I wouldn't consider Skyrim or Fallout virtual worlds. I haven't played the other two.
are we going to debate the definition of virtual world too?
You know, these games are called open-world games, and there is NO controversy (so far) about that label.
Whether you consider them world games ... others clearly do.
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.
This deceptive comment was covered before, no?
"Also semantically I would say people that can fly the Gal reliably in Planetside one and two are quite distinctly amazing "travelers".
Kiters, gliders, divebombers, hell when someone manages to juke a bandit while driving a carriage/wagon that's pretty amazing too.
You're not going to hear dialogue praising any of that if you're not playing a game that enables the skillful application of any of that. Hence again where virtual world type games and the ones that use better integrated systems for emergent gameplay tend to be the sources of such interest. Not the titles that neglect the world and "secondary" systems to focus on delivering a strongly scripted and defined user experience."
"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
I wouldn't consider Skyrim or Fallout virtual worlds. I haven't played the other two.
are we going to debate the definition of virtual world too?
You know, these games are called open-world games, and there is NO controversy (so far) about that label.
Whether you consider them world games ... others clearly do.
All of the things you listed are not virtual worlds because they all are defined by finite user experiences.
Skyrim and Fallout make some effort to become closer to emulated worlds, but they still rely dominantly on heavily scripted content for the user to experience. Being an open world game just means that you have a large world space.
besides which, there are plenty of other single/multiplayer games that uses travel as part of their mechanics such as MGS, Witcher, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy, Minecraft, etc.
"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
Players do boring actions all the time if they're rewarded at the end.
And many players find many different things "rewarding." I have yet to see a piece of "epic armor" or "epic weapon" (basically top tier items) pleasing to me. Most are over the top and I find those "rewards" quite paltry.
On the other hand, I do find the discovery of hidden niches and out of the way places rewarding. Rewards do not have to be "physical" for many players. I have found that "gamers" (min/max players) seem to need these physical rewards more often than not.
Person 1 - I personally enjoy slow travel because it can compliment certain game-play aspect that I also enjoy and enhance the entire game experience. Person 2 - No you don't like it, it is boring.
I wouldn't consider Skyrim or Fallout virtual worlds. I haven't played the other two.
are we going to debate the definition of virtual world too?
You know, these games are called open-world games, and there is NO controversy (so far) about that label.
Whether you consider them world games ... others clearly do.
All of the things you listed are not virtual worlds because they all are defined by finite user experiences.
So the answer is "yes"? You want to debate what the industry call open world games too?
Unlike WOW questing, there isn't a MMORPG with deep travel gameplay. Not one.
There are almost no MMORPG that aren't WoW clones. Why would you expect there to be one about travel?
Doesn't matter and ultimately fruitless in a discussion about travel in MMORPG can be by arguing what they won't be. You're framing of the arugment doesn't add to the discussion it just skirts you're wrongness in this situation. And yes GTA's similar online aspects do show this is possible.
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.
People pay to not to play to get rewards. The whole F2P thing is built upon this.
Do you really like picking mushrooms in a game? Would you outside of gaining experience(reward) do this for random NPCs?
Themepark and mob grind MMORPG genre are built around Skinner box reward systems for largely boring actions themselves. Its always about getting gear, numbers and etc. MMORPG gameplay is generally horrendous compared to single player games.
All of the things you listed are not virtual worlds because they all are defined by finite user experiences.
So the answer is "yes"? You want to debate what the industry call open world games too?
"Virtual World" and "Open World" do not mean the same things if you look them up.
I already mentioned this in my commentary that you cut out of your quote.
"Skyrim and Fallout make some effort to become closer to emulated worlds, but they still rely dominantly on heavily scripted content for the user to experience. Being an open world game just means that you have a large world space."
Again, stop cherry picking sentences to make an argument that does not exist. Trolling does not further any kind of conversation.
"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
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.
It doesn't matter what the "many" players here prefer, because I'm describing what the vast majority of people prefer in their entertainment everywhere else. They prefer efficient designs which don't waste time: designs where every element justifies its presence.
Travel in MMORPGs hasn't justified its presence.
Does this mean there was absolutely zero purpose whatsoever to travel in all situations? Of course not.
It means the justification didn't outweigh the activity itself being uninteresting. There was a reason to do the boring thing, but the reason wasn't enough.
Creating games that way is a losing proposition. It's extremely inefficient to try to motivate players to do something they're actively bored by. Maybe you can get some of them to do it by creating a dazzling enough golden carrot to act as an extrinsic reward.
It's far better to create game mechanics which are fun enough to do without an extrinsic reward. And you can still add that dazzling golden carrot to make the mechanic even more enjoyable.
Does this mean gameplay can't be travel? No and I've pointed out several ways games can offer great travel and several examples of games with great travel have been provided. But as covered before, if you sink enough dev hours into making travel interesting you probably would end up making some non-RPG genre instead of an RPG. So that's why MMORPGs will never have worthwhile travel, and why they end up needing to let players skip past any non-first-time travel (because first time travel typically does justify itself with new sights and exploration.)
