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.
The problem is that the games have little in way of music while traveling or anything else in most cases. Obviously traveling will be more tedious if you don't have music to listen to while doing so that sets the mood. Good scenery is not nearly enough. I would even go so far as to say good music is more important. It is integral to changing someone emotions and making them feel like they are on an exciting journey. I'm fairly sure this a point that is completely missed by developers now. I am not surprised as most just talk about things from an action stand point and am I doing things constantly while playing. The rest of the discussion is based on data collection and analysis. Perhaps some developer should try to approach things from an emotional standpoint in an RPG instead of just from a game standpoint once in a while. RPGs are stories after all. You have to use the tools at your disposal to provide players with different emotional feelings.
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.
The problem is that the games have little in way of music while traveling or anything else in most cases. Obviously traveling will be more tedious if you don't have music to listen to while doing so that sets the mood. Good scenery is not nearly enough. I would even go so far as to say good music is more important. It is integral to changing someone emotions and making them feel like they are on an exciting journey. I'm fairly sure this a point that is completely missed by developers now. I am not surprised as most just talk about things from an action stand point and am I doing things constantly while playing. The rest of the discussion is based on data collection and analysis. Perhaps some developer should try to approach things from an emotional standpoint in an RPG instead of just from a game standpoint once in a while. RPGs are stories after all. You have to use the tools at your disposal to provide players with different emotional feelings.
And you are sure you are going to be in this state of mind whenever you travel? You are not looking at the big picture: You are going to have to listen to that soundtrack over and over and watch that scenery go by every time you move between points A and B. It gets old really quick.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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.
The problem is that the games have little in way of music while traveling or anything else in most cases. Obviously traveling will be more tedious if you don't have music to listen to while doing so that sets the mood. Good scenery is not nearly enough. I would even go so far as to say good music is more important. It is integral to changing someone emotions and making them feel like they are on an exciting journey. I'm fairly sure this a point that is completely missed by developers now. I am not surprised as most just talk about things from an action stand point and am I doing things constantly while playing. The rest of the discussion is based on data collection and analysis. Perhaps some developer should try to approach things from an emotional standpoint in an RPG instead of just from a game standpoint once in a while. RPGs are stories after all. You have to use the tools at your disposal to provide players with different emotional feelings.
And you are sure you are going to be in this state of mind whenever you travel? You are not looking at the big picture: You are going to have to listen to that soundtrack over and over and watch that scenery go by every time you move between points A and B. It gets old really quick.
A good tune doesn't get old. I can still go back and listen to news game music after playing the games over and over again. It still lifts my spirit. Perhaps you just don't have the ability to feel emotions through things like music. Another example of things some people just don't get and are pushed aside because of it.
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.
Not every player is a game addict.
Are you seriously suggest most players will click a rock 100000 times as long as there is a reward down the road?
The problem is that the games have little in way of music while traveling or anything else in most cases. Obviously traveling will be more tedious if you don't have music to listen to while doing so that sets the mood. Good scenery is not nearly enough. I would even go so far as to say good music is more important.
If good music is the entertainment part, i can get that without a single min of travel.
You are not putting forth an argument that travel is interesting (or entertainment), you are putting forth an argument that music is.
The problem is that the games have little in way of music while traveling or anything else in most cases. Obviously traveling will be more tedious if you don't have music to listen to while doing so that sets the mood. Good scenery is not nearly enough. I would even go so far as to say good music is more important.
If good music is the entertainment part, i can get that without a single min of travel.
You are not putting forth an argument that travel is interesting (or entertainment), you are putting forth an argument that music is.
I am putting forth and argument that music is part of what makes travel interesting and exciting in a game. You can listen to music outside of a game. You can also play games outside of a game. Part of an RPG is it's emotions and part of invoking emotions is music. If you want to setup your own soundtrack and make sure to turn on the right songs at the right time go ahead. That sounds like more of a waste of time to me.
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.
Not every player is a game addict.
Are you seriously suggest most players will click a rock 100000 times as long as there is a reward down the road?
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.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about Myst. We'll also have to agree to disagree about what RPGs are and aren't. Because it seems to me that text-based games like Zork were around for a long, long time that have little to no combat, and little to no concept of gimmicks like levels or gear.
Now, of course, someone like you will probably say "those things aren't roleplaying games. Those things are [insert something else]." But that's only because you will not accept that anything without combat and combat levels can be a roleplaying game.
But the ones who made the first MUDs and MUSHs didn't think so. Yes, they had combat, but they also had other things too: building options to design rooms. Narrative options to design AIs and quests.
I'd go so far as to say that in terms of massive, multiplayer online gaming, Zork is deeper in the DNA of the format than anything else. Any definition of an MMORPG that doesn't acknowledge this reality is trying to impose an outside definition of what this genre truly is about, which includes a multiplicity of influences from many genres.
But what all of those games, "stats-based progression games" and the narrative games like Zork all have in common are cutscenes. Perhaps they weren't the HD computer rendered, voiced over cinematic masterpieces we have today. Sometimes you heard some dialogue, or read a description, or saw a picture. But that was the thing that you played the game to see. That was the thing that motivated players to get the new armor or gain the new level. Without that 'goodie', the experience is just futile.
And that's fine. If you want to cut out all the things MMORPGs were about, as if they were never intended to be there, you have to tell us what the "massive multiplayer online" part of RPG really adds to the experience. What makes an MMORPG better or qualitativelydifferent than...say...a lobby game like Diablo? Or a multiplayer shooter like Planetside?
How does playing on a common server with a 'massive' (relatively) end user cap qualitatively different than playing in a few common hubs with instances? Moreover, why is 100% internet dependent gameplay necessary, in the sense of opening up design possibilities, that online/offline gaming, or instancing a small group of players can't as easily accomplish, like in GTA?
In short, why is the "massive multiplayer online" part of MMORPG even necessary to give the players what you call a role playing game? (which is, as you say, only two elements: stats-based combat and progression). The innovation in the market seems to show that they can give you all that you expect from an RPG without the baggage of the massive, multiplayer online format.
__________________________ "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
We'll just have to agree to disagree about Myst. We'll also have to agree to disagree about what RPGs are and aren't. Because it seems to me that text-based games like Zork were around for a long, long time that have little to no combat, and little to no concept of gimmicks like levels or gear.
Now, of course, someone like you will probably say "those things aren't roleplaying games. Those things are [insert something else]." But that's only because you will not accept that anything without combat and combat levels can be a roleplaying game.
But the ones who made the first MUDs and MUSHs didn't think so. Yes, they had combat, but they also had other things too: building options to design rooms. Narrative options to design AIs and quests.
I'd go so far as to say that in terms of massive, multiplayer online gaming, Zork is deeper in the DNA of the format than anything else. Any definition of an MMORPG that doesn't acknowledge this reality is trying to impose an outside definition of what this genre truly is about, which includes a multiplicity of influences from many genres.
But what all of those games, "stats-based progression games" and the narrative games like Zork all have in common are cutscenes. Perhaps they weren't the HD computer rendered, voiced over cinematic masterpieces we have today. Sometimes you heard some dialogue, or read a description, or saw a picture. But that was the thing that you played the game to see. That was the thing that motivated players to get the new armor or gain the new level. Without that 'goodie', the experience is just futile.
And that's fine. If you want to cut out all the things MMORPGs were about, as if they were never intended to be there, you have to tell us what the "massive multiplayer online" part of RPG really adds to the experience. What makes an MMORPG better or qualitativelydifferent than...say...a lobby game like Diablo? Or a multiplayer shooter like Planetside?
How does playing on a common server with a 'massive' (relatively) end user cap qualitatively different than playing in a few common hubs with instances? Moreover, why is 100% internet dependent gameplay necessary, in the sense of opening up design possibilities, that online/offline gaming, or instancing a small group of players can't as easily accomplish, like in GTA?
In short, why is the "massive multiplayer online" part of MMORPG even necessary to give the players what you call a role playing game? (which is, as you say, only two elements: stats-based combat and progression). The innovation in the market seems to show that they can give you all that you expect from an RPG without the baggage of the massive, multiplayer online format.
Again, refer to the list of videogame RPGs. Those are RPGs. Zork was not an RPG, it was a text adventure.
Keep in mind I'm discussing reality. I can only talk about real things that actually happened. I can only use words whose meaning has been strongly established by millions of people using them to mean a certain specific thing.
So when you run off inventing new meanings for words (up is down, green is red, Myst is an RPG) understand that you have no basis for doing so. That's not how words work. Videogame RPGs are a very specific thing, and neither Myst nor Zork qualify.
The core pillars of RPGs (story, stats-driven combat, progression) have been there since the start with games like Ultima 1. Other elements exist in RPGs too of course. But just because a game shares a few elements doesn't make it an RPG, which is why stats-driven combat is usually the deciding factor.
Early MMORPGs were less RPG-like, and enjoyed mediocre success. As they became more RPG-like they enjoyed more success. Though more broadly their success was the result of being better games with better gameplay -- it wasn't entirely reliant on their being RPGs specifically (RPGs are a minority game genre after all.)
The reason was simple: early MMORPGs were trying new things and ended up in a lot of unproven territory where gameplay wasn't that great. Whereas by 2003 when WOW released, there had been ~22 years of learning about what makes videogame RPGs fun, and WOW just directly applied those lessons to WOW's design to create something very compelling. Turns out learning from history actually works.
That doesn't mean sandbox elements were necessarily bad. It just means that building off 22 years of genre experience is more reliable at producing a fun game, while jaunting off into genre-wilderness is less reliable.
"MMO" doesn't mean much. It doesn't carry most of the weight. It adds social interaction and persistent shared spaces, but little more.
"RPG" does most of the work. It implies the bulk of the gameplay, and carries most of the player compulsions.
So I wouldn't argue that being MMO adds a tremendous amount to these games, because we haven't seen that be the case. It adds just enough to justify its existence, but only barely.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To reiterate what was already said using that list as example...
"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."
"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."
"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."
As for what "being an MMO" contributes that's a matter of how well the platform has been utilized. To which historically there has been issues.
"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."
RPG games didn't face 22 years of refinement and evolution to stagnate. Same applies to other game genres. Just because mechanics are newer and more experimental does not mean they should be abandoned for the same old experience. Someone with the skill to do so needs to spend the time and effort to create "22 years of genre experience" for newer game mechanics. To continue growing, trying new things, making bigger better games, worlds, systems, etc. We need not wallow in mediocrity.
"Social interaction and persistent shared spaces" means quite a bit more than you seem to write it off as. That's a point prior made about different RPG formats.
"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."
When an RPG is built on the premise of player input and collaborative storytelling, the amount of social interactions and nature of the world space ends up being core components enabling the user experience.
When an RPG is built as a finite narrative meant to simply be followed, then we see that the bulk of the gameplay is defined by mechanics to drive users towards that narrative, which is generally to the chagrin of any broad-user experience and is also the main reason we constantly face the "everyone is a chosen one" problem.
You've fallen to repeating the same flawed arguments that were already addressed. When counterargument and corrections can be posted from naught but a page or two ago, then your argument has become too circular.
EDIT: To also address the repeated mistake about "pillars of RPGs"...
We can look at these links and then look at your links, and we can already see in the lists of RPG games made there is a disparity between your claims and the mechanics and nature of the games produced. There is certainly a "mainstream" for RPG games that are combat-focused, but the reality is that it is not combat, it's the use of player and character skills to overcome a variety of challenges.
The simplest form this takes is combat, but it is far from the only nor truly integral component of gameplay to be calling it a "pillar".
Post edited by Deivos on
"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
Games can only be enjoyed if you understand what they represent. Standing next to a horse (mount) in an mmo does nothing for you if you have lived your entire life in your mom's basement. You don't remember the smell of horse. You don't remember some are grumpy and others kindhearted. You don't know their fur is not soft but kind of scratchy.
There were no computers once upon a time. We climbed trees for fun. Real trees. With ants. And sticky sap. There were no fishing license laws once upon a time. We bought a pole or put one together ourselves. We fished real fish out of any lake. Before people fenced up their lakes. There were no car seat belt laws once. I rode in the back window area looking up at the stars.
You people live in cyberspace but you have no basis for the ground you cover as a player character. Since the only ground you people cover irl is a school campus, mall, or hospital. You don't remember the smell of pine trees in a thick forest (not city park). You have not seen the Milky Way Galaxy away from all light except in the pages of a book.
I think games are nice for the elderly and infirmed who cannot get out of the house anymore. The rest of you need to pump some muscles over land while you still have them. Both the muscles and the land. Both are fleeting.
But if you can't or it isn't safe where you live to go outside simply steal pine cones from the city park when the constables are not looking, place them around your PC, and stuff pine needles up your nose while you play. It's cheaper than crack and not as painful as meth.
Slow travel exists in games and especially in rpgs, so why not just make the most of it, instead of trying to sweep it under the rug?
Because it is boring, and there is the option of fast travel?
I don't "make the most" of games I do not like. I choose the games i like. And there are plenty with fast travel, so tell me, is there any reason why i should suffer boring slow travel in my entertainment?
In short, why is the "massive multiplayer online" part of MMORPG even necessary to give the players what you call a role playing game? (which is, as you say, only two elements: stats-based combat and progression). The innovation in the market seems to show that they can give you all that you expect from an RPG without the baggage of the massive, multiplayer online format.
absolutely. In fact, I would even argue that "massively MP" is detrimental to good game design in some instances.
Hence, you see devs moving away from mmorpgs, and also the successes of mmo-hybrids which do not focus on the "massively MP" aspects.
Yes, and making good entertainment by developing a tool properly rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater is also reasonable.
Slow travel is an unpopular concept. It is also very expensive to make it interesting. It is a huge risk with no guarantee of success to put money into it. You don't put huge money into unpopular ideas. You are unlikely to get return for your investment.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Yes, and making good entertainment by developing a tool properly rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater is also reasonable.
Slow travel is an unpopular concept. It is also very expensive to make it interesting. It is a huge risk with no guarantee of success to put money into it. You don't put huge money into unpopular ideas. You are unlikely to get return for your investment.
And we can see from some of the big name titles mentioned previously as having slow and limited travel mechanics that what you just said is a lie. You don't need to like MGS, Dragon's Dogma, Witcher, Monster Hunter, BDO, Spore, GTA, etc. Those all were reasonably popular games using travel mechanics and limitations in different ways as integrated components of the game regardless of your opinion.
You are free to your opinion, however. Just don't conflate opinions with reality.
"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
Yes, and making good entertainment by developing a tool properly rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater is also reasonable.
Slow travel is an unpopular concept. It is also very expensive to make it interesting. It is a huge risk with no guarantee of success to put money into it. You don't put huge money into unpopular ideas. You are unlikely to get return for your investment.
And we can see from some of the big name titles mentioned previously as having slow and limited travel mechanics that what you just said is a lie. You don't need to like MGS, Dragon's Dogma, Witcher, Monster Hunter, BDO, Spore, GTA, etc. Those all were reasonably popular games using travel mechanics and limitations in different ways as integrated components of the game regardless of your opinion.
You are free to your opinion, however. Just don't conflate opinions with reality.
What are you talking about? The latest Metal Gear Solid has fast travel.
Yes, and making good entertainment by developing a tool properly rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater is also reasonable.
Slow travel is an unpopular concept. It is also very expensive to make it interesting. It is a huge risk with no guarantee of success to put money into it. You don't put huge money into unpopular ideas. You are unlikely to get return for your investment.
And we can see from some of the big name titles mentioned previously as having slow and limited travel mechanics that what you just said is a lie. You don't need to like MGS, Dragon's Dogma, Witcher, Monster Hunter, BDO, Spore, GTA, etc. Those all were reasonably popular games using travel mechanics and limitations in different ways as integrated components of the game regardless of your opinion.
You are free to your opinion, however. Just don't conflate opinions with reality.
You are stretching the definition of travel to cover pretty much all movement in the game. Also, you don't know whether "travel" in those games was a hinderance or a benefit.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Fast travel with limited scope. Plus that feature of the game was created as a secondary component with a rather tedious collection activity as a high-tier in-game reward.
If you notice, they have a small number of delivery points in the game (in each zone, not just the one they show off in that article) and you have to reach a point before you can travel to another point (and it is limited/barred by alert settings as well as secondary limitations that can forbid travel in zones like mission objectives will lock out fast travel locations), which itself has pickup and load time (though considerably shorter than having to travel, it is intentionally done alongside the rest of it so that the fast travel mechanic does not invalidate the other mechanics in the game even as an unlockable perk)
"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 are stretching the definition of travel to cover pretty much all movement in the game. Also, you don't know whether "travel" in those games was a hinderance or a benefit.
The definition of travel is "go or be moved from place to place."
It's a broad term to begin with and it's a fundamental mechanic for any kind of development of distance, pacing, or otherwise. This was covered quite well quite early on in this thread.
As for whether or not one "knows", that's untrue. In most instances the way the travel mechanics work has been very calculated in it's limitations of quick travel mechanics in some instances to force zone exploration and make objectives in the game not easy-wins, define stages of the game and the scope of a players reach so that the further they progress and further they can travel the greater access to tools and activities they have, tethers itself to event activities in the game around the questing mechanics so that plot development is triggered through traversing the game world, or provides means to make hunting monsters and targets an activity through tracking creatures across zones and outmaneuvering them.
There are many ways in which they have been integrated very intentionally as a benefit to create greater depth to the games mentioned above.
Hence the past quote of Cadwell's; "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
Comments
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Are you seriously suggest most players will click a rock 100000 times as long as there is a reward down the road?
You are not putting forth an argument that travel is interesting (or entertainment), you are putting forth an argument that music is.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about Myst. We'll also have to agree to disagree about what RPGs are and aren't. Because it seems to me that text-based games like Zork were around for a long, long time that have little to no combat, and little to no concept of gimmicks like levels or gear.
Now, of course, someone like you will probably say "those things aren't roleplaying games. Those things are [insert something else]." But that's only because you will not accept that anything without combat and combat levels can be a roleplaying game.
But the ones who made the first MUDs and MUSHs didn't think so. Yes, they had combat, but they also had other things too: building options to design rooms. Narrative options to design AIs and quests.
I'd go so far as to say that in terms of massive, multiplayer online gaming, Zork is deeper in the DNA of the format than anything else. Any definition of an MMORPG that doesn't acknowledge this reality is trying to impose an outside definition of what this genre truly is about, which includes a multiplicity of influences from many genres.
But what all of those games, "stats-based progression games" and the narrative games like Zork all have in common are cutscenes. Perhaps they weren't the HD computer rendered, voiced over cinematic masterpieces we have today. Sometimes you heard some dialogue, or read a description, or saw a picture. But that was the thing that you played the game to see. That was the thing that motivated players to get the new armor or gain the new level. Without that 'goodie', the experience is just futile.
And that's fine. If you want to cut out all the things MMORPGs were about, as if they were never intended to be there, you have to tell us what the "massive multiplayer online" part of RPG really adds to the experience. What makes an MMORPG better or qualitatively different than...say...a lobby game like Diablo? Or a multiplayer shooter like Planetside?
How does playing on a common server with a 'massive' (relatively) end user cap qualitatively different than playing in a few common hubs with instances? Moreover, why is 100% internet dependent gameplay necessary, in the sense of opening up design possibilities, that online/offline gaming, or instancing a small group of players can't as easily accomplish, like in GTA?
In short, why is the "massive multiplayer online" part of MMORPG even necessary to give the players what you call a role playing game? (which is, as you say, only two elements: stats-based combat and progression). The innovation in the market seems to show that they can give you all that you expect from an RPG without the baggage of the massive, multiplayer online format.
__________________________
"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
Keep in mind I'm discussing reality. I can only talk about real things that actually happened. I can only use words whose meaning has been strongly established by millions of people using them to mean a certain specific thing.
So when you run off inventing new meanings for words (up is down, green is red, Myst is an RPG) understand that you have no basis for doing so. That's not how words work. Videogame RPGs are a very specific thing, and neither Myst nor Zork qualify.
The core pillars of RPGs (story, stats-driven combat, progression) have been there since the start with games like Ultima 1. Other elements exist in RPGs too of course. But just because a game shares a few elements doesn't make it an RPG, which is why stats-driven combat is usually the deciding factor.
Early MMORPGs were less RPG-like, and enjoyed mediocre success. As they became more RPG-like they enjoyed more success. Though more broadly their success was the result of being better games with better gameplay -- it wasn't entirely reliant on their being RPGs specifically (RPGs are a minority game genre after all.)
The reason was simple: early MMORPGs were trying new things and ended up in a lot of unproven territory where gameplay wasn't that great. Whereas by 2003 when WOW released, there had been ~22 years of learning about what makes videogame RPGs fun, and WOW just directly applied those lessons to WOW's design to create something very compelling. Turns out learning from history actually works.
That doesn't mean sandbox elements were necessarily bad. It just means that building off 22 years of genre experience is more reliable at producing a fun game, while jaunting off into genre-wilderness is less reliable.
"MMO" doesn't mean much. It doesn't carry most of the weight. It adds social interaction and persistent shared spaces, but little more.
"RPG" does most of the work. It implies the bulk of the gameplay, and carries most of the player compulsions.
So I wouldn't argue that being MMO adds a tremendous amount to these games, because we haven't seen that be the case. It adds just enough to justify its existence, but only barely.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"It's 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."
"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."
"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."
As for what "being an MMO" contributes that's a matter of how well the platform has been utilized. To which historically there has been issues.
"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."
RPG games didn't face 22 years of refinement and evolution to stagnate. Same applies to other game genres. Just because mechanics are newer and more experimental does not mean they should be abandoned for the same old experience. Someone with the skill to do so needs to spend the time and effort to create "22 years of genre experience" for newer game mechanics. To continue growing, trying new things, making bigger better games, worlds, systems, etc. We need not wallow in mediocrity.
"Social interaction and persistent shared spaces" means quite a bit more than you seem to write it off as. That's a point prior made about different RPG formats.
"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."
When an RPG is built on the premise of player input and collaborative storytelling, the amount of social interactions and nature of the world space ends up being core components enabling the user experience.
When an RPG is built as a finite narrative meant to simply be followed, then we see that the bulk of the gameplay is defined by mechanics to drive users towards that narrative, which is generally to the chagrin of any broad-user experience and is also the main reason we constantly face the "everyone is a chosen one" problem.
You've fallen to repeating the same flawed arguments that were already addressed. When counterargument and corrections can be posted from naught but a page or two ago, then your argument has become too circular.
EDIT: To also address the repeated mistake about "pillars of RPGs"...
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
We can look at these links and then look at your links, and we can already see in the lists of RPG games made there is a disparity between your claims and the mechanics and nature of the games produced. There is certainly a "mainstream" for RPG games that are combat-focused, but the reality is that it is not combat, it's the use of player and character skills to overcome a variety of challenges.
The simplest form this takes is combat, but it is far from the only nor truly integral component of gameplay to be calling it a "pillar".
"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
Games can only be enjoyed if you understand what they represent. Standing next to a horse (mount) in an mmo does nothing for you if you have lived your entire life in your mom's basement. You don't remember the smell of horse. You don't remember some are grumpy and others kindhearted. You don't know their fur is not soft but kind of scratchy.
There were no computers once upon a time. We climbed trees for fun. Real trees. With ants. And sticky sap. There were no fishing license laws once upon a time. We bought a pole or put one together ourselves. We fished real fish out of any lake. Before people fenced up their lakes. There were no car seat belt laws once. I rode in the back window area looking up at the stars.
You people live in cyberspace but you have no basis for the ground you cover as a player character. Since the only ground you people cover irl is a school campus, mall, or hospital. You don't remember the smell of pine trees in a thick forest (not city park). You have not seen the Milky Way Galaxy away from all light except in the pages of a book.
I think games are nice for the elderly and infirmed who cannot get out of the house anymore. The rest of you need to pump some muscles over land while you still have them. Both the muscles and the land. Both are fleeting.
But if you can't or it isn't safe where you live to go outside simply steal pine cones from the city park when the constables are not looking, place them around your PC, and stuff pine needles up your nose while you play. It's cheaper than crack and not as painful as meth.
Joking. Plz don't hurt yourselves.
Because it is boring, and there is the option of fast travel?
I don't "make the most" of games I do not like. I choose the games i like. And there are plenty with fast travel, so tell me, is there any reason why i should suffer boring slow travel in my entertainment?
absolutely. In fact, I would even argue that "massively MP" is detrimental to good game design in some instances.
Hence, you see devs moving away from mmorpgs, and also the successes of mmo-hybrids which do not focus on the "massively MP" aspects.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"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
You are free to your opinion, however. Just don't conflate opinions with reality.
"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
Devs certainly can make a judgment and decide they want no travel at all in their games.
What are you talking about? The latest Metal Gear Solid has fast travel.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Metal-Gear-Solid-5-Fast-Travel-Guide-Every-Location-Reward-Revealed-84847.html
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
If you notice, they have a small number of delivery points in the game (in each zone, not just the one they show off in that article) and you have to reach a point before you can travel to another point (and it is limited/barred by alert settings as well as secondary limitations that can forbid travel in zones like mission objectives will lock out fast travel locations), which itself has pickup and load time (though considerably shorter than having to travel, it is intentionally done alongside the rest of it so that the fast travel mechanic does not invalidate the other mechanics in the game even as an unlockable perk)
"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
It's a broad term to begin with and it's a fundamental mechanic for any kind of development of distance, pacing, or otherwise. This was covered quite well quite early on in this thread.
As for whether or not one "knows", that's untrue. In most instances the way the travel mechanics work has been very calculated in it's limitations of quick travel mechanics in some instances to force zone exploration and make objectives in the game not easy-wins, define stages of the game and the scope of a players reach so that the further they progress and further they can travel the greater access to tools and activities they have, tethers itself to event activities in the game around the questing mechanics so that plot development is triggered through traversing the game world, or provides means to make hunting monsters and targets an activity through tracking creatures across zones and outmaneuvering them.
There are many ways in which they have been integrated very intentionally as a benefit to create greater depth to the games mentioned above.
Hence the past quote of Cadwell's;
"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
Sure, if you're making a menu-based game with no avatars or world to deal with then travel isn't strictly necessary.
"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