Subjective opinion I totally agree. But unfortunately one side of the argument totally dismisses the other sides opinion that slow travel can be fun and essential for some games. No problem with people that do not agree but to totally dismiss it as even existing is just obnoxious behavior.
obnoxious behavior
Why do you believe any of what I've said is subjective?
The explanation of how games can avoid having shallow slow travel isn't subjective. If you changed the game rules as explained, the game would objectively avoid having shallow travel (while retaining the depth of any 'integrated' mechanics.)
Looking at the success of all games broadly, there is an objective pattern where the ones that avoid wasting players' time end up being more successful. You have a bunch of small successes in games where travel was typically tedious (UO, AO, EQ) which are dwarfed by the larger successes of games with fast travel (WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, ESO, FFXIV.) You have lists of all the best-selling games of all time where slow travel is almost entirely absent.
Well-known game designers (Koster, Meier) have objectively said the quotes and ideas I've presented here, where interesting decisions (Meier) are a critical component of good game design, and pattern mastery (Koster) is the most common way games are enjoyed by players.
Pointing out that it's better to integrate rewards with desirable activities than undesirable activities is objectively proven out when you browse back through that list of successful games...if for some reason that isn't instinctively obvious to you in the first place. Desirable activities doesn't only mean combat, it means any deep gameplay.
And lastly it's an objective truth that dev time is a finite resource and that making one thing better comes at the cost of something else being worse (which is why MMORPGs, which aren't really aesthetically "traveling games", don't go deep on travel mechanics.) You can't magically be amazing at all things -- being better at one thing comes at the cost of something else.
Again, think back to literally just 1 page ago where you made an equally baseless claim and then realized you had no evidence whatsoever backing it. You've now made the same mistake again by claiming that my posts are subjective.
If you want to feel like your ideas are accepted instead of being dismissed, try posting ideas which are supported by evidence and/or logic. "That's all opinion" isn't a particularly useful argument when (as I've covered in this and previous posts) the things I'm describing are based on observing the objective reality around us.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Again, think back to literally just 1 page ago where you made an equally baseless claim and then realized you had no evidence whatsoever backing it.
I am not going to deal with the rest of your crap because you will just ignore it all again but I will address the above. My first comment in this thread was post 126 on page 6. This just shows how dishonest you are being when trying to falsely represent my position and what my point of view is.
Slow travel and fast travel are used in games for specific reasons.
If the game design uses things like territorial control, resource control, exploration, economics of trade or many other things that fast travel invalidates then having fast travel is not a good thing to have.
Fast travel is used when travelling between locations offers no additional game play, where economics require nothing more then a glorified central hub, where exploration is meaningless, where players have no influence over a 'world' and usually because a game is on rails and a long progression of whacking moles for shiny rewards. And of course for convenience to avoid parts of the game that are boring or just to get to the juicy parts of the game.
Some games need slow travel to work.
Some games need fast travel to work.
Some people play games that require fast travel to work.
Some players play games that require slow travel to work.
At the end of the day though, having either fast travel in ALL games or slow travel in ALL games is poor design if you do not consider how either method of travel will affect the greater game design.
My first post...using logic.
Ignore again if you want but my point stand.
You are lying purposefully or ignoring willfully. Either way your behavior is shocking.
I am not going to deal with the rest of your crap because you will just ignore it all again but I will address the above. My first comment in this thread was post 126 on page 6. This just shows how dishonest you are being when trying to falsely represent my position and what my point of view is.
I repeat OBNOXIOUS BEHAVIOR
Do you understand that the word "ignore" doesn't mean "aggressively addresses every point made"?
Do you understand that in my previous post (and many many other posts) I've explained why the idea that "Some games need slow travel to work" is wrong?
This is why I questioned your literacy. You accuse others of ignoring what you wrote (when they responded to everything), and then you ignore what they wrote.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Do you understand that in my previous post (and many many other posts) I've explained why the idea that "Some games need slow travel to work" is wrong?
You have ignored any points raised to show that your opinion is faulty and that the idea is not 'wrong'.
You have been presented with games displaying slow travel and explained how the design is essential to the game which you have also ignored. Both the premise of the game design itself and the explanation provided from myself and others as to WHY the game was designed with slow travel and how it is the CORRECT way to design travel for that game.
Even if the above wasn't the case, the fact you just dismiss personal opinion and state that it can't even be a subjective opinion is outright rude and just shouts out to me that the reason you are replying is because you enjoy trolling me. Either way I think you are no longer worth discussing this subject with further.
Axe repeats the line that you "teleport around using the map" in RTS games, which is illogical. Point there being, you can pop open the map of many games and zoom around to areas your character is not, that's not making you have any greater depth of gameplay for it. Beyond which, RTS is a game design that relies on the godview style in order to let players easily scope out the disparate points of activity in the game because no single agent has that much in the way of game mechanics. The idea that the "player" travels everywhere is a facetious distraction for the fact that all things in an RTS is driven by the time it takes to craft/research and the travel done by units and the subsequent strategic value in how a player controls them.
Already covered why fast travel nodes can easily break survival games if they are not re-engineered quite a lot do be less dependent on the game world.
"Well known game designers" have said a great many things. I've quoted Cadwell right in this thread with some of his dialogue saying quite the contrary to the argument axe is making. This is also to note, axe is very fond of cherry picking his own quotes from designers, and habitually references Koster's 2004 book without ever acknowledging the corrections Koster made in 2010 addressing the nature of how players enjoy games. He's not looking for objective information from those people, he's only seeking what will reaffirm his opinion.
"Pointing out that it's better to integrate rewards with desirable activities than undesirable activities" is a straw man that fails to address the point made about travel mechanics. As pointed out previously with combat mechanics; "It's only by adding special abilities, secondary effects and the time factor to gameplay that combat gets complex. Attacking a target by itself would be the most tedious activity if it weren't for how integrated it is into the mechanics of the characters and mobs in the game.
So the argument that "adding meaning or feature integration would magically cause a boring thing to be fun" is itself a false argument. Feature integration is the only reason game mechanics have any interest or depth. From combat to travel, it's how many aspects support the tools and how those tools interact with each-other that makes a game. It's not magic taking place, it's design that actually supports the feature set. A good game designer would know that."
Dev time being a finite resource is not a valid argument to claim stagnation of the genre is the ideal route to go. There are plenty of games that have released already as well being developed that have aimed to integrate travel as a more meaningful component of the game and use it for adding depth in the play. I've listed sever eastern MMO titles already that are doing exactly what you have decided to claim is impossible. Are they magically making everything super-awesome? No, but they are balancing their chosen set of gameplay mechanics to drive a player-interactive economy and world as a primary theme of their RPGs. It's a different design philosophy, and for them it seems to be working well enough that they are happy to press onward where many western designs have chosen to backpedal and stagnate.
"Looking at the success of all games broadly", there is an objective pattern of games that have contracted the user experience and see a higher turnover rate because the burn rate on their content is exceptionally high with little to no replay value. With every large success you tout you have to acknowledge that there have been many failures using the same design principles. To claim it is the right way to build these games would imply that the market should be more accepting of these things, but they are not. Instead, they picked the titles that will survive (which if you notice on your list they all generally have some major distinguishing factors to justify their existence apart from each other), while the litany of titles with a similar design philosophy have failed.
One page ago a good amount of evidence exists and was mentioned as to where it could be found.
You have failed to make the distinction between looking for things to reaffirm your opinions versus actually observing reality. Until that distinction happens, you are only capable of providing opinion.
"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 have ignored any points raised to show that your opinion is faulty and that the idea is not 'wrong'.
You have been presented with games displaying slow travel and explained how the design is essential to the game which you have also ignored. Both the premise of the game design itself and the explanation provided from myself and others as to WHY the game was designed with slow travel and how it is the CORRECT way to design travel for that game.
Even if the above wasn't the case, the fact you just dismiss personal opinion and state that it can't even be a subjective opinion is outright rude and just shouts out to me that the reason you are replying is because you enjoy trolling me. Either way I think you are no longer worth discussing this subject with further.
Again, cite evidence if you feel I've ignored something because you're again bringing up all the specific games you've named. I've responded to each of those games!
The only way you could think that is if (a) you're illiterate, or (b) you're ignoring my posts (which would be ironic.)
No explanation of why slow travel is 'correct' has been provided which changes the inescapable reality that the MMORPGs which have provided the option to skip slow travel (ie fast travel) have been more successful than the MMORPGs which were slow travel only.
Note that I'm describing an objective truth of which games were popular among players.
Note that you're asserting a subjective opinion that slow travel is the 'correct' way to design certain games.
Another objective truth is that RPGs don't have a historic pattern of being about travel, which means there's even less chance of evidence of slow travel being the 'correct' way to design a MMORPG (which isn't to say that all historic RPGs have done this well, but generally they've strongly minimized any tedious repeat travel over the same area -- you explore towards the next area while encountering random enemies, you do your story bit, and then you continue exploring towards somewhere new.)
Another objective truth is that excessive slow travel didn't become common until after time was what these games were selling (and it only became common in games where time was being sold.)
Your viewpoint relies on ignoring all the objective evidence around you. Why not discuss real things and facts instead?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well do you agree that there is no place for slow travel at all like Axe and Nari are stating or that slow travel works when designed in conjunction with the holistic design of the game overall?
hey ... don't put words in my mouth. First, i never deny there are those (like yourself) who like to walk 20 min in a game.
Secondly, i never said slow travel has no place at all .. i said it should be an OPTION (or fast travel is an option) so everyone is happy.
In fact, why would you ignore this point when it solves all the problems? Do you dispute that options are good?
Sometimes there is a purpose to slow travel and by allowing skipping of it slow travel's purpose is removed. This is part of what some people don't understand. They say x game should have the features everyone wants, but don't realize that is ruining the purpose of somethings at the same time. One example is as I provided before. The scope (size) of the world is lost. Another is the danger in traveling from place to place.
This is a bunch of BS.
If you choose to walk, the scope of the world is still there. If you choose to walk, the danger of walking (what .. you can trip when walking in a game?) is still there.
If I don't think walking + scope of world + danger is fun, i use fast travel. If i do, i use slow travel. What is the problem. No one forces you to use fast travel and lose the "scope of world".
This sounds more like you want to force everyone to have your preferences. A fast/slow travel option clearly satisfied both camps.
Well do you agree that there is no place for slow travel at all like Axe and Nari are stating or that slow travel works when designed in conjunction with the holistic design of the game overall?
hey ... don't put words in my mouth. First, i never deny there are those (like yourself) who like to walk 20 min in a game.
Secondly, i never said slow travel has no place at all .. i said it should be an OPTION (or fast travel is an option) so everyone is happy.
In fact, why would you ignore this point when it solves all the problems? Do you dispute that options are good?
Sometimes there is a purpose to slow travel and by allowing skipping of it slow travel's purpose is removed. This is part of what some people don't understand. They say x game should have the features everyone wants, but don't realize that is ruining the purpose of somethings at the same time. One example is as I provided before. The scope (size) of the world is lost. Another is the danger in traveling from place to place.
This is a bunch of BS.
If you choose to walk, the scope of the world is still there. If you choose to walk, the danger of walking (what .. you can trip when walking in a game?) is still there.
If I don't think walking + scope of world + danger is fun, i use fast travel. If i do, i use slow travel. What is the problem. No one forces you to use fast travel and lose the "scope of world".
This sounds more like you want to force everyone to have your preferences. A fast/slow travel option clearly satisfied both camps.
Actually it is not because fast travel allows one to trivially bypass content. If part of the game is to make all players feel what it is like to travel experience traveling in certain types of places then adding a means to bypass that is both reducing the world in size and making those areas trivial to bypass. Part of the experience is having a hard time getting around the world in the first place and being faced with hardships that you would experience on an adventure in unknown parts. Being able to choose to walk around means nothing. It seems hard to get this point across to people, but some things have to be forced if you are trying to create a certain experience for the players playing.
but some things have to be forced if you are trying to create a certain experience for the players playing.
nah .. not in entertainment.
If a person choose not to use slow travel, he does not care about the experiences you are talking about. Forcing experiences onto people do not make good entertainment.
That is why we have a market here. We are not forced to play video games, or watch tv, or read a novel. We do it because we want to.
Same applies to experiences in a game. If it has to be forced, it is not that valuable anyway. May as well get rid of it.
but some things have to be forced if you are trying to create a certain experience for the players playing.
nah .. not in entertainment.
If a person choose not to use slow travel, he does not care about the experiences you are talking about. Forcing experiences onto people do not make good entertainment.
That is why we have a market here. We are not forced to play video games, or watch tv, or read a novel. We do it because we want to.
Same applies to experiences in a game. If it has to be forced, it is not that valuable anyway. May as well get rid of it.
You are missing the point. Said person is trying to create a certain experience for it's players. Not every entertainment has to appeal to everyone as you've said yourself. The type of game with options that you are discussing doesn't create the experience said game developer is attempting to deliver. It is creating a comfy world where you can feel safe all the time. That is pretty much the opposite of an adventure. Why do you feel the need to impose your options on every game so that you can play it.
but some things have to be forced if you are trying to create a certain experience for the players playing.
nah .. not in entertainment.
If a person choose not to use slow travel, he does not care about the experiences you are talking about. Forcing experiences onto people do not make good entertainment.
That is why we have a market here. We are not forced to play video games, or watch tv, or read a novel. We do it because we want to.
Same applies to experiences in a game. If it has to be forced, it is not that valuable anyway. May as well get rid of it.
You are missing the point. Said person is trying to create a certain experience for it's players. Not every entertainment has to appeal to everyone as you've said yourself. The type of game with options that you are discussing doesn't create the experience said game developer is attempting to deliver.
You have no point.
You can always disabled an option. If player choose not to do so, whatever experience being created is not preferred.
Don't tell me the experience changes for slow travel changes if you turn off fast travel. You still walk the same path, see the same scene, face the same danger. If you choose not to have that experience, don't blame the option. May be what you are proposing is not that fun anyway.
1823 - During a game of football at Rugby School in England, legend has it that 16 year old student William Webb Ellis, caught the ball and ran with it towards the opponent's goal line, rather than following the rules of the times of catching and kicking the ball only. Thus the game of Rugby was born.
William made use the the 'option' to either kick the ball or pick it up.
Footballers didn't agree so William created his own game called Rugby.
Football to this day does not allow players to pick up the ball and run it to the opponents goal line.
These are 2 games with different experiences and designed specifically to create that experience using the rules of the game. It is beyond dumb to argue that picking the ball up in football should be allowed. Instead just go play Rugby.
Slow travel and fast travel are just 2 ways that game designers create different game experiences within the rules of their game.
The same reasons apply to games as it applies to football and Rugby.
Instead of arguing to just give players the option, how about respecting the game designers vision for the game and if you don't like it just play another game.
Well do you agree that there is no place for slow travel at all like Axe and Nari are stating or that slow travel works when designed in conjunction with the holistic design of the game overall?
hey ... don't put words in my mouth. First, i never deny there are those (like yourself) who like to walk 20 min in a game.
Secondly, i never said slow travel has no place at all .. i said it should be an OPTION (or fast travel is an option) so everyone is happy.
In fact, why would you ignore this point when it solves all the problems? Do you dispute that options are good?
Sometimes there is a purpose to slow travel and by allowing skipping of it slow travel's purpose is removed. This is part of what some people don't understand. They say x game should have the features everyone wants, but don't realize that is ruining the purpose of somethings at the same time. One example is as I provided before. The scope (size) of the world is lost. Another is the danger in traveling from place to place.
This is a bunch of BS.
If you choose to walk, the scope of the world is still there. If you choose to walk, the danger of walking (what .. you can trip when walking in a game?) is still there.
If I don't think walking + scope of world + danger is fun, i use fast travel. If i do, i use slow travel. What is the problem. No one forces you to use fast travel and lose the "scope of world".
This sounds more like you want to force everyone to have your preferences. A fast/slow travel option clearly satisfied both camps.
Jesus, man. Wow.
No one is "forced" anything, it's just a video game, if you do not like the mechanics of a specific game you move on with your life and find something else to entertain yourself with. Remember there is no shortage of games and other forms of entertainment out there.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Well do you agree that there is no place for slow travel at all like Axe and Nari are stating or that slow travel works when designed in conjunction with the holistic design of the game overall?
hey ... don't put words in my mouth. First, i never deny there are those (like yourself) who like to walk 20 min in a game.
Secondly, i never said slow travel has no place at all .. i said it should be an OPTION (or fast travel is an option) so everyone is happy.
In fact, why would you ignore this point when it solves all the problems? Do you dispute that options are good?
Sometimes there is a purpose to slow travel and by allowing skipping of it slow travel's purpose is removed. This is part of what some people don't understand. They say x game should have the features everyone wants, but don't realize that is ruining the purpose of somethings at the same time. One example is as I provided before. The scope (size) of the world is lost. Another is the danger in traveling from place to place.
This is a bunch of BS.
If you choose to walk, the scope of the world is still there. If you choose to walk, the danger of walking (what .. you can trip when walking in a game?) is still there.
If I don't think walking + scope of world + danger is fun, i use fast travel. If i do, i use slow travel. What is the problem. No one forces you to use fast travel and lose the "scope of world".
This sounds more like you want to force everyone to have your preferences. A fast/slow travel option clearly satisfied both camps.
Jesus, man. Wow.
No one is "forced" anything, it's just a video game, if you do not like the mechanics of a specific game you move on with your life and find something else to entertain yourself with. Remember there is no shortage of games and other forms of entertainment out there.
It appears to me that options are now forced on people and said options always have an impact on how you play the game and how the game world is perceived. Just because you can walk doesn't mean there is not impact from fast travel.
1823 - During a game of football at Rugby School in England, legend has it that 16 year old student William Webb Ellis, caught the ball and ran with it towards the opponent's goal line, rather than following the rules of the times of catching and kicking the ball only. Thus the game of Rugby was born.
William made use the the 'option' to either kick the ball or pick it up.
Footballers didn't agree so William created his own game called Rugby.
Football to this day does not allow players to pick up the ball and run it to the opponents goal line.
These are 2 games with different experiences and designed specifically to create that experience using the rules of the game. It is beyond dumb to argue that picking the ball up in football should be allowed. Instead just go play Rugby.
Slow travel and fast travel are just 2 ways that game designers create different game experiences within the rules of their game.
The same reasons apply to games as it applies to football and Rugby.
Instead of arguing to just give players the option, how about respecting the game designers vision for the game and if you don't like it just play another game.
One sport involves kicking, the other involves hands too. Nothing is fundamentally wrong with the design of either.
Neither sport has a rule that says "hour-long breaks must occur every quarter of the match, during which players must be prevented from seeking any form of entertainment."
A period of deliberate, purposeless downtime where no decisions can be made? Sounds like a terrible design for a sport/game, right?
On top of that, let's say you're a Rugby fan and stadiums switch to by-the-hour prices for tickets the same year as they introduce the 3 extra hours of purposeless downtime. A reasonable person would point out that the downtime was a bad design change in the first place. And anyone could see that it was obviously a decision motivated by money rather than by good game design.
So when you improve upon your analogy to dig into the detailed reality of slow travel in MMORPGs, you see how slow travel (a) isn't necessary, (b) wasn't done to improve gameplay, (c) didn't improve gameplay, and (d) was motivated by the desire to take players' money.
So it's not 'just a style thing' as you seem to think. It's bad game design, motivated by greed. The ironic part is it's worse at taking players' money because it's such a worse design (you're going to keep players subscribed longer through good gameplay than you will by spamming shallow, timesink-heavy mechanics at a game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Fast Travel is far more motivated by greed. The inclusion of fast travel is simple to bring in more people/money who aren't willing to invest time into gaming.
Points have been made by many people on why slow travel is important to a certain game style.
Not even old MMOs had travel where you did nothing for an hour. For example getting from Qeynos to Freeport or Kelethin in EQ was a harrowing experience in many cases. There were always nasty monsters, dungeons, and zones to get through. You likely wouldn't go very far without encountering something along the way.
1823 - During a game of football at Rugby School in England, legend has it that 16 year old student William Webb Ellis, caught the ball and ran with it towards the opponent's goal line, rather than following the rules of the times of catching and kicking the ball only. Thus the game of Rugby was born.
William made use the the 'option' to either kick the ball or pick it up.
Footballers didn't agree so William created his own game called Rugby.
Football to this day does not allow players to pick up the ball and run it to the opponents goal line.
These are 2 games with different experiences and designed specifically to create that experience using the rules of the game. It is beyond dumb to argue that picking the ball up in football should be allowed. Instead just go play Rugby.
Slow travel and fast travel are just 2 ways that game designers create different game experiences within the rules of their game.
The same reasons apply to games as it applies to football and Rugby.
Instead of arguing to just give players the option, how about respecting the game designers vision for the game and if you don't like it just play another game.
One sport involves kicking, the other involves hands too. Nothing is fundamentally wrong with the design of either.
Neither sport has a rule that says "hour-long breaks must occur every quarter of the match, during which players must be prevented from seeking any form of entertainment."
A period of deliberate, purposeless downtime where no decisions can be made? Sounds like a terrible design for a sport/game, right?
On top of that, let's say you're a Rugby fan and stadiums switch to by-the-hour prices for tickets the same year as they introduce the 3 extra hours of purposeless downtime. A reasonable person would point out that the downtime was a bad design change in the first place. And anyone could see that it was obviously a decision motivated by money rather than by good game design.
So when you improve upon your analogy to dig into the detailed reality of slow travel in MMORPGs, you see how slow travel (a) isn't necessary, (b) wasn't done to improve gameplay, (c) didn't improve gameplay, and (d) was motivated by the desire to take players' money.
So it's not 'just a style thing' as you seem to think. It's bad game design, motivated by greed. The ironic part is it's worse at taking players' money because it's such a worse design (you're going to keep players subscribed longer through good gameplay than you will by spamming shallow, timesink-heavy mechanics at a game.)
You completely missed the point I made even when I summarised it for you. So here: -
Instead of arguing to just give players the option, how about respecting the game designers vision for the game and if you don't like it just play another game.
You completely missed the point I made even when I summarised it for you. So here: -
Instead of arguing to just give players the option, how about respecting the game designers vision for the game and if you don't like it just play another game.
I'm a professional game designer.
Accepting shitty designs isn't something I do.
I'm a player.
Accepting shitty designs isn't something players do either. (Which is why shallower games do worse.)
"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 choose the path of least resistance, you don't like slow travel that much anyway.
Almost, but not quite.
The problem is that while some players will seek "what entertains them" without regard to whether or not it is the most efficient means to playing a game or whether or not it's the most efficient game design, there are many people who will play games in the most immediately convenient manner regardless of the game's design or intent.
Does that mean many people will gravitate towards fast travel? Yes.
Does this mean they'll gravitate towards fast travel even if it sabotages the user experience and makes the game a much faster and shallower experience? Yes again.
The problem is that, like axe likes to point out about grinding, there are many players that will actively work against their entertainment by doing what is the easiest provided means to obtain progress. Sometimes that means grinding mobs, sometimes that means bypassing all the game's content with fast travel to hit only the necessary features to get to the next stage of progress. Even if it means effectively ruining one's own experience with the game, people are often inclined to do something just because they perceive it as the path of least resistance.
And therein lies one of the problems you and axe have missed.
Also again find it humorous he upvotes a post of yours with lack of valid response.
"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
Can anyone tally up how many times "a period of deliberate, purposeless downtime where no decisions can be made" has been pointed out to be a rather facetious straw-man now?
I mean seriously, no matter the means or amount of correction or counterpoint offered, it's not even progress, it's still the same argument made now as was refuted so long ago. What's the point of 24 pages if the dialogue can't even experience progress?
"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 completely missed the point I made even when I summarised it for you. So here: -
Instead of arguing to just give players the option, how about respecting the game designers vision for the game and if you don't like it just play another game.
I'm a professional game designer.
Accepting shitty designs isn't something I do.
I'm a player.
Accepting shitty designs isn't something players do either. (Which is why shallower games do worse.)
Yes, because all developers are robots who have monolithic belief.
I only read a few posts. Deep thoughts abound. You'll never get that great MMO feeling back because you already did it. You might get a taste of it for a few weeks, even a few months. After that, it'll taste like stale bread.
For me, this is way off point. I have no desire to "recapture" that first game feeling. Can't speak for anyone else, though. I just want an MMORPG that I can get interested in investing my time into. The way of travel is an important part.
Comments
- The explanation of how games can avoid having shallow slow travel isn't subjective. If you changed the game rules as explained, the game would objectively avoid having shallow travel (while retaining the depth of any 'integrated' mechanics.)
- Looking at the success of all games broadly, there is an objective pattern where the ones that avoid wasting players' time end up being more successful. You have a bunch of small successes in games where travel was typically tedious (UO, AO, EQ) which are dwarfed by the larger successes of games with fast travel (WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, ESO, FFXIV.) You have lists of all the best-selling games of all time where slow travel is almost entirely absent.
- Well-known game designers (Koster, Meier) have objectively said the quotes and ideas I've presented here, where interesting decisions (Meier) are a critical component of good game design, and pattern mastery (Koster) is the most common way games are enjoyed by players.
- Pointing out that it's better to integrate rewards with desirable activities than undesirable activities is objectively proven out when you browse back through that list of successful games...if for some reason that isn't instinctively obvious to you in the first place. Desirable activities doesn't only mean combat, it means any deep gameplay.
- And lastly it's an objective truth that dev time is a finite resource and that making one thing better comes at the cost of something else being worse (which is why MMORPGs, which aren't really aesthetically "traveling games", don't go deep on travel mechanics.) You can't magically be amazing at all things -- being better at one thing comes at the cost of something else.
Again, think back to literally just 1 page ago where you made an equally baseless claim and then realized you had no evidence whatsoever backing it. You've now made the same mistake again by claiming that my posts are subjective.If you want to feel like your ideas are accepted instead of being dismissed, try posting ideas which are supported by evidence and/or logic. "That's all opinion" isn't a particularly useful argument when (as I've covered in this and previous posts) the things I'm describing are based on observing the objective reality around us.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I repeat OBNOXIOUS BEHAVIOR
Ignore again if you want but my point stand.
You are lying purposefully or ignoring willfully. Either way your behavior is shocking.
Do you understand that in my previous post (and many many other posts) I've explained why the idea that "Some games need slow travel to work" is wrong?
This is why I questioned your literacy. You accuse others of ignoring what you wrote (when they responded to everything), and then you ignore what they wrote.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You have been presented with games displaying slow travel and explained how the design is essential to the game which you have also ignored. Both the premise of the game design itself and the explanation provided from myself and others as to WHY the game was designed with slow travel and how it is the CORRECT way to design travel for that game.
Even if the above wasn't the case, the fact you just dismiss personal opinion and state that it can't even be a subjective opinion is outright rude and just shouts out to me that the reason you are replying is because you enjoy trolling me. Either way I think you are no longer worth discussing this subject with further.
- Axe repeats the line that you "teleport around using the map" in RTS games, which is illogical. Point there being, you can pop open the map of many games and zoom around to areas your character is not, that's not making you have any greater depth of gameplay for it. Beyond which, RTS is a game design that relies on the godview style in order to let players easily scope out the disparate points of activity in the game because no single agent has that much in the way of game mechanics. The idea that the "player" travels everywhere is a facetious distraction for the fact that all things in an RTS is driven by the time it takes to craft/research and the travel done by units and the subsequent strategic value in how a player controls them.
- Already covered why fast travel nodes can easily break survival games if they are not re-engineered quite a lot do be less dependent on the game world.
- "Well known game designers" have said a great many things. I've quoted Cadwell right in this thread with some of his dialogue saying quite the contrary to the argument axe is making. This is also to note, axe is very fond of cherry picking his own quotes from designers, and habitually references Koster's 2004 book without ever acknowledging the corrections Koster made in 2010 addressing the nature of how players enjoy games. He's not looking for objective information from those people, he's only seeking what will reaffirm his opinion.
- "Pointing out that it's better to integrate rewards with desirable activities than undesirable activities" is a straw man that fails to address the point made about travel mechanics. As pointed out previously with combat mechanics; "It's only by adding special abilities, secondary effects and the time factor to gameplay that combat gets complex. Attacking a target by itself would be the most tedious activity if it weren't for how integrated it is into the mechanics of the characters and mobs in the game.
- Dev time being a finite resource is not a valid argument to claim stagnation of the genre is the ideal route to go. There are plenty of games that have released already as well being developed that have aimed to integrate travel as a more meaningful component of the game and use it for adding depth in the play. I've listed sever eastern MMO titles already that are doing exactly what you have decided to claim is impossible. Are they magically making everything super-awesome? No, but they are balancing their chosen set of gameplay mechanics to drive a player-interactive economy and world as a primary theme of their RPGs. It's a different design philosophy, and for them it seems to be working well enough that they are happy to press onward where many western designs have chosen to backpedal and stagnate.
- "Looking at the success of all games broadly", there is an objective pattern of games that have contracted the user experience and see a higher turnover rate because the burn rate on their content is exceptionally high with little to no replay value. With every large success you tout you have to acknowledge that there have been many failures using the same design principles. To claim it is the right way to build these games would imply that the market should be more accepting of these things, but they are not. Instead, they picked the titles that will survive (which if you notice on your list they all generally have some major distinguishing factors to justify their existence apart from each other), while the litany of titles with a similar design philosophy have failed.
One page ago a good amount of evidence exists and was mentioned as to where it could be found.So the argument that "adding meaning or feature integration would magically cause a boring thing to be fun" is itself a false argument. Feature integration is the only reason game mechanics have any interest or depth. From combat to travel, it's how many aspects support the tools and how those tools interact with each-other that makes a game. It's not magic taking place, it's design that actually supports the feature set. A good game designer would know that."
You have failed to make the distinction between looking for things to reaffirm your opinions versus actually observing reality. Until that distinction happens, you are only capable of providing opinion.
"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 only way you could think that is if (a) you're illiterate, or (b) you're ignoring my posts (which would be ironic.)
No explanation of why slow travel is 'correct' has been provided which changes the inescapable reality that the MMORPGs which have provided the option to skip slow travel (ie fast travel) have been more successful than the MMORPGs which were slow travel only.
- Note that I'm describing an objective truth of which games were popular among players.
- Note that you're asserting a subjective opinion that slow travel is the 'correct' way to design certain games.
Another objective truth is that RPGs don't have a historic pattern of being about travel, which means there's even less chance of evidence of slow travel being the 'correct' way to design a MMORPG (which isn't to say that all historic RPGs have done this well, but generally they've strongly minimized any tedious repeat travel over the same area -- you explore towards the next area while encountering random enemies, you do your story bit, and then you continue exploring towards somewhere new.)Another objective truth is that excessive slow travel didn't become common until after time was what these games were selling (and it only became common in games where time was being sold.)
Your viewpoint relies on ignoring all the objective evidence around you. Why not discuss real things and facts instead?
"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 choose to walk, the scope of the world is still there. If you choose to walk, the danger of walking (what .. you can trip when walking in a game?) is still there.
If I don't think walking + scope of world + danger is fun, i use fast travel. If i do, i use slow travel. What is the problem. No one forces you to use fast travel and lose the "scope of world".
This sounds more like you want to force everyone to have your preferences. A fast/slow travel option clearly satisfied both camps.
"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
nah .. not in entertainment.
If a person choose not to use slow travel, he does not care about the experiences you are talking about. Forcing experiences onto people do not make good entertainment.
That is why we have a market here. We are not forced to play video games, or watch tv, or read a novel. We do it because we want to.
Same applies to experiences in a game. If it has to be forced, it is not that valuable anyway. May as well get rid of it.
You can always disabled an option. If player choose not to do so, whatever experience being created is not preferred.
Don't tell me the experience changes for slow travel changes if you turn off fast travel. You still walk the same path, see the same scene, face the same danger. If you choose not to have that experience, don't blame the option. May be what you are proposing is not that fun anyway.
William made use the the 'option' to either kick the ball or pick it up.
Footballers didn't agree so William created his own game called Rugby.
Football to this day does not allow players to pick up the ball and run it to the opponents goal line.
These are 2 games with different experiences and designed specifically to create that experience using the rules of the game. It is beyond dumb to argue that picking the ball up in football should be allowed. Instead just go play Rugby.
Slow travel and fast travel are just 2 ways that game designers create different game experiences within the rules of their game.
The same reasons apply to games as it applies to football and Rugby.
Instead of arguing to just give players the option, how about respecting the game designers vision for the game and if you don't like it just play another game.
No one is "forced" anything, it's just a video game, if you do not like the mechanics of a specific game you move on with your life and find something else to entertain yourself with. Remember there is no shortage of games and other forms of entertainment out there.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Neither sport has a rule that says "hour-long breaks must occur every quarter of the match, during which players must be prevented from seeking any form of entertainment."
A period of deliberate, purposeless downtime where no decisions can be made? Sounds like a terrible design for a sport/game, right?
On top of that, let's say you're a Rugby fan and stadiums switch to by-the-hour prices for tickets the same year as they introduce the 3 extra hours of purposeless downtime. A reasonable person would point out that the downtime was a bad design change in the first place. And anyone could see that it was obviously a decision motivated by money rather than by good game design.
So when you improve upon your analogy to dig into the detailed reality of slow travel in MMORPGs, you see how slow travel (a) isn't necessary, (b) wasn't done to improve gameplay, (c) didn't improve gameplay, and (d) was motivated by the desire to take players' money.
So it's not 'just a style thing' as you seem to think. It's bad game design, motivated by greed. The ironic part is it's worse at taking players' money because it's such a worse design (you're going to keep players subscribed longer through good gameplay than you will by spamming shallow, timesink-heavy mechanics at a game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Points have been made by many people on why slow travel is important to a certain game style.
Not even old MMOs had travel where you did nothing for an hour. For example getting from Qeynos to Freeport or Kelethin in EQ was a harrowing experience in many cases. There were always nasty monsters, dungeons, and zones to get through. You likely wouldn't go very far without encountering something along the way.
Instead of arguing to just give players the option, how about respecting the game designers vision for the game and if you don't like it just play another game.
Accepting shitty designs isn't something I do.
I'm a player.
Accepting shitty designs isn't something players do either. (Which is why shallower games do worse.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem is that while some players will seek "what entertains them" without regard to whether or not it is the most efficient means to playing a game or whether or not it's the most efficient game design, there are many people who will play games in the most immediately convenient manner regardless of the game's design or intent.
Does that mean many people will gravitate towards fast travel? Yes.
Does this mean they'll gravitate towards fast travel even if it sabotages the user experience and makes the game a much faster and shallower experience? Yes again.
The problem is that, like axe likes to point out about grinding, there are many players that will actively work against their entertainment by doing what is the easiest provided means to obtain progress. Sometimes that means grinding mobs, sometimes that means bypassing all the game's content with fast travel to hit only the necessary features to get to the next stage of progress. Even if it means effectively ruining one's own experience with the game, people are often inclined to do something just because they perceive it as the path of least resistance.
And therein lies one of the problems you and axe have missed.
Also again find it humorous he upvotes a post of yours with lack of valid response.
"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 mean seriously, no matter the means or amount of correction or counterpoint offered, it's not even progress, it's still the same argument made now as was refuted so long ago. What's the point of 24 pages if the dialogue can't even experience progress?
"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
VG