Unless virtual worlds provide good entertainment, they'll fail to generate revenue, and by extension they won't get made or get updated. So if you were interested in seeing virtual worlds be more of a thing (than the non-thing they are currently) you should suggest changes that would make these experiences entertaining rather than empty wastes of time.
Personally I'd be interested in whatever mix of books/movies/etc caused you to think virtual worlds would be awesome in the first place, because I'd advise you to go revisit those entertainment experiences and realize that the reason virtual worlds seemed awesome was because you only saw the most interesting bits of virtual worlds in those portrayals.
Regarding Uncharted, cutscenes are a fine alternative to decisions. Personally I view games more as entertainment: it doesn't matter if it's interactive (decisions) or non-interactive (cutscenes) as long as it's good at doing that particular thing (and that means using the audience's time efficiently; not deliberately wasting their time.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Person 1 - I personally enjoy slow travel because it can compliment certain game-play aspect that I also enjoy and enhance the entire game experience. Person 2 - No you don't like it, it is boring.
[mod edit]
Instead of a straw man, perhaps you'd like to respond to the objective, logical reasons slow travel is bad game design?
You're welcome to join the conversation as a rational contributing member.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There are almost no MMORPG that aren't WoW clones. Why would you expect there to be one about travel?
Doesn't matter and ultimately fruitless in a discussion about travel in MMORPG can be by arguing what they won't be. You're framing of the arugment doesn't add to the discussion it just skirts you're wrongness in this situation. And yes GTA's similar online aspects do show this is possible.
Framing the discussion eliminates any potential straw men, to help people understand that my points aren't wrong.
Understanding that, if you want to describe a game that involves deep travel gameplay you're free to. But as noted earlier, the deeper the travel the less likely it'll be considered a MMORPG (since logically the deeper you go on travel, the weaker you'll be on anything else, and the further away you'll be from what's typically considered an RPG (which is almost always combat-centric.) As long as your only intent is to describe a fun game, then you shouldn't have a problem with the resulting game being considered a Racing title or some other genre, because those games can be fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There are almost no MMORPG that aren't WoW clones. Why would you expect there to be one about travel?
Doesn't matter and ultimately fruitless in a discussion about travel in MMORPG can be by arguing what they won't be. You're framing of the arugment doesn't add to the discussion it just skirts you're wrongness in this situation. And yes GTA's similar online aspects do show this is possible.
Framing the discussion eliminates any potential straw men, to help people understand that my points aren't wrong.
Understanding that, if you want to describe a game that involves deep travel gameplay you're free to. But as noted earlier, the deeper the travel the less likely it'll be considered a MMORPG (since logically the deeper you go on travel, the weaker you'll be on anything else, and the further away you'll be from what's typically considered an RPG (which is almost always combat-centric.) As long as your only intent is to describe a fun game, then you shouldn't have a problem with the resulting game being considered a Racing title or some other genre, because those games can be fun.
RPGs didn't even have much combat until the 1990s. Probably the greatest RPG of all time, Myst, had no combat. And I'd go so far as to say that RPGs, whether in the form of the traditional Japanese turn-based party RPGs or Action/Adventure titles, are less combat centric than cutscene centric. There were times in Resident Evil, for example, that I just kept on backtracking to the house, figuring out puzzles, with no zombies left to fight. Slow, boring backtracking to get to some key lock? I guess if we want to be picky, sure. But then, by your logic, Resident Evil would be a much better design if we could just teleport to the door after we got the key. Maybe it would, but I have a suspicion we'd lose something.
Here's my thought.
We do what we do, in any game we might call an RPG, for the passive, non-decision based enjoyment of just sitting back and doing nothing, when we get right down to it. Let's not mistake the forest for the trees. Combat in an RPG is always a means; the end is always the cutscene. This makes it different from a shooter, where the combat is the reason we are there.
People play these RPG and action/adventure games to see the cutscenes, to hear the dialogue and to know the characters. That's the hook because, quite frankly, other game formats can do the combat and progression in a much better, more intuitive sense (multiplayer shooters, for example, or dungeon crawlers). The difference between RPGs and action games, and MMORPGs is that the former give you the cutscene. The MMORPGs, however, don't give you anything (anymore at least).
They used to give you something; they gave people the ability to be their own cutscenes in a sense, for themselves and others, by roleplaying and creating content. But people didn't see the point, and now these MMORPGs are all about consuming content.
And so I'm wondering, from your standpoint, what the point is in an MMORPG that makes this form of computer entertainment unique? What is the point of these MMORPG games, in your estimation? What's the reward, when it's all said and done, for all that combat? And if the combat is the reward, why aren't they playing shooters instead?
What do MMORPGs do that other formats (action/adventure titles, multiplayer shooters, traditional squad-based turn RPGs, building games) can't deliver better today? That's an important question, and it'll decide whether this genre fades into an obscure relic, or whether it has a future of growth.
Obviously, they had to have done something better than other genres, at least at one time, because people started to play these things over the multiplayer shooters dungeon crawlers and action/adventure titles they already had...in a big way in the 2000s.
__________________________ "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
There are almost no MMORPG that aren't WoW clones. Why would you expect there to be one about travel?
Doesn't matter and ultimately fruitless in a discussion about travel in MMORPG can be by arguing what they won't be. You're framing of the arugment doesn't add to the discussion it just skirts you're wrongness in this situation. And yes GTA's similar online aspects do show this is possible.
Framing the discussion eliminates any potential straw men, to help people understand that my points aren't wrong.
Understanding that, if you want to describe a game that involves deep travel gameplay you're free to. But as noted earlier, the deeper the travel the less likely it'll be considered a MMORPG (since logically the deeper you go on travel, the weaker you'll be on anything else, and the further away you'll be from what's typically considered an RPG (which is almost always combat-centric.) As long as your only intent is to describe a fun game, then you shouldn't have a problem with the resulting game being considered a Racing title or some other genre, because those games can be fun.
RPGs didn't even have much combat until the 1990s. Probably the greatest RPG of all time, Myst, had no combat. And I'd go so far as to say that RPGs, whether in the form of the traditional Japanese turn-based party RPGs or Action/Adventure titles, are less combat centric than cutscene centric. There were times in Resident Evil, for example, that I just kept on backtracking to the house, figuring out puzzles, with no zombies left to fight. Slow, boring backtracking to get to some key lock? I guess if we want to be picky, sure. But then, by your logic, Resident Evil would be a much better design if we could just teleport to the door after we got the key. Maybe it would, but I have a suspicion we'd lose something.
Here's my thought.
We do what we do, in any game we might call an RPG, for the passive, non-decision based enjoyment of just sitting back and doing nothing, when we get right down to it. Let's not mistake the forest for the trees. Combat in an RPG is always a means; the end is always the cutscene. This makes it different from a shooter, where the combat is the reason we are there.
People play these RPG and action/adventure games to see the cutscenes, to hear the dialogue and to know the characters. That's the hook because, quite frankly, other game formats can do the combat and progression in a much better, more intuitive sense (multiplayer shooters, for example, or dungeon crawlers). The difference between RPGs and action games, and MMORPGs is that the former give you the cutscene. The MMORPGs, however, don't give you anything (anymore at least).
They used to give you something; they gave people the ability to be their own cutscenes in a sense, for themselves and others, by roleplaying and creating content. But people didn't see the point, and now these MMORPGs are all about consuming content.
And so I'm wondering, from your standpoint, what the point is in an MMORPG that makes this form of computer entertainment unique? What is the point of these MMORPG games, in your estimation? What's the reward, when it's all said and done, for all that combat? And if the combat is the reward, why aren't they playing shooters instead?
What do MMORPGs do that other formats (action/adventure titles, multiplayer shooters, traditional squad-based turn RPGs, building games) can't deliver better today? That's an important question, and it'll decide whether this genre fades into an obscure relic, or whether it has a future of growth.
Obviously, they had to have done something better than other genres, at least at one time, because people started to play these things over the multiplayer shooters dungeon crawlers and action/adventure titles they already had...in a big way in the 2000s.
People started playing MMORPGs en masse specifically when they started to incorporate elements from other genres and improved gameplay drastically. In other words, they made MMORPGs "gamier" as opposed to more of a simulation.
MMORPGs as a world simulation is an unpopular concept. People would much rather play a game than try to role play a blacksmith. When they log in, they want to go on adventures, not to grind away hours and hours in smithy "because crafting should be boring" (Yeah. I've seen someone championing this on these forums). Or ride hours and hours moving from point A to point B "because travel should take time".
When MMORPGs stray away from being just a virtual world, they get more customers. That is the reality.
Now if you don't want to go on adventures made by professional game designers I suggest you gather your friends and start playing tabletop or pen & paper RPGs. In this regard, they are superior to any sandbox/virtual world MMORPG out there.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Hence the need to continue development so that it can evolve into a better genre.
MMOs as a global genre are slower to develop and their technical requirements burdens them in a way that they will never be able to match the present technical capacity of a single or smaller scale multiplayer.
This puts a dampener on doing "new" things in the genre not because of what is being done is "bad", but because it is under-developed and the time and cost to invest into it to see it evolve is great. More than many developer have or are willing to invest.
So we have compromises.
However, we see the same mechanics being decried as "bad" in this context cropping up in plenty of games that are themselves considered good or popular (referencing the games prior mentioned). On top of that, gameplay mechanics around virtual worlds such as the sandbox games have made plenty of strides in their entertainment value, meaning the evolution of the genre is not stagnant.
As for some of these other comments...
"Framing the discussion eliminates any potential straw men..."
On the contrary, framing the discussion allows for the use of straw men through the exclusion of necessary information for form a true image of the situation.
