What games that have come out in the modern that are AAA have failed from being too challenging? You can't compare EQ because it's another generation graphics, UI and playability wise. There are no games... maybe some indie games that suffer from far more than being too hard.
While not an MMOs Dark Souls and even Diablo have done rather well.
Why are you asking that question?
The discussion has recently been about death penalty, and overall has been about whether to include deliberately crappy game elements in a misguided attempt to make the game better.
Death penalty doesn't add challenge.
Challenge is a measure of how much skill is required to avoid failure.
Penalty is what happens after failing.
Because penalty occurs after the decisions, typically involves no decisions of its own (and at best involves shallower decisions than regular play), it doesn't add challenge.
Increasing penalty just increases penalty (which is why it's masochistic,) and discourages players from engaging in the game's toughest challenges.
In terms of actual challenges, I've already pointed out MMORPGs should be better at supporting a range of difficulty options. Which is why your question seems so strange.
The reason I ask is how do you know EQ wasn't more successful because it was difficult. What difficult AAA game has been released in the last 10 years to prove that?
Anything that makes a game harder makes it more challenging if it test your skill or patience. Whether the challenge is necessary or not is another question. Losing lives after you die in Super Mario or perm death like in Diablo is part of challenge. Those things happen after the fact
Challenge is not just how much skill it takes to avoid failure. In a game and sports its how much it takes to complete. How much skill it takes to compete. Again losing exp makes a game harder to complete.
If you want to use masochistic its starts into ridiculousness. NPC's that hit harder, faster, move faster, act faster, smart all could be masochistic if you compare it to an easier difficulty NPC. That's all opinion. This forum is the only place that I know of that challenge has to be something desired by all. My view climbing Mt. Everest is masochistic. Doesn't mean its not a challenge to complete because you risk your life and limb.
Isn't he saying that MMOs should offer many different "tastes" instead of a single one?
I mean eating a huge bag of candy with the same taste isn't as good as a huge mixed bag even if we throw away a few pieces we don't like the taste of.
Adding more different things to do in MMOs is good, and varying how you run through the content is good as well. Soloing to max level, play group dungeon until you get raid gear and then just raid isn't as fun as mixing the content both when you level up to max and after (if we are talking PvE themeparks, but you can vary the content in PvP games and sandboxes as well).
Of course, most MMOers tend to be a bit lazy and run the content that rewards you most compared to the time it takes to play it. In the mid 2000s running dungeons were usually the fastest way to level so people did that a lot, now questing is faster so people do that instead. Maybe mixing the content should be the most rewarding way to play instead, that might make people staying longer in the game since it is most fun for the majority of the players.
And it wouldn't hurt if someone could figure out some new types of gameplay as well (like current crafting, questing, dungeons, raids, battlegrounds, exploring and RvR).
The easier fix would be to make all paths as rewarding, so people can choose what they like rather than what is most convenient or most rewarding. If you are going to cater to multiple play styles, then actually cater to them and none of the current favoritism towards one over the others that is so dominant in this genre.
Well, they should of course do that as well, or at least balance the risk Vs reward so easier paths takes longer and is less rewarding then the harder stuff. Rewarding players for being lazy and punish the ones that do harder content is beyond stupid, but it is still very common in todays games.
But adding more things to do would open up new possibilities and add new experience to the players, and I think that will be critical for the genres survival. Figuring out new types of gameplay is hard though and an alternative is to take the playstyles we already have and change them to something new.
Take crafting. In most MMOs you gather materials through nodes or by salvaging other items and then you stick them together at a forge (or similar device) using recepies you either loot or buy.You start by making crude useless stuff and need to craft a lot of crap before you can make useful stuff.
The purpose of crafting is to get better gear, earn some money or in some games to replace broken or lost gear. To re-invent crafting that is what we need to keep in mind, nothing else.
The gathering part is actually rather boring. One replacement would be to let players or guilds to own farms, mines, lumber mills, herb gardens and similar and let them barter with eachother to trade for other resources. You could add some dungeonlike missions where players visit ancient mines filled with monsters, owned by evil cults or whatever and get rewarded by rare resources. Let explorers find a rare herb, a lost piece of ore and similar in hard to find places... Or something different.
As for the crafting in itself, we seen minigames but they tend to become boring fast. It works for the hardest to get gear, a minigame when you craft something legendary (that actually is legendary and not something all players get easily) works and can be fun though but regular stuff should be fast to craft.
For learning to craft a specific thing there are alternatives. You could use something not unlike how the tech tree in CIV works, where the player reserch specific things. Certain could be unlocked by achivement, by studying ancient hard to find blueprints (for example in a smithy of a legendary lost city).
That is just a few examples. Look on why a specific type of gameplay is in the game in the first place and try to re-engineer a new and more fun way to solve the same problem instead of just do what everyone else is doing.
The reason I ask is how do you know EQ wasn't more successful because it was difficult. What difficult AAA game has been released in the last 10 years to prove that?
Anything that makes a game harder makes it more challenging if it test your skill or patience. Whether the challenge is necessary or not is another question. Losing lives after you die in Super Mario or perm death like in Diablo is part of challenge. Those things happen after the fact
Challenge is not just how much skill it takes to avoid failure. In a game and sports its how much it takes to complete. How much skill it takes to compete. Again losing exp makes a game harder to complete.
If you want to use masochistic its starts into ridiculousness. NPC's that hit harder, faster, move faster, act faster, smart all could be masochistic if you compare it to an easier difficulty NPC. That's all opinion. This forum is the only place that I know of that challenge has to be something desired by all. My view climbing Mt. Everest is masochistic. Doesn't mean its not a challenge to complete because you risk your life and limb.
Challenge definitely implies a contest of skill. It's a word focused on the most common way players enjoy games (pattern mastery; skill development).
Difficulty can include non-skill elements, but since it isn't focused purely on the most common way players enjoy games, it's a less useful term when we dig into its semantic definition. It includes punishment and time-consumption, and those things don't offer interesting decisions. Since so few players are masochists (seeking punishment) and even fewer players want boredom (seeking time-consumption for its own sake), it's not a meaningful word to discuss.
We know EQ would've been more successful by looking at the broad spread of gaming and finding that none of the most successful games focus on punishment or time-consumption. The most successful games are consistently the ones with light penalties.
We understand this intellectually because we know that the most common reason players have fun in games is pattern mastery where players are learning to do something better over time. The moment of failure is a critical part of that learning, because it's the final judgement of whether or not you played skillfully enough (and if not you'll have to try again and keep learning.) Any penalty after that point is excess: it's just kicking the player while they're down and teaches them nothing. So it lacks purpose.
Climbing Mt Everest involves decisions. An NPC who hits harder involves decisions (ie time to activate Evasion.) Being kicked after you fall in a MMORPG involves no decisions. Decisions are the deciding factor here, because they represent the pattern, learning, and skill.
Death penalty is essentially the Everest climber failing to reach the time (failing the challenge) and returning to base camp to be repeatedly kicked in the shins. You're advocating the shin-kicking. I'm telling you the failed climb is enough.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We understand this intellectually because we know that the most common reason players have fun in games is pattern mastery where players are learning to do something better over time. The moment of failure is a critical part of that learning, because it's the final judgement of whether or not you played skillfully enough (and if not you'll have to try again and keep learning.) Any penalty after that point is excess: it's just kicking the player while they're down and teaches them nothing. So it lacks purpose.
Climbing Mt Everest involves decisions. An NPC who hits harder involves decisions (ie time to activate Evasion.) Being kicked after you fall in a MMORPG involves no decisions. Decisions are the deciding factor here, because they represent the pattern, learning, and skill.
Death penalty is essentially the Everest climber failing to reach the time (failing the challenge) and returning to base camp to be repeatedly kicked in the shins. You're advocating the shin-kicking. I'm telling you the failed climb is enough.
The person who failed to climb Mt. Everest would likely not have died. It's likely they would have suffered a great deal get back to safety and recovering from the toll it took on their bodies. Perhaps it's not a good comparison other then to point out the person who was climbing Mt. Everest was suffering from the cold and other various punishments inflicted on the body from moving in an environment hostile to humans. (Something that is rarely portrayed in games these days).
To say death penalty provides no additional decisions doesn't sound right to me. If you die, you lose experience, you spawn somewhere else, and your body is at the point where you died you have to make decisions. Is it worth it to try and recover your body. Is it worth it to try and go deeper into the area you were or do you give up (I think this is what developers are scared of). Basically it's the decision of figuring out what is the best course of action after you die. Right now there is no thinking required. You die, you respawn, and your try again.
I would point out a gain that to create various different illusion's of hardship in game you have to present the player with certain trials that would imitate those hardships. I've pointed out training as one of those. Grinding in a sense can give the illusion of training for more difficult fights. Dying with penalties can give the illusion that the world is not a safe place to venture out into.
You seem to only consider things from a logical standpoint in terms of making money. Basically you consider them from a business standpoint. I think this is why games, movies, and other entertainment goes down the toilet when they hit mass market and start to be picked apart. Instead of making a game from the heart it is being made based on statistics that prove more people will play a game. That doesn't mean it's more fun. It just means there are a lot of people out there who lack the intestinal fortitude to make it through certain challenges.
The reason I ask is how do you know EQ wasn't more successful because it was difficult. What difficult AAA game has been released in the last 10 years to prove that?
Anything that makes a game harder makes it more challenging if it test your skill or patience. Whether the challenge is necessary or not is another question. Losing lives after you die in Super Mario or perm death like in Diablo is part of challenge. Those things happen after the fact
Challenge is not just how much skill it takes to avoid failure. In a game and sports its how much it takes to complete. How much skill it takes to compete. Again losing exp makes a game harder to complete.
If you want to use masochistic its starts into ridiculousness. NPC's that hit harder, faster, move faster, act faster, smart all could be masochistic if you compare it to an easier difficulty NPC. That's all opinion. This forum is the only place that I know of that challenge has to be something desired by all. My view climbing Mt. Everest is masochistic. Doesn't mean its not a challenge to complete because you risk your life and limb.
Challenge definitely implies a contest of skill. It's a word focused on the most common way players enjoy games (pattern mastery; skill development).
Difficulty can include non-skill elements, but since it isn't focused purely on the most common way players enjoy games, it's a less useful term when we dig into its semantic definition. It includes punishment and time-consumption, and those things don't offer interesting decisions. Since so few players are masochists (seeking punishment) and even fewer players want boredom (seeking time-consumption for its own sake), it's not a meaningful word to discuss.
We know EQ would've been more successful by looking at the broad spread of gaming and finding that none of the most successful games focus on punishment or time-consumption. The most successful games are consistently the ones with light penalties.
We understand this intellectually because we know that the most common reason players have fun in games is pattern mastery where players are learning to do something better over time. The moment of failure is a critical part of that learning, because it's the final judgement of whether or not you played skillfully enough (and if not you'll have to try again and keep learning.) Any penalty after that point is excess: it's just kicking the player while they're down and teaches them nothing. So it lacks purpose.
Climbing Mt Everest involves decisions. An NPC who hits harder involves decisions (ie time to activate Evasion.) Being kicked after you fall in a MMORPG involves no decisions. Decisions are the deciding factor here, because they represent the pattern, learning, and skill.
Death penalty is essentially the Everest climber failing to reach the time (failing the challenge) and returning to base camp to be repeatedly kicked in the shins. You're advocating the shin-kicking. I'm telling you the failed climb is enough.
That's your opinion. You opinion that dying and respawning is enough. Suppose someone said that they should instantly revive after death? Or the next person said that even dying is shin-kicking and they should never die.
If my goal is to get to max level death penalties add to the challenge if I have risk of dying. These do effect your decisions because you don't want to lose an hours worth of by dying. You make sure you play smart and skilfully. Not dying is a skill in any other place but these forums. If dying means nothing than it takes less skill to succeed because you fail as much as you want and restart.
The person who failed to climb Mt. Everest would likely not have died. It's likely they would have suffered a great deal get back to safety and recovering from the toll it took on their bodies. Perhaps it's not a good comparison other then to point out the person who was climbing Mt. Everest was suffering from the cold and other various punishments inflicted on the body from moving in an environment hostile to humans. (Something that is rarely portrayed in games these days).
To say death penalty provides no additional decisions doesn't sound right to me. If you die, you lose experience, you spawn somewhere else, and your body is at the point where you died you have to make decisions. Is it worth it to try and recover your body. Is it worth it to try and go deeper into the area you were or do you give up (I think this is what developers are scared of). Basically it's the decision of figuring out what is the best course of action after you die. Right now there is no thinking required. You die, you respawn, and your try again.
I would point out a gain that to create various different illusion's of hardship in game you have to present the player with certain trials that would imitate those hardships. I've pointed out training as one of those. Grinding in a sense can give the illusion of training for more difficult fights. Dying with penalties can give the illusion that the world is not a safe place to venture out into.
You seem to only consider things from a logical standpoint in terms of making money. Basically you consider them from a business standpoint. I think this is why games, movies, and other entertainment goes down the toilet when they hit mass market and start to be picked apart. Instead of making a game from the heart it is being made based on statistics that prove more people will play a game. That doesn't mean it's more fun. It just means there are a lot of people out there who lack the intestinal fortitude to make it through certain challenges.
Damage someone suffers while climbing Mt Everest is suffered during the challenge. The identical mechanic in a game would be suffering HP damage. Are you under the impression anyone here is objecting to suffering HP damage?
No, high-penalty gaming is about failing to climb Everest and coming back home to be kicked in the shins after the challenge. You're already down; high-penalty just means kicking you while you're down.
A common mistake you make is trying to argue for something by pointing out things which are true of both sides of the argument.
For example when you die in a light-penalty game, you still have to choose what to do next (managing your risk of failure against potential reward.) You still respawn somewhere else and have to figure out how to get back.
So when you die in a high-penalty game the only thing unique to that is the XP penalty (or gold/gear/etc penalty). Those are the things with no decision-making. What can you do about those penalties? Nothing! They already happened! You can't change them.
The only exception is things like running back to a corpse, which does involve limited decisions. However the decisions made when retrieving a corpse are shallower than standard play, since all you're faced with is more combat and avoiding mobs.
So no, developers aren't "scared" of implementing high-penalty games, just as car designers aren't "scared" of implementing square wheels. It's not fear that leads a designer to avoid known bad designs. It's knowledge that they are bad designs.
There is plenty of creativity left within the very broad guidelines of knowledge. Cars aren't all the same just because they use round wheels, after all.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What difficult AAA game has been released in the last 10 years to prove that?
Another thing worth considering: "What automobile released in the last 10 years to prove that square wheels don't work?"
None. Because the reasons square wheels don't work haven't magically changed in the last 10 years.
Games with deliberately-crappy parts also haven't magically become more desired in the last 10 years. Games have enough crappy parts even when trying to make all the parts awesome.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I have enough things that are not fun in life. I want my entertainment games to be fun 100% of the time I am playing. If not then it is not accomplishing it's reason for existence.
Fun is only one aspect
I want to be entertained.
Aren't they different ways to describe the same thing? Is it really entertaining to sit through hours of tedium and aggravating activities so that skinner can drop you a fun cookie every 10 - 15 hours? That's not entertaining to me, but entertainment is subjective I guess. What I find entertaining I also generally find "fun". I don't find it entertaining to wait through countless hours of not fun stuff in hopes of a tiny little bit of fun here and there.
Entertainment encompases so much more than just fun. I'm not asking for aggravating activities at all. Infact if an activity is aggravating I don't find it entertaining.
Did you ever watch Schindler's List?
Did you find it entertaining?
Did you find it fun?
I can get fun from playing Mario Bros.
Something that takes 5+ years, a hundred million dollars + and a continual investment on my part I expect more than just fun. I want it to work my brain in more ways than one. A masterpiece will make me cry, laugh and learn and keep me coming back for more.
I did not find Schindler's List entertaining. I don't find those sorts of movies entertaining at all; informative and possibly thought provoking and educational, but not entertaining.
I love math. I find it challenging and engaging, even occasionally fun, but overall not entertaining. I don't do maths for entertainment. I do logic and maths for work. I get entertainment out of adventures, stories, puzzles that relate to those aspects and rpgs. Entertainment is frivolous fun, work can be fun at times but is always serious. I want my entertainment to be fun, not work. If it's not fun then it's not entertainment to me.
Your points are valid, and everybody wants a game to be "fun". I pretty much agree with them except for the " Entertainment is frivolous fun" part. Not that I disagree with that, it's that there is just more to it.
"Frivolous fun" is "entertaining" and it's what you want your entertainment to be. But it is not everything that entertainment is.
Fun, Pleasure, Interest and Diversion are a few things off the top of my head. I want all these things from an MMORPG. For me personally, "Diversion" is a major factor of being entertained. Music is very entertaining for me, Books are very entertaining for me. They are a great stress release, a great diversion but not necessarily "fun" and they don't have to be, to get enjoyment from them.
What difficult AAA game has been released in the last 10 years to prove that?
Another thing worth considering: "What automobile released in the last 10 years to prove that square wheels don't work?"
None. Because the reasons square wheels don't work haven't magically changed in the last 10 years.
Games with deliberately-crappy parts also haven't magically become more desired in the last 10 years. Games have enough crappy parts even when trying to make all the parts awesome.
I think a more example is muscle cars being phased out because Japanese compacts and sedans sold like hotcakes.
People said they wanted muscle cars (me at the time being one of them with one of the few quasi huge muscle cars left.) it was said there was no market.
Yet when car companies sold muscle cars again they sold. Most sedans flag ships now push more muscle cars.
Just because a market isn't met doesn't mean that it's not there. Proof means making games that fail on the notion of what you claim. It's just theory. The genre followed the largest market leader and the nature of development doesn't lend to independent developers and inovators.
So no, developers aren't "scared" of implementing high-penalty games, just as car designers aren't "scared" of implementing square wheels. It's not fear that leads a designer to avoid known bad designs. It's knowledge that they are bad designs.
I agree that harsh death penalties are bad, and those who are thinking that dying worse is going to make the game better have a flawed case.
Then again, I'm not sure the case for soft penalties wins by a lot. Why is it, for example, that every time we are asked about death penalties in MMOs, it's always about how "soft" or "harsh" it should be, and never about how boring or interesting it should be?
Because, for me, if death provided something more interesting, the "softness" or "harshness" really doesn't matter.
For example, why is it that we don't go to some underworld when we die...kind of like what happened to Kratos in God of War, and we have to figure out some way out? A notion of the afterlife is a common staple in every fantasy mythos and theological position everywhere. It would seem, to me, that any fantasy simulator ought to at least give some credence to it when designing death systems.
To me, a game that did the above solution is far more interesting than how death is done today by MMOs. But if death is going to be a dull, I would rather it be dull and easy than dull and harsh.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Damage someone suffers while climbing Mt Everest is suffered during the challenge. The identical mechanic in a game would be suffering HP damage. Are you under the impression anyone here is objecting to suffering HP damage?
No, high-penalty gaming is about failing to climb Everest and coming back home to be kicked in the shins after the challenge. You're already down; high-penalty just means kicking you while you're down.
A common mistake you make is trying to argue for something by pointing out things which are true of both sides of the argument.
For example when you die in a light-penalty game, you still have to choose what to do next (managing your risk of failure against potential reward.) You still respawn somewhere else and have to figure out how to get back.
So when you die in a high-penalty game the only thing unique to that is the XP penalty (or gold/gear/etc penalty). Those are the things with no decision-making. What can you do about those penalties? Nothing! They already happened! You can't change them.
The only exception is things like running back to a corpse, which does involve limited decisions. However the decisions made when retrieving a corpse are shallower than standard play, since all you're faced with is more combat and avoiding mobs.
So no, developers aren't "scared" of implementing high-penalty games, just as car designers aren't "scared" of implementing square wheels. It's not fear that leads a designer to avoid known bad designs. It's knowledge that they are bad designs.
There is plenty of creativity left within the very broad guidelines of knowledge. Cars aren't all the same just because they use round wheels, after all.
I would say there are two ways to look at climbing Mt. Everest. There is the penalty you are talking about. That which is the ongoing hp damage (which isn't present in any form in MMOs today that I have seen). Then there is the recovery after failing. Said person has to recover from the damage done to them.
The major problem with a game is that you can die. As such it is different from a real life example. Dying in current games isn't really a slap on the hand. It doesn't portray that what you are doing is a dangerous activity and caution must be taken. How can you convey this to the player simple by having them run quickly back to their corpse and try again? I don't believe you even have to do that much in most MMOs or games. Having to run back to your corpse isn't a decision if it's a sure thing that you can get there and try again without fear of loss. On the flip side if you know there is loss for dying then you have to think carefully about how to proceed. Is it worth it to try to recover your corpse? Is it worth possible loosing more experience to try and get it? You may end up with more experience lost and you still don't get to recover your items.
I don't believe these are bad mechanics. They are simple mechanics that only certain people will accept. This is why I say developers are not inclined to use it. Not because it's bad, but because they want to maximize profit. That is what drives all decisions in gaming now. Not weather or not a game mechanics is good or bad, but what is most likely to keep the masses of players who don't really want to invest much time in a game happy and paying.
So no, developers aren't "scared" of implementing high-penalty games, just as car designers aren't "scared" of implementing square wheels. It's not fear that leads a designer to avoid known bad designs. It's knowledge that they are bad designs.
I agree that harsh death penalties are bad, and those who are thinking that dying worse is going to make the game better have a flawed case.
Then again, I'm not sure the case for soft penalties wins by a lot. Why is it, for example, that every time we are asked about death penalties in MMOs, it's always about how "soft" or "harsh" it should be, and never about how boring or interesting it should be?
Because, for me, if death provided something more interesting, the "softness" or "harshness" really doesn't matter.
For example, why is it that we don't go to some underworld when we die...kind of like what happened to Kratos in God of War, and we have to figure out some way out? A notion of the afterlife is a common staple in every fantasy mythos and theological position everywhere. It would seem, to me, that any fantasy simulator ought to at least give some credence to it when designing death systems.
To me, a game that did the above solution is far more interesting than how death is done today by MMOs. But if death is going to be a dull, I would rather it be dull and easy than dull and harsh.
The notion of whether it's a good thing is subjective. It's basically a non starter in todays MMORPG because challenge is an afterthought until end game. The games are designed for you to level as smoothly and fast as possible while completing their content. There is no need to have hitches.
Because use vast amounts of development time to create content that only a tiny minority will ever experience is such good design...
Sometimes it worth it. Like crafting, most people never really get into it. Most dont become hardcore crafters. Wanting to be the guy people come to for items. But the games that have done crafting right and has captured the crafters hearts and minds. That handful of games that did will always be something to remember. Like SWG.
Same with housing. Wildstar was really bad but people who loved housing flipped out about WS. If the rest of the game was spot on. WS could have left a mark.
Also people pick MMOs for the things they like. 5% like housing, 15% like hardcore crafting (made up numbers) and no one plays an MMO for long that does not hit at least most of your buttons. So playing towards the small % will win you a larger pool of gamers. Just found out SWToR has housing. Was enough to get my wife to agree to resub. 2 subs won with one small feature.
I think a more example is muscle cars being phased out because Japanese compacts and sedans sold like hotcakes.
People said they wanted muscle cars (me at the time being one of them with one of the few quasi huge muscle cars left.) it was said there was no market.
Yet when car companies sold muscle cars again they sold. Most sedans flag ships now push more muscle cars.
Just because a market isn't met doesn't mean that it's not there. Proof means making games that fail on the notion of what you claim. It's just theory. The genre followed the largest market leader and the nature of development doesn't lend to independent developers and inovators.
Yes, but the thread isn't really about a single, solidly-designed comprehensive product. It's a thread claiming that shitty things make a good thing better.
So it's more like saying these 7 terrible muscle cars are better than the 7 best muscle cars, because their disadvantages (like crappy horsepower, or ugly designs) made the advantages that much more appreciable.
In reality, that's not how people treat products. If a product has a flaw, it's actually a flaw and holds the product back.
We know the flaws that made those terrible muscle cars and MMORPGs bad, and so only bad companies will repeat those mistakes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think a more example is muscle cars being phased out because Japanese compacts and sedans sold like hotcakes.
People said they wanted muscle cars (me at the time being one of them with one of the few quasi huge muscle cars left.) it was said there was no market.
Yet when car companies sold muscle cars again they sold. Most sedans flag ships now push more muscle cars.
Just because a market isn't met doesn't mean that it's not there. Proof means making games that fail on the notion of what you claim. It's just theory. The genre followed the largest market leader and the nature of development doesn't lend to independent developers and inovators.
Yes, but the thread isn't really about a single, solidly-designed comprehensive product. It's a thread claiming that shitty things make a good thing better.
So it's more like saying these 7 terrible muscle cars are better than the 7 best muscle cars, because their disadvantages (like crappy horsepower, or ugly designs) made the advantages that much more appreciable.
In reality, that's not how people treat products. If a product has a flaw, it's actually a flaw and holds the product back.
We know the flaws that made those terrible muscle cars and MMORPGs bad, and so only bad companies will repeat those mistakes.
No the analogy was pretty accurate. There was said to no market for muscle cars. Not good or crappy ones.
There was a notion in the NFL that read option wouldn't work in the NFL. All the old guard said it. The last 4 Super Bowl have been played by QBs have run the read option incorporated in their offense.
Until those "flawed" ideas have been tried again and fail they worked. Many of the ideas just weren't used. They don't fit the market trend and targeted audience. The special issue that comes with MMORPG development prevents going against the money.
Difficulty selectors have a very small space in MMOs imo. Something like DDO, Neverwinter, where that type of thing was meant to be it works. In a traditional MMORPG like EQ, or even WoW difficulty selectors have no place.
Scarcity is key. Those rare jellybeans are wanted so badly because they are scarce. Once they are in abundance, no one cares anymore. Adding a difficulty selector just makes everything easy to obtain.
There are very real reasons to add a difficulty selector: when games are too easy they're boring, and when games are too hard they're frustrating. These are both negative extremes outside the comfort zone players enjoy most.
Meanwhile you haven't really presented a reason not to add a difficulty selector. You've only made a vague, baseless claim that they "have no place".
Maybe your final statement indicates you just don't understand how difficulty selectors work in these games and you're assuming some terrible implementation. City of Heroes already did this: you have a slider which affects the level of mobs you face, and to-hit restrictions aren't quite as brutal as games like WOW (where fighting a mob 6+ levels above you is often impossible), and rewards are scaled to match the challenge selected (so choosing the easy difficulty is in fact the worst possible choice if you're skilled enough to beat harder challenges.)
Those rare jellybeans are wanted because the person enjoys their taste, not because they're rare. If someone only likes that type of jellybean (or even just likes that jellybean the most), then they're obviously going to be way more interested in the one-bean bag than the standard mix which includes a lot of beans they dislike.
Are you just confused by the presence of variety? Keep in mind that in actual game terms we're talking about eliminating the 10% of gameplay players dislike, while keeping the remaining 90% (which will therefore include plenty of gameplay variety to keep things interesting.) Nobody is going to miss the 10% bad jellybeans, and almost everyone is going to buy the bag that lacks those bad 10% flavors.
1. Adding a difficulty selector means that a majority will choose the easy route even if it's something they don't find fun. Why? Why choose the hard route to obtain what you want when it can be obtained more easily. I don't like having indicators telling me where to go, which is why I can't play NWO. Turn them off you say? It's literally not that easy. You are satisfied by being able to choose the difficulty and just move through the game. I like taking a difficult situation and finding the ways through it. When the game provides that easy method, the fun of beating that difficult situation is ruined.
2. I don't think you are understanding the analogy properly. Like I made in a different post, it's not that the other jellybeans are bad or disliked, it's that the rare ones are sought after and desired, largely because they are scarce. A common misconception on scarcity is that an item has to be important for it to be scarce. In any MMO where everyone can easily obtain any item they desire, it gets boring for players like the OP and myself.
3. The game play that was removed is the challenge to acquire a sought after item. It's the challenge that we want back and the challenge that you are saying is the 10% that most players don't want.
If most players don't want a challenge then fine, you literally have hundreds of games to play that cater to your needs. I want a challenging game that no one can just walk through without thinking.
If most players don't want a challenge then fine, you literally have hundreds of games to play that cater to your needs. I want a challenging game that no one can just walk through without thinking.
There are some.
Play D3 and push for high greater rifts .. or play hardcore.
If most players don't want a challenge then fine, you literally have hundreds of games to play that cater to your needs. I want a challenging game that no one can just walk through without thinking.
There are some.
Play D3 and push for high greater rifts .. or play hardcore.
No the analogy was pretty accurate. There was said to no market for muscle cars. Not good or crappy ones.
There was a notion in the NFL that read option wouldn't work in the NFL. All the old guard said it. The last 4 Super Bowl have been played by QBs have run the read option incorporated in their offense.
Until those "flawed" ideas have been tried again and fail they worked. Many of the ideas just weren't used. They don't fit the market trend and targeted audience. The special issue that comes with MMORPG development prevents going against the money.
No, it really wasn't. You're lumping all "rejected" ideas in the same exact bucket. I'm saying some rejected ideas have simply fallen out of public favor, and other rejected ideas are outright bad (flawed) and we know why they're bad. We can deconstruct them to see exactly why they're bad.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If most players don't want a challenge then fine, you literally have hundreds of games to play that cater to your needs. I want a challenging game that no one can just walk through without thinking.
Why pick MMORPGs to begin with? They were never a challenging genre (outside of PvP/small amount of raids).
Comments
Anything that makes a game harder makes it more challenging if it test your skill or patience. Whether the challenge is necessary or not is another question. Losing lives after you die in Super Mario or perm death like in Diablo is part of challenge. Those things happen after the fact
Challenge is not just how much skill it takes to avoid failure. In a game and sports its how much it takes to complete. How much skill it takes to compete. Again losing exp makes a game harder to complete.
If you want to use masochistic its starts into ridiculousness. NPC's that hit harder, faster, move faster, act faster, smart all could be masochistic if you compare it to an easier difficulty NPC. That's all opinion. This forum is the only place that I know of that challenge has to be something desired by all. My view climbing Mt. Everest is masochistic. Doesn't mean its not a challenge to complete because you risk your life and limb.
But adding more things to do would open up new possibilities and add new experience to the players, and I think that will be critical for the genres survival. Figuring out new types of gameplay is hard though and an alternative is to take the playstyles we already have and change them to something new.
Take crafting. In most MMOs you gather materials through nodes or by salvaging other items and then you stick them together at a forge (or similar device) using recepies you either loot or buy.You start by making crude useless stuff and need to craft a lot of crap before you can make useful stuff.
The purpose of crafting is to get better gear, earn some money or in some games to replace broken or lost gear. To re-invent crafting that is what we need to keep in mind, nothing else.
The gathering part is actually rather boring. One replacement would be to let players or guilds to own farms, mines, lumber mills, herb gardens and similar and let them barter with eachother to trade for other resources. You could add some dungeonlike missions where players visit ancient mines filled with monsters, owned by evil cults or whatever and get rewarded by rare resources. Let explorers find a rare herb, a lost piece of ore and similar in hard to find places... Or something different.
As for the crafting in itself, we seen minigames but they tend to become boring fast. It works for the hardest to get gear, a minigame when you craft something legendary (that actually is legendary and not something all players get easily) works and can be fun though but regular stuff should be fast to craft.
For learning to craft a specific thing there are alternatives. You could use something not unlike how the tech tree in CIV works, where the player reserch specific things. Certain could be unlocked by achivement, by studying ancient hard to find blueprints (for example in a smithy of a legendary lost city).
That is just a few examples. Look on why a specific type of gameplay is in the game in the first place and try to re-engineer a new and more fun way to solve the same problem instead of just do what everyone else is doing.
Difficulty can include non-skill elements, but since it isn't focused purely on the most common way players enjoy games, it's a less useful term when we dig into its semantic definition. It includes punishment and time-consumption, and those things don't offer interesting decisions. Since so few players are masochists (seeking punishment) and even fewer players want boredom (seeking time-consumption for its own sake), it's not a meaningful word to discuss.
We know EQ would've been more successful by looking at the broad spread of gaming and finding that none of the most successful games focus on punishment or time-consumption. The most successful games are consistently the ones with light penalties.
We understand this intellectually because we know that the most common reason players have fun in games is pattern mastery where players are learning to do something better over time. The moment of failure is a critical part of that learning, because it's the final judgement of whether or not you played skillfully enough (and if not you'll have to try again and keep learning.) Any penalty after that point is excess: it's just kicking the player while they're down and teaches them nothing. So it lacks purpose.
Climbing Mt Everest involves decisions. An NPC who hits harder involves decisions (ie time to activate Evasion.) Being kicked after you fall in a MMORPG involves no decisions. Decisions are the deciding factor here, because they represent the pattern, learning, and skill.
Death penalty is essentially the Everest climber failing to reach the time (failing the challenge) and returning to base camp to be repeatedly kicked in the shins. You're advocating the shin-kicking. I'm telling you the failed climb is enough.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Give me a rich world full of wonder - and reward my efforts appropriately. Do that, and I'll gladly invest and work for it.
Don't expect me to grind for the same experience I've had dozens of times before.
To say death penalty provides no additional decisions doesn't sound right to me. If you die, you lose experience, you spawn somewhere else, and your body is at the point where you died you have to make decisions. Is it worth it to try and recover your body. Is it worth it to try and go deeper into the area you were or do you give up (I think this is what developers are scared of). Basically it's the decision of figuring out what is the best course of action after you die. Right now there is no thinking required. You die, you respawn, and your try again.
I would point out a gain that to create various different illusion's of hardship in game you have to present the player with certain trials that would imitate those hardships. I've pointed out training as one of those. Grinding in a sense can give the illusion of training for more difficult fights. Dying with penalties can give the illusion that the world is not a safe place to venture out into.
You seem to only consider things from a logical standpoint in terms of making money. Basically you consider them from a business standpoint. I think this is why games, movies, and other entertainment goes down the toilet when they hit mass market and start to be picked apart. Instead of making a game from the heart it is being made based on statistics that prove more people will play a game. That doesn't mean it's more fun. It just means there are a lot of people out there who lack the intestinal fortitude to make it through certain challenges.
If my goal is to get to max level death penalties add to the challenge if I have risk of dying. These do effect your decisions because you don't want to lose an hours worth of by dying. You make sure you play smart and skilfully. Not dying is a skill in any other place but these forums. If dying means nothing than it takes less skill to succeed because you fail as much as you want and restart.
No, high-penalty gaming is about failing to climb Everest and coming back home to be kicked in the shins after the challenge. You're already down; high-penalty just means kicking you while you're down.
A common mistake you make is trying to argue for something by pointing out things which are true of both sides of the argument.
For example when you die in a light-penalty game, you still have to choose what to do next (managing your risk of failure against potential reward.) You still respawn somewhere else and have to figure out how to get back.
So when you die in a high-penalty game the only thing unique to that is the XP penalty (or gold/gear/etc penalty). Those are the things with no decision-making. What can you do about those penalties? Nothing! They already happened! You can't change them.
The only exception is things like running back to a corpse, which does involve limited decisions. However the decisions made when retrieving a corpse are shallower than standard play, since all you're faced with is more combat and avoiding mobs.
So no, developers aren't "scared" of implementing high-penalty games, just as car designers aren't "scared" of implementing square wheels. It's not fear that leads a designer to avoid known bad designs. It's knowledge that they are bad designs.
There is plenty of creativity left within the very broad guidelines of knowledge. Cars aren't all the same just because they use round wheels, after all.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"What automobile released in the last 10 years to prove that square wheels don't work?"
None. Because the reasons square wheels don't work haven't magically changed in the last 10 years.
Games with deliberately-crappy parts also haven't magically become more desired in the last 10 years. Games have enough crappy parts even when trying to make all the parts awesome.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"Frivolous fun" is "entertaining" and it's what you want your entertainment to be. But it is not everything that entertainment is.
Fun, Pleasure, Interest and Diversion are a few things off the top of my head. I want all these things from an MMORPG. For me personally, "Diversion" is a major factor of being entertained. Music is very entertaining for me, Books are very entertaining for me. They are a great stress release, a great diversion but not necessarily "fun" and they don't have to be, to get enjoyment from them.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
People said they wanted muscle cars (me at the time being one of them with one of the few quasi huge muscle cars left.) it was said there was no market.
Yet when car companies sold muscle cars again they sold. Most sedans flag ships now push more muscle cars.
Just because a market isn't met doesn't mean that it's not there. Proof means making games that fail on the notion of what you claim. It's just theory. The genre followed the largest market leader and the nature of development doesn't lend to independent developers and inovators.
Then again, I'm not sure the case for soft penalties wins by a lot. Why is it, for example, that every time we are asked about death penalties in MMOs, it's always about how "soft" or "harsh" it should be, and never about how boring or interesting it should be?
Because, for me, if death provided something more interesting, the "softness" or "harshness" really doesn't matter.
For example, why is it that we don't go to some underworld when we die...kind of like what happened to Kratos in God of War, and we have to figure out some way out? A notion of the afterlife is a common staple in every fantasy mythos and theological position everywhere. It would seem, to me, that any fantasy simulator ought to at least give some credence to it when designing death systems.
To me, a game that did the above solution is far more interesting than how death is done today by MMOs. But if death is going to be a dull, I would rather it be dull and easy than dull and harsh.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The major problem with a game is that you can die. As such it is different from a real life example. Dying in current games isn't really a slap on the hand. It doesn't portray that what you are doing is a dangerous activity and caution must be taken. How can you convey this to the player simple by having them run quickly back to their corpse and try again? I don't believe you even have to do that much in most MMOs or games. Having to run back to your corpse isn't a decision if it's a sure thing that you can get there and try again without fear of loss. On the flip side if you know there is loss for dying then you have to think carefully about how to proceed. Is it worth it to try to recover your corpse? Is it worth possible loosing more experience to try and get it? You may end up with more experience lost and you still don't get to recover your items.
I don't believe these are bad mechanics. They are simple mechanics that only certain people will accept. This is why I say developers are not inclined to use it. Not because it's bad, but because they want to maximize profit. That is what drives all decisions in gaming now. Not weather or not a game mechanics is good or bad, but what is most likely to keep the masses of players who don't really want to invest much time in a game happy and paying.
Same with housing. Wildstar was really bad but people who loved housing flipped out about WS. If the rest of the game was spot on. WS could have left a mark.
Also people pick MMOs for the things they like. 5% like housing, 15% like hardcore crafting (made up numbers) and no one plays an MMO for long that does not hit at least most of your buttons. So playing towards the small % will win you a larger pool of gamers. Just found out SWToR has housing. Was enough to get my wife to agree to resub. 2 subs won with one small feature.
So it's more like saying these 7 terrible muscle cars are better than the 7 best muscle cars, because their disadvantages (like crappy horsepower, or ugly designs) made the advantages that much more appreciable.
In reality, that's not how people treat products. If a product has a flaw, it's actually a flaw and holds the product back.
We know the flaws that made those terrible muscle cars and MMORPGs bad, and so only bad companies will repeat those mistakes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm a MUDder. I play MUDs.
Current: Dragonrealms
There was a notion in the NFL that read option wouldn't work in the NFL. All the old guard said it. The last 4 Super Bowl have been played by QBs have run the read option incorporated in their offense.
Until those "flawed" ideas have been tried again and fail they worked. Many of the ideas just weren't used. They don't fit the market trend and targeted audience. The special issue that comes with MMORPG development prevents going against the money.
2. I don't think you are understanding the analogy properly. Like I made in a different post, it's not that the other jellybeans are bad or disliked, it's that the rare ones are sought after and desired, largely because they are scarce. A common misconception on scarcity is that an item has to be important for it to be scarce. In any MMO where everyone can easily obtain any item they desire, it gets boring for players like the OP and myself.
3. The game play that was removed is the challenge to acquire a sought after item. It's the challenge that we want back and the challenge that you are saying is the 10% that most players don't want.
If most players don't want a challenge then fine, you literally have hundreds of games to play that cater to your needs. I want a challenging game that no one can just walk through without thinking.
Play D3 and push for high greater rifts .. or play hardcore.
Dark Souls
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So you are not complaining that there are no challenging game, you are complaining that there are no challenging game that you like.