Yes, and making good entertainment by developing a tool properly rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater is also reasonable.
It depends on how bad the bath water is and how expensive is the baby.
Devs certainly can make a judgment and decide they want no travel at all in their games.
Sure, if you're making a menu-based game with no avatars or world to deal with then travel isn't strictly necessary.
and I am also saying slow travel is not necessarily (and at best should be optional) in open world games, as succinctly demonstrated by the success of Fallout 4, AC Syndicate, Skyrim, and a dozen other games.
Yes, and making good entertainment by developing a tool properly rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater is also reasonable.
It depends on how bad the bath water is and how expensive is the baby.
Devs certainly can make a judgment and decide they want no travel at all in their games.
Sure, if you're making a menu-based game with no avatars or world to deal with then travel isn't strictly necessary.
and I am also saying slow travel is not necessarily (and at best should be optional) in open world games, as succinctly demonstrated by the success of Fallout 4, AC Syndicate, Skyrim, and a dozen other games.
Never said they were necessary to open world games. Open world games aren't always big, and when they rely on a heavily scripted user experience then getting people into the scripted content quickly is necessary.
Though you seem to be making the mistake of crossing open world games and virtual(simulated) world games even though they aren't the same thing. Considering what was talked about was virtual worlds, not open worlds, this tangent of yours is useless.
Much like that thumb axe gave since he has no valid argument.
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
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.
Losing is unpopular, too. Should we install insta-win buttons?
MMOROGs are NOT about popular. Never was. Should never have happened (thanks, WoW).
VestigeGamer said: MMOROGs are NOT about popular. Never was. Should never have happened (thanks, WoW).
Why not?
Popular keeps the company running, the jobs flowing, and the content producing. For more than a decade, a very good long run by anyone's standards.
Unpopular, on the other hand... Well, take a look at the games list over on the side, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of examples.
There's nothing admirable about the terribad titles, for sure.
Rejecting popularity because it's popular is hip, but impractical. Good consolation approach for the True Believers of those titles that failed to capture much of the Gamer Herd interest, I suppose.
Losing is unpopular, too. Should we install insta-win buttons?
MMOROGs are NOT about popular. Never was. Should never have happened (thanks, WoW).
Please try to post true things about reality.
We can point to countless successful games that involve losing. Losing is popular.
We can't do the same for games with excessive slow travel.
Go on then....post those games. I assure you, what you think are FACTS will be be at best your personal OPINION.
So lets, as you say, stick to REALITY.
Reality is, some people, myself included, WANT slow travel in certain games because without it the game becomes pointless. The fact you don't understand that because it is your OPINION that slow travel is boring is understandable. But please don't try and hold a position stating slow travel is boring and assert YOUR OPINION overrides mine or anyone else.
VestigeGamer said: MMOROGs are NOT about popular. Never was.
Why not?
Popular keeps the company running, the jobs flowing, and the content producing. For more than a decade, a very good long run by anyone's standards.
Unpopular, on the other hand... Well, take a look at the games list over on the side, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of examples.
There's nothing admirable about the terribad titles, for sure.
Rejecting popularity because it's popular is hip, but impractical. Good consolation approach for the True Believers of those titles that failed to capture much of the Gamer Herd interest, I suppose.
That's a very misleading argument as the popularity of these mechanics isn't even a properly assessed subject. You can only make an observation of the games they are integrated into on a global level and then you have to make the judgement call on how well those mechanics are tied to other aspects of a title.
When they are isolated, then they tend to suffer. When they are not isolated and instead interact with other game systems they tend to do better.
As for the MMO genre being popular or unpopular, it has always held a small niche of the western consumer market even when it was at it's peak, and that's gone down tanks to the migration to mobile and casual gaming.
"Popular" isn't saving the genre either right now save for a few bigger titles, and for the bulk of games coming from the east which can also be noted to have a very different design philosophy where travel is a welcome mechanic.
"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
Go on then....post those games. I assure you, what you think are FACTS will be be at best your personal OPINION.
So lets, as you say, stick to REALITY.
Reality is, some people, myself included, WANT slow travel in certain games because without it the game becomes pointless. The fact you don't understand that because it is your OPINION that slow travel is boring is understandable. But please don't try and hold a position stating slow travel is boring and assert YOUR OPINION overrides mine or anyone else.
Top 20 best-selling games (multi-platform) that involve losing:
Tetris - involves losing
Wii Sports - involves losing
Minecraft - survival involves losing (sandbox doesn't, but also isn't really a game)
GTA5 - involves losing
Super Mario Bros. - involves losing
Mario Kart Wii - involves losing
Tetris gameboy - involves losing
Wii Sports Resort - involves losing
New Super Marios Bros. - involves losing
Diablo 3 - involves losing
New Super Mario Bros. Wii - involves losing
Wii Play - involves losing
GTA: San Andreas - involves losing
COD:MW3 - involves losing
COD:BO - involves losing
GTA4 - involves losing
COD:BO2 - involves losing
Kinect Adventures - involves losing
Nintendogs - doesn't involve losing
Pokemon Red, Blue, Green - involves losing
Same list, that involve excessive slow travel:
Tetris - doesn't
Wii Sports - doesn't
Minecraft - involves excessive slow travel
GTA5 - doesn't
Super Mario Bros. - doesn't
Mario Kart Wii - doesn't
Tetris gameboy - doesn't
Wii Sports Resort - doesn't
New Super Marios Bros. - doesn't
Diablo 3 - doesn't
New Super Mario Bros. Wii - doesn't
Wii Play - doesn't
GTA: San Andreas - doesn't
COD:MW3 - doesn't
COD:BO - doesn't
GTA4 - doesn't
COD:BO2 - doesn't
Kinect Adventures - doesn't
Nintendogs - doesn't
Pokemon Red, Blue, Green - doesn't
Now do you understand you're objectively wrong, and this isn't an opinion?
Probably not. After all I've read several articles showing that hard indisputable evidence isn't how you change someone's mind from an objectively false opinion. The most effective way of changing someone's mind was to have several people tell the person the correct fact -- and mired in this thread where several people hold the same objectively false belief as you, that's basically an impossibility.
You could choose knowledge. The data is literally right in front of your face here. But sadly historic data on how people change their minds gives you a much greater likelihood of rejecting this hard data in favor of your own baseless opinion.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Tetris - Is a puzzle game with no world space. The end-rules of the game varies such as continuous play until the player can't keep breaking lines, breaks all lines, or a timer concludes as a point trial. Losing, as a result, is a rather pliable subject where ultimately, the player still has generally scored.
Wii Sports - Is a string of minigames with no world space. Losing is a very finite element that carries no penalty.
Minecraft - Is a game with a world space. Losing is a rather impactful element as it can mean the loss of equipment, inventory, and level.
GTA:V - Is a game with a world space (and actually has quite a bit of travel from slow to fast that plays into general play as well as missions). Losing is a subject of loss of money generally, but not much else.
Super Mario Bros - Is a game with a linear world with finite maps (the core mechanic of it's gameplay is in fact, traveling across levels and is supported by secondary mechanics such as the jumping and power-ups, it is a platformer and fundamentally a "travel" game). Losing means life count depleting and having to replay a level set.
Mario Kart Wii - Is a racing game and therefore fundamentally a travel game as well (traveling a long distance being the core mechanic supported by challenges posed by the track, vehicle handling, and opposing players/NPCs). Losing is failing to score in a race.
Tetris Gameboy - Same as Tetris.
Wii Sports Resort - Same as Wii Sports.
New Super Mario Bros - Same as Super Mario Bros.
Diablo 3 - Linear world space with lots of travel (coupled with lots of violence). Losing is an exceptionally weak mechanic in this title as it means moving back from town to repeat a boss fight or picking up where you last died (save for the one life mode where death means loss of character, in which case losing swings to the opposite end of the spectrum). This game is bi-polar in that regard.
New Super Mario Bros Wii - Same as Super Mario Bros save for losing actually can prompt the game to provide easier means of completing a level and you are not rolled as far bask as previous titles when one fails a level.
Wii Play - Minigames with no connecting world space (sometimes travel is integral to the play, depends on minigame played). Losing is a finite value with no penalties, only a competitive loss.
GTA:SA - Same as GTA:V.
COD:MW3 - Linear world built using finite levels, and multiplayer based on small-scale maps. Losing in campaign means repeat a level, losing in multi means not earning as much xp.
COD:BO - Same as COD:MW3.
GTA:IV - Same as GTA:V.
COD:BO2 - Same as COD:MW3.
Kinect Adventures - Minigames with no connecting world space (sometimes travel is integral to the play, depends on minigame played). Losing is a finite value with no penalties, only a competitive loss.
Nintendogs - Finite world space focusing on finite gameplay mechanics. Loss defined as death of dog that happens only after a long period of time.
Pokemon - Open world format with staged traveling mechanics that utilizes quite a lot of slow travel to pace the game as well as provide function for engaging pokemon, facing/avoiding trainers, exploration, and managing scope of the environment and activities accessible. Losing is being sent to a pokecenter to repeat your most recent task again.
So in short...
right
half-right
right
wrong
wrong
wrong
right
half-right
wrong
wrong
wrong
half-right
wrong
half-right
half-right
wrong
half-right
half-right
half-right
wrong
Please don't try to assert objective right/wrong when you are more wrong than right.
To quote you; "You could choose knowledge. The data is literally right in front of your face here."
However, you chose to argue from a standpoint that is actively providing false data to support an opinion, not "hard data" nor objective truth. From this thread there is evidence that it doesn't seem to matter how much objectively true data and corrections are provided. If a person such as yourself believes their opinions infallible, then they will only accept the snippets that support their claims even when the evidence provided by yourself proves to the contrary of your shared opinion (such as is the case with the Cadwell link and the RPG games lists).
This is very much an argument of opinion for you since it is very much not based in a objective fact.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Losing is unpopular, too. Should we install insta-win buttons?
MMOROGs are NOT about popular. Never was. Should never have happened (thanks, WoW).
Please try to post true things about reality.
We can point to countless successful games that involve losing. Losing is popular.
We can't do the same for games with excessive slow travel.
Go on then....post those games. I assure you, what you think are FACTS will be be at best your personal OPINION.
So lets, as you say, stick to REALITY.
Reality is, some people, myself included, WANT slow travel in certain games because without it the game becomes pointless. The fact you don't understand that because it is your OPINION that slow travel is boring is understandable. But please don't try and hold a position stating slow travel is boring and assert YOUR OPINION overrides mine or anyone else.
Reality is that "some people" is not enough. You don't get a big budget game with slow travel because there's not enough of you to justify the costs. It is you, who doesn't seem to understand that majority of the audience thinks slow travel is boring. This is specifically the reason developers have implemented fast travel in games. Their decisions are backed up by market research.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Second verse same as the first, this repetition of lies is over-rehearsed.
IE, we click one page back to see this same argument and the counterpoint made with games by-name that were done as AAA production titles and sold well.
"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
Losing is unpopular, too. Should we install insta-win buttons?
MMOROGs are NOT about popular. Never was. Should never have happened (thanks, WoW).
Please try to post true things about reality.
We can point to countless successful games that involve losing. Losing is popular.
We can't do the same for games with excessive slow travel.
Go on then....post those games. I assure you, what you think are FACTS will be be at best your personal OPINION.
So lets, as you say, stick to REALITY.
Reality is, some people, myself included, WANT slow travel in certain games because without it the game becomes pointless. The fact you don't understand that because it is your OPINION that slow travel is boring is understandable. But please don't try and hold a position stating slow travel is boring and assert YOUR OPINION overrides mine or anyone else.
Reality is that "some people" is not enough. You don't get a big budget game with slow travel because there's not enough of you to justify the costs. It is you, who doesn't seem to understand that majority of the audience thinks slow travel is boring. This is specifically the reason developers have implemented fast travel in games. Their decisions are backed up by market research.
Before any looking for mechanics were added to WoW it had 12mil subs... Since then it has only come down...
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
Second verse same as the first, this repetition of lies is over-rehearsed.
IE, we click one page back to see this same argument and the counterpoint made with games by-name that were done as AAA production titles and sold well.
Maybe people are ignoring you because you don't make any sense.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Go on then....post those games. I assure you, what you think are FACTS will be be at best your personal OPINION.
So lets, as you say, stick to REALITY.
Reality is, some people, myself included, WANT slow travel in certain games because without it the game becomes pointless. The fact you don't understand that because it is your OPINION that slow travel is boring is understandable. But please don't try and hold a position stating slow travel is boring and assert YOUR OPINION overrides mine or anyone else.
Top 20 best-selling games (multi-platform) that involve losing:
Tetris - involves losing
Wii Sports - involves losing
Minecraft - survival involves losing (sandbox doesn't, but also isn't really a game)
GTA5 - involves losing
Super Mario Bros. - involves losing
Mario Kart Wii - involves losing
Tetris gameboy - involves losing
Wii Sports Resort - involves losing
New Super Marios Bros. - involves losing
Diablo 3 - involves losing
New Super Mario Bros. Wii - involves losing
Wii Play - involves losing
GTA: San Andreas - involves losing
COD:MW3 - involves losing
COD:BO - involves losing
GTA4 - involves losing
COD:BO2 - involves losing
Kinect Adventures - involves losing
Nintendogs - doesn't involve losing
Pokemon Red, Blue, Green - involves losing
Same list, that involve excessive slow travel:
Tetris - doesn't
Wii Sports - doesn't
Minecraft - involves excessive slow travel
GTA5 - doesn't
Super Mario Bros. - doesn't
Mario Kart Wii - doesn't
Tetris gameboy - doesn't
Wii Sports Resort - doesn't
New Super Marios Bros. - doesn't
Diablo 3 - doesn't
New Super Mario Bros. Wii - doesn't
Wii Play - doesn't
GTA: San Andreas - doesn't
COD:MW3 - doesn't
COD:BO - doesn't
GTA4 - doesn't
COD:BO2 - doesn't
Kinect Adventures - doesn't
Nintendogs - doesn't
Pokemon Red, Blue, Green - doesn't
Now do you understand you're objectively wrong, and this isn't an opinion?
Probably not. After all I've read several articles showing that hard indisputable evidence isn't how you change someone's mind from an objectively false opinion. The most effective way of changing someone's mind was to have several people tell the person the correct fact -- and mired in this thread where several people hold the same objectively false belief as you, that's basically an impossibility.
You could choose knowledge. The data is literally right in front of your face here. But sadly historic data on how people change their minds gives you a much greater likelihood of rejecting this hard data in favor of your own baseless opinion.
I don't see a single MMORPG in that list. And I mean come on, you supply TETRIS as an argument to support why slow travel isn't a good feature......just laughable.
Second verse same as the first, this repetition of lies is over-rehearsed.
IE, we click one page back to see this same argument and the counterpoint made with games by-name that were done as AAA production titles and sold well.
Maybe people are ignoring you because you don't make any sense.
I find reading skills helps with that.
If there was something about either of those sentences you could not understand, feel free to ask instead of insult.
"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 don't see a single MMORPG in that list. And I mean come on, you supply TETRIS as an argument to support why slow travel isn't a good feature......just laughable.
I'm sure you're literate, so consider reading what's been said earlier in the thread when replying.
This latest post was mostly to show you that losing is wildly popular. It's part of virtually all best-selling games.
I contrasted it with a lack of excessive slow travel just to reinforce the point of how common losing is in games -- whereas when I point out excessive slow travel isn't in hardly any of those games all you can do is scramble to narrow the scope of what we're discussing (because only with an extremely myopic view do you believe your point has a hope of being right.)
The sad part is even with that myopic view (if we only look at MMORPGs,) your point still isn't right because all of the most successful MMORPGs have offered fast travel.
So in other words, even though all visible evidence supports my points and disputes yours, you ignore all the evidence in favor of spouting a baseless opinion. So you're behaving just as psychology predicts you would.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Before any looking for mechanics were added to WoW it had 12mil subs... Since then it has only come down...
WOW's subscription trajectory has been the exact same as every other game, just on a broader scale. All games have a period of growth then a slow decline. That's just how games work: a bunch of players quit on day 1, more on day 2, etc. WOW has had way better retention than most (many games follow the same-shaped curve of that graph over the course of a year or less), but it's still the same shape as every game.
If you'd picked a feature where there was a clear spike downward in subs afterward, that might be one thing, but you picked LFG which at least according to this data came before the downturn (there was a quarter of growth, and one quarter stagnation before the downturn.)
So (a) your statement is just outright false at face value if Statista's data is accurate quarter-by-quarter, and (b) your point is false regardless because you're suggesting that every feature released during a game's downturn is automatically bad regardless of its design because the game's population is falling. The second bit exhibits both a lack of knowledge that this graph is how all games' player populations are shaped (boom then gradual decline; mostly it's the total duration that changes), and ignores the fact that we're talking about a feature which is part of games from the start and therefore immediately contributed to player retention (for better or worse).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When every game is treating levels the same,they will all show the same results. We need to start seeing each level treated as an aging process,that means no 1-20 in 1 day.
We need to see devs get off their lazy cheap ass and CREATE content for EACH level and NO that does not mean 3 quests then level 1>2.I mean like discovery,armor sets for each level,add ons/attachments lots of crafting,stories to follow,interactive npcs that we might have to gain favor from to open up new ideas.
We should not see level 2 for at least 3 weeks,each level shoudsl have it's own game experience,excitement and content,it should not be a race through levels because the developer is too lazy and CHEAP to create a WORLD and a game. I am not a pacifist that just accepts whatever a developer delivers,imo if you cannot afford to make a GREAT game,then don't bother pretending to be a developer.Your antics and gimmicks like advertising on websites and fancy marketing videos ,not even your fanbois will persuade me to accept your mediocre game,i will call out your SLACK development team in a heart beat,step up or get out.
There is a reason we went from a handful of developers to literally thousands,obviously CHEAP game design is not very costly,especially with crowd funding and obviously it is EASIER to do now a days with so many tools and cheap to free game engines.I don't want your CHEAP product,i shop for games the same i do in real life with ALL products,why shoudld we accept gaming to be mediocre crap?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I don't see a single MMORPG in that list. And I mean come on, you supply TETRIS as an argument to support why slow travel isn't a good feature......just laughable.
I'm sure you're literate, so consider reading what's been said earlier in the thread when replying.
This latest post was mostly to show you that losing is wildly popular. It's part of virtually all best-selling games.
I contrasted it with a lack of excessive slow travel just to reinforce the point of how common losing is in games -- whereas when I point out excessive slow travel isn't in hardly any of those games all you can do is scramble to narrow the scope of what we're discussing (because only with an extremely myopic view do you believe your point has a hope of being right.)
The sad part is even with that myopic view (if we only look at MMORPGs,) your point still isn't right because all of the most successful MMORPGs have offered fast travel.
So in other words, even though all visible evidence supports my points and disputes yours, you ignore all the evidence in favor of spouting a baseless opinion. So you're behaving just as psychology predicts you would.
Space and time on MMO's....the clue is in the title.
Losing is a red herring to move the conversation away from the point of the thread.
NONE of those games in the list are MMORPG's and only a few might be considered to have MMO mechanics.
And the point that you keep conveniently avoiding is that this is not an all or nothing argument.
By all means keep using Tetris and other games from that list to argue about mechanics that are for MMO's and keep proving your position is one of willful ignorance or outright putting forward of false information and claiming it is true.
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.
Losing is unpopular, too. Should we install insta-win buttons?
MMOROGs are NOT about popular. Never was. Should never have happened (thanks, WoW).
This was the "red herring" Axehilt was answering to.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Second verse same as the first, this repetition of lies is over-rehearsed.
IE, we click one page back to see this same argument and the counterpoint made with games by-name that were done as AAA production titles and sold well.
Maybe people are ignoring you because you don't make any sense.
I find reading skills helps with that.
If there was something about either of those sentences you could not understand, feel free to ask instead of insult.
You are arguing something else entirely than Axehilt and me. What do you think our position even is, I wonder?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I don't see a single MMORPG in that list. And I mean come on, you supply TETRIS as an argument to support why slow travel isn't a good feature......just laughable.
we are talking about "space and time in mmos", not "space and time in mmorpgs".
And since MMO does not mean much anyway ... there must be some games in that list that are relevant.
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.
Yes. But it does have fast travel, right?
It SHIPPED 5M in its first month. As a point of comparison, The Division made $330M in its first WEEK .. which translate into 5.5M copies, even at the no-discount $60.
Arguably, MSG V is a better game in terms of conflict gameplay (stealth vs straight cover shooting), and it was selling MUCH slower than TD. Why? May be because it does not provide a convenient enough fast travel?
Comments
Though you seem to be making the mistake of crossing open world games and virtual(simulated) world games even though they aren't the same thing. Considering what was talked about was virtual worlds, not open worlds, this tangent of yours is useless.
Much like that thumb axe gave since he has no valid 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
MMOROGs are NOT about popular. Never was. Should never have happened (thanks, WoW).
VG
Popular keeps the company running, the jobs flowing, and the content producing. For more than a decade, a very good long run by anyone's standards.
Unpopular, on the other hand... Well, take a look at the games list over on the side, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of examples.
There's nothing admirable about the terribad titles, for sure.
Rejecting popularity because it's popular is hip, but impractical. Good consolation approach for the True Believers of those titles that failed to capture much of the Gamer Herd interest, I suppose.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We can also point to countless popular games that are remarkably simplistic and shallow user experiences that are explicitly about not losing.
We can even look at many popular games and note the metrics for difficulty settings and note the prevalence for easier modes to be chosen.
We've already done the same with games integrating slow travel.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So lets, as you say, stick to REALITY.
Reality is, some people, myself included, WANT slow travel in certain games because without it the game becomes pointless. The fact you don't understand that because it is your OPINION that slow travel is boring is understandable. But please don't try and hold a position stating slow travel is boring and assert YOUR OPINION overrides mine or anyone else.
When they are isolated, then they tend to suffer. When they are not isolated and instead interact with other game systems they tend to do better.
As for the MMO genre being popular or unpopular, it has always held a small niche of the western consumer market even when it was at it's peak, and that's gone down tanks to the migration to mobile and casual gaming.
"Popular" isn't saving the genre either right now save for a few bigger titles, and for the bulk of games coming from the east which can also be noted to have a very different design philosophy where travel is a welcome mechanic.
"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
Of course MMORPGs are about being popular. If not, you think there will be so many WOW clones?
- Tetris - involves losing
- Wii Sports - involves losing
- Minecraft - survival involves losing (sandbox doesn't, but also isn't really a game)
- GTA5 - involves losing
- Super Mario Bros. - involves losing
- Mario Kart Wii - involves losing
- Tetris gameboy - involves losing
- Wii Sports Resort - involves losing
- New Super Marios Bros. - involves losing
- Diablo 3 - involves losing
- New Super Mario Bros. Wii - involves losing
- Wii Play - involves losing
- GTA: San Andreas - involves losing
- COD:MW3 - involves losing
- COD:BO - involves losing
- GTA4 - involves losing
- COD:BO2 - involves losing
- Kinect Adventures - involves losing
- Nintendogs - doesn't involve losing
- Pokemon Red, Blue, Green - involves losing
Same list, that involve excessive slow travel:- Tetris - doesn't
- Wii Sports - doesn't
- Minecraft - involves excessive slow travel
- GTA5 - doesn't
- Super Mario Bros. - doesn't
- Mario Kart Wii - doesn't
- Tetris gameboy - doesn't
- Wii Sports Resort - doesn't
- New Super Marios Bros. - doesn't
- Diablo 3 - doesn't
- New Super Mario Bros. Wii - doesn't
- Wii Play - doesn't
- GTA: San Andreas - doesn't
- COD:MW3 - doesn't
- COD:BO - doesn't
- GTA4 - doesn't
- COD:BO2 - doesn't
- Kinect Adventures - doesn't
- Nintendogs - doesn't
- Pokemon Red, Blue, Green - doesn't
Now do you understand you're objectively wrong, and this isn't an opinion?Probably not. After all I've read several articles showing that hard indisputable evidence isn't how you change someone's mind from an objectively false opinion. The most effective way of changing someone's mind was to have several people tell the person the correct fact -- and mired in this thread where several people hold the same objectively false belief as you, that's basically an impossibility.
You could choose knowledge. The data is literally right in front of your face here. But sadly historic data on how people change their minds gives you a much greater likelihood of rejecting this hard data in favor of your own baseless opinion.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wii Sports - Is a string of minigames with no world space. Losing is a very finite element that carries no penalty.
Minecraft - Is a game with a world space. Losing is a rather impactful element as it can mean the loss of equipment, inventory, and level.
GTA:V - Is a game with a world space (and actually has quite a bit of travel from slow to fast that plays into general play as well as missions). Losing is a subject of loss of money generally, but not much else.
Super Mario Bros - Is a game with a linear world with finite maps (the core mechanic of it's gameplay is in fact, traveling across levels and is supported by secondary mechanics such as the jumping and power-ups, it is a platformer and fundamentally a "travel" game). Losing means life count depleting and having to replay a level set.
Mario Kart Wii - Is a racing game and therefore fundamentally a travel game as well (traveling a long distance being the core mechanic supported by challenges posed by the track, vehicle handling, and opposing players/NPCs). Losing is failing to score in a race.
Tetris Gameboy - Same as Tetris.
Wii Sports Resort - Same as Wii Sports.
New Super Mario Bros - Same as Super Mario Bros.
Diablo 3 - Linear world space with lots of travel (coupled with lots of violence). Losing is an exceptionally weak mechanic in this title as it means moving back from town to repeat a boss fight or picking up where you last died (save for the one life mode where death means loss of character, in which case losing swings to the opposite end of the spectrum). This game is bi-polar in that regard.
New Super Mario Bros Wii - Same as Super Mario Bros save for losing actually can prompt the game to provide easier means of completing a level and you are not rolled as far bask as previous titles when one fails a level.
Wii Play - Minigames with no connecting world space (sometimes travel is integral to the play, depends on minigame played). Losing is a finite value with no penalties, only a competitive loss.
GTA:SA - Same as GTA:V.
COD:MW3 - Linear world built using finite levels, and multiplayer based on small-scale maps. Losing in campaign means repeat a level, losing in multi means not earning as much xp.
COD:BO - Same as COD:MW3.
GTA:IV - Same as GTA:V.
COD:BO2 - Same as COD:MW3.
Kinect Adventures - Minigames with no connecting world space (sometimes travel is integral to the play, depends on minigame played). Losing is a finite value with no penalties, only a competitive loss.
Nintendogs - Finite world space focusing on finite gameplay mechanics. Loss defined as death of dog that happens only after a long period of time.
Pokemon - Open world format with staged traveling mechanics that utilizes quite a lot of slow travel to pace the game as well as provide function for engaging pokemon, facing/avoiding trainers, exploration, and managing scope of the environment and activities accessible. Losing is being sent to a pokecenter to repeat your most recent task again.
So in short...
- right
- half-right
- right
- wrong
- wrong
- wrong
- right
- half-right
- wrong
- wrong
- wrong
- half-right
- wrong
- half-right
- half-right
- wrong
- half-right
- half-right
- half-right
- wrong
Please don't try to assert objective right/wrong when you are more wrong than right.To quote you; "You could choose knowledge. The data is literally right in front of your face here."
However, you chose to argue from a standpoint that is actively providing false data to support an opinion, not "hard data" nor objective truth. From this thread there is evidence that it doesn't seem to matter how much objectively true data and corrections are provided. If a person such as yourself believes their opinions infallible, then they will only accept the snippets that support their claims even when the evidence provided by yourself proves to the contrary of your shared opinion (such as is the case with the Cadwell link and the RPG games lists).
This is very much an argument of opinion for you since it is very much not based in a objective fact.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
IE, we click one page back to see this same argument and the counterpoint made with games by-name that were done as AAA production titles and sold well.
"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
If there was something about either of those sentences you could not understand, feel free to ask instead of insult.
"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 latest post was mostly to show you that losing is wildly popular. It's part of virtually all best-selling games.
- I contrasted it with a lack of excessive slow travel just to reinforce the point of how common losing is in games -- whereas when I point out excessive slow travel isn't in hardly any of those games all you can do is scramble to narrow the scope of what we're discussing (because only with an extremely myopic view do you believe your point has a hope of being right.)
- The sad part is even with that myopic view (if we only look at MMORPGs,) your point still isn't right because all of the most successful MMORPGs have offered fast travel.
So in other words, even though all visible evidence supports my points and disputes yours, you ignore all the evidence in favor of spouting a baseless opinion. So you're behaving just as psychology predicts you would."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you'd picked a feature where there was a clear spike downward in subs afterward, that might be one thing, but you picked LFG which at least according to this data came before the downturn (there was a quarter of growth, and one quarter stagnation before the downturn.)
So (a) your statement is just outright false at face value if Statista's data is accurate quarter-by-quarter, and (b) your point is false regardless because you're suggesting that every feature released during a game's downturn is automatically bad regardless of its design because the game's population is falling. The second bit exhibits both a lack of knowledge that this graph is how all games' player populations are shaped (boom then gradual decline; mostly it's the total duration that changes), and ignores the fact that we're talking about a feature which is part of games from the start and therefore immediately contributed to player retention (for better or worse).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We need to start seeing each level treated as an aging process,that means no 1-20 in 1 day.
We need to see devs get off their lazy cheap ass and CREATE content for EACH level and NO that does not mean 3 quests then level 1>2.I mean like discovery,armor sets for each level,add ons/attachments lots of crafting,stories to follow,interactive npcs that we might have to gain favor from to open up new ideas.
We should not see level 2 for at least 3 weeks,each level shoudsl have it's own game experience,excitement and content,it should not be a race through levels because the developer is too lazy and CHEAP to create a WORLD and a game.
I am not a pacifist that just accepts whatever a developer delivers,imo if you cannot afford to make a GREAT game,then don't bother pretending to be a developer.Your antics and gimmicks like advertising on websites and fancy marketing videos ,not even your fanbois will persuade me to accept your mediocre game,i will call out your SLACK development team in a heart beat,step up or get out.
There is a reason we went from a handful of developers to literally thousands,obviously CHEAP game design is not very costly,especially with crowd funding and obviously it is EASIER to do now a days with so many tools and cheap to free game engines.I don't want your CHEAP product,i shop for games the same i do in real life with ALL products,why shoudld we accept gaming to be mediocre crap?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Losing is a red herring to move the conversation away from the point of the thread.
NONE of those games in the list are MMORPG's and only a few might be considered to have MMO mechanics.
And the point that you keep conveniently avoiding is that this is not an all or nothing argument.
By all means keep using Tetris and other games from that list to argue about mechanics that are for MMO's and keep proving your position is one of willful ignorance or outright putting forward of false information and claiming it is true.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And since MMO does not mean much anyway ... there must be some games in that list that are relevant.
Yes. But it does have fast travel, right? It SHIPPED 5M in its first month. As a point of comparison, The Division made $330M in its first WEEK .. which translate into 5.5M copies, even at the no-discount $60. Arguably, MSG V is a better game in terms of conflict gameplay (stealth vs straight cover shooting), and it was selling MUCH slower than TD. Why? May be because it does not provide a convenient enough fast travel?