"It doesn't matter what the "many" players here prefer, because I'm describing what the vast majority of people prefer in their entertainment everywhere else. They prefer efficient designs which don't waste time: designs where every element justifies its presence."
This is, itself, a straw man. You might even call it a red herring. It's a misleading statement on the general population's interests as well as a comment being used to invalidate an argument without itself having a solid basis for the claim.
Reality being, as stated prior, the closest to true this gets is if you limit speculation to the smaller western gaming market and not the global gaming market. This also only stands true if you cull simulation games, most popular eastern titles, survival and sandbox titles, casual titles, and plenty of other games from the list.
All of this also not mentioning the fact that "efficient design" is a meaningless comment as the pacing of games can vary quite broadly yet their efficiency is not generally brought into question.
No, the truth of the matter is that the idea that time and travel has no place in an MMORPG or elsewhere is a matter of selfish argument that implies all games have to share a common design principle and that "fun" has no personal variance. Do all people like shooters? Do all people like fighting games? Do all people like Harvest Moon? Do all people like Puzzle games? Do all people like RTS games? Do all people like WoW?
The answer is a resounding "no". And why? Because the means in which these games integrate features, what features they use, and the type of resulting gameplay has a massive swathe of variance.
Some genres and types are more popular than others, but that is not an excuse for people to stop producing sudouku puzzles just because candy crush is more popular. That's not an excuse for Dice to stop producing Battlefield just because CoD is more popular on the console. That is not a reason for virtual worlds to stop development just because themeparks are where the kids want to ride.
The only argument that is not wrong, is that game mechanics to be interesting, need to be integrated as a meaningful feature of the game, and not isolated in it's function. All game features suffer when isolated, and most all of them can generate depth to the game when well integrated.
To pull examples from one grouping of games, neglect the opposing evidence, and claim that something is now and forever meaningless because it doesn't work in isolation, is a profoundly useless argument.
"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
There are almost no MMORPG that aren't WoW clones. Why would you expect there to be one about travel?
Doesn't matter and ultimately fruitless in a discussion about travel in MMORPG can be by arguing what they won't be. You're framing of the arugment doesn't add to the discussion it just skirts you're wrongness in this situation. And yes GTA's similar online aspects do show this is possible.
Framing the discussion eliminates any potential straw men, to help people understand that my points aren't wrong.
Understanding that, if you want to describe a game that involves deep travel gameplay you're free to. But as noted earlier, the deeper the travel the less likely it'll be considered a MMORPG (since logically the deeper you go on travel, the weaker you'll be on anything else, and the further away you'll be from what's typically considered an RPG (which is almost always combat-centric.) As long as your only intent is to describe a fun game, then you shouldn't have a problem with the resulting game being considered a Racing title or some other genre, because those games can be fun.
No RPGS are story centric. MMORPG were player centric. Travel is more about world design than anything that would effect your combat systems. But your viewpoint requires a WOW like game which are essentially not being made and declining dinos. MMORPG as genre is niche. There are far more player playing games that incorporates travel than MMORPG. It's a strawman argument to say frame it the way you do because nobody is arguing that WoW centric ga me play this genre currently has doesn't lend well to travel or even allow it.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
Person 1 - I personally enjoy slow travel because it can compliment certain game-play aspect that I also enjoy and enhance the entire game experience. Person 2 - No you don't like it, it is boring.
[mod edit]
Instead of a straw man, perhaps you'd like to respond to the objective, logical reasons slow travel is bad game design?
You're welcome to join the conversation as a rational contributing member.
Oh I tried.
I have given examples of why slow travel can be not only enjoyable but also necessary.
The argument always comes down to "slow travel is boring so you are wrong".
Hence my flippant remark basically showing it is a pointless discussion.
The problem here is that because you have certain posters unwilling to even recognise other peoples reasons for why slow travel, if done right, is great for a particular game and instead continue to argue from a position of willful ignorance.
At the end of the day if a game with slow travel isn't your cup of tea stop playing them, stop complaining and move on. Because I can assure you, the game wasn't made for everyone and beating the game up complaining that slow travel is boring isn't fair to the game designers or the players that WANT to play games with slow travel.
Continuing to argue that slow travel is boring (a personal opinion) and trying to enforce it onto everyone else is about as selfish a position as you can get.
The reason there any many types of games with different designs is because there are many different types of players. As soon as people get over themselves and acting so selfish then everyone will be a lot happier and perhaps everyone will get games that they enjoy.
But thanks for ignoring all my previous posts and resorting to the personal attack against me.
RPGs didn't even have much combat until the 1990s. Probably the greatest RPG of all time, Myst, had no combat. And I'd go so far as to say that RPGs, whether in the form of the traditional Japanese turn-based party RPGs or Action/Adventure titles, are less combat centric than cutscene centric. There were times in Resident Evil, for example, that I just kept on backtracking to the house, figuring out puzzles, with no zombies left to fight. Slow, boring backtracking to get to some key lock? I guess if we want to be picky, sure. But then, by your logic, Resident Evil would be a much better design if we could just teleport to the door after we got the key. Maybe it would, but I have a suspicion we'd lose something.
Here's my thought.
We do what we do, in any game we might call an RPG, for the passive, non-decision based enjoyment of just sitting back and doing nothing, when we get right down to it. Let's not mistake the forest for the trees. Combat in an RPG is always a means; the end is always the cutscene. This makes it different from a shooter, where the combat is the reason we are there.
People play these RPG and action/adventure games to see the cutscenes, to hear the dialogue and to know the characters. That's the hook because, quite frankly, other game formats can do the combat and progression in a much better, more intuitive sense (multiplayer shooters, for example, or dungeon crawlers). The difference between RPGs and action games, and MMORPGs is that the former give you the cutscene. The MMORPGs, however, don't give you anything (anymore at least).
They used to give you something; they gave people the ability to be their own cutscenes in a sense, for themselves and others, by roleplaying and creating content. But people didn't see the point, and now these MMORPGs are all about consuming content.
And so I'm wondering, from your standpoint, what the point is in an MMORPG that makes this form of computer entertainment unique? What is the point of these MMORPG games, in your estimation? What's the reward, when it's all said and done, for all that combat? And if the combat is the reward, why aren't they playing shooters instead?
What do MMORPGs do that other formats (action/adventure titles, multiplayer shooters, traditional squad-based turn RPGs, building games) can't deliver better today? That's an important question, and it'll decide whether this genre fades into an obscure relic, or whether it has a future of growth.
Obviously, they had to have done something better than other genres, at least at one time, because people started to play these things over the multiplayer shooters dungeon crawlers and action/adventure titles they already had...in a big way in the 2000s.
Please try to form a legitimate discussion point based on reality.
Ultima 3 (1983) was an RPG, and definitely combat-focused. It lacked cutscenes but had a story.
So story was a core pillar of RPGs very early on, but many genres have story.
So it was the other two core pillars of RPGs that differentiated them: stats-driven combat, and progression.
Here's a list of what're actually considered videogame RPGs. Here's a list of action games. Pay careful attention to how all the modern games (Batman:AA, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed) have cutscenes. So the other two core pillars (stats-driven combat and progression) are the major differentiating factors for RPGs nowadays, and why a game like Darkest Dungeon can offer a compelling set of interesting combat decisions (influenced by player stats). While many RPGs use action combat, the amount of influence to player stats (which includes things like gear) determines what the dominant element is (in Fallout your level and gear are going to be the primary things determining your character's fighting strength, while in the action games listed above any RPG elements have only a slight influence.)
One of the things that's always attracted players to RPGs specifically has been that some players specifically don't want an action game. They specifically want a game which isn't trying to challenge their twitch skill, but instead focuses on non-twitch decisions. While it wouldn't surprise me if you tracked down data showing that this group is gradually shrinking (as a percentage of all players) over time, it remains a component of RPG popularity.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is a good example exactly of what I meant when I said combat is interesting only because it has many integrated components. You are arguing for "pillars" that (while not universally true) Illustrate the very point that such games are relying on the interaction of multiple game elements integrated with each-other to achieve a goal of creating depth in the game and user experience.
That is in and of itself the very point that has bee argued for, integrating a gameplay mechanic as a component of play to develop depth in the title's user experience.
It's not a foreign concept to RPGs as you can see many titles on the list that utilize slower traveling mechanics or controlling the means of travel as an integral point in how they work.
Grimrock, Wasteland, Underrail, Dragon's Dogma, Amalur, Witcher, Monster Hunter, Avadon, and the list goes on for RPG games that limit the users means of travel often as a component of how the game functions and a means to define the user's exploration paths, item access, plot progression, etc.
So for a legitimate discussion based on reality we have the point that gameplay mechanics such as combat or travel, when integrated into the game properly, add depth and interest to the gameplay.
"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 is a good example exactly of what I meant when I said combat is interesting only because it has many integrated components. You are arguing for "pillars" that (while not universally true) Illustrate the very point that such games are relying on the interaction of multiple game elements integrated with each-other to achieve a goal of creating depth in the game and user experience.
That is in and of itself the very point that has bee argued for, integrating a gameplay mechanic as a component of play to develop depth in the title's user experience.
It's not a foreign concept to RPGs as you can see many titles on the list that utilize slower traveling mechanics or controlling the means of travel as an integral point in how they work.
Grimrock, Wasteland, Underrail, Dragon's Dogma, Amalur, Witcher, Monster Hunter, Avadon, and the list goes on for RPG games that limit the users means of travel often as a component of how the game functions and a means to define the user's exploration paths, item access, plot progression, etc.
So for a legitimate discussion based on reality we have the point that gameplay mechanics such as combat or travel, when integrated into the game properly, add depth and interest to the gameplay.
Obviously exploration is interesting (first time travel). No one is arguing it isn't. Its the second, third and onwards which are not interesting.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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.
Game addicts need constant high of fun. They seek a higher high of higher fun. Hard work and effort leading to a reward is also great.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
This is a good example exactly of what I meant when I said combat is interesting only because it has many integrated components. You are arguing for "pillars" that (while not universally true) Illustrate the very point that such games are relying on the interaction of multiple game elements integrated with each-other to achieve a goal of creating depth in the game and user experience.
That is in and of itself the very point that has bee argued for, integrating a gameplay mechanic as a component of play to develop depth in the title's user experience.
It's not a foreign concept to RPGs as you can see many titles on the list that utilize slower traveling mechanics or controlling the means of travel as an integral point in how they work.
Grimrock, Wasteland, Underrail, Dragon's Dogma, Amalur, Witcher, Monster Hunter, Avadon, and the list goes on for RPG games that limit the users means of travel often as a component of how the game functions and a means to define the user's exploration paths, item access, plot progression, etc.
So for a legitimate discussion based on reality we have the point that gameplay mechanics such as combat or travel, when integrated into the game properly, add depth and interest to the gameplay.
Obviously exploration is interesting (first time travel). No one is arguing it isn't. Its the second, third and onwards which are not interesting.
Exploration was not the example of the argument.
Try being on point next time.
"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
Final Fantasy IV is one of my more memorable RPGs. The sountrack has 43 tracks and many are for specific situations like traveling to make you forget that you are simple walking around a map looking for things or trying to gain experience/money. I don't recall a game recently that had very good classical music composed for it. The Witcher 3 is fairly good in this regard. Everquest had a decent sound track IMO.
Final Fantasy IV is one of my more memorable RPGs. The sountrack has 43 tracks and many are for specific situations like traveling to make you forget that you are simple walking around a map looking for things or trying to gain experience/money. I don't recall a game recently that had very good classical music composed for it. The Witcher 3 is fairly good in this regard. Everquest had a decent sound track IMO.
A soundtrack is not nearly enough. You should know that.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
"Also semantically I would say people that can fly the Gal reliably in Planetside one and two are quite distinctly amazing "travelers".
Kiters, gliders, divebombers, hell when someone manages to juke a bandit while driving a carriage/wagon that's pretty amazing too.
You're not going to hear dialogue praising any of that if you're not playing a game that enables the skillful application of any of that. Hence again where virtual world type games and the ones that use better integrated systems for emergent gameplay tend to be the sources of such interest. Not the titles that neglect the world and "secondary" systems to focus on delivering a strongly scripted and defined user experience."
"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
Skyrim and Fallout make some effort to become closer to emulated worlds, but they still rely dominantly on heavily scripted content for the user to experience. Being an open world game just means that you have a large world space.
besides which, there are plenty of other single/multiplayer games that uses travel as part of their mechanics such as MGS, Witcher, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy, Minecraft, etc.
"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, I do find the discovery of hidden niches and out of the way places rewarding. Rewards do not have to be "physical" for many players. I have found that "gamers" (min/max players) seem to need these physical rewards more often than not.
VG
Person 1 - I personally enjoy slow travel because it can compliment certain game-play aspect that I also enjoy and enhance the entire game experience.
Person 2 - No you don't like it, it is boring.
[mod edit]
So the answer is "yes"? You want to debate what the industry call open world games too?
There are almost no MMORPG that aren't WoW clones. Why would you expect there to be one about travel?
Doesn't matter and ultimately fruitless in a discussion about travel in MMORPG can be by arguing what they won't be. You're framing of the arugment doesn't add to the discussion it just skirts you're wrongness in this situation. And yes GTA's similar online aspects do show this is possible.
People pay to not to play to get rewards. The whole F2P thing is built upon this.
Do you really like picking mushrooms in a game? Would you outside of gaining experience(reward) do this for random NPCs?
Themepark and mob grind MMORPG genre are built around Skinner box reward systems for largely boring actions themselves. Its always about getting gear, numbers and etc. MMORPG gameplay is generally horrendous compared to single player games.
I already mentioned this in my commentary that you cut out of your quote.
"Skyrim and Fallout make some effort to become closer to emulated worlds, but they still rely dominantly on heavily scripted content for the user to experience. Being an open world game just means that you have a large world space."
Again, stop cherry picking sentences to make an argument that does not exist. Trolling does not further any kind of conversation.
"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
Travel in MMORPGs hasn't justified its presence.
Does this mean there was absolutely zero purpose whatsoever to travel in all situations? Of course not.
It means the justification didn't outweigh the activity itself being uninteresting. There was a reason to do the boring thing, but the reason wasn't enough.
Creating games that way is a losing proposition. It's extremely inefficient to try to motivate players to do something they're actively bored by. Maybe you can get some of them to do it by creating a dazzling enough golden carrot to act as an extrinsic reward.
It's far better to create game mechanics which are fun enough to do without an extrinsic reward. And you can still add that dazzling golden carrot to make the mechanic even more enjoyable.
Does this mean gameplay can't be travel? No and I've pointed out several ways games can offer great travel and several examples of games with great travel have been provided. But as covered before, if you sink enough dev hours into making travel interesting you probably would end up making some non-RPG genre instead of an RPG. So that's why MMORPGs will never have worthwhile travel, and why they end up needing to let players skip past any non-first-time travel (because first time travel typically does justify itself with new sights and exploration.)
Unless virtual worlds provide good entertainment, they'll fail to generate revenue, and by extension they won't get made or get updated. So if you were interested in seeing virtual worlds be more of a thing (than the non-thing they are currently) you should suggest changes that would make these experiences entertaining rather than empty wastes of time.
Personally I'd be interested in whatever mix of books/movies/etc caused you to think virtual worlds would be awesome in the first place, because I'd advise you to go revisit those entertainment experiences and realize that the reason virtual worlds seemed awesome was because you only saw the most interesting bits of virtual worlds in those portrayals.
Regarding Uncharted, cutscenes are a fine alternative to decisions. Personally I view games more as entertainment: it doesn't matter if it's interactive (decisions) or non-interactive (cutscenes) as long as it's good at doing that particular thing (and that means using the audience's time efficiently; not deliberately wasting their time.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're welcome to join the conversation as a rational contributing member.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Framing the discussion eliminates any potential straw men, to help people understand that my points aren't wrong.
Understanding that, if you want to describe a game that involves deep travel gameplay you're free to. But as noted earlier, the deeper the travel the less likely it'll be considered a MMORPG (since logically the deeper you go on travel, the weaker you'll be on anything else, and the further away you'll be from what's typically considered an RPG (which is almost always combat-centric.) As long as your only intent is to describe a fun game, then you shouldn't have a problem with the resulting game being considered a Racing title or some other genre, because those games can be fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Here's my thought.
We do what we do, in any game we might call an RPG, for the passive, non-decision based enjoyment of just sitting back and doing nothing, when we get right down to it. Let's not mistake the forest for the trees. Combat in an RPG is always a means; the end is always the cutscene. This makes it different from a shooter, where the combat is the reason we are there.
People play these RPG and action/adventure games to see the cutscenes, to hear the dialogue and to know the characters. That's the hook because, quite frankly, other game formats can do the combat and progression in a much better, more intuitive sense (multiplayer shooters, for example, or dungeon crawlers). The difference between RPGs and action games, and MMORPGs is that the former give you the cutscene. The MMORPGs, however, don't give you anything (anymore at least).
They used to give you something; they gave people the ability to be their own cutscenes in a sense, for themselves and others, by roleplaying and creating content. But people didn't see the point, and now these MMORPGs are all about consuming content.
And so I'm wondering, from your standpoint, what the point is in an MMORPG that makes this form of computer entertainment unique? What is the point of these MMORPG games, in your estimation? What's the reward, when it's all said and done, for all that combat? And if the combat is the reward, why aren't they playing shooters instead?
What do MMORPGs do that other formats (action/adventure titles, multiplayer shooters, traditional squad-based turn RPGs, building games) can't deliver better today? That's an important question, and it'll decide whether this genre fades into an obscure relic, or whether it has a future of growth.
Obviously, they had to have done something better than other genres, at least at one time, because people started to play these things over the multiplayer shooters dungeon crawlers and action/adventure titles they already had...in a big way in the 2000s.
__________________________
"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
MMORPGs as a world simulation is an unpopular concept. People would much rather play a game than try to role play a blacksmith. When they log in, they want to go on adventures, not to grind away hours and hours in smithy "because crafting should be boring" (Yeah. I've seen someone championing this on these forums). Or ride hours and hours moving from point A to point B "because travel should take time".
When MMORPGs stray away from being just a virtual world, they get more customers. That is the reality.
Now if you don't want to go on adventures made by professional game designers I suggest you gather your friends and start playing tabletop or pen & paper RPGs. In this regard, they are superior to any sandbox/virtual world MMORPG out there.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
MMOs as a global genre are slower to develop and their technical requirements burdens them in a way that they will never be able to match the present technical capacity of a single or smaller scale multiplayer.
This puts a dampener on doing "new" things in the genre not because of what is being done is "bad", but because it is under-developed and the time and cost to invest into it to see it evolve is great. More than many developer have or are willing to invest.
So we have compromises.
However, we see the same mechanics being decried as "bad" in this context cropping up in plenty of games that are themselves considered good or popular (referencing the games prior mentioned). On top of that, gameplay mechanics around virtual worlds such as the sandbox games have made plenty of strides in their entertainment value, meaning the evolution of the genre is not stagnant.
As for some of these other comments...
"Framing the discussion eliminates any potential straw men..."
On the contrary, framing the discussion allows for the use of straw men through the exclusion of necessary information for form a true image of the situation.
"It doesn't matter what the "many" players here prefer, because I'm describing what the vast majority of people prefer in their entertainment everywhere else. They prefer efficient designs which don't waste time: designs where every element justifies its presence."
This is, itself, a straw man. You might even call it a red herring. It's a misleading statement on the general population's interests as well as a comment being used to invalidate an argument without itself having a solid basis for the claim.
Reality being, as stated prior, the closest to true this gets is if you limit speculation to the smaller western gaming market and not the global gaming market. This also only stands true if you cull simulation games, most popular eastern titles, survival and sandbox titles, casual titles, and plenty of other games from the list.
All of this also not mentioning the fact that "efficient design" is a meaningless comment as the pacing of games can vary quite broadly yet their efficiency is not generally brought into question.
No, the truth of the matter is that the idea that time and travel has no place in an MMORPG or elsewhere is a matter of selfish argument that implies all games have to share a common design principle and that "fun" has no personal variance. Do all people like shooters? Do all people like fighting games? Do all people like Harvest Moon? Do all people like Puzzle games? Do all people like RTS games? Do all people like WoW?
The answer is a resounding "no". And why? Because the means in which these games integrate features, what features they use, and the type of resulting gameplay has a massive swathe of variance.
Some genres and types are more popular than others, but that is not an excuse for people to stop producing sudouku puzzles just because candy crush is more popular. That's not an excuse for Dice to stop producing Battlefield just because CoD is more popular on the console. That is not a reason for virtual worlds to stop development just because themeparks are where the kids want to ride.
The only argument that is not wrong, is that game mechanics to be interesting, need to be integrated as a meaningful feature of the game, and not isolated in it's function. All game features suffer when isolated, and most all of them can generate depth to the game when well integrated.
To pull examples from one grouping of games, neglect the opposing evidence, and claim that something is now and forever meaningless because it doesn't work in isolation, is a profoundly useless argument.
"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
I have given examples of why slow travel can be not only enjoyable but also necessary.
The argument always comes down to "slow travel is boring so you are wrong".
Hence my flippant remark basically showing it is a pointless discussion.
The problem here is that because you have certain posters unwilling to even recognise other peoples reasons for why slow travel, if done right, is great for a particular game and instead continue to argue from a position of willful ignorance.
At the end of the day if a game with slow travel isn't your cup of tea stop playing them, stop complaining and move on. Because I can assure you, the game wasn't made for everyone and beating the game up complaining that slow travel is boring isn't fair to the game designers or the players that WANT to play games with slow travel.
Continuing to argue that slow travel is boring (a personal opinion) and trying to enforce it onto everyone else is about as selfish a position as you can get.
The reason there any many types of games with different designs is because there are many different types of players. As soon as people get over themselves and acting so selfish then everyone will be a lot happier and perhaps everyone will get games that they enjoy.
But thanks for ignoring all my previous posts and resorting to the personal attack against me.
- Myst isn't an RPG.
- Ultima 3 (1983) was an RPG, and definitely combat-focused. It lacked cutscenes but had a story.
So story was a core pillar of RPGs very early on, but many genres have story.So it was the other two core pillars of RPGs that differentiated them: stats-driven combat, and progression.
Here's a list of what're actually considered videogame RPGs.
Here's a list of action games. Pay careful attention to how all the modern games (Batman:AA, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed) have cutscenes.
So the other two core pillars (stats-driven combat and progression) are the major differentiating factors for RPGs nowadays, and why a game like Darkest Dungeon can offer a compelling set of interesting combat decisions (influenced by player stats). While many RPGs use action combat, the amount of influence to player stats (which includes things like gear) determines what the dominant element is (in Fallout your level and gear are going to be the primary things determining your character's fighting strength, while in the action games listed above any RPG elements have only a slight influence.)
One of the things that's always attracted players to RPGs specifically has been that some players specifically don't want an action game. They specifically want a game which isn't trying to challenge their twitch skill, but instead focuses on non-twitch decisions. While it wouldn't surprise me if you tracked down data showing that this group is gradually shrinking (as a percentage of all players) over time, it remains a component of RPG popularity.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That is in and of itself the very point that has bee argued for, integrating a gameplay mechanic as a component of play to develop depth in the title's user experience.
It's not a foreign concept to RPGs as you can see many titles on the list that utilize slower traveling mechanics or controlling the means of travel as an integral point in how they work.
Grimrock, Wasteland, Underrail, Dragon's Dogma, Amalur, Witcher, Monster Hunter, Avadon, and the list goes on for RPG games that limit the users means of travel often as a component of how the game functions and a means to define the user's exploration paths, item access, plot progression, etc.
So for a legitimate discussion based on reality we have the point that gameplay mechanics such as combat or travel, when integrated into the game properly, add depth and interest to the gameplay.
"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
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Everyone has different preferences and opinions.
You say it is not interesting I say it is.
End of discussion.
Game addicts need constant high of fun. They seek a higher high of higher fun. Hard work and effort leading to a reward is also great.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Try being on point next time.
"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
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky