"slow travel is sort of like tar: It's not part of any good drinks" Well you just threw all objectivity in the argument right out the window. Also as a side note, there is natural wood tar that is intentionally used as a flavoring in multiple types of drinks and foods. The reason such is used is that, while on it's own it may be bitter and somewhat ashen, when combined with other things it contributes a deep smoky flavor that adds depth and complexity to the dish.
Much like when travel is integrated with other game mechanics it contributes depth and complexity.
So....there goes that analogy.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Again, you don't quite seem to grasp the conversation.
In your wine analogy, good gameplay isn't the wine, good gameplay is almost all forms of high-quality drinks. It's water (interesting decisions in Civilization), beer (interesting decisions in Starcraft), wine (interesting decisions in MMORPG), and every other successful game genre you can think of.
Meanwhile tedious slow travel is sort of like tar: It's not part of any good drinks.
My point is essentially "there isn't evidence of tar being part of good drinks, and logically we understand how human tastebuds work so we know why we obviously wouldn't like that taste."
You seem to want to disagree with this, presumably for no reason other than to try to disagree with me.
The analogy captures the fact that I'm only saying tedious slow travel (and similar devoid-of-gameplay game mechanics) is a bad idea. It doesn't mean we don't have water (Civ), beer (SC2), or wine (WOW). It just means we don't want tar. Tons of drink variety exists in spite of that tiny limitation.
You also don't seem to understand that any game mechanic which you think requires tedious slow travel doesn't require it. Which might be expected, given that gamers are generally incapable of understanding things they haven't played. But in this case my example was Starcraft (where distances matter, but travel times don't impose a limit on the flow of interesting decisions) which is something you likely have played; so you should understand that strategy can exist without forcing the player to endure tedious slow travel. If you haven't played Starcraft, then pick any RTS game you have played.
As mentioned several times, GTA's driving mechanics offer moderately deep travel gameplay. You actually can be considered skilled or unskilled at driving, right? And how many times have I pointed out to you that the skill cap of a game (being considered skilled or not) is a strong indication of game depth and that depth is what makes travel acceptable?
GTA has never been a point of contention. The real-world, actual tedium experienced in MMORPG travel (which is shallow) is the point of contention. If you wish to agree with me that MMORPG travel sucks, then we can drop the conversation. But if you insist MMORPG travel doesn't suck, even though it involves none of the skill mastery of your favorite example (GTA), then you're going to have to pick a new favorite example of travel because GTA's travel is not representative of MMORPG travel.
Again, you frame the situation in a narrow way to create your desired narrative... devoid travel with nothing happening. Nobody is talking about that but you continuously bring it up. It's a strawman argument. Using negative adjectives and narrow view points does not make an off based opinion a fact.
You did the exact opposite when I described MMORPG quest as being poorly done. You went out of the way to point out your "WoW level quest." All the while I was talking about the generic task that most MMORPG have including WoW being bad. Well this is GTA level travel based on missions and random occurrences and events for themepark. Strategic and rewarding exploration like Minecraft and other survival games for sandboxes. These are proven methods that have outsold any MMORPG including WOW. These are both methods of play that have transfered over to proven online MMO like gameplay.
You also don't seem to understand that any game mechanic which you think requires tedious slow travel doesn't require it.
Show me one point in my post I said anything about slow tedious travel? It's all your strawman.
To the point... travel has to be integrated into the game systems just like anything else.
You can not use this a metric(themepark MMORPG) to say this is what all gamers or even a majority of gamers want since its a very small portion of gamers.
I used my example of GTA because travel is the game and it uses missions which are equivalent to MMORPG quest systems.
There is nothing stopping MMORPG from using similar game play because they both you(use) a quest hub like system.
These are the mainpoints of each paragraph. What do they have to do with what you're talking about? You took time to try to dissect my analogy but not the point behind it. I am almost certain you have nothing to talk about if you can't frame MMORPG travel HAVING to be shallow. MMORPG do have tedious travel now because the last decade has been all level progression themepark quest hubs. They do not have replay value or systems to make travel anymore than devoid running through out leveled zones. But that has nothing to do with what everyone else is talking about.
Again, you frame the situation in a narrow way to create your desired narrative... devoid travel with nothing happening. Nobody is talking about that but you continuously bring it up. It's a strawman argument. Using negative adjectives and narrow view points does not make an off based opinion a fact.
You did the exact opposite when I described MMORPG quest as being poorly done. You went out of the way to point out your "WoW level quest." All the while I was talking about the generic task that most MMORPG have including WoW being bad. Well this is GTA level travel based on missions and random occurrences and events for themepark. Strategic and rewarding exploration like Minecraft and other survival games for sandboxes. These are proven methods that have outsold any MMORPG including WOW. These are both methods of play that have transfered over to proven online MMO like gameplay.
Show me one point in my post I said anything about slow tedious travel? It's all your strawman.
To the point... travel has to be integrated into the game systems just like anything else.
You can not use this a metric(themepark MMORPG) to say this is what all gamers or even a majority of gamers want since its a very small portion of gamers.
I used my example of GTA because travel is the game and it uses missions which are equivalent to MMORPG quest systems.
There is nothing stopping MMORPG from using similar game play because they both you(use) a quest hub like system.
These are the mainpoints of each paragraph. What do they have to do with what you're talking about? You took time to try to dissect my analogy but not the point behind it. I am almost certain you have nothing to talk about if you can't frame MMORPG travel HAVING to be shallow. MMORPG do have tedious travel now because the last decade has been all level progression themepark quest hubs. They do not have replay value or systems to make travel anymore than devoid running through out leveled zones. But that has nothing to do with what everyone else is talking about.
Yes, I'm framing the discussion so it fits the argument I'm making.
Tedious slow travel is the current reality of MMORPG travel when fast travel systems aren't in place. Travel is just watching a run animation with shallow gameplay.
Unlike WOW questing, there isn't a MMORPG with deep travel gameplay. Not one.
Why not? Slow travel doesn't really fit aesthetically with how you create an RPG. Why? Because RPGs, basically, are about trying to let players play out LoTR in game form -- and while LoTR involved travel, it wasn't about travel. It was about adventure and heroics.
Implementing things requires dev time. Dev time is finite. If you make travel a little better, it makes other gameplay a little worse. If you make it a lot better, it makes other gameplay a lot worse. Hopefully we all understand that adventure and heroics (ie quests and combat) are the core systems of an RPG.
Low-hanging-fruit improvements (AA's one piddly travel ability) might make sense, but you're not going to achieve deep travel gameplay without creating an entirely different game (you know, like how GTA is about stealing and driving cars?) This will come at a big cost in other types of gameplay (you know, like GTA's weak combat?)
This is why travel in RPGs is shallow, because travel isn't the focus of these games and games can only do a narrow set of things well. Which is only slightly different from saying travel "has to be shallow".
Gamers do want gameplay-centric games. You have no evidence to dispute this. I have abundant evidence in the form of pointing to all the successful games out there (the vast majority of which are decision-centric, like the ones I've specifically named: Civilization, Sim City, Starcraft, etc.) Do you really want to be on the side of the argument that relies on a willful ignorance of the world of evidence around you, just so you can disagree with me?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Much like when travel is integrated with other game mechanics it contributes depth and complexity.
or it contributes to boredom. Integrated with other game mechanics does not automatically make it fun.
As Cadwell said; "Tools need to be limited in some way, it could be that they are inconsistently available. It could be that you have options A, B, and C and all of them have different uses or importance. It could be that there's a lot of cool-downs. It could be that they're just not provided to you when you need them by some mechanic. I think that's really really important, it can force players (if it's done in a way that doesn't feel arbitrary and lame, it feel's natural to the game) players naturally get into this "making do" and creativity mode."
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Much like when travel is integrated with other game mechanics it contributes depth and complexity.
or it contributes to boredom. Integrated with other game mechanics does not automatically make it fun.
As Cadwell said; "Tools need to be limited in some way, it could be that they are inconsistently available. It could be that you have options A, B, and C and all of them have different uses or importance. It could be that there's a lot of cool-downs. It could be that they're just not provided to you when you need them by some mechanic. I think that's really really important, it can force players (if it's done in a way that doesn't feel arbitrary and lame, it feel's natural to the game) players naturally get into this "making do" and creativity mode."
Something tells me there's a few people in this thread that are either too close-minded, or simply do not have the capacity to grasp what it is you're trying to get across.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
As for axehilt's commentary, he starts right off the bat with a false argument. RPGs deliver on the epic journey experience, not just LOTR. It fulfills the likes of the Iliad as much as it does orc slaying. Besides which there are plenty of RPG formats that aren't finite narrative such as open format and collaborative storytelling where part of the RPG experience is building the narrative.
His "framing of the discussion" cripples RPG design and ignores the fact that there is a myriad of virtual world type RPG games.
Many of these games actually do very well to limit the function of fast travel so as to not remove the purpose and depth of the game world and user experience.
Witcher 3 for example has fast travel, but they closely constrain it to having to reach specific locations and traveling to specific locations, with the bulk of the travel still taking place on horse. And why? because they integrated a lot of the user experience into the environment and if you were constantly fast traveling to plot points you'd miss a massive chunk of the gameplay.
Again true for the likes of the prior Final Fantasy titles and even Chrono Trigger. Walking around is the fundamental mode of travel. It helps define the initial user experience and the scope. The growth they integrated into the game is directly dependent upon this strict control of travel because it creates tiers to the user experience where the early game is defined by the places you can reach on foot and then you unlock air travel which allows you both faster and more varied locations to travel to, opening the game world further.
Saying there isn't a game with "deep travel gameplay" is a sideways argument at best, a strawman in it's entirety, and at worst an ignorance towards the presence of the titles in the actual genre.
The the previously aforementioned Saga of Ryzom for example. It's narrative structure was actually more open format and on top of that plenty of the world's assets were designed to migrate around the environment, so mining for resources and hunting creatures was a perpetual act of exploration. Since a good chunk of the game focused on crafting mechanics, this was a means to keep players seeking and experiencing variety by discovering new places in pirsuit of their desired materials.
AA had multiple means of travel in mounts, carts/vehicles, boats, and gliders, all of which also integrated into other elements of gameplay with trade and fighting functionality. They even experimented with expanding it with a a submarine type mount. There was not just "one piddly travel ability" that they toyed with or integrated.
There are other titles such ad Monster Hunter Online, Bless, Dragon's Dogma Online, and Peria Chronicles which fulfill the roles you claim don't exist.
Mistake you're making still is you're defining your scope of experience as the truth, which at best only speaks of one market segment, and at worst is simply your opinion.
Speaking of "willful ignorance of the world of evidence" the examples you just claimed (civ, sims, starcraft, etc) were already deconstructed to prove the point that time and travel are key components to generating any sort of user experience. On top of that, the "decision-centric" gameplay you mention for them does not translate properly into "perpetual decision making".
As Cadwell pointed out; "A lot of the best decisions in Civ are decisions that are aligning short term and long term objectives."
The choices made in those type of games certainly do have a good amount of moment to moment gameplay, but there is also gaps of activity where players strategize and form much more long term decisions and actions which they intentionally have to wait quite some time on. The game isn't weaker for that, it's actually considerably deeper because there are personal objectives being sought, not simply a sing trail to follow.
The reason for a shallow travel experience in the type of RPG you talk about isn't because it's an RPG, it's because it's a particular type of RPG built on a very narrowly structured user experience meant to guide you along an intended path/narrative.
Cadwell states a point in counter of that when referencing roguelikes; "Generally in Roguelikes players have diverse challenges and diverse tools, and often those diverse tools are imperfect tools." "By designing for this, you really encourage player activity and reward." "By incensing players to learn these tools, by putting them in situations where they have to use these tools, you actually get these players to sample in a way they actually excited about a larger percent of your content."
Coupled with the point made that there are many forms of RPG structure and narrative, not just narrow dictation, the tools used to build the user experience also caters to different formats and experiences. Cadwell points out that such "imperfect tools" can add depth because it incenses players to seek the experience themselves and spurs them on to deeper exploration of the game. Same with narrative, in an open or collaborative format you can create player investment not by leading them on a finite path, but by letting them take the narrative elements dangling in the world and build a story as they play.
And that's where virtual world type games come up as RPGs which fulfill those requirements. It's a game format that does in fact benefit from integrating different modes of travel that can contribute to the depth of the user experience.
It's not a matter of "disagreeing with you". It's a matter of fact.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Much like when travel is integrated with other game mechanics it contributes depth and complexity.
or it contributes to boredom. Integrated with other game mechanics does not automatically make it fun.
As Cadwell said; "Tools need to be limited in some way, it could be that they are inconsistently available. It could be that you have options A, B, and C and all of them have different uses or importance. It could be that there's a lot of cool-downs. It could be that they're just not provided to you when you need them by some mechanic. I think that's really really important, it can force players (if it's done in a way that doesn't feel arbitrary and lame, it feel's natural to the game) players naturally get into this "making do" and creativity mode."
so? if it is boring, who cares if "tools" are limited in some way?
As Cadwell said; "Tools need to be limited in some way, it could be that they are inconsistently available. It could be that you have options A, B, and C and all of them have different uses or importance. It could be that there's a lot of cool-downs. It could be that they're just not provided to you when you need them by some mechanic. I think that's really really important, it can force players (if it's done in a way that doesn't feel arbitrary and lame, it feel's natural to the game) players naturally get into this "making do" and creativity mode."
Something tells me there's a few people in this thread that are either too close-minded, or simply do not have the capacity to grasp what it is you're trying to get across.
I'll assume this wasn't directed at me, since it has no relevance to the topic of travel and decision-intensive gameplay (Roguelikes are decision-intensive games. Any lack of a tool means that you make other decisions instead -- the flow of decisions didn't stop, you just didn't have access to that particular decision.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Actually that had plenty to do with time and travel mechanics. As per the examples previouly shared where limitations on travel, even in roguelike games (or especially so since most of them are characterized by constant foot travel), affects the potential scope of the game (such as where one has access to through present obtained means of travel), the ability to be economically competitive, ability to follow migrating resource and enemies, etc. The use of travel as a tool, types of travel that you offer, and the limitations imposed on their use all contributes to incensing players to new decision making processes and exploration of available gameplay.
It was a two-part discussion Cadwell had in that GDC talk you linked.
But it's true that particular instance of the quote wasn't directed at you.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The point is integration and use of these mechanics makes it not boring. It is instead a component of the gameplay.
which is a big claim. Don't tell me you think all components of the gameplay are fun. For example, staring at the spellbook is a "component of gameplay" in the old EQ .. and it was extremely boring to many.
You can make clicking on a rock a thousand times "a component of the gameplay" too. Does it make clicking a rock a thousand times fun?
The point is integration and use of these mechanics makes it not boring. It is instead a component of the gameplay.
which is a big claim. Don't tell me you think all components of the gameplay are fun. For example, staring at the spellbook is a "component of gameplay" in the old EQ .. and it was extremely boring to many.
You can make clicking on a rock a thousand times "a component of the gameplay" too. Does it make clicking a rock a thousand times fun?
Exactly.
If a component is boring by itself, then it's boring.
If that component occupies a substantial chunk of gameplay, it can make the game itself boring (as it becomes a larger and larger part of the whole.)
The conversation should have moved past the fallacious idea that adding meaning or feature integration would magically cause a boring thing to be fun.
"Click this rock a thousand times" does not magically become fun when the failure state is you're killed IRL (which adds meaning) nor does it magically become fun when you have to do it for 2 hours straight in order to ship goods from one side of the universe to the other (which integrates the boring activity with trade.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So by your logic combat is boring. As it is a feature which by itself is nothing but pressing a button to make a meter drop.
Your very counterexample is isolating a feature. That's not an example of integration, that is in fact the opposite and any game feature will be boring in such a context.
However, if one wasn't too thick to realize using a gameplay mechanic that interacts with other gameplay mechanics makes each mechanic have more value and entertainment, then we might get somewhere. Making a facetious argument that "boring things are boring" when someone says "make boring thins not boring" is not a meaningful argument.
Travel when integrated with other game mechanics/featureswe can see as having a pretty good impact in it's use in the likes of Witcher 3 , Final Fantasy titles, GTA, Ryzom, and others.
Much like combat when removed from other features we can see as shallow and uninteresting in the likes of Minecraft (though it has improved this a bit) or any title wherein combat is effectively point and click on target to watch the meter drop.
It's only by adding special abilities, secondary effects and the time factor to gameplay that combat gets complex. Attacking a target by itself would be the most tedious activity if it weren't for how integrated it is into the mechanics of the characters and mobs in the game.
So the argument that "adding meaning or feature integration would magically cause a boring thing to be fun" is itself a false argument. Feature integration is the only reason game mechanics have any interest or depth. From combat to travel, it's how many aspects support the tools and how those tools interact with each-other that makes a game. It's not magic taking place, it's design that actually supports the feature set. A good game designer would know that.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So by your logic combat is boring. As it is a feature which by itself is nothing but pressing a button to make a meter drop.
No .. by my logic, where it says "boring" is subjective ... pressing a button to shoot a gun at an alien is NOT boring for a large number of players, because they like shooting stuff, and express their preferences by buying games, like The Division, that let them do it. If you read forums, feel will say the act of shooting is boring.
On the other hand, pressing a button to keep walking at a direction for 5 min ... is boring. That is why players complained, and fast travel is implemented in many games.
It is just a matter of preferences. Pushing a button to do a single action may or may not be boring, depending on what players like to do.
So by your logic combat is boring. As it is a feature which by itself is nothing but pressing a button to make a meter drop.
No .. by my logic, where it says "boring" is subjective ... pressing a button to shoot a gun at an alien is NOT boring for a large number of players, because they like shooting stuff, and express their preferences by buying games, like The Division, that let them do it. If you read forums, feel will say the act of shooting is boring.
On the other hand, pressing a button to keep walking at a direction for 5 min ... is boring. That is why players complained, and fast travel is implemented in many games.
It is just a matter of preferences. Pushing a button to do a single action may or may not be boring, depending on what players like to do.
"It's only by adding special abilities, secondary effects and the time factor to gameplay that combat gets complex. Attacking a target by itself would be the most tedious activity if it weren't for how integrated it is into the mechanics of the characters and mobs in the game.
So the argument that "adding meaning or feature integration would magically cause a boring thing to be fun" is itself a false argument. Feature integration is the only reason game mechanics have any interest or depth. From combat to travel, it's how many aspects support the tools and how those tools interact with each-other that makes a game. It's not magic taking place, it's design that actually supports the feature set. A good game designer would know that."
Shooting enemies in a game isn't fun simply for the sake of pressing a button. It's fun because it's one part of an integrated system that defines the scope of combat. Because it's not an isolated activity.
Which is in turn exactly the point you just tried to avoid. A properly integrated tool like travel is not an isolated activity, but something that has game value in it's use and subsequent entertainment derived thereof, such as when you're tracking and hunting in a survival game, or tracking resources in Ryzom, such as when you're dodging police cars and pulling getaways in GTA, such as when you're tailing a merchant ship to broadside them and steal their goods, etc.
Try again without cherry picking one comment and ignoring the facts.
EDIT: I will agree, however, that entertainment is subjective. That is why one person can be engrossed by a plane, train, or truck simulator where other would find it boring. That's why one person can love Spore for it's creation tools while others hate it's shallow strategy. That's why someone can love Civ for it's strategic depth and long form gameplay while someone else thinks it's too slow and prefers the micro gameplay of Starcraft.
To call a game feature shallow or boring because you are isolating it and it's functionality, and then acting as if that's the only form in which it can exist, is entirely against the reality of game variety and functionality. To take something and argue that it has no objective value because of a subjective opinion is not a valid argument.
No one ever demanded you play the same game as another nor did they say that there is one way in which games should be made. In fact, the only ones that said such a thing has been Axe and you in your vehemence that there is only one right way for a MMORPG to work.
So yes, "boring" is subjective as entertainment itself and what an individual finds comforting and engaging is subjective, otherwise there would be considerably fewer genres of games in the world.
Are you going to play in a virtual world? It seems unlikely given your apparent preference for more strictly defined action titles. So there is no reason to damn a game mechanic or feature for it's existence when it will likely never be a concern to the genre of games you play in.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So by your logic combat is boring. As it is a feature which by itself is nothing but pressing a button to make a meter drop.
No .. by my logic, where it says "boring" is subjective ... pressing a button to shoot a gun at an alien is NOT boring for a large number of players, because they like shooting stuff, and express their preferences by buying games, like The Division, that let them do it. If you read forums, feel will say the act of shooting is boring.
On the other hand, pressing a button to keep walking at a direction for 5 min ... is boring. That is why players complained, and fast travel is implemented in many games.
It is just a matter of preferences. Pushing a button to do a single action may or may not be boring, depending on what players like to do.
Players do boring actions all the time if they're rewarded at the end. Not many players find the average MMO quest fun. Sometimes those quest literally involve running for five minutes to the next zone.
Combat is not purely clicking and button and stuff dies. It requires other complex actions. It also requires systems around it to make it interesting. It's just like travel. You can have the most deep combat ever but if what you're fighting sucks... where you're fighting sucks... controls are sloppy And etc. you will have a bad game.
In GTA or even Red Dead it would be boring to travel on a straight road alone in a box car. Interesting roads, cars/horses, interactions with transports and environment, traffic, random encounters, hunting, hidden items that must be explored and discovered for achievements and so on and so on make travel in open world Rockstar games fun.
Vermillion_Raventhal said: In GTA or even Red Dead it would be boring to travel on a straight road alone in a box car. Interesting roads, cars/horses, interactions with transports and environment, traffic, random encounters, hunting, hidden items that must be explored and discovered for achievements and so on and so on make travel in open world Rockstar games fun.
Of course, the explosion porn belongs in a Transformers movie, but we can suspend disbelief a little.
LOTR....one big long boring slow travel mechanic right?
Or perhaps an amazing story about the dangers of travelling across enemy lands where fast travel was not an option (unless the Eagles provide fast travel and the story becomes boring).
Fast travel has it's uses. Slow travel has it's uses.
Players do boring actions all the time if they're rewarded at the end. Not many players find the average MMO quest fun. Sometimes those quest literally involve running for five minutes to the next zone.
Combat is not purely clicking and button and stuff dies. It requires other complex actions. It also requires systems around it to make it interesting. It's just like travel. You can have the most deep combat ever but if what you're fighting sucks... where you're fighting sucks... controls are sloppy And etc. you will have a bad game.
In GTA or even Red Dead it would be boring to travel on a straight road alone in a box car. Interesting roads, cars/horses, interactions with transports and environment, traffic, random encounters, hunting, hidden items that must be explored and discovered for achievements and so on and so on make travel in open world Rockstar games fun.
Combat is interesting decisions. It can be mastered. It involves skill. Someone can say "wow you're really good" about your combat skill, and not be sarcastic.
None of those things are true of travel in MMORPGs.
So no combat isn't "just like travel". It has enough depth to the decision-making to be interesting completely on its own.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
LOTR....one big long boring slow travel mechanic right?
Or perhaps an amazing story about the dangers of travelling across enemy lands where fast travel was not an option (unless the Eagles provide fast travel and the story becomes boring).
Fast travel has it's uses. Slow travel has it's uses.
How you think LOTR works: It's a year-long movie (literally) that recounts every moment of travel of the fellowship's year-long journey.
How LOTR actually works: It's a ~9.5 hours of movies that skip most travel scenes and get to the interesting bits. (Interesting bits being purposeful scenes which serve the movie's plot or character development.)
So no, Lord of the Rings has already been brought up and it's definitely evidence that good entertainment tends to use fast travel.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've already reiterated this but comparing a movie to a game is not really fair. Especially a game that is a virtual world vs a game that is single player and has a linear path.
Many people here reiterate they are not playing for the challenge. They are playing for the fun. The same people want constant action?
There is entertainment value in travel if setup properly. If you are trying to achieve making the person feel something as opposed to constant repetitive combat that will come from the atmosphere of the place more so than the combat. This is a combination of artwork, music, and theatrics.
I'm not really sure how important combat is to a game for me. I just finished Uncharted on Crushing difficulty and I doubt it would have been much less satisfying to finish it on easy. The game was fun, but it had a fair amount of areas where there was no combat. I would even go so far as to say it had to much combat. Nathan Drake is a treasure hunter. He isn't a one man army. He should be closer to Tomb Raider in terms of slow paced puzzle solving and exploring to find secrets. I still love the game for it's cinematics.
A virtual world is a different type of game and MMOs only real differentiating factor is virtual worlds. Fast travel really kills the world. It adds to the idea that the world is really a large, dangerous, and unknown place to explore and adventure in. WoW is a good example. Since they added mounts that are easy to get for everyone you see people can quickly skip from area to area like it's nothing. This trivializes travel and it's purpose in a game. There should be nothing like a flying mount until end game. Even things like horses can ruin the scope of the world. It's unlikely everyone would have horses to ride around on. They would likely be something more scarce and precious. I don't like the idea that there is a dungeon in the middle of nowhere (dangerous place) and the whole journey to get there in completely trivialized by fast travel or mounts.
Players do boring actions all the time if they're rewarded at the end.
But they prefer fun actions, and they complain about boring actions, and they will choose games with more fun actions.
Do you seriously think that a game requiring players to click a rock 100000 times will be successful just because there is a reward at the end of the road?
The reason players put up with that before was that there was few choices. Today, we have all sort of entertainment choices. Personally i won't put up with a game that is boring to me.
You can always find a game that is not boring, and have rewards.
A virtual world is a different type of game and MMOs only real differentiating factor is virtual worlds.
says who?
Lots of MMOs (world of tank, warframe ...) have no world.
And clearly even world games does not need slow travel. Look at open world single player games. Most (Skyrim, Fallout, AC Syndicate, The Division, ....) have fast travel. In addition, you always have the OPTION of slow travel.
A virtual world is a different type of game and MMOs only real differentiating factor is virtual worlds.
says who?
Lots of MMOs (world of tank, warframe ...) have no world.
And clearly even world games does not need slow travel. Look at open world single player games. Most (Skyrim, Fallout, AC Syndicate, The Division, ....) have fast travel. In addition, you always have the OPTION of slow travel.
I wouldn't consider Skyrim or Fallout virtual worlds. I haven't played the other two.
Skyrim and Fallout take place in a small area of a world. As you pointed out they have fast travel. This pretty much trivalizes the sense of danger getting around. You lose the scope of the world.
In reality these games are very linear in nature. Every quest has a specific path to follow from start to end. You can accomplish said tasks in different orders or not at all, but for the most part you are going down a linear path from quest start to quest finish. The main quest in the game is very linear. I often find myself playing these open world single player games and finding that it's not worth exploring because it's to easy to find things, to easy to get around, and it kills the immersion.
To achieve a true virtual world and all dangers it ensues you have to remove fast travel, engage the player in traveling by setting the mood of different areas, making things feel large, having lots of hidden things that do not show up on the map, and remove the linear pathways to follow.
I like linear games a lot actually. I enjoyed Uncharted 1, 2, and 3. They are all very linear. I actually think single player games are better served in many cases to be linear. Especially if they are going to provide maps and markers to show a direct path to follow. If they are going to do that the game might as well just have a more direct path where the developer can focus on making that linear content more interesting IMO.
I think Dark Souls is a good example of a classic style RPG. It has lots of different paths to take and none of them are pointed out via markers. There is a lot of back tracking and secrets to find. The only thing I don't like much is the grind for experience which is optional depending on how good you are at the game.
Comments
Well you just threw all objectivity in the argument right out the window.
Also as a side note, there is natural wood tar that is intentionally used as a flavoring in multiple types of drinks and foods.
The reason such is used is that, while on it's own it may be bitter and somewhat ashen, when combined with other things it contributes a deep smoky flavor that adds depth and complexity to the dish.
Much like when travel is integrated with other game mechanics it contributes depth and complexity.
So....there goes that analogy.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You did the exact opposite when I described MMORPG quest as being poorly done. You went out of the way to point out your "WoW level quest." All the while I was talking about the generic task that most MMORPG have including WoW being bad. Well this is GTA level travel based on missions and random occurrences and events for themepark. Strategic and rewarding exploration like Minecraft and other survival games for sandboxes. These are proven methods that have outsold any MMORPG including WOW. These are both methods of play that have transfered over to proven online MMO like gameplay.
Show me one point in my post I said anything about slow tedious travel? It's all your strawman.
- To the point... travel has to be integrated into the game systems just like anything else.
- You can not use this a metric(themepark MMORPG) to say this is what all gamers or even a majority of gamers want since its a very small portion of gamers.
- I used my example of GTA because travel is the game and it uses missions which are equivalent to MMORPG quest systems.
- There is nothing stopping MMORPG from using similar game play because they both you(use) a quest hub like system.
These are the mainpoints of each paragraph. What do they have to do with what you're talking about? You took time to try to dissect my analogy but not the point behind it. I am almost certain you have nothing to talk about if you can't frame MMORPG travel HAVING to be shallow. MMORPG do have tedious travel now because the last decade has been all level progression themepark quest hubs. They do not have replay value or systems to make travel anymore than devoid running through out leveled zones. But that has nothing to do with what everyone else is talking about.Tedious slow travel is the current reality of MMORPG travel when fast travel systems aren't in place. Travel is just watching a run animation with shallow gameplay.
Unlike WOW questing, there isn't a MMORPG with deep travel gameplay. Not one.
Why not? Slow travel doesn't really fit aesthetically with how you create an RPG. Why? Because RPGs, basically, are about trying to let players play out LoTR in game form -- and while LoTR involved travel, it wasn't about travel. It was about adventure and heroics.
Implementing things requires dev time. Dev time is finite. If you make travel a little better, it makes other gameplay a little worse. If you make it a lot better, it makes other gameplay a lot worse. Hopefully we all understand that adventure and heroics (ie quests and combat) are the core systems of an RPG.
Low-hanging-fruit improvements (AA's one piddly travel ability) might make sense, but you're not going to achieve deep travel gameplay without creating an entirely different game (you know, like how GTA is about stealing and driving cars?) This will come at a big cost in other types of gameplay (you know, like GTA's weak combat?)
This is why travel in RPGs is shallow, because travel isn't the focus of these games and games can only do a narrow set of things well. Which is only slightly different from saying travel "has to be shallow".
Gamers do want gameplay-centric games. You have no evidence to dispute this. I have abundant evidence in the form of pointing to all the successful games out there (the vast majority of which are decision-centric, like the ones I've specifically named: Civilization, Sim City, Starcraft, etc.) Do you really want to be on the side of the argument that relies on a willful ignorance of the world of evidence around you, just so you can disagree with me?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"Tools need to be limited in some way, it could be that they are inconsistently available. It could be that you have options A, B, and C and all of them have different uses or importance. It could be that there's a lot of cool-downs. It could be that they're just not provided to you when you need them by some mechanic. I think that's really really important, it can force players (if it's done in a way that doesn't feel arbitrary and lame, it feel's natural to the game) players naturally get into this "making do" and creativity mode."
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
His "framing of the discussion" cripples RPG design and ignores the fact that there is a myriad of virtual world type RPG games.
Many of these games actually do very well to limit the function of fast travel so as to not remove the purpose and depth of the game world and user experience.
Witcher 3 for example has fast travel, but they closely constrain it to having to reach specific locations and traveling to specific locations, with the bulk of the travel still taking place on horse. And why? because they integrated a lot of the user experience into the environment and if you were constantly fast traveling to plot points you'd miss a massive chunk of the gameplay.
Again true for the likes of the prior Final Fantasy titles and even Chrono Trigger. Walking around is the fundamental mode of travel. It helps define the initial user experience and the scope. The growth they integrated into the game is directly dependent upon this strict control of travel because it creates tiers to the user experience where the early game is defined by the places you can reach on foot and then you unlock air travel which allows you both faster and more varied locations to travel to, opening the game world further.
Saying there isn't a game with "deep travel gameplay" is a sideways argument at best, a strawman in it's entirety, and at worst an ignorance towards the presence of the titles in the actual genre.
The the previously aforementioned Saga of Ryzom for example. It's narrative structure was actually more open format and on top of that plenty of the world's assets were designed to migrate around the environment, so mining for resources and hunting creatures was a perpetual act of exploration. Since a good chunk of the game focused on crafting mechanics, this was a means to keep players seeking and experiencing variety by discovering new places in pirsuit of their desired materials.
AA had multiple means of travel in mounts, carts/vehicles, boats, and gliders, all of which also integrated into other elements of gameplay with trade and fighting functionality. They even experimented with expanding it with a a submarine type mount. There was not just "one piddly travel ability" that they toyed with or integrated.
There are other titles such ad Monster Hunter Online, Bless, Dragon's Dogma Online, and Peria Chronicles which fulfill the roles you claim don't exist.
Mistake you're making still is you're defining your scope of experience as the truth, which at best only speaks of one market segment, and at worst is simply your opinion.
Speaking of "willful ignorance of the world of evidence" the examples you just claimed (civ, sims, starcraft, etc) were already deconstructed to prove the point that time and travel are key components to generating any sort of user experience. On top of that, the "decision-centric" gameplay you mention for them does not translate properly into "perpetual decision making".
As Cadwell pointed out;
"A lot of the best decisions in Civ are decisions that are aligning short term and long term objectives."
The choices made in those type of games certainly do have a good amount of moment to moment gameplay, but there is also gaps of activity where players strategize and form much more long term decisions and actions which they intentionally have to wait quite some time on. The game isn't weaker for that, it's actually considerably deeper because there are personal objectives being sought, not simply a sing trail to follow.
The reason for a shallow travel experience in the type of RPG you talk about isn't because it's an RPG, it's because it's a particular type of RPG built on a very narrowly structured user experience meant to guide you along an intended path/narrative.
Cadwell states a point in counter of that when referencing roguelikes;
"Generally in Roguelikes players have diverse challenges and diverse tools, and often those diverse tools are imperfect tools."
"By designing for this, you really encourage player activity and reward."
"By incensing players to learn these tools, by putting them in situations where they have to use these tools, you actually get these players to sample in a way they actually excited about a larger percent of your content."
Coupled with the point made that there are many forms of RPG structure and narrative, not just narrow dictation, the tools used to build the user experience also caters to different formats and experiences. Cadwell points out that such "imperfect tools" can add depth because it incenses players to seek the experience themselves and spurs them on to deeper exploration of the game. Same with narrative, in an open or collaborative format you can create player investment not by leading them on a finite path, but by letting them take the narrative elements dangling in the world and build a story as they play.
And that's where virtual world type games come up as RPGs which fulfill those requirements. It's a game format that does in fact benefit from integrating different modes of travel that can contribute to the depth of the user experience.
It's not a matter of "disagreeing with you". It's a matter of fact.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
This isn't rocket science.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It was a two-part discussion Cadwell had in that GDC talk you linked.
But it's true that particular instance of the quote wasn't directed at you.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You can make clicking on a rock a thousand times "a component of the gameplay" too. Does it make clicking a rock a thousand times fun?
If a component is boring by itself, then it's boring.
If that component occupies a substantial chunk of gameplay, it can make the game itself boring (as it becomes a larger and larger part of the whole.)
The conversation should have moved past the fallacious idea that adding meaning or feature integration would magically cause a boring thing to be fun.
"Click this rock a thousand times" does not magically become fun when the failure state is you're killed IRL (which adds meaning) nor does it magically become fun when you have to do it for 2 hours straight in order to ship goods from one side of the universe to the other (which integrates the boring activity with trade.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your very counterexample is isolating a feature. That's not an example of integration, that is in fact the opposite and any game feature will be boring in such a context.
However, if one wasn't too thick to realize using a gameplay mechanic that interacts with other gameplay mechanics makes each mechanic have more value and entertainment, then we might get somewhere. Making a facetious argument that "boring things are boring" when someone says "make boring thins not boring" is not a meaningful argument.
Travel when integrated with other game mechanics/features we can see as having a pretty good impact in it's use in the likes of Witcher 3 , Final Fantasy titles, GTA, Ryzom, and others.
Much like combat when removed from other features we can see as shallow and uninteresting in the likes of Minecraft (though it has improved this a bit) or any title wherein combat is effectively point and click on target to watch the meter drop.
It's only by adding special abilities, secondary effects and the time factor to gameplay that combat gets complex. Attacking a target by itself would be the most tedious activity if it weren't for how integrated it is into the mechanics of the characters and mobs in the game.
So the argument that "adding meaning or feature integration would magically cause a boring thing to be fun" is itself a false argument. Feature integration is the only reason game mechanics have any interest or depth. From combat to travel, it's how many aspects support the tools and how those tools interact with each-other that makes a game. It's not magic taking place, it's design that actually supports the feature set. A good game designer would know that.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
On the other hand, pressing a button to keep walking at a direction for 5 min ... is boring. That is why players complained, and fast travel is implemented in many games.
It is just a matter of preferences. Pushing a button to do a single action may or may not be boring, depending on what players like to do.
So the argument that "adding meaning or feature integration would magically cause a boring thing to be fun" is itself a false argument. Feature integration is the only reason game mechanics have any interest or depth. From combat to travel, it's how many aspects support the tools and how those tools interact with each-other that makes a game. It's not magic taking place, it's design that actually supports the feature set. A good game designer would know that."
Shooting enemies in a game isn't fun simply for the sake of pressing a button. It's fun because it's one part of an integrated system that defines the scope of combat. Because it's not an isolated activity.
Which is in turn exactly the point you just tried to avoid. A properly integrated tool like travel is not an isolated activity, but something that has game value in it's use and subsequent entertainment derived thereof, such as when you're tracking and hunting in a survival game, or tracking resources in Ryzom, such as when you're dodging police cars and pulling getaways in GTA, such as when you're tailing a merchant ship to broadside them and steal their goods, etc.
Try again without cherry picking one comment and ignoring the facts.
EDIT: I will agree, however, that entertainment is subjective. That is why one person can be engrossed by a plane, train, or truck simulator where other would find it boring. That's why one person can love Spore for it's creation tools while others hate it's shallow strategy. That's why someone can love Civ for it's strategic depth and long form gameplay while someone else thinks it's too slow and prefers the micro gameplay of Starcraft.
To call a game feature shallow or boring because you are isolating it and it's functionality, and then acting as if that's the only form in which it can exist, is entirely against the reality of game variety and functionality. To take something and argue that it has no objective value because of a subjective opinion is not a valid argument.
No one ever demanded you play the same game as another nor did they say that there is one way in which games should be made. In fact, the only ones that said such a thing has been Axe and you in your vehemence that there is only one right way for a MMORPG to work.
So yes, "boring" is subjective as entertainment itself and what an individual finds comforting and engaging is subjective, otherwise there would be considerably fewer genres of games in the world.
Are you going to play in a virtual world? It seems unlikely given your apparent preference for more strictly defined action titles. So there is no reason to damn a game mechanic or feature for it's existence when it will likely never be a concern to the genre of games you play in.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Combat is not purely clicking and button and stuff dies. It requires other complex actions. It also requires systems around it to make it interesting. It's just like travel. You can have the most deep combat ever but if what you're fighting sucks... where you're fighting sucks... controls are sloppy
And etc. you will have a bad game.
In GTA or even Red Dead it would be boring to travel on a straight road alone in a box car. Interesting roads, cars/horses, interactions with transports and environment, traffic, random encounters, hunting, hidden items that must be explored and discovered for achievements and so on and so on make travel in open world Rockstar games fun.
Or perhaps an amazing story about the dangers of travelling across enemy lands where fast travel was not an option (unless the Eagles provide fast travel and the story becomes boring).
Fast travel has it's uses.
Slow travel has it's uses.
None of those things are true of travel in MMORPGs.
So no combat isn't "just like travel". It has enough depth to the decision-making to be interesting completely on its own.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How you think LOTR works: It's a year-long movie (literally) that recounts every moment of travel of the fellowship's year-long journey.
How LOTR actually works: It's a ~9.5 hours of movies that skip most travel scenes and get to the interesting bits. (Interesting bits being purposeful scenes which serve the movie's plot or character development.)
So no, Lord of the Rings has already been brought up and it's definitely evidence that good entertainment tends to use fast travel.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Many people here reiterate they are not playing for the challenge. They are playing for the fun. The same people want constant action?
There is entertainment value in travel if setup properly. If you are trying to achieve making the person feel something as opposed to constant repetitive combat that will come from the atmosphere of the place more so than the combat. This is a combination of artwork, music, and theatrics.
I'm not really sure how important combat is to a game for me. I just finished Uncharted on Crushing difficulty and I doubt it would have been much less satisfying to finish it on easy. The game was fun, but it had a fair amount of areas where there was no combat. I would even go so far as to say it had to much combat. Nathan Drake is a treasure hunter. He isn't a one man army. He should be closer to Tomb Raider in terms of slow paced puzzle solving and exploring to find secrets. I still love the game for it's cinematics.
A virtual world is a different type of game and MMOs only real differentiating factor is virtual worlds. Fast travel really kills the world. It adds to the idea that the world is really a large, dangerous, and unknown place to explore and adventure in. WoW is a good example. Since they added mounts that are easy to get for everyone you see people can quickly skip from area to area like it's nothing. This trivializes travel and it's purpose in a game. There should be nothing like a flying mount until end game. Even things like horses can ruin the scope of the world. It's unlikely everyone would have horses to ride around on. They would likely be something more scarce and precious. I don't like the idea that there is a dungeon in the middle of nowhere (dangerous place) and the whole journey to get there in completely trivialized by fast travel or mounts.
Do you seriously think that a game requiring players to click a rock 100000 times will be successful just because there is a reward at the end of the road?
The reason players put up with that before was that there was few choices. Today, we have all sort of entertainment choices. Personally i won't put up with a game that is boring to me.
You can always find a game that is not boring, and have rewards.
says who?
Lots of MMOs (world of tank, warframe ...) have no world.
And clearly even world games does not need slow travel. Look at open world single player games. Most (Skyrim, Fallout, AC Syndicate, The Division, ....) have fast travel. In addition, you always have the OPTION of slow travel.
Skyrim and Fallout take place in a small area of a world. As you pointed out they have fast travel. This pretty much trivalizes the sense of danger getting around. You lose the scope of the world.
In reality these games are very linear in nature. Every quest has a specific path to follow from start to end. You can accomplish said tasks in different orders or not at all, but for the most part you are going down a linear path from quest start to quest finish. The main quest in the game is very linear. I often find myself playing these open world single player games and finding that it's not worth exploring because it's to easy to find things, to easy to get around, and it kills the immersion.
To achieve a true virtual world and all dangers it ensues you have to remove fast travel, engage the player in traveling by setting the mood of different areas, making things feel large, having lots of hidden things that do not show up on the map, and remove the linear pathways to follow.
I like linear games a lot actually. I enjoyed Uncharted 1, 2, and 3. They are all very linear. I actually think single player games are better served in many cases to be linear. Especially if they are going to provide maps and markers to show a direct path to follow. If they are going to do that the game might as well just have a more direct path where the developer can focus on making that linear content more interesting IMO.
I think Dark Souls is a good example of a classic style RPG. It has lots of different paths to take and none of them are pointed out via markers. There is a lot of back tracking and secrets to find. The only thing I don't like much is the grind for experience which is optional depending on how good you are at the game.