Its not nonsense. Its smart. If your innovation or the popular demand takes you out of the framework of MMORPGs then so be it. The objective is to make a game fun. You should do everything you can to make the game more fun.
Making good games is hard enough as it is. You don't need to handicap yourself.
If you want to slap an MMO label on a lobby game that's your preogative. Don't go bullshitting me and expect me to approve.
The argument that you just chose to support is that of Nariu's where he suggested turning them all into titles like "world of tanks", "borderlands 2", or "diablo 3". Like I said previously, they can be certainly fine games, in their own genre. To make a game that has no relation to MMOs and call it one, though, is simply nonsense.
So you can claim it's not nonsensical to call apples oranges if you wish. I'm not going to pretend such an opinion is smart or informed.
The objective of a developer certainly should be to make a game fun. Then why, pray tell, do we have such variety ad farming and plane simulators, the penultimate mob grinders such as D3, the likes of Dragon's Dogma, or the "hard" and "unforgiving" titles like the dark souls series?
Because "fun" is sought out in many aspects of gameplay. To label a single component "un-fun" and completely disregard all the value and gameplay that is and can be built around it to generate entertainment is not a rational choice. It is the opinion of someone that sees only either their idea of fun, or are incapable of thinking beyond the design that they have been taught to believe in.
The point here is to stop interjecting preferences and opinion before the actual potentials of the given game elements and genre. It's already been explained and proven that time and travel are integral components to a wide variety of games on a rather fundamental level. Removing them and reducing their role to the minimum in order to focus on "action" is ultimately to the detriment of many forms of game depth (as pointed out in the example of turn based strategies like Civ versus real time like Starcraft).
If maximizing fun is really your interest, then take a step back and ask the question of "What can we take advantage of and evolve in these systems?" rather than "This is underdeveloped, lets make something else and just slap a label on it."
I am not suggesting that you make a non-MMO game and call it an MMO. I am suggesting that you shouldn't scrap something in your design just because its not an "MMO feature".
I also think it is foolish to hold on to certain features simply because "they belong in an MMO" or "they've always been there". Those are perhaps two of the dumbest reasons to have a feature in the game. And if you cannot make a feature fun, you should seriously consider cutting it.
Writers have this advice "kill your darlings". It means you should be ready to let go of everything in your work if it doesn't work or makes little sense in the greater context.
By making these arbitrary decisions to keep certain features unchanged, you might find yourself in a situation where its like you're carrying this huge boulder on your shoulders and much of your time and effort goes into making it easier to carry or taking into account that you are carrying it. All I'm saying is: drop it if its a burden.
I enjoy games with fast travel. I know travel is fun approximately that one time you're out exploring your fast travel locations. I have little interest in making travel between locations locations fun. It would likely have to be some sort of random encounter system and even those are bound to get repetitive sooner rather than later - no matter how elaborate. And now that you force people to actively commute they also have to repeat or evade your random encounters while doing it.
I see no win here.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It's about as smart as making a motorcycle 5000 pounds with 5 doors cabin... just make a truck and not an abomination of ideas of another product. If you're not using the framework why have the framework?
Your analogy is inaccurate.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It's about as smart as making a motorcycle 5000 pounds with 5 doors cabin... just make a truck and not an abomination of ideas of another product. If you're not using the framework why have the framework?
Your analogy is inaccurate.
It is very accurate if you are following the discussion. The single player game with MMO framework that doesn't use MMO framework is a waste of time.
It's about as smart as making a motorcycle 5000 pounds with 5 doors cabin... just make a truck and not an abomination of ideas of another product. If you're not using the framework why have the framework?
Are you suggesting instance-based games are a "motorcycle 5000 pounds with 5 doors"?
Because CoD, Battlefield, WoT, LoL, and many other extremely successful games seem to show that a failure to be a MMO (due to an abundance of instancing) doesn't hurt a game at all. In fact these particular examples are all more successful than MMOs. So they're not bad designs like that motorcycle.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Puzzling why this is even a discussion at all; should be pretty straight forward and common sense.
The land of the modern gamer is quite the spectacle to behold.
Conversations about good game design have never been a "modern gamer" thing.
Some days I wonder if the people I discuss early MMORPGs (and their bad game design) with had literally never played a videogame prior to the early MMORPGs they love. Because if they had, they'd have understood that the techniques MMORPGs later shifted towards (causing an explosion in popularity) were techniques used before MMORPGs existed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In other words you decided to respond to me with an argument that has nothing to do with anything that's been previously said. Congratulations.
Please, for the love of anything with even a modicum of common sense and intelligence, stop and read what's been previously written. What I have outlined thus-far is not advocacy of stagnation. It's not to cripple content.
What I have explained several times over now is the fact that there is quite a lot of gameplay depth and value in the use of time and travel in games. There have been plenty of examples and comparisons already to prove the point along with the fact that gameplay that is directly hinged upon the presence of such has been cited as well.
Your entire counterpoint hinges on the notion that the content that is dependent on travel would "get repetitive sooner or later". You expect skipping any potential variety in the game to load right into the same activity over and over again is less repetitious? You are again delving into nonsense by immediately dismissing any additional depth and variety in the game to focus on a more direct and finite experience, and then claiming that it's because it'd be repetitious/boring.
If something "doesn't work or makes little sense" then sure it should be removed. You are not arguing for that notion at the moment however. You want to strip time and travel out of games? Fine, go make an app that has a single button and when you press it, it says "You win!", because that's quite literally what you just suggested that you want.
No games exist without the use of time and travel to generate the pacing and experiences you are being delivered.
Like I said previously, instances and fast travel aren't the antithesis to this, but how prolific they are and how it affects the game does define what that game is quite directly.
Your book analogy for example. If someone reads the GoT books and dubs them "too long" and cuts it down to a 12 page book, it's very simply no longer a novel. All the prose and details and time to read those several hundred pages might have plenty of repeated simple actions, phrases, etc. It relies on that to be the novel that it is. To "kill your darling" just because it's a novel instead of a short story is nonsense.
It's already been noted how travel has been utilized in previous games and how "fun" can both be built around it as well rely upon it. Whether or not you acknowledge that is inconsequential, so your jab "if you cannot make a feature fun" has no place save for being an uninformed shot in the dark.
As for your last comment. Those without vision rarely see anything.
"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
Puzzling why this is even a discussion at all; should be pretty straight forward and common sense.
The land of the modern gamer is quite the spectacle to behold.
Conversations about good game design have never been a "modern gamer" thing.
Some days I wonder if the people I discuss early MMORPGs (and their bad game design) with had literally never played a videogame prior to the early MMORPGs they love. Because if they had, they'd have understood that the techniques MMORPGs later shifted towards (causing an explosion in popularity) were techniques used before MMORPGs existed.
One, you seem to have completely whiffed on recognizing the sarcasm in that post.
Two, the fact that many developers failed to be good enough to evolve the genre and instead fell back on the familiar design of other games is pretty well understood by plenty of people I feel.
It's actually rather part of why the complaints arise.
"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 other words you decided to respond to me with an argument that has nothing to do with anything that's been previously said. Congratulations.
Please, for the love of anything with even a modicum of common sense and intelligence, stop and read what's been previously written. What I have outlined thus-far is not advocacy of stagnation. It's not to cripple content.
What I have explained several times over now is the fact that there is quite a lot of gameplay depth and value in the use of time and travel in games. There have been plenty of examples and comparisons already to prove the point along with the fact that gameplay that is directly hinged upon the presence of such has been cited as well.
Your entire counterpoint hinges on the notion that the content that is dependent on travel would "get repetitive sooner or later". You expect skipping any potential variety in the game to load right into the same activity over and over again is less repetitious? You are again delving into nonsense by immediately dismissing any additional depth and variety in the game to focus on a more direct and finite experience, and then claiming that it's because it'd be repetitious/boring.
If something "doesn't work or makes little sense" then sure it should be removed. You are not arguing for that notion at the moment however. You want to strip time and travel out of games? Fine, go make an app that has a single button and when you press it, it says "You win!", because that's quite literally what you just suggested that you want.
No games exist without the use of time and travel to generate the pacing and experiences you are being delivered.
Like I said previously, instances and fast travel aren't the antithesis to this, but how prolific they are and how it affects the game does define what that game is quite directly.
Your book analogy for example. If someone reads the GoT books and dubs them "too long" and cuts it down to a 12 page book, it's very simply no longer a novel. All the prose and details and time to read those several hundred pages might have plenty of repeated simple actions, phrases, etc. It relies on that to be the novel that it is. To "kill your darling" just because it's a novel instead of a short story is nonsense.
It's already been noted how travel has been utilized in previous games and how "fun" can both be built around it as well rely upon it. Whether or not you acknowledge that is inconsequential, so your jab "if you cannot make a feature fun" has no place save for being an uninformed shot in the dark.
As for your last comment. Those without vision rarely see anything.
I see you've built yourself a bunch of strawmen and knocked them over. Good for you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It's about as smart as making a motorcycle 5000 pounds with 5 doors cabin... just make a truck and not an abomination of ideas of another product. If you're not using the framework why have the framework?
Are you suggesting instance-based games are a "motorcycle 5000 pounds with 5 doors"?
Because CoD, Battlefield, WoT, LoL, and many other extremely successful games seem to show that a failure to be a MMO (due to an abundance of instancing) doesn't hurt a game at all. In fact these particular examples are all more successful than MMOs. So they're not bad designs like that motorcycle.
Way to whiff again.
The point there was taking one type of vehicle(game) and forcing an entirely different design upon it, leading to a myriad of technical issues as well as a break in how the classification works.
Are CoD, Battlefield, WoT, LoL and it's kin MMOs? No? Then you aren't even addressing the analogy given.
The closest you swing is with bringing up WoT since it's a lobby game that's billed as an MMO by some. Effectively a vehicle someone stuck flames on "to make it go faster" by playing the marketing buzzword game. It's architecture however takes very little benefit out of it's design that you might relate to an MMO's (especially since the client/server model is not exclusive to MMOs).
A closer comparison would be the trend of games that deliver a very personal user experience that is almost entirely isolated save for functionally insignificant slivers of the game world being shared. Neverwinter, DDO, even to a degree SWtOR and ESO due to their heavy use of instancing and phasing to reduce the player population. It's not like it's the worst thing to happen, but the reality is that it's a trend that pushes the practicality to the edge of reason. As said previously, there comes a point where you might as well have not developed it as an MMO and instead focused on it being a co-op or single player title and just let people connect peer to peer mire akin to titles like Neverwinter Nights.
"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 am not suggesting that you make a non-MMO game and call it an MMO."
You wrote that Quirhid.
Now lets look at the comment I had written that you originally responded to.
"Well it's not like instances and stuff are bad. Problem is Nariu suggests taking it to the point where there is no distinction between an "MMO" and a traditional multiplayer game you'd play like Neverwinter Nights.
The problem then being, it's not an MMO and the whole point is moot."
I wrote that. What was your response at that time?
"Its not nonsense. Its smart. If your innovation or the popular demand takes you out of the framework of MMORPGs then so be it."
In spite of what you wish to claim, you very directly made the suggestion that people should replace MMOs with non-MMOs.
You should at least remove the evidence next time before feigning ignorance on the matter. If your opinion is truly that making non-MMOs and calling them MMOs is irrational, then you have shifted your opinion to be in agreeing with the very opinion of mine that you previously disagreed with.
EDIT: Lets even take it a step further. What was that first sentence of my post that you responded to and disagreed with?
"Well it's not like instances and stuff are bad."
Quite literally first comment made was that these mechanics for contracting aspects of the game world are not themselves a bad thing. The complaint was squarely leveled at their overuse to the point of removing any and all traits of the platform on which it was supposedly built.
And what are features I previously defined as characteristic to the architecture for MMOs?
"persistence, scale, and the complexity of the server"
Instead of addressing any of these features, you generated a false argument about features I never established and chose to damn one in particular without any clear rationale beyond your opinion.
If you were leveling any disagreement with prior commentary on travel that was had, then you very obviously didn't read what I had written there either. MY own dialogue has been consistently leveled against some of the misconceptions that have been repeated by axe and nariu about the nature of time and travel being used as integral components of gameplay to develop the very depth they desire. The argument of "slow travel without anything to do is boring" was something of a nebulous side-grade argument they made, which has been addressed I don't know how many times with examples of games previously that made it either interesting or relied on it directly as a component of it's design (the entire survival game genre, for example). Isolating any game feature and forcing it as a mandatory action is going to be boring. Like combat in MMOs is ridiculously repetitive in most cases, should we remove that too?
No, we look at what features there are and we look for reasonable ways and opportunities to capitalize on them. It's not a bad feature if it offers value and opportunity for greater game depth. Like most things, one size doesn't fit all. On top of that, MMOs and their architecture is still comparatively quite new as opposed to many other genres. Even the matter of a couple years can change server design and the capabilities/potentials of an MMO drastically. While that is technically true of most any computer game, it is the very core of MMO architecture.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You were the one that chose to not ever address anything I have written to this point to instead offer a sideways conjecture.
You were the one that jumped in to defend Nariu's argument that MMOs should be turned into Borderlands, Diablo 3, etc.
If you don't even understand what it is you're writing, you don't belong authoring any replies.
Don't make strawman arguments. Just take in what I wrote exactly as I wrote it. You'll get my meaning eventually. Ask if something is unclear.
Quite literally everyone can scroll up and see that I gave responses that directly referenced what you wrote. Claiming strawman when I cite your very comments doesn't work. It does however make a clear case of you committing a red herring.
If you feel you were misunderstood, then playing coy about your "meaning" will not solve anything. You gave an invalid argument, it was corrected.
As is, your entertainingly hypocritical taunts do nothing to further the conversation and I have to repeat myself. If you don;t even understand what it is you yourself wrote, then perhaps you should take a break from making comments.
Oh boy... I will do this one time and ignore your insults.
In other words you decided to respond to me with an argument that has nothing to do with anything that's been previously said. Congratulations.
Please, for the love of anything with even a modicum of common sense and intelligence, stop and read what's been previously written. What I have outlined thus-far is not advocacy of stagnation. It's not to cripple content.
What I have explained several times over now is the fact that there is quite a lot of gameplay depth and value in the use of time and travel in games. There have been plenty of examples and comparisons already to prove the point along with the fact that gameplay that is directly hinged upon the presence of such has been cited as well. (1)
Your entire counterpoint hinges on the notion that the content that is dependent on travel would "get repetitive sooner or later". You expect skipping any potential variety in the game to load right into the same activity over and over again is less repetitious? You are again delving into nonsense by immediately dismissing any additional depth and variety in the game to focus on a more direct and finite experience, and then claiming that it's because it'd be repetitious/boring. (2)
If something "doesn't work or makes little sense" then sure it should be removed. You are not arguing for that notion at the moment however. You want to strip time and travel out of games? Fine, go make an app that has a single button and when you press it, it says "You win!", because that's quite literally what you just suggested that you want. (3)
No games exist without the use of time and travel to generate the pacing and experiences you are being delivered. (4)
Like I said previously, instances and fast travel aren't the antithesis to this, but how prolific they are and how it affects the game does define what that game is quite directly. (5)
Your book analogy for example. If someone reads the GoT books and dubs them "too long" and cuts it down to a 12 page book, it's very simply no longer a novel. All the prose and details and time to read those several hundred pages might have plenty of repeated simple actions, phrases, etc. It relies on that to be the novel that it is. To "kill your darling" just because it's a novel instead of a short story is nonsense. (6)
It's already been noted how travel has been utilized in previous games and how "fun" can both be built around it as well rely upon it. Whether or not you acknowledge that is inconsequential, so your jab "if you cannot make a feature fun" has no place save for being an uninformed shot in the dark. (7)
As for your last comment. Those without vision rarely see anything.
1. Yes you can have gameplay relying on travel, but is that gameplay fun and is it feasible to implement is another matter.
2. No. My point is, if you must travel from point A to point B, anything that distracts or hinders that travel is likely to become annoying eventually. I am not expecting much variety in gameplay between points A and B. To have much variety between points A and B would require much focus from the developer on content that is essentially secondary. Which takes focus away from the primary content of the game (usually what happens in points A and B ). You make the assumption that points A and B have same repetitive activity. Why do you make that assumption?
You say there's additional depth and variety in travel but without reading anything you might have said in the previous pages, I'm supposed to take your word for it? -Well I'm not going to. First of all, I have doubts whether you understand the term depth correctly.
3. A single button app is the same as taking away travel from MMORPGs? No way those two are equivalent. You are being ridiculous.
4. This is a true statement, yet I wasn't suggesting taking time and travel from games altogether. Hence, my comment about exploration.
5. And people prefer fast travel and instances so it should be OK. Right?
6. Let me make this simple for you: Feature A in a game your making doesn't make sense, doesn't work or simply isn't fun. No matter how much you like said feature, you should be ready to cut it because of those reasons. You shouldn't hold any feature as your "darling". If people don't like travel in your game, you should consider putting in fast travel.
Cutting the Song of Fire and Ice books to just 12 pages is clearly not what is meant by that saying. This is another strawman.
7. For a game that is built around travel or based on travel, it is crucial to make travel fun. It is a serious matter if it doesn't manage to make it fun. And more often than not travel is not fun. Note that I made a distinction between exploration and commute.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
"I am not suggesting that you make a non-MMO game and call it an MMO."
You wrote that Quirhid.
Now lets look at the comment I had written that you originally responded to.
"Well it's not like instances and stuff are bad. Problem is Nariu suggests taking it to the point where there is no distinction between an "MMO" and a traditional multiplayer game you'd play like Neverwinter Nights.
The problem then being, it's not an MMO and the whole point is moot."
I wrote that. What was your response at that time?
"Its not nonsense. Its smart. If your innovation or the popular demand takes you out of the framework of MMORPGs then so be it."
In spite of what you wish to claim, you very directly made the suggestion that people should replace MMOs with non-MMOs.
You should at least remove the evidence next time before feigning ignorance on the matter. If your opinion is truly that making non-MMOs and calling them MMOs is irrational, then you have shifted your opinion to be in agreeing with the very opinion of mine that you previously disagreed with.
I'm sorry to piss on your gotcha-moment, but I never wrote non-MMOs should be called MMOs. My comment was about not being constrained by arbitrary frameworks. That is, if you set out to design an MMO but in the course of your innovation you stray away from MMOs, you shouldn't stop innovating. If the end result is Borderlands or Diablo, then good for you. Both of those are great games.
I'm running out of ways to explain this and you still keep misunderstanding my meaning.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
1- Seems to be feasible and fun to eastern MMO developers.
2- Your point as it was written defended Nariu's intent to make non-MMOs as MMOs.
As for this new point you are making. You are making the assumption that travel is a secondary activity and not integrated into the game as a core mechanic. When traveling around the game is part of the gameplay, the objectives would be accordingly designed so that those "side activities" are contributing (but possibly options) elements to furthering that experience while fleshing out a greater depth. Not only that, but it gives plenty of opportunity in other player activities and emergent gameplay value. Entire reason it's so integral to the survival game genre.
The reason it's safe to assume A and B have the same repetitive gameplay is because that's how lobby games work. They focus on one finite type of gameplay and that's all they deliver. Over and over and over again.
Additional depth and variety has been covered plenty of times. You admitting refusal to acknowledge it is depressing. However, there is the point and real world examples to be had in eastern MMO market of tangible landmasses creating the ability to seed resources in so that scarcity of specific resources is generated by region rather than simply loot drop rate. Faction control of territories influences access to materials, monsters, and rewards. Running caravan and trade routes carries tangible risks from NPC and players as well as a means to capitalize on a trade market where regions have differing values for goods. ETC
3- The comment was to a degree hyperbole, however the point was that without time and travel, games are effectively reduced to nothing. Combat itself heavily relies on the concept of pacing, so when you remove all such things from it you are only left with the act of clicking a button and the immediate result. It stands true of most every type of game out there from MMOs to FPS, to even puzzle games. You take out time/travel, and the game collapses.
4- Backtracking to correct a mistake doesn't change what you already wrote.
5- To quote what was written before; "Well it's not like instances and stuff are bad. Problem is Nariu suggests taking it to the point where there is no distinction between an "MMO" and a traditional multiplayer game you'd play like Neverwinter Nights."
The entire problem was never making something else, it was making something else, building it in a manner that is highly inefficient, and misrepresenting it as an MMO. "Making a non-MMO and calling it an MMO."
6- Let me make this simple for you: That entire dialogue you wrote just now was a straw man argument.
If anything, what that argument was, is an agreement with the original dialogue that I had written and you argued against. If "Feature A" were the MMO framework (IE, the underlying hardware, tech, engine code, etc that supports MMO game design) being utilized to create a small-scale lobby game that players only ever interact in small matches with each other, then the developer has already chosen to do something that runs counter to practicality.
Then the facetious connection to travel. If travel as a mechanic is not supported properly then of course it needs to be changed. Cutting it from the game is certainly a option. That in no way precludes the fact that it can be a meaningful gameplay component with it's own contribution to depth and entertainment however, and to immediately cull it without consideration of it's value or how it can be improved is not rational.
7- Repeat of 2 and partially 1.
This can be illustrated with the differences between western and eastern MMO design.
Western MMOs have continued to shrink the game world, culling components or shortcutting to deliver on a more compacted user experience delivered through set pieces and scripted gameplay.
Eastern MMOs have actually pressed the world development angle in more recent years, and the user experience as consequence is quite different. The gameplay is more about journey, empire building, and the emergent gameplay is more valuable than the scripted as a result.
It's a difference in philosophy that has seen the divergence of game design, and we can see that the western market has been building itself out of existence. How does a dying genre in the west support a completely instanced and fast-travel laden experience while the east is still delivering titles that don't have such a focus?
Since apparently there is still an abuse of power on these boards...this has to be reposted.
"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
Except all evidence points to the contrary. Everyone can click back a page and see you defending Nariu's statement "So just make hybrids, or non-MMOs. Let websites debate if they should be call MMOs or not."
There were no arbitrary frameworks. The "framework" in question is actually quite fundamental components. The game engine utilized for an MMO is not the same as one utilized to develop a smaller multiplayer title. If using a prefab engine such as the Unreal 3 engine it requires a lot of revisions to be usable at all. On top of that there is the unique hardware requirements and the specifics of how the client/server model works and the division of data and processes for the client and server.
None of this is "arbitrary". It's very simply necessary. Without it you can not build an MMO in the first place. That is it's underlying framework. When a game is designed within that framework but completely neglects to capitalize on any (or at least most) of the features of it by developing what is essentially a peer to peer game, then that is entirely nonsense.
Can you still press on and release such a game? Sure. But don't claim it's an MMO when it retains no semblance of such even if built on the corpse of one.
Never once did I argue against innovation. In fact I was the only one that argued for it in that context.
"If maximizing fun is really your interest, then take a step back and ask the question of "What can we take advantage of and evolve in these systems?" rather than "This is underdeveloped, lets make something else and just slap a label on it.""
So on that end I can at least say thank you for finally agreeing with me.
"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 whole point of MMOs for me is playing with other people. If a players does not desire that type of gameplay, stay away from MMOs, which is the only genre that handles massive amounts of players playing together.
Have that thought foremost in your head and a lot becomes crystal clear.
If you, axe, and nariu want to take the MMO genre and not make or play MMOs, then I'm sorry but I have to ask why you are even looking at the genre. Why are you not simply playing the ARPG, MOBA, FPS, Lobby games, etc that are already exactly what you are saying MMO's need to apparently become?
Because websites with "MMO" in their titles are classifying ARPGs, MOBAs, FPS and Lobby games as MMOs?
You don't think I do not play APRGs, MOBAs, FPS and lobby games, do you? (In fact, i do not play MOBAs).
But if MMOs are more like these games that I like, is there a reason to ignore fun just because they are labelled "MMO"? I don't discriminate games because of their labels.
The whole point of MMOs for me is playing with other people. If a players does not desire that type of gameplay, stay away from MMOs, which is the only genre that handles massive amounts of players playing together.
That may be the point for you .. but clearly is not the point for MMO devs, otherwise, soloability will not be such a selling point.
And if MMOs provide that kind of gameplay, why should l stay away just because of its label?
Can you still press on and release such a game? Sure. But don't claim it's an MMO when it retains no semblance of such even if built on the corpse of one.
why not? It is not like the core audience actually cares what it is called?
If you, axe, and nariu want to take the MMO genre and not make or play MMOs, then I'm sorry but I have to ask why you are even looking at the genre. Why are you not simply playing the ARPG, MOBA, FPS, Lobby games, etc that are already exactly what you are saying MMO's need to apparently become?
Because websites with "MMO" in their titles are classifying ARPGs, MOBAs, FPS and Lobby games as MMOs?
You don't think I do not play APRGs, MOBAs, FPS and lobby games, do you? (In fact, i do not play MOBAs).
But if MMOs are more like these games that I like, is there a reason to ignore fun just because they are labelled "MMO"? I don't discriminate games because of their labels.
You're making a strawman argument that we discrimate against games because they are not MMO. It has nothing to do with what we play. If you want to have honest intellectual debate about the genre as it relates to the features and framework we call MMO traditionally you cannot bring up games that have nothing to do with it. We don't care what websites say because we are talking about a certain type of game. It does not change the features. They could call minesweeper a MMO. We don't care.
If you were talking about planets and a website to get traffic starts calling only popular moons planets... it would not be a starting point for intellectual debate. Whether Pluto is a planet or not or a dwarf planet is something that is debatable.
You go around telling people who are discussing MMO to play non MMO brings nothing to the discussion because they are not the same type of games. What the website says does not change the framework of the games. If I want to talk about MOBA I will talk about them and how they relate to themselves.
The whole point of MMOs for me is playing with other people. If a players does not desire that type of gameplay, stay away from MMOs, which is the only genre that handles massive amounts of players playing together.
Have that thought foremost in your head and a lot becomes crystal clear.
PS: I'm not speaking of forced grouping here.
Was this a reply to another post, or was your point that travel prevents you from playing with other people? Seems very similar to my "travel prevents players from enjoying the gameplay" point.
That said, enjoying solo gameplay in an MMO is perfectly acceptable.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Rather than that, could be the point that gameplay which enables greater opportunity for player interaction is favored over things that shortcut player interaction.
"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
If you want to have honest intellectual debate about the genre as it relates to the features and framework we call MMO traditionally you cannot bring up games that have nothing to do with it.
Only if you define the genre. Clearly the genre now includes non-massively games, viewed by websites, industry.
And who is talking about "traditional" MMOs? This is a MMO site, not a "traditional" MMO site, and discussions of any MMOs go.
Comments
I also think it is foolish to hold on to certain features simply because "they belong in an MMO" or "they've always been there". Those are perhaps two of the dumbest reasons to have a feature in the game. And if you cannot make a feature fun, you should seriously consider cutting it.
Writers have this advice "kill your darlings". It means you should be ready to let go of everything in your work if it doesn't work or makes little sense in the greater context.
By making these arbitrary decisions to keep certain features unchanged, you might find yourself in a situation where its like you're carrying this huge boulder on your shoulders and much of your time and effort goes into making it easier to carry or taking into account that you are carrying it. All I'm saying is: drop it if its a burden.
I enjoy games with fast travel. I know travel is fun approximately that one time you're out exploring your fast travel locations. I have little interest in making travel between locations locations fun. It would likely have to be some sort of random encounter system and even those are bound to get repetitive sooner rather than later - no matter how elaborate. And now that you force people to actively commute they also have to repeat or evade your random encounters while doing it.
I see no win here.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Because CoD, Battlefield, WoT, LoL, and many other extremely successful games seem to show that a failure to be a MMO (due to an abundance of instancing) doesn't hurt a game at all. In fact these particular examples are all more successful than MMOs. So they're not bad designs like that motorcycle.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Conversations about good game design have never been a "modern gamer" thing.
Some days I wonder if the people I discuss early MMORPGs (and their bad game design) with had literally never played a videogame prior to the early MMORPGs they love. Because if they had, they'd have understood that the techniques MMORPGs later shifted towards (causing an explosion in popularity) were techniques used before MMORPGs existed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
WOW is a waste of time? Millions of players worth of objective evidence directly disputes your false world view.
It's not just that there are millions of players, but that there have been millions of players for a good long time.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Please, for the love of anything with even a modicum of common sense and intelligence, stop and read what's been previously written. What I have outlined thus-far is not advocacy of stagnation. It's not to cripple content.
What I have explained several times over now is the fact that there is quite a lot of gameplay depth and value in the use of time and travel in games. There have been plenty of examples and comparisons already to prove the point along with the fact that gameplay that is directly hinged upon the presence of such has been cited as well.
Your entire counterpoint hinges on the notion that the content that is dependent on travel would "get repetitive sooner or later". You expect skipping any potential variety in the game to load right into the same activity over and over again is less repetitious? You are again delving into nonsense by immediately dismissing any additional depth and variety in the game to focus on a more direct and finite experience, and then claiming that it's because it'd be repetitious/boring.
If something "doesn't work or makes little sense" then sure it should be removed. You are not arguing for that notion at the moment however. You want to strip time and travel out of games? Fine, go make an app that has a single button and when you press it, it says "You win!", because that's quite literally what you just suggested that you want.
No games exist without the use of time and travel to generate the pacing and experiences you are being delivered.
Like I said previously, instances and fast travel aren't the antithesis to this, but how prolific they are and how it affects the game does define what that game is quite directly.
Your book analogy for example. If someone reads the GoT books and dubs them "too long" and cuts it down to a 12 page book, it's very simply no longer a novel. All the prose and details and time to read those several hundred pages might have plenty of repeated simple actions, phrases, etc. It relies on that to be the novel that it is. To "kill your darling" just because it's a novel instead of a short story is nonsense.
It's already been noted how travel has been utilized in previous games and how "fun" can both be built around it as well rely upon it. Whether or not you acknowledge that is inconsequential, so your jab "if you cannot make a feature fun" has no place save for being an uninformed shot in the dark.
As for your last comment. Those without vision rarely see anything.
"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
Millions of people recreationally smoke weed and drink beer. That doesn't make it not a waste of time.
Kind of characteristic of things done purely for the sake of fun/catharsis.
That said, WoW still technically takes advantage of the MMO framework, even if in a diminished context now as compared to how it used to.
"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
One, you seem to have completely whiffed on recognizing the sarcasm in that post.
Two, the fact that many developers failed to be good enough to evolve the genre and instead fell back on the familiar design of other games is pretty well understood by plenty of people I feel.
It's actually rather part of why the complaints arise.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Way to whiff again.
The point there was taking one type of vehicle(game) and forcing an entirely different design upon it, leading to a myriad of technical issues as well as a break in how the classification works.
Are CoD, Battlefield, WoT, LoL and it's kin MMOs? No? Then you aren't even addressing the analogy given.
The closest you swing is with bringing up WoT since it's a lobby game that's billed as an MMO by some. Effectively a vehicle someone stuck flames on "to make it go faster" by playing the marketing buzzword game. It's architecture however takes very little benefit out of it's design that you might relate to an MMO's (especially since the client/server model is not exclusive to MMOs).
A closer comparison would be the trend of games that deliver a very personal user experience that is almost entirely isolated save for functionally insignificant slivers of the game world being shared. Neverwinter, DDO, even to a degree SWtOR and ESO due to their heavy use of instancing and phasing to reduce the player population. It's not like it's the worst thing to happen, but the reality is that it's a trend that pushes the practicality to the edge of reason. As said previously, there comes a point where you might as well have not developed it as an MMO and instead focused on it being a co-op or single player title and just let people connect peer to peer mire akin to titles like Neverwinter Nights.
"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 wrote that Quirhid.
Now lets look at the comment I had written that you originally responded to.
"Well it's not like instances and stuff are bad. Problem is Nariu suggests taking it to the point where there is no distinction between an "MMO" and a traditional multiplayer game you'd play like Neverwinter Nights.
The problem then being, it's not an MMO and the whole point is moot."
I wrote that. What was your response at that time?
"Its not nonsense. Its smart. If your innovation or the popular demand takes you out of the framework of MMORPGs then so be it."
In spite of what you wish to claim, you very directly made the suggestion that people should replace MMOs with non-MMOs.
You should at least remove the evidence next time before feigning ignorance on the matter. If your opinion is truly that making non-MMOs and calling them MMOs is irrational, then you have shifted your opinion to be in agreeing with the very opinion of mine that you previously disagreed with.
EDIT: Lets even take it a step further. What was that first sentence of my post that you responded to and disagreed with?
"Well it's not like instances and stuff are bad."
Quite literally first comment made was that these mechanics for contracting aspects of the game world are not themselves a bad thing. The complaint was squarely leveled at their overuse to the point of removing any and all traits of the platform on which it was supposedly built.
And what are features I previously defined as characteristic to the architecture for MMOs?
"persistence, scale, and the complexity of the server"
Instead of addressing any of these features, you generated a false argument about features I never established and chose to damn one in particular without any clear rationale beyond your opinion.
If you were leveling any disagreement with prior commentary on travel that was had, then you very obviously didn't read what I had written there either. MY own dialogue has been consistently leveled against some of the misconceptions that have been repeated by axe and nariu about the nature of time and travel being used as integral components of gameplay to develop the very depth they desire. The argument of "slow travel without anything to do is boring" was something of a nebulous side-grade argument they made, which has been addressed I don't know how many times with examples of games previously that made it either interesting or relied on it directly as a component of it's design (the entire survival game genre, for example). Isolating any game feature and forcing it as a mandatory action is going to be boring. Like combat in MMOs is ridiculously repetitive in most cases, should we remove that too?
No, we look at what features there are and we look for reasonable ways and opportunities to capitalize on them. It's not a bad feature if it offers value and opportunity for greater game depth. Like most things, one size doesn't fit all. On top of that, MMOs and their architecture is still comparatively quite new as opposed to many other genres. Even the matter of a couple years can change server design and the capabilities/potentials of an MMO drastically. While that is technically true of most any computer game, it is the very core of MMO architecture.
"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
1. Yes you can have gameplay relying on travel, but is that gameplay fun and is it feasible to implement is another matter.
2. No. My point is, if you must travel from point A to point B, anything that distracts or hinders that travel is likely to become annoying eventually. I am not expecting much variety in gameplay between points A and B. To have much variety between points A and B would require much focus from the developer on content that is essentially secondary. Which takes focus away from the primary content of the game (usually what happens in points A and B ). You make the assumption that points A and B have same repetitive activity. Why do you make that assumption?
You say there's additional depth and variety in travel but without reading anything you might have said in the previous pages, I'm supposed to take your word for it? -Well I'm not going to. First of all, I have doubts whether you understand the term depth correctly.
3. A single button app is the same as taking away travel from MMORPGs? No way those two are equivalent. You are being ridiculous.
4. This is a true statement, yet I wasn't suggesting taking time and travel from games altogether. Hence, my comment about exploration.
5. And people prefer fast travel and instances so it should be OK. Right?
6. Let me make this simple for you: Feature A in a game your making doesn't make sense, doesn't work or simply isn't fun. No matter how much you like said feature, you should be ready to cut it because of those reasons. You shouldn't hold any feature as your "darling". If people don't like travel in your game, you should consider putting in fast travel.
Cutting the Song of Fire and Ice books to just 12 pages is clearly not what is meant by that saying. This is another strawman.
7. For a game that is built around travel or based on travel, it is crucial to make travel fun. It is a serious matter if it doesn't manage to make it fun. And more often than not travel is not fun. Note that I made a distinction between exploration and commute.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I'm running out of ways to explain this and you still keep misunderstanding my meaning.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
2- Your point as it was written defended Nariu's intent to make non-MMOs as MMOs.
As for this new point you are making. You are making the assumption that travel is a secondary activity and not integrated into the game as a core mechanic. When traveling around the game is part of the gameplay, the objectives would be accordingly designed so that those "side activities" are contributing (but possibly options) elements to furthering that experience while fleshing out a greater depth. Not only that, but it gives plenty of opportunity in other player activities and emergent gameplay value. Entire reason it's so integral to the survival game genre.
The reason it's safe to assume A and B have the same repetitive gameplay is because that's how lobby games work. They focus on one finite type of gameplay and that's all they deliver. Over and over and over again.
Additional depth and variety has been covered plenty of times. You admitting refusal to acknowledge it is depressing. However, there is the point and real world examples to be had in eastern MMO market of tangible landmasses creating the ability to seed resources in so that scarcity of specific resources is generated by region rather than simply loot drop rate. Faction control of territories influences access to materials, monsters, and rewards. Running caravan and trade routes carries tangible risks from NPC and players as well as a means to capitalize on a trade market where regions have differing values for goods. ETC
3- The comment was to a degree hyperbole, however the point was that without time and travel, games are effectively reduced to nothing. Combat itself heavily relies on the concept of pacing, so when you remove all such things from it you are only left with the act of clicking a button and the immediate result. It stands true of most every type of game out there from MMOs to FPS, to even puzzle games. You take out time/travel, and the game collapses.
4- Backtracking to correct a mistake doesn't change what you already wrote.
5- To quote what was written before; "Well it's not like instances and stuff are bad. Problem is Nariu suggests taking it to the point where there is no distinction between an "MMO" and a traditional multiplayer game you'd play like Neverwinter Nights."
The entire problem was never making something else, it was making something else, building it in a manner that is highly inefficient, and misrepresenting it as an MMO. "Making a non-MMO and calling it an MMO."
6- Let me make this simple for you: That entire dialogue you wrote just now was a straw man argument.
If anything, what that argument was, is an agreement with the original dialogue that I had written and you argued against. If "Feature A" were the MMO framework (IE, the underlying hardware, tech, engine code, etc that supports MMO game design) being utilized to create a small-scale lobby game that players only ever interact in small matches with each other, then the developer has already chosen to do something that runs counter to practicality.
Then the facetious connection to travel. If travel as a mechanic is not supported properly then of course it needs to be changed. Cutting it from the game is certainly a option. That in no way precludes the fact that it can be a meaningful gameplay component with it's own contribution to depth and entertainment however, and to immediately cull it without consideration of it's value or how it can be improved is not rational.
7- Repeat of 2 and partially 1.
This can be illustrated with the differences between western and eastern MMO design.
Western MMOs have continued to shrink the game world, culling components or shortcutting to deliver on a more compacted user experience delivered through set pieces and scripted gameplay.
Eastern MMOs have actually pressed the world development angle in more recent years, and the user experience as consequence is quite different. The gameplay is more about journey, empire building, and the emergent gameplay is more valuable than the scripted as a result.
It's a difference in philosophy that has seen the divergence of game design, and we can see that the western market has been building itself out of existence. How does a dying genre in the west support a completely instanced and fast-travel laden experience while the east is still delivering titles that don't have such a focus?
Since apparently there is still an abuse of power on these boards...this has to be reposted.
"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
Except all evidence points to the contrary. Everyone can click back a page and see you defending Nariu's statement "So just make hybrids, or non-MMOs. Let websites debate if they should be call MMOs or not."
There were no arbitrary frameworks. The "framework" in question is actually quite fundamental components. The game engine utilized for an MMO is not the same as one utilized to develop a smaller multiplayer title. If using a prefab engine such as the Unreal 3 engine it requires a lot of revisions to be usable at all. On top of that there is the unique hardware requirements and the specifics of how the client/server model works and the division of data and processes for the client and server.
None of this is "arbitrary". It's very simply necessary. Without it you can not build an MMO in the first place. That is it's underlying framework. When a game is designed within that framework but completely neglects to capitalize on any (or at least most) of the features of it by developing what is essentially a peer to peer game, then that is entirely nonsense.
Can you still press on and release such a game? Sure. But don't claim it's an MMO when it retains no semblance of such even if built on the corpse of one.
Never once did I argue against innovation. In fact I was the only one that argued for it in that context.
"If maximizing fun is really your interest, then take a step back and ask the question of "What can we take advantage of and evolve in these systems?" rather than "This is underdeveloped, lets make something else and just slap a label on it.""
So on that end I can at least say thank you for finally agreeing with me.
"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
Have that thought foremost in your head and a lot becomes crystal clear.
PS: I'm not speaking of forced grouping here.
VG
You don't think I do not play APRGs, MOBAs, FPS and lobby games, do you? (In fact, i do not play MOBAs).
But if MMOs are more like these games that I like, is there a reason to ignore fun just because they are labelled "MMO"? I don't discriminate games because of their labels.
That may be the point for you .. but clearly is not the point for MMO devs, otherwise, soloability will not be such a selling point.
And if MMOs provide that kind of gameplay, why should l stay away just because of its label?
why not? It is not like the core audience actually cares what it is called?
If you were talking about planets and a website to get traffic starts calling only popular moons planets... it would not be a starting point for intellectual debate. Whether Pluto is a planet or not or a dwarf planet is something that is debatable.
You go around telling people who are discussing MMO to play non MMO brings nothing to the discussion because they are not the same type of games. What the website says does not change the framework of the games. If I want to talk about MOBA I will talk about them and how they relate to themselves.
That said, enjoying solo gameplay in an MMO is perfectly acceptable.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And who is talking about "traditional" MMOs? This is a MMO site, not a "traditional" MMO site, and discussions of any MMOs go.