casters from casting non stop. It was a balance mechanic. Casters had more powerful abilities then melee fighters, but they were useless once they ran out of magic. Having to meditate (with the book in your face) for a while simulated the rest period in D&D, but in real time.
Camping is another issue. There are ups and downs to camping. Contested areas keep items far more rare then having instances. Most people seem to not like that as they want to have access to every item in the game. To me it's more about the adventure then about the items. The items are just a means to an end that are nice to have. If the items are not that powerful in the first place (like in original EQ) then it doesn't really matter anyway. They don't have a large impact on combat. A few more damage on a weapon or a few more ac on armor doesn't really help very much.
Travel not time sink when the road full of enemies and traps. If it isn't , it time sink.
For example , in dungeon , you travel from gate to boss room, Without the enemies and traps to stop you search to boss room , it time sink.
Add enemies , it turned to contents.
In old RPG where you don't get HP/MP regen over time , traveling is part of contents to chip off player's HP/MP and potions. If you can't get to another town before you run out of HP and item , you lost
But i feel like people here keep using "time sink" while gaming is "time sink" in first place. What ever in new or old , time sink still time sink.
Well , to some people , gaming not time sink but working.
Travel not time sink when the road full of enemies and traps. If it isn't , it time sink.
For example , in dungeon , you travel from gate to boss room, Without the enemies and traps to stop you search to boss room , it time sink.
Add enemies , it turned to contents.
In old RPG where you don't get HP/MP regen over time , traveling is part of contents to chip off player's HP/MP and potions. If you can't get to another town before you run out of HP and item , you lost
But i feel like people here keep using "time sink" while gaming is "time sink" in first place. What ever in new or old , time sink still time sink.
Well , to some people , gaming not time sink but working.
Somtimes its called a "timesink" if it takes time and don't want to do it. Technically this is inaccurate as that is more accurately called a "chore".
To be a time sink the activity should be an obviously implemented and designed feature whose purpose to stretch out how long a player will play the game for example certain raiding gear checks and similar mechanics are obvious time sinks as they force players to repetitiously kill content they can and do reliably kill often with things like timers involved to assure they can only reach the next level after at predetermined and hard set amount of time even if they are basically ready in all others way they still need to "sink" time into the endeavor for absolutely no reason other than to stretch things out. In addition they may need to perform various time wasting chores such as gathering potion ingredients for consumables that are considered necessary for a raid dungeons or whatever.
Note "time sink" and "wasting time" are not strictly equivalent. A time sink may waste your time, but other things also may waste your time. I personally won't play a game that becomes a chore, but other people will. Other people share this point of view but sometime communicate as saying the game is a massive time sink. Which actually means it wastes too much of their time on things they find no value in.
Now when it comes to travelling we must understand that in the minds of many people they will log into an EQ-style MMORPG such as WoW and their only goal is to run some instanced dungeon. You must understand that in this context ALL designs for travel that cause this to take a significant amount of time are going to be viewed as a chore and will therefore feel like a waste of time to people with this mindset. There will be varying degrees of tolerance for chores but no one likes chores.
Now if we take a different mindset, a person who logs in and wants to "experience the world" and decides to mosey on over to Dungeon X. Things change some, then the above quoted point comes into play. If there is nothing a long the way but a few pretty trees that gets boring pretty quick and people feel like traveling around is just a waste of time no matter what. If there are various events (combat oriented or otherwise) that people find enjoyable then when people have this mindset it will be viewed as a real aspect of a real game.
But even with this more favorable case we still run into the issues of the first mindset I mentioned. Because EQ-Style games have static content with tiered levels and fixed goals. Players regularly have limited time and fixed goals. Forcing them to fight some wolves they have no use for just because "immersion" when they are now in the phase of the game where they want one more try at the slot machine to get the Helm of Immaculate Tankiness is simply counter productive. When that is their goal, when you have written content which expressly forces them to have this goal, you will inherently create an unresolvable tension with travel time. Or ANY SORT OF THING that takes time away from another run at the slot machine.
The value of travel as a "thing" completely dependent on the character of the games content and the goals instilled by this content/gear/character advancement.
In fact just changing the content model from dungeon crawls to spawn camping radically affects how "good" people would feel about travel being a real "thing". The character of a spawn camp spot is directly related to the travel "layout" of an area, both for getting there and for how risky or convient it may be.
Whereas dungeon crawling in instances basically is competely at odds with travel times and there can be no real compromise. They necessarily conflict and the only way to make them not conflict is have them separate tracks entirely. Some peope seemed to be convince that they can have their cake and eat it to because some 1st gen MMORPGs had significant travel and dungeons. They are wrong. The reason these don't exist anymore is because of this described conflict. It simply won't work out well. Unforatunately they will never believe this because they seem to think the fact that it existed means it worked well, which is just wrong.
It can exist of course, I can also wear my pants on my head. But neither is a good idea.
It is literally pointless to talk of travel times and other aspects of travel without stipulating the character of the content of the MMORPG that is being discussed. The value of travel is so utterly dependent on the content model, that the exact same travel design can be good in one and utterly terrible in another. EvE's travel design is fine for the game, it would be utterly terrible in WoW.
Travel not time sink when the road full of enemies and traps. If it isn't , it time sink.
For example , in dungeon , you travel from gate to boss room, Without the enemies and traps to stop you search to boss room , it time sink.
Add enemies , it turned to contents.
In old RPG where you don't get HP/MP regen over time , traveling is part of contents to chip off player's HP/MP and potions. If you can't get to another town before you run out of HP and item , you lost
But i feel like people here keep using "time sink" while gaming is "time sink" in first place. What ever in new or old , time sink still time sink.
Well , to some people , gaming not time sink but working.
Somtimes its called a "timesink" if it takes time and don't want to do it. Technically this is inaccurate as that is more accurately called a "chore".
To be a time sink the activity should be an obviously implemented and designed feature whose purpose to stretch out how long a player will play the game for example certain raiding gear checks and similar mechanics are obvious time sinks as they force players to repetitiously kill content they can and do reliably kill often with things like timers involved to assure they can only reach the next level after at predetermined and hard set amount of time even if they are basically ready in all others way they still need to "sink" time into the endeavor for absolutely no reason other than to stretch things out. In addition they may need to perform various time wasting chores such as gathering potion ingredients for consumables that are considered necessary for a raid dungeons or whatever.
Note "time sink" and "wasting time" are not strictly equivalent. A time sink may waste your time, but other things also may waste your time. I personally won't play a game that becomes a chore, but other people will. Other people share this point of view but sometime communicate as saying the game is a massive time sink. Which actually means it wastes too much of their time on things they find no value in.
Now when it comes to travelling we must understand that in the minds of many people they will log into an EQ-style MMORPG such as WoW and their only goal is to run some instanced dungeon. You must understand that in this context ALL designs for travel that cause this to take a significant amount of time are going to be viewed as a chore and will therefore feel like a waste of time to people with this mindset. There will be varying degrees of tolerance for chores but no one likes chores.
Now if we take a different mindset, a person who logs in and wants to "experience the world" and decides to mosey on over to Dungeon X. Things change some, then the above quoted point comes into play. If there is nothing a long the way but a few pretty trees that gets boring pretty quick and people feel like traveling around is just a waste of time no matter what. If there are various events (combat oriented or otherwise) that people find enjoyable then when people have this mindset it will be viewed as a real aspect of a real game.
But even with this more favorable case we still run into the issues of the first mindset I mentioned. Because EQ-Style games have static content with tiered levels and fixed goals. Players regularly have limited time and fixed goals. Forcing them to fight some wolves they have no use for just because "immersion" when they are now in the phase of the game where they want one more try at the slot machine to get the Helm of Immaculate Tankiness is simply counter productive. When that is their goal, when you have written content which expressly forces them to have this goal, you will inherently create an unresolvable tension with travel time. Or ANY SORT OF THING that takes time away from another run at the slot machine.
The value of travel as a "thing" completely dependent on the character of the games content and the goals instilled by this content/gear/character advancement.
In fact just changing the content model from dungeon crawls to spawn camping radically affects how "good" people would feel about travel being a real "thing". The character of a spawn camp spot is directly related to the travel "layout" of an area, both for getting there and for how risky or convient it may be.
Whereas dungeon crawling in instances basically is competely at odds with travel times and there can be no real compromise. They necessarily conflict and the only way to make them not conflict is have them separate tracks entirely. Some peope seemed to be convince that they can have their cake and eat it to because some 1st gen MMORPGs had significant travel and dungeons. They are wrong. The reason these don't exist anymore is because of this described conflict. It simply won't work out well. Unforatunately they will never believe this because they seem to think the fact that it existed means it worked well, which is just wrong.
It can exist of course, I can also wear my pants on my head. But neither is a good idea.
It is literally pointless to talk of travel times and other aspects of travel without stipulating the character of the content of the MMORPG that is being discussed. The value of travel is so utterly dependent on the content model, that the exact same travel design can be good in one and utterly terrible in another. EvE's travel design is fine for the game, it would be utterly terrible in WoW.
Perhaps they are missing the whole point of playing if all they can appreciate is getting to the slot machine.
There is travel like in Bloodborne (which I'm playing now).
It is fun to traverse an unknown place without any help or guidance. It's a big scary/frustrating not knowing where you are where exactly when you died and knowing you are back at the beginning. Once you figure things out and how something connects it feels far more satisfying then following the GPS around and instantly reviving right at the position you started at. Having the mobs respawn when you die just adds to the challenge.
Traveling is not a time sink if it's designed well. It is more a challenge of exploration and survival. It can also be a good roleplaying environment.
I've gone over examples like having to succeed in adverse environmental conditions. Conditions that may require certain items to overcome. Others you may just have to do the best you can.
One thing I'm not a huge fan of in the Dark Souls/Blood Borne games is that you feel the need to grind at times if you aren't good enough to beat it without leveling up. That can be a little boring at times if you have to do it too much. That is not so much a time sink as covered in previous posts though (since you are doing something constantly).
I do think there was a purpose to things like sitting other then to keep you playing. In D&D you had things like resting to regain your spells (they could only be cast once per day). This couldn't be simulated in MMORPGs. Instead they added a (magic) bar and this prevented casters from casting non stop. It was a balance mechanic. Casters had more powerful abilities then melee fighters, but they were useless once they ran out of magic. Having to meditate (with the book in your face) for a while simulated the rest period in D&D, but in real time.
Camping is another issue. There are ups and downs to camping. Contested areas keep items far more rare then having instances. Most people seem to not like that as they want to have access to every item in the game. To me it's more about the adventure then about the items. The items are just a means to an end that are nice to have. If the items are not that powerful in the first place (like in original EQ) then it doesn't really matter anyway. They don't have a large impact on combat. A few more damage on a weapon or a few more ac on armor doesn't really help very much.
Timesinks are periods of little gameplay which require significant time.
Travel doesn't feel like a timesink in games where travel is gameplay.
If Bloodborne travel is mostly combat (gameplay; decision-making) then it won't be a timesink because of that gameplay.
MMORPG travel isn't like that at all, and most frequently is just watching a run animation with a little steering, and at most mob avoidance. That's very little gameplay. That's why it's a timesink. Forcing combat would force gameplay, but in a way which would quickly become tedious since you'd be fighting those same level 20 spiders that blocked your path between the two cities you usually travel between, and it wouldn't really be useful gameplay (due to both excessive repetition and the lack of challenge.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Perhaps they are missing the whole point of playing if all they can appreciate is getting to the slot machine.
Playing implies gameplay.
If your reason for engaging with a game is to simply view scenery and you can enjoy that, great. But most players play games to play games. And that implies decision-making.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Perhaps they are missing the whole point of playing if all they can appreciate is getting to the slot machine.
Playing implies gameplay.
If your reason for engaging with a game is to simply view scenery and you can enjoy that, great. But most players play games to play games. And that implies decision-making.
Traveling does involve decision making. You have to decide where to go and how best to get there. You also have to decide what to do if something comes along to attack you or if there is foggy weather. Is it too dangerous? Should I turn back? Do I need to stop to rest in town? Should I explore this grove I happened upon?
Perhaps they are missing the whole point of playing if all they can appreciate is getting to the slot machine.
Playing implies gameplay.
If your reason for engaging with a game is to simply view scenery and you can enjoy that, great. But most players play games to play games. And that implies decision-making.
Traveling does involve decision making. You have to decide where to go and how best to get there. You also have to decide what to do if something comes along to attack you or if there is foggy weather. Is it too dangerous? Should I turn back? Do I need to stop to rest in town? Should I explore this grove I happened upon?
I think Axehilt worded that poorly. What he should've said was: "interesting decision-making", which travel very rarely presents.
Most of the time, nothing happens. Even IF you encounter something, that something is likely to be a nuisance rather than fun gameplay. Dodging aggro bubbles, scouting ahead for and avoiding campers etc. This is the reality, and it is not fun for most people.
It is time to talk what travel means in practice rather than what you fantasize.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Perhaps they are missing the whole point of playing if all they can appreciate is getting to the slot machine.
Playing implies gameplay.
If your reason for engaging with a game is to simply view scenery and you can enjoy that, great. But most players play games to play games. And that implies decision-making.
Traveling does involve decision making. You have to decide where to go and how best to get there. You also have to decide what to do if something comes along to attack you or if there is foggy weather. Is it too dangerous? Should I turn back? Do I need to stop to rest in town? Should I explore this grove I happened upon?
I think Axehilt worded that poorly. What he should've said was: "interesting decision-making", which travel very rarely presents.
Most of the time, nothing happens. Even IF you encounter something, that something is likely to be a nuisance rather than fun gameplay. Dodging aggro bubbles, scouting ahead for and avoiding campers etc. This is the reality, and it is not fun for most people.
It is time to talk what travel means in practice rather than what you fantasize.
Fantasizing is what these games are all about I believe. Besides what does it matter if most people are not interested? I am interested so there is nothing wrong with talking about it IMO.
Perhaps they are missing the whole point of playing if all they can appreciate is getting to the slot machine.
Playing implies gameplay.
If your reason for engaging with a game is to simply view scenery and you can enjoy that, great. But most players play games to play games. And that implies decision-making.
Traveling does involve decision making. You have to decide where to go and how best to get there. You also have to decide what to do if something comes along to attack you or if there is foggy weather. Is it too dangerous? Should I turn back? Do I need to stop to rest in town? Should I explore this grove I happened upon?
I think Axehilt worded that poorly. What he should've said was: "interesting decision-making", which travel very rarely presents.
Most of the time, nothing happens. Even IF you encounter something, that something is likely to be a nuisance rather than fun gameplay. Dodging aggro bubbles, scouting ahead for and avoiding campers etc. This is the reality, and it is not fun for most people.
It is time to talk what travel means in practice rather than what you fantasize.
Fantasizing is what these games are all about I believe. Besides what does it matter if most people are not interested? I am interested so there is nothing wrong with talking about it IMO.
If people have to fantisize about playing a game while theyre supposedly playing a game....thas one bad game.
Perhaps they are missing the whole point of playing if all they can appreciate is getting to the slot machine.
Playing implies gameplay.
If your reason for engaging with a game is to simply view scenery and you can enjoy that, great. But most players play games to play games. And that implies decision-making.
Traveling does involve decision making. You have to decide where to go and how best to get there. You also have to decide what to do if something comes along to attack you or if there is foggy weather. Is it too dangerous? Should I turn back? Do I need to stop to rest in town? Should I explore this grove I happened upon?
I think Axehilt worded that poorly. What he should've said was: "interesting decision-making", which travel very rarely presents.
Most of the time, nothing happens. Even IF you encounter something, that something is likely to be a nuisance rather than fun gameplay. Dodging aggro bubbles, scouting ahead for and avoiding campers etc. This is the reality, and it is not fun for most people.
It is time to talk what travel means in practice rather than what you fantasize.
Fantasizing is what these games are all about I believe. Besides what does it matter if most people are not interested? I am interested so there is nothing wrong with talking about it IMO.
If people have to fantisize about playing a game while theyre supposedly playing a game....thas one bad game.
You are probably in the wrong genre if you are playing a game about having adventures in which all you are really doing is looking for the highest efficiency loot grind. It's fairly obvious that I am in the wrong genre now, but that won't stop me from writing what I think is good. I'd rather not argue about weather or not you feel x feature is in current games or x is what everyone wants. People keep dragging me in that direction. What I would rather talk about is what I actually wrote down a few comments ago. It wasn't a complaint, but ideas on how to make the genre better IMO. All you seem interested in is talking about financial stats about games or pointing out how there is a game out there for people and telling them go play it. If there was such a game I would be playing it. Dark Souls and Blood Borne are the closest I see and I'm playing them currently. Divinity Original Sin is a fairly good game as well and I've been playing that. Grand Theft Auto V is somewhat amusing even with the GPS just for the dialogue. None of them are MMOs though. I think if you really were interested in current MMOs you would be either playing them or talking about them instead of trying to defend them rather blindly.
Perhaps they are missing the whole point of playing if all they can appreciate is getting to the slot machine.
Playing implies gameplay.
If your reason for engaging with a game is to simply view scenery and you can enjoy that, great. But most players play games to play games. And that implies decision-making.
Traveling does involve decision making. You have to decide where to go and how best to get there. You also have to decide what to do if something comes along to attack you or if there is foggy weather. Is it too dangerous? Should I turn back? Do I need to stop to rest in town? Should I explore this grove I happened upon?
I think Axehilt worded that poorly. What he should've said was: "interesting decision-making", which travel very rarely presents.
Most of the time, nothing happens. Even IF you encounter something, that something is likely to be a nuisance rather than fun gameplay. Dodging aggro bubbles, scouting ahead for and avoiding campers etc. This is the reality, and it is not fun for most people.
It is time to talk what travel means in practice rather than what you fantasize.
Fantasizing is what these games are all about I believe. Besides what does it matter if most people are not interested? I am interested so there is nothing wrong with talking about it IMO.
If people have to fantisize about playing a game while theyre supposedly playing a game....thas one bad game.
You are probably in the wrong genre if you are playing a game about having adventures in which all you are really doing is looking for the highest efficiency loot grind. It's fairly obvious that I am in the wrong genre now, but that won't stop me from writing what I think is good. I'd rather not argue about weather or not you feel x feature is in current games or x is what everyone wants. People keep dragging me in that direction. What I would rather talk about is what I actually wrote down a few comments ago. It wasn't a complaint, but ideas on how to make the genre better IMO. All you seem interested in is talking about financial stats about games or pointing out how there is a game out there for people and telling them go play it. If there was such a game I would be playing it. Dark Souls and Blood Borne are the closest I see and I'm playing them currently. Divinity Original Sin is a fairly good game as well and I've been playing that. Grand Theft Auto V is somewhat amusing even with the GPS just for the dialogue. None of them are MMOs though. I think if you really were interested in current MMOs you would be either playing them or talking about them instead of trying to defend them rather blindly.
So now fantasizing about having adventure wile youre supposed to have adventure is....good. lol
Sorry, i play games to have advrntures, i dont need a game to fantisize about them, and im sure vast majority would agree
I care about financial stats because those are part of games, and if game cannot keep healthy financial staus it will degrade to point of Vanguard. So yea, you should keep that in mind, layoffs and galcial slow content is not really good thing.
You are probably in the wrong genre if you are playing a game about having adventures in which all you are really doing is looking for the highest efficiency loot grind. It's fairly obvious that I am in the wrong genre now, but that won't stop me from writing what I think is good. I'd rather not argue about weather or not you feel x feature is in current games or x is what everyone wants. People keep dragging me in that direction. What I would rather talk about is what I actually wrote down a few comments ago. It wasn't a complaint, but ideas on how to make the genre better IMO. All you seem interested in is talking about financial stats about games or pointing out how there is a game out there for people and telling them go play it. If there was such a game I would be playing it. Dark Souls and Blood Borne are the closest I see and I'm playing them currently. Divinity Original Sin is a fairly good game as well and I've been playing that. Grand Theft Auto V is somewhat amusing even with the GPS just for the dialogue. None of them are MMOs though. I think if you really were interested in current MMOs you would be either playing them or talking about them instead of trying to defend them rather blindly.
I know that feeling buddy.. The genre has been assimilated by the borg.. The days of adventure role playing are gone.. I grew up with paper and pencil AD&D and loved it, and for a time EQ and similar games were a good online substitute for that fun.. Then the arcade whack a mole crowd showed up.. These people didn't care about anything other then "loot" that makes them stronger and where is the next mob to kill.. Practicing your skills in forage, sense heading, safe fall, etc etc are probably considered all worthless time sinks.. I have hopes that one day we'll get a new updated gameplay version of "old school" where playing a character matters..
You are probably in the wrong genre if you are playing a game about having adventures in which all you are really doing is looking for the highest efficiency loot grind. It's fairly obvious that I am in the wrong genre now, but that won't stop me from writing what I think is good. I'd rather not argue about weather or not you feel x feature is in current games or x is what everyone wants. People keep dragging me in that direction. What I would rather talk about is what I actually wrote down a few comments ago. It wasn't a complaint, but ideas on how to make the genre better IMO. All you seem interested in is talking about financial stats about games or pointing out how there is a game out there for people and telling them go play it. If there was such a game I would be playing it. Dark Souls and Blood Borne are the closest I see and I'm playing them currently. Divinity Original Sin is a fairly good game as well and I've been playing that. Grand Theft Auto V is somewhat amusing even with the GPS just for the dialogue. None of them are MMOs though. I think if you really were interested in current MMOs you would be either playing them or talking about them instead of trying to defend them rather blindly.
I know that feeling buddy.. The genre has been assimilated by the borg.. The days of adventure role playing are gone.. I grew up with paper and pencil AD&D and loved it, and for a time EQ and similar games were a good online substitute for that fun.. Then the arcade whack a mole crowd showed up.. These people didn't care about anything other then "loot" that makes them stronger and where is the next mob to kill.. Practicing your skills in forage, sense heading, safe fall, etc etc are probably considered all worthless time sinks.. I have hopes that one day we'll get a new updated gameplay version of "old school" where playing a character matters..
I can't think of a way to agree more. One of the many reasons I love EQ2 and went back to it years after staying away.
You are probably in the wrong genre if you are playing a game about having adventures in which all you are really doing is looking for the highest efficiency loot grind. It's fairly obvious that I am in the wrong genre now, but that won't stop me from writing what I think is good. I'd rather not argue about weather or not you feel x feature is in current games or x is what everyone wants. People keep dragging me in that direction. What I would rather talk about is what I actually wrote down a few comments ago. It wasn't a complaint, but ideas on how to make the genre better IMO. All you seem interested in is talking about financial stats about games or pointing out how there is a game out there for people and telling them go play it. If there was such a game I would be playing it. Dark Souls and Blood Borne are the closest I see and I'm playing them currently. Divinity Original Sin is a fairly good game as well and I've been playing that. Grand Theft Auto V is somewhat amusing even with the GPS just for the dialogue. None of them are MMOs though. I think if you really were interested in current MMOs you would be either playing them or talking about them instead of trying to defend them rather blindly.
Eh, the genre is fine for players who play games for gameplay. It's true that a lot of games are poorly designed and fail to deliver gameplay at the same quality as they ought to, but the well-designed MMORPGs are great games with meaty systems which reward a fair amount of skill mastery.
If Bloodborne has gameplay-intensive travel which doesn't repeat itself too often, then you're right that travel definitely wouldn't be a timesink in that sort of game. It's very different than what MMORPGs offer, and MMORPGs would have to allow fast travel (or something like it) for their travel to avoid the repetition that makes gameplay less interesting, but an MMORPG could choose to implement travel that way and it would work. Puzzle Pirates was completely different from typical MMORPGs, but they did it perfect: gameplay just happened to be travel -- you weren't sitting there passively watching a run action, you were sailing or bilging or rigging.
Most games do opt for fast travel systems, and a lot of them finally caught on to using Diablo's waypoints where once you've traveled there once you can teleport there (FFXIV, GW2). So they skip the boring travel and only give you the eventful travel. Exactly like how the Lord of the Rings story doesn't spend excessive time on Gandalf's running back and forth between places in both books -- because good entertainers know their audience's time isn't something to be wasted.
Personally I think you could also do it as a serious of randomly created instances which always stem off from some central location, with ramping difficulty such that surviving all the way to the end was rare (and dying reset the whole thing.) Additional cities could act as checkpoints for surviving far enough, and would start you at that level for your next series of instance runs. Basically a very similar setup to the original Diablo (and similarly you could also do such a game with only one town.) It wouldn't really have to be an MMO of any sort to be fun, but I suppose an MMO version of it might be something like giant GW2 zones where the world events actually end in either success or failure -- so as a giant collective of players on this large map you need to work together to beat the challenges at hand to complete the map and move on to the next one (or fail and have it reset but everyone saves their progression.)
But yeah, there is tons of potential for travel. The only thing that doesn't work is the empty non-gameplay that most MMORPGs use. Any form of dense gameplay, whether it be combat or dialog or sailing or whatever, will make travel a fun experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
the sub text is repeatable content.
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
Of course, there were no alternatives back then. Pretty much all MMOs operated that way, and it was INTENT to operate that way to get as many 15$ allotments as they can.
Assigning xp is arbitrary, 1xp, 10, 1000, 10000000000000 is just entry in the database.
So you can assign that 10 mobs will level you or 10000. or 100000. Now what is time sink again?
Now i dont mind long leveling times....if theres content to support it. But as soon as you resort to camping/farming means game crtitically lacks content to support it and its just a time sink.
If you didnt play video games you would probably do something else not much less wasteful.
So limiting yourself to scope of video games and what time sinks are in vidoe games is understood.
Every game has time sinks. Not every game has excessive time sinks like old school games.
Wrong.
Here is a 2002 article about EQ which alludes to how the term's popularity had risen dramatically following EQ's release.
So the term became common precisely when I said it did.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
All videogames take time. Not all videogames are timesinks.
The fact that the term wasn't popularized until early MMORPGs (see 2002 article from my previous post) lends evidence to that.
Something is called a timesink specifically when it offers too little gameplay, relative to the time involved. So it's distinct from standard time-requiring activities.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Hah, very nice catch.
That guy had more sense in 2002 than lot of people today.
Why would that conclusion seem logical to you?
Timesinks have been defined over and over in the thread. Timesinks are periods of little gameplay which require significant time. This clearly distinguishes them from parts of games which simply take time (but provide a lot of gameplay). Timesinks are about the time you put into the game vs. the gameplay you get out of the game. If the gameplay is too little relative to the time required, it's a timesink.
So timesinks are only a fraction of the total playtime in a good game. The rest is just quality gameplay. What do you think keeps players playing longer in the long-run? Quality gameplay, or timesinks?
Lockouts are an interesting case. They're timesinks in relation to real-world time (so yes, they exist to sell subscriptions) but not in relation to game time (arguably more important.) So without denying that they're bad in the same way as typical timesinks, the actual experienced gameplay is at least of higher quality because droprates don't have to be incredibly low to account for grind. This means less repetition for the same reward, and obviously we understand how excessive repetition degrades gameplay (a boss is interesting until you learn it, but tedious after you've mastered it. Which means that investing 6x as much time into raiding in a non-lockout game wouldn't actually provide 6x the gameplay, which means less gameplay per time invested, which means it's more of a timesink.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And now you know why <5% of vanilla wow playerbase participated in endgame. Not that you havent been told already.
Yes Blizzard wants to take your money, yes they used time sinks in endgame (due to lack of copnent), and ever since then they are trying to put more content, more varied conten and drops between expansions are noticable. Also wow is kinda unique where its usual people stay subbed even if they dont play, luxury that no other MMO can afford.
I still don't consider travel a time sink.
There is travel like in Bloodborne (which I'm playing now).
It is fun to traverse an unknown place without any help or guidance. It's a big scary/frustrating not knowing where you are where exactly when you died and knowing you are back at the beginning. Once you figure things out and how something connects it feels far more satisfying then following the GPS around and instantly reviving right at the position you started at. Having the mobs respawn when you die just adds to the challenge.
Traveling is not a time sink if it's designed well. It is more a challenge of exploration and survival. It can also be a good roleplaying environment.
I've gone over examples like having to succeed in adverse environmental conditions. Conditions that may require certain items to overcome. Others you may just have to do the best you can.
One thing I'm not a huge fan of in the Dark Souls/Blood Borne games is that you feel the need to grind at times if you aren't good enough to beat it without leveling up. That can be a little boring at times if you have to do it too much. That is not so much a time sink as covered in previous posts though (since you are doing something constantly).
I do think there was a purpose to things like sitting other then to keep you playing. In D&D you had things like resting to regain your spells (they could only be cast once per day). This couldn't be simulated in MMORPGs. Instead they added a (magic) bar and this prevented casters from casting non stop. It was a balance mechanic. Casters had more powerful abilities then melee fighters, but they were useless once they ran out of magic. Having to meditate (with the book in your face) for a while simulated the rest period in D&D, but in real time.
Camping is another issue. There are ups and downs to camping. Contested areas keep items far more rare then having instances. Most people seem to not like that as they want to have access to every item in the game. To me it's more about the adventure then about the items. The items are just a means to an end that are nice to have. If the items are not that powerful in the first place (like in original EQ) then it doesn't really matter anyway. They don't have a large impact on combat. A few more damage on a weapon or a few more ac on armor doesn't really help very much.
Travel not time sink when the road full of enemies and traps. If it isn't , it time sink.
For example , in dungeon , you travel from gate to boss room, Without the enemies and traps to stop you search to boss room , it time sink.
Add enemies , it turned to contents.
In old RPG where you don't get HP/MP regen over time , traveling is part of contents to chip off player's HP/MP and potions. If you can't get to another town before you run out of HP and item , you lost
But i feel like people here keep using "time sink" while gaming is "time sink" in first place. What ever in new or old , time sink still time sink.
Well , to some people , gaming not time sink but working.
Somtimes its called a "timesink" if it takes time and don't want to do it. Technically this is inaccurate as that is more accurately called a "chore".
To be a time sink the activity should be an obviously implemented and designed feature whose purpose to stretch out how long a player will play the game for example certain raiding gear checks and similar mechanics are obvious time sinks as they force players to repetitiously kill content they can and do reliably kill often with things like timers involved to assure they can only reach the next level after at predetermined and hard set amount of time even if they are basically ready in all others way they still need to "sink" time into the endeavor for absolutely no reason other than to stretch things out. In addition they may need to perform various time wasting chores such as gathering potion ingredients for consumables that are considered necessary for a raid dungeons or whatever.
Note "time sink" and "wasting time" are not strictly equivalent. A time sink may waste your time, but other things also may waste your time. I personally won't play a game that becomes a chore, but other people will. Other people share this point of view but sometime communicate as saying the game is a massive time sink. Which actually means it wastes too much of their time on things they find no value in.
Now when it comes to travelling we must understand that in the minds of many people they will log into an EQ-style MMORPG such as WoW and their only goal is to run some instanced dungeon. You must understand that in this context ALL designs for travel that cause this to take a significant amount of time are going to be viewed as a chore and will therefore feel like a waste of time to people with this mindset. There will be varying degrees of tolerance for chores but no one likes chores.
Now if we take a different mindset, a person who logs in and wants to "experience the world" and decides to mosey on over to Dungeon X. Things change some, then the above quoted point comes into play. If there is nothing a long the way but a few pretty trees that gets boring pretty quick and people feel like traveling around is just a waste of time no matter what. If there are various events (combat oriented or otherwise) that people find enjoyable then when people have this mindset it will be viewed as a real aspect of a real game.
But even with this more favorable case we still run into the issues of the first mindset I mentioned. Because EQ-Style games have static content with tiered levels and fixed goals. Players regularly have limited time and fixed goals. Forcing them to fight some wolves they have no use for just because "immersion" when they are now in the phase of the game where they want one more try at the slot machine to get the Helm of Immaculate Tankiness is simply counter productive. When that is their goal, when you have written content which expressly forces them to have this goal, you will inherently create an unresolvable tension with travel time. Or ANY SORT OF THING that takes time away from another run at the slot machine.
The value of travel as a "thing" completely dependent on the character of the games content and the goals instilled by this content/gear/character advancement.
In fact just changing the content model from dungeon crawls to spawn camping radically affects how "good" people would feel about travel being a real "thing". The character of a spawn camp spot is directly related to the travel "layout" of an area, both for getting there and for how risky or convient it may be.
Whereas dungeon crawling in instances basically is competely at odds with travel times and there can be no real compromise. They necessarily conflict and the only way to make them not conflict is have them separate tracks entirely. Some peope seemed to be convince that they can have their cake and eat it to because some 1st gen MMORPGs had significant travel and dungeons. They are wrong. The reason these don't exist anymore is because of this described conflict. It simply won't work out well. Unforatunately they will never believe this because they seem to think the fact that it existed means it worked well, which is just wrong.
It can exist of course, I can also wear my pants on my head. But neither is a good idea.
It is literally pointless to talk of travel times and other aspects of travel without stipulating the character of the content of the MMORPG that is being discussed. The value of travel is so utterly dependent on the content model, that the exact same travel design can be good in one and utterly terrible in another. EvE's travel design is fine for the game, it would be utterly terrible in WoW.
Perhaps they are missing the whole point of playing if all they can appreciate is getting to the slot machine.
Timesinks are periods of little gameplay which require significant time.
Travel doesn't feel like a timesink in games where travel is gameplay.
If Bloodborne travel is mostly combat (gameplay; decision-making) then it won't be a timesink because of that gameplay.
MMORPG travel isn't like that at all, and most frequently is just watching a run animation with a little steering, and at most mob avoidance. That's very little gameplay. That's why it's a timesink. Forcing combat would force gameplay, but in a way which would quickly become tedious since you'd be fighting those same level 20 spiders that blocked your path between the two cities you usually travel between, and it wouldn't really be useful gameplay (due to both excessive repetition and the lack of challenge.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Playing implies gameplay.
If your reason for engaging with a game is to simply view scenery and you can enjoy that, great. But most players play games to play games. And that implies decision-making.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Traveling does involve decision making. You have to decide where to go and how best to get there. You also have to decide what to do if something comes along to attack you or if there is foggy weather. Is it too dangerous? Should I turn back? Do I need to stop to rest in town? Should I explore this grove I happened upon?
I think Axehilt worded that poorly. What he should've said was: "interesting decision-making", which travel very rarely presents.
Most of the time, nothing happens. Even IF you encounter something, that something is likely to be a nuisance rather than fun gameplay. Dodging aggro bubbles, scouting ahead for and avoiding campers etc. This is the reality, and it is not fun for most people.
It is time to talk what travel means in practice rather than what you fantasize.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Fantasizing is what these games are all about I believe. Besides what does it matter if most people are not interested? I am interested so there is nothing wrong with talking about it IMO.
If people have to fantisize about playing a game while theyre supposedly playing a game....thas one bad game.
You are probably in the wrong genre if you are playing a game about having adventures in which all you are really doing is looking for the highest efficiency loot grind. It's fairly obvious that I am in the wrong genre now, but that won't stop me from writing what I think is good. I'd rather not argue about weather or not you feel x feature is in current games or x is what everyone wants. People keep dragging me in that direction. What I would rather talk about is what I actually wrote down a few comments ago. It wasn't a complaint, but ideas on how to make the genre better IMO. All you seem interested in is talking about financial stats about games or pointing out how there is a game out there for people and telling them go play it. If there was such a game I would be playing it. Dark Souls and Blood Borne are the closest I see and I'm playing them currently. Divinity Original Sin is a fairly good game as well and I've been playing that. Grand Theft Auto V is somewhat amusing even with the GPS just for the dialogue. None of them are MMOs though. I think if you really were interested in current MMOs you would be either playing them or talking about them instead of trying to defend them rather blindly.
So now fantasizing about having adventure wile youre supposed to have adventure is....good. lol
Sorry, i play games to have advrntures, i dont need a game to fantisize about them, and im sure vast majority would agree
I care about financial stats because those are part of games, and if game cannot keep healthy financial staus it will degrade to point of Vanguard. So yea, you should keep that in mind, layoffs and galcial slow content is not really good thing.
I know that feeling buddy.. The genre has been assimilated by the borg.. The days of adventure role playing are gone.. I grew up with paper and pencil AD&D and loved it, and for a time EQ and similar games were a good online substitute for that fun.. Then the arcade whack a mole crowd showed up.. These people didn't care about anything other then "loot" that makes them stronger and where is the next mob to kill.. Practicing your skills in forage, sense heading, safe fall, etc etc are probably considered all worthless time sinks.. I have hopes that one day we'll get a new updated gameplay version of "old school" where playing a character matters..
I can't think of a way to agree more. One of the many reasons I love EQ2 and went back to it years after staying away.
Eh, the genre is fine for players who play games for gameplay. It's true that a lot of games are poorly designed and fail to deliver gameplay at the same quality as they ought to, but the well-designed MMORPGs are great games with meaty systems which reward a fair amount of skill mastery.
If Bloodborne has gameplay-intensive travel which doesn't repeat itself too often, then you're right that travel definitely wouldn't be a timesink in that sort of game. It's very different than what MMORPGs offer, and MMORPGs would have to allow fast travel (or something like it) for their travel to avoid the repetition that makes gameplay less interesting, but an MMORPG could choose to implement travel that way and it would work. Puzzle Pirates was completely different from typical MMORPGs, but they did it perfect: gameplay just happened to be travel -- you weren't sitting there passively watching a run action, you were sailing or bilging or rigging.
Most games do opt for fast travel systems, and a lot of them finally caught on to using Diablo's waypoints where once you've traveled there once you can teleport there (FFXIV, GW2). So they skip the boring travel and only give you the eventful travel. Exactly like how the Lord of the Rings story doesn't spend excessive time on Gandalf's running back and forth between places in both books -- because good entertainers know their audience's time isn't something to be wasted.
Personally I think you could also do it as a serious of randomly created instances which always stem off from some central location, with ramping difficulty such that surviving all the way to the end was rare (and dying reset the whole thing.) Additional cities could act as checkpoints for surviving far enough, and would start you at that level for your next series of instance runs. Basically a very similar setup to the original Diablo (and similarly you could also do such a game with only one town.) It wouldn't really have to be an MMO of any sort to be fun, but I suppose an MMO version of it might be something like giant GW2 zones where the world events actually end in either success or failure -- so as a giant collective of players on this large map you need to work together to beat the challenges at hand to complete the map and move on to the next one (or fail and have it reset but everyone saves their progression.)
But yeah, there is tons of potential for travel. The only thing that doesn't work is the empty non-gameplay that most MMORPGs use. Any form of dense gameplay, whether it be combat or dialog or sailing or whatever, will make travel a fun experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver