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?
My position from the beginning has been the point that travel is a mechanic that has value in gaming for the depth it delivers when properly integrated, and that we have seen sch value across plenty of games already.
The rest of my dialogue has been correcting inaccurate statements.
Your two's dialogue remains on the idea that a mechanic can't be good because you don't like it, and you've gone to the ends of the earth to try and justify it.
"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
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?
More so it's that The Division has had a rather long ramp-up and quite a lot of hype. TD is riding a rather large and comfortable gimmick in that it is a third person shooter in an open world post-apoc styled environment with online mechanics and last title Clancy wrote for.
MGSV had it's own hype train with it being the last Kojima title for the series, but the MGS series has always been more polarizing that the Clancy titles because of it's sometimes odd approach to gameplay, wonky plot, and odd additions that get tossed in. It is the best selling title of it's series in spite of this.
Limiting the travel mechanics is hardly the issue in that manner. The more likely issues is the fact that it was advertised somewhat less, it didn't have as large of a brand and/or name following, and it's overall gameplay mechanics are known to be different than other games since it's a "stealth espionage" and "tactical action" type game that fits more in-line with the less popular titles of Clancy such as Splinter Cell (save for on a broader scope).
"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
As for Axe's commentary, I already corrected that on the last page. Repeating the same false statement isn't furthering the conversation.
Honestly, at this point the thread is just about a corpse, since the only thing being done with it is a couple people are trying to use it to decry things they don't like as the devil.
"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
My position from the beginning has been the point that travel is a mechanic that has value in gaming for the depth it delivers when properly integrated, and that we have seen sch value across plenty of games already.
sure .. and in that case, you pretty much avoid the issue of slow travel is boring to many players, and that exploration needs to be done only once.
In fact, you even argue that ANY movement is travel and hence travel has value. That is, of course, a correct but pretty much uninformative and useless view. Even in a fast pace game like D3, you have to walk 5-10 seconds to the next room to fight.
It is, a lot more interesting, to discuss the role (or lack thereof) of slow travel ... the idea that players have to walk for 10+ minutes on landscape doing nothing but just to get from point A to B.
This "slow travel" does exist in games, even today, but now mostly push to an option (as fast travel is not mutually exclusive to slow travel, just an option).
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?
More so it's that The Division has had a rather long ramp-up and quite a lot of hype. TD is riding a rather large and comfortable gimmick in that it is a third person shooter in an open world post-apoc styled environment with online mechanics and last title Clancy wrote for.
MGSV had it's own hype train with it being the last Kojima title for the series, but the MGS series has always been more polarizing that the Clancy titles because of it's sometimes odd approach to gameplay, wonky plot, and odd additions that get tossed in. It is the best selling title of it's series in spite of this.
Limiting the travel mechanics is hardly the issue in that manner. The more likely issues is the fact that it was advertised somewhat less, it didn't have as large of a brand and/or name following, and it's overall gameplay mechanics are known to be different than other games since it's a "stealth espionage" and "tactical action" type game that fits more in-line with the less popular titles of Clancy such as Splinter Cell (save for on a broader scope).
You can, of course, speculate of why things happen. All of your reasoning is basically just guesses.
But the facts remain.
1) MSG V has fast travel.
2) TD sold a lot better in the same time period after release.
You can, of course, speculate of why things happen. All of your reasoning is basically just guesses.
False argument.
And what was provided was not speculation.
This is also an example of cherry picking and red herring, as you have picked one game of many now provided to try and use to invalidate all of them, without having the capacity to invalidate them as such.
So rather than sitting here making a useless argument, try something else.
"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
My position from the beginning has been the point that travel is a mechanic that has value in gaming for the depth it delivers when properly integrated, and that we have seen sch value across plenty of games already.
sure .. and in that case, you pretty much avoid the issue of slow travel is boring to many players, and that exploration needs to be done only once.
In fact, you even argue that ANY movement is travel and hence travel has value. That is, of course, a correct but pretty much uninformative and useless view. Even in a fast pace game like D3, you have to walk 5-10 seconds to the next room to fight.
It is, a lot more interesting, to discuss the role (or lack thereof) of slow travel ... the idea that players have to walk for 10+ minutes on landscape doing nothing but just to get from point A to B.
This "slow travel" does exist in games, even today, but now mostly push to an option (as fast travel is not mutually exclusive to slow travel, just an option).
I gave argument on the point that travel is inherent to games because it was a correction to an assertion made by others that travel is not a necessary component of gameplay.
When we talk about slow travel, the point has been made clear many times over that there are plenty of titles in which it is present as an actual game mechanic and serves a myriad of purposes from aspects of game economy, resource scarcity, foraging/hunting, and even controlling the overall scope of the game and it's stages.
"The idea that players have to walk for 10+ minutes on landscape doing nothing" is a facetious argument that you, axe, and quir are stuck on. Saying "putting a game mechanic in isolation makes that game mechanic boring" is simply stating the obvious and not furthering any kind of meaningful conversation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
My position from the beginning has been the point that travel is a mechanic that has value in gaming for the depth it delivers when properly integrated, and that we have seen sch value across plenty of games already.
I've yet to see it implemented within the MMORPG genre. The examples I've read of depth happen few and far between to claim the game has deep travel. And most examples can be found in games with fast travel so mostly irrelevant.
I agree with you travel can be interesting and deep, it's just not been implemented yet. When it has been tried it's been implemented in game worlds that are far to stale to go and explore in and want to travel.
On the subject of fast travel, Porting to dungeons should always be there, no excuse for not having it in. Regardless of there being an interesting world.
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.
Presumably you're literate as you still seem to have a very difficult time understanding your place in the conversation:
The first mention of losing is @VestigeGamer in this post. He brought it up in a flimsy attempt to imply losing wasn't popular with players, even though we've just seen that all evidence disputes that claim with a giant list of best-selling games that basically all involve losing.
I responded to point that out.
You responded to me calling it my opinion and asked me to cite a list of games.
I provided the list of objective evidence showing how nearly all best-selling games involve losing, and even brought it back to the original topic by pointing out that nearly none of the best-selling games involve excessive slow travel.
Please, try to keep up.
Also you seem completely unable to think through the points you're attempting to make. Why on earth would you pretend that it matters that none of those games are MMORPGs? Are you incapable of predicting where that line of discussion will lead?
I post a staggering amount of best-selling games showing how they all involve losing and only one involves excessive slow travel.
You say it doesn't matter because they aren't MMORPGs.
....and then here's what will invariably happen...
I'll post a list of all the most successful MMORPGs, showing how they all involve losing and only ~2 of the list of ~10 will lack fast travel. (And one of those is EQ where fast travel arguably existed, but I assume was rare enough that it didn't happen a lot.)
Do we really need to step through that process? Can't you instead just act as though you're a reasonable, intelligent person who's aware of which MMORPGs have been successful over the years, and as you count through those games you could see that "those aren't MMORPGs" doesn't exactly take discussion to places that support anything you've tried to say?
You're literally the product of millions of years of evolution; you have a pretty amazing brain. Use it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You posted a list of best selling games and assigned values that did not reflect the reality of those games.
They are a variety of games in which only certain ones even have a game world for any amount of travel to be meaningful (for which some extended travel is integral) while others have no game world and the only travel is done in a very finite context. Applying that to MMOs is very hit and miss.
Not an argument.
You'll post a list with broad assertions, and then the cross-examination will happen wherein your claims will again be proven to be driven by bias and not fact by the very resources you offered through noting the clear errors in your claims (as has happened twice now in this thread).
Rather than forming a rational argument to the points made, you have chosen to talk about you talking and insult the other poster.
That is not an objective argument.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I've given some examples of MMOs previously in this thread as far back as page 6.
I can't help if people don't want to acknowledge things outside their scope of experience or adverse to their reality.
Yes, and I said I've seen the same examples in games with fast travel present.
And obviously we can't help you either. Seeing as it's a completely subjective opinion I'll let you off.
As I first stated; "My position from the beginning has been the point that travel is a mechanic that has value in gaming for the depth it delivers when properly integrated, and that we have seen sch value across plenty of games already."
Your statement of "I've yet to see it implemented within the MMORPG genre." was the primary point of contention when you threw that out as a rebuttal.
I gave examples of MMOs by name which utilize slow travel as a mechanic to further the depth of the economy and gameplay. That is not a subjective opinion. They do in fact exist and you can go play them right now if you want.
When I have also made multiple statements about the types and variety of games in even the MMORPG genre alone, and even stated myself on a couple occasions in this thread that fast travel is to the benefit of themepark and games with a heavily scripted user experience, there is no wiggle room for the jab you just took to bear any validity.
Whether or not you can delete those games from existence would not help nor hinder the argument in any way. So please don't pull the "I'll let you off" statement when you don't have an argument.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I agree with you travel can be interesting and deep, it's just not been implemented yet. When it has been tried it's been implemented in game worlds that are far to stale to go and explore in and want to travel.
Figured on more clearly addressing this point separately by quoting something I again wrote quite a while ago in this thread, if one had deigned to read it before firing blindly.
"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."
"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."
"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 agree with you travel can be interesting and deep, it's just not been implemented yet. When it has been tried it's been implemented in game worlds that are far to stale to go and explore in and want to travel.
Figured on more clearly addressing this point separately by quoting something I again wrote quite a while ago in this thread, if one had deigned to read it before firing blindly.
"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."
"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."
So we're still in a position right now where a game can't justify having no fast travel?
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, I was just getting the impression (mainly from this topic, not you) that longer travel times increases depth which is a fallacy.
My experience is fast travel has not taken anything away from the depth of the game. The deep travel mechanics people are giving as examples are still present in games with fast travel.
So removing fast travel does nothing for depth, it's other things, mainly worlds design, scripted events, player interactions that need to be worked on.
The whole opinion that players don't like long travel and even travel over the same landscape doesn't hold water because games mentioned have them and are way more popular than MMORPG. It's really as simple as that. Most MMORPG now won't have it because it's simply not suited to game. Travel doesn't exist in a vacuum more than any other system unless the game is solely about it.
Grand Turismo and Foraza have sold over 80 million combined. Grand Theft Auto has sold over 100 million. Minecraft has sold over 70 million. Those games have you traveling with no fast travel.
To say MMO that can and arguably should represent virtual worlds can't have meaningful travel to a viable audience means you simply have no imagination.
I agree with you travel can be interesting and deep, it's just not been implemented yet. When it has been tried it's been implemented in game worlds that are far to stale to go and explore in and want to travel.
Figured on more clearly addressing this point separately by quoting something I again wrote quite a while ago in this thread, if one had deigned to read it before firing blindly.
"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."
"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."
So we're still in a position right now where a game can't justify having no fast travel?
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, I was just getting the impression (mainly from this topic, not you) that longer travel times increases depth which is a fallacy.
My experience is fast travel has not taken anything away from the depth of the game. The deep travel mechanics people are giving as examples are still present in games with fast travel.
So removing fast travel does nothing for depth, it's other things, mainly worlds design, scripted events, player interactions that need to be worked on.
It can. If the purpose of the game lies with travel for various reason fast travel will negate it.
"The idea that players have to walk for 10+ minutes on landscape doing nothing" is a facetious argument that you, axe, and quir are stuck on. Saying "putting a game mechanic in isolation makes that game mechanic boring" is simply stating the obvious and not furthering any kind of meaningful conversation.
It is not an idea. It is a actual undesirable mechanics that are in games in the early days (like in EQ) and remedied later, like in WoW.
Do you deny there are instances of games that you have to do nothing but travel for 10-20 min to get somewhere?
Grand Turismo and Foraza have sold over 80 million combined. Grand Theft Auto has sold over 100 million. Minecraft has sold over 70 million. Those games have you traveling with no fast travel.
Grand Turismo and Foraza has no travel at all. Those are racing games. The objective to move is to be faster than the car next to you. So it is not travelling from point A to B, repeatedly. Racing is not travel. And I thought people who love to argue about the literal definition of MMOs should know better.
Grand Turismo and Foraza have sold over 80 million combined. Grand Theft Auto has sold over 100 million. Minecraft has sold over 70 million. Those games have you traveling with no fast travel.
Grand Turismo and Foraza has no travel at all. Those are racing games. The objective to move is to be faster than the car next to you. So it is not travelling from point A to B, repeatedly. Racing is not travel. And I thought people who love to argue about the literal definition of MMOs should know better.
But using Tetris to discuss the merits of fast and slow travel in games seems legit to you. Obvious troll is obvious.
Grand Turismo and Foraza have sold over 80 million combined. Grand Theft Auto has sold over 100 million. Minecraft has sold over 70 million. Those games have you traveling with no fast travel.
Yet the travel in those games aren't deep. Maybe the travel is fun.
It's not really the point when they're single player open world games with fast travel that sell a lot and are as deep as the games you mentioned.
To say MMO that can and arguably should represent virtual worlds can't have meaningful travel to a viable audience means you simply have no imagination.
I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying fast travel doesn't take away from meaningful travel, that hasn't been proven.
It can. If the purpose of the game lies with travel for various reason fast travel will negate it.
Yes, if the purpose of the game is a race I'd agree with you. If it's not I don't see how fast travel would remove anything and hasn't with games where fast travel is present.
Grand Turismo and Foraza have sold over 80 million combined. Grand Theft Auto has sold over 100 million. Minecraft has sold over 70 million. Those games have you traveling with no fast travel.
Grand Turismo and Foraza has no travel at all. Those are racing games. The objective to move is to be faster than the car next to you. So it is not travelling from point A to B, repeatedly. Racing is not travel. And I thought people who love to argue about the literal definition of MMOs should know better.
But using Tetris to discuss the merits of fast and slow travel in games seems legit to you. Obvious troll is obvious.
where did i say that? I did not use Tetris.
Plus, that is irrelevant to the fact that the post i am responding to is wrong about MSG V, Grand Turismo and Foraza.
Do you dispute the fact that MSG V has fast travel?
Do you dispute the fact that GT and Foraza are racing games?
I agree with you travel can be interesting and deep, it's just not been implemented yet. When it has been tried it's been implemented in game worlds that are far to stale to go and explore in and want to travel.
Figured on more clearly addressing this point separately by quoting something I again wrote quite a while ago in this thread, if one had deigned to read it before firing blindly.
"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."
"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."
So we're still in a position right now where a game can't justify having no fast travel?
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, I was just getting the impression (mainly from this topic, not you) that longer travel times increases depth which is a fallacy.
My experience is fast travel has not taken anything away from the depth of the game. The deep travel mechanics people are giving as examples are still present in games with fast travel.
So removing fast travel does nothing for depth, it's other things, mainly worlds design, scripted events, player interactions that need to be worked on.
Incorrect.
My statement was "My position from the beginning has been the point that travel is a mechanic that has value in gaming for the depth it delivers when properly integrated, and that we have seen sch value across plenty of games already."
For you to even assume your argument you have to not simply be misunderstanding me, but ignoring entire segments of what I'm saying.
And again, it depends on the type of game. Not all games need travel because not all games are designed with mechanics that integrate with it. As I have said repeated times now and you had to straight up pretend I didn't say; "When I have also made multiple statements about the types and variety of games in even the MMORPG genre alone, and even stated myself on a couple occasions in this thread that fast travel is to the benefit of themepark and games with a heavily scripted user experience, there is no wiggle room for the jab you just took to bear any validity."
Removing fast travel from games that are not built for collaborative gameplay, user economy, virtual world, etc, doesn't have as much impact on depth because travel in those situations is not generally a well integrated mechanic.
HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY CAN YOU NOT GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD?!
"When integrated" is a phrase that has meaning, ignoring half of the crap that is written to make a sideways argument that doesn't even work and is already addressed by shit I said a post prior to what you choose to respond to is inane to the Nth degree.
Would you like to respond again after actually reading the posts you are responding to next time?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
In every game that you can fast travel, you have the choice to walk. So why would anyone be unhappy?
You ---------------------------->
The rest of my dialogue has been correcting inaccurate statements.
Your two's dialogue remains on the idea that a mechanic can't be good because you don't like it, and you've gone to the ends of the earth to try and justify it.
"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
More so it's that The Division has had a rather long ramp-up and quite a lot of hype. TD is riding a rather large and comfortable gimmick in that it is a third person shooter in an open world post-apoc styled environment with online mechanics and last title Clancy wrote for.
MGSV had it's own hype train with it being the last Kojima title for the series, but the MGS series has always been more polarizing that the Clancy titles because of it's sometimes odd approach to gameplay, wonky plot, and odd additions that get tossed in. It is the best selling title of it's series in spite of this.
Limiting the travel mechanics is hardly the issue in that manner. The more likely issues is the fact that it was advertised somewhat less, it didn't have as large of a brand and/or name following, and it's overall gameplay mechanics are known to be different than other games since it's a "stealth espionage" and "tactical action" type game that fits more in-line with the less popular titles of Clancy such as Splinter Cell (save for on a broader scope).
"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
Honestly, at this point the thread is just about a corpse, since the only thing being done with it is a couple people are trying to use it to decry things they don't like as the devil.
"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
In fact, you even argue that ANY movement is travel and hence travel has value. That is, of course, a correct but pretty much uninformative and useless view. Even in a fast pace game like D3, you have to walk 5-10 seconds to the next room to fight.
It is, a lot more interesting, to discuss the role (or lack thereof) of slow travel ... the idea that players have to walk for 10+ minutes on landscape doing nothing but just to get from point A to B. This "slow travel" does exist in games, even today, but now mostly push to an option (as fast travel is not mutually exclusive to slow travel, just an option).
But the facts remain.
1) MSG V has fast travel.
2) TD sold a lot better in the same time period after release.
Do you dispute any of these two statements?
And what was provided was not speculation.
This is also an example of cherry picking and red herring, as you have picked one game of many now provided to try and use to invalidate all of them, without having the capacity to invalidate them as such.
So rather than sitting here making a useless argument, try something else.
"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 gave argument on the point that travel is inherent to games because it was a correction to an assertion made by others that travel is not a necessary component of gameplay.
When we talk about slow travel, the point has been made clear many times over that there are plenty of titles in which it is present as an actual game mechanic and serves a myriad of purposes from aspects of game economy, resource scarcity, foraging/hunting, and even controlling the overall scope of the game and it's stages.
"The idea that players have to walk for 10+ minutes on landscape doing nothing" is a facetious argument that you, axe, and quir are stuck on. Saying "putting a game mechanic in isolation makes that game mechanic boring" is simply stating the obvious and not furthering any kind of meaningful conversation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I agree with you travel can be interesting and deep, it's just not been implemented yet. When it has been tried it's been implemented in game worlds that are far to stale to go and explore in and want to travel.
On the subject of fast travel, Porting to dungeons should always be there, no excuse for not having it in. Regardless of there being an interesting world.
I can't help if people don't want to acknowledge things outside their scope of experience or adverse to their 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
- The first mention of losing is @VestigeGamer in this post. He brought it up in a flimsy attempt to imply losing wasn't popular with players, even though we've just seen that all evidence disputes that claim with a giant list of best-selling games that basically all involve losing.
- I responded to point that out.
- You responded to me calling it my opinion and asked me to cite a list of games.
- I provided the list of objective evidence showing how nearly all best-selling games involve losing, and even brought it back to the original topic by pointing out that nearly none of the best-selling games involve excessive slow travel.
Please, try to keep up.Also you seem completely unable to think through the points you're attempting to make. Why on earth would you pretend that it matters that none of those games are MMORPGs? Are you incapable of predicting where that line of discussion will lead?
- I post a staggering amount of best-selling games showing how they all involve losing and only one involves excessive slow travel.
- You say it doesn't matter because they aren't MMORPGs.
- ....and then here's what will invariably happen...
- I'll post a list of all the most successful MMORPGs, showing how they all involve losing and only ~2 of the list of ~10 will lack fast travel. (And one of those is EQ where fast travel arguably existed, but I assume was rare enough that it didn't happen a lot.)
Do we really need to step through that process? Can't you instead just act as though you're a reasonable, intelligent person who's aware of which MMORPGs have been successful over the years, and as you count through those games you could see that "those aren't MMORPGs" doesn't exactly take discussion to places that support anything you've tried to say?You're literally the product of millions of years of evolution; you have a pretty amazing brain. Use it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And obviously we can't help you either. Seeing as it's a completely subjective opinion I'll let you off.
Rather than forming a rational argument to the points made, you have chosen to talk about you talking and insult the other poster.
That is not an objective 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
Your statement of "I've yet to see it implemented within the MMORPG genre." was the primary point of contention when you threw that out as a rebuttal.
I gave examples of MMOs by name which utilize slow travel as a mechanic to further the depth of the economy and gameplay. That is not a subjective opinion. They do in fact exist and you can go play them right now if you want.
When I have also made multiple statements about the types and variety of games in even the MMORPG genre alone, and even stated myself on a couple occasions in this thread that fast travel is to the benefit of themepark and games with a heavily scripted user experience, there is no wiggle room for the jab you just took to bear any validity.
Whether or not you can delete those games from existence would not help nor hinder the argument in any way. So please don't pull the "I'll let you off" statement when you don't have an 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
"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."
"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."
"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 we're still in a position right now where a game can't justify having no fast travel?
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, I was just getting the impression (mainly from this topic, not you) that longer travel times increases depth which is a fallacy.
My experience is fast travel has not taken anything away from the depth of the game. The deep travel mechanics people are giving as examples are still present in games with fast travel.
So removing fast travel does nothing for depth, it's other things, mainly worlds design, scripted events, player interactions that need to be worked on.
Grand Turismo and Foraza have sold over 80 million combined. Grand Theft Auto has sold over 100 million. Minecraft has sold over 70 million. Those games have you traveling with no fast travel.
To say MMO that can and arguably should represent virtual worlds can't have meaningful travel to a viable audience means you simply have no imagination.
It can. If the purpose of the game lies with travel for various reason fast travel will negate it.
Do you deny there are instances of games that you have to do nothing but travel for 10-20 min to get somewhere?
Wrong. MSG V has fast travel.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Metal-Gear-Solid-5-Fast-Travel-Guide-Every-Location-Reward-Revealed-84847.html
Grand Turismo and Foraza has no travel at all. Those are racing games. The objective to move is to be faster than the car next to you. So it is not travelling from point A to B, repeatedly. Racing is not travel. And I thought people who love to argue about the literal definition of MMOs should know better.
It's not really the point when they're single player open world games with fast travel that sell a lot and are as deep as the games you mentioned.
I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying fast travel doesn't take away from meaningful travel, that hasn't been proven.
Yes, if the purpose of the game is a race I'd agree with you. If it's not I don't see how fast travel would remove anything and hasn't with games where fast travel is present.
Plus, that is irrelevant to the fact that the post i am responding to is wrong about MSG V, Grand Turismo and Foraza.
Do you dispute the fact that MSG V has fast travel?
Do you dispute the fact that GT and Foraza are racing games?
My statement was "My position from the beginning has been the point that travel is a mechanic that has value in gaming for the depth it delivers when properly integrated, and that we have seen sch value across plenty of games already."
For you to even assume your argument you have to not simply be misunderstanding me, but ignoring entire segments of what I'm saying.
And again, it depends on the type of game. Not all games need travel because not all games are designed with mechanics that integrate with it. As I have said repeated times now and you had to straight up pretend I didn't say; "When I have also made multiple statements about the types and variety of games in even the MMORPG genre alone, and even stated myself on a couple occasions in this thread that fast travel is to the benefit of themepark and games with a heavily scripted user experience, there is no wiggle room for the jab you just took to bear any validity."
Removing fast travel from games that are not built for collaborative gameplay, user economy, virtual world, etc, doesn't have as much impact on depth because travel in those situations is not generally a well integrated mechanic.
HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY CAN YOU NOT GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD?!
"When integrated" is a phrase that has meaning, ignoring half of the crap that is written to make a sideways argument that doesn't even work and is already addressed by shit I said a post prior to what you choose to respond to is inane to the Nth degree.
Would you like to respond again after actually reading the posts you are responding to next time?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin