It's not about the number of people working primarily on combat, but a measure of the total man-hours devoted to it. And yes, without a doubt combat is the single feature which occupies the most man-hours. You can see that in the output of all the RPGs that get made (and I saw it first-hand when I worked on Reckoning, a singleplayer RPG (before it was Reckoning.))
Pretty much this .. and it applies to most video games, not just RPGs.
I agree, and it isn't that I want to be able to go anywhere, I just want the world to have reasons to be in every zone no matter what level. I'm not talking about scaling because I think that hurts the progression meaning, but having a mix of creatures like EQ1 but maybe even more varied would be fine. I think that would also make the world seem less predictable.
The word Adventure to me shares the root of Adversity. I am not the guy who wants easy. I'm not that guy.
Well the reason why that doesn't happen is communicated in a simple question: do you want to go somewhere new or someplace old?
It's also slightly easier to create new content in new zones than to worry about fitting it into existing zones (even though it's a little more work overall to create those new zones.) But the main driving factor is players' desire to go somewhere new, rather than simply rehash old areas.
Multiple levels worth of content in a zone isn't impossible, but is confronted by several problems. First is that travel is essentially non-gameplay in MMORPGs (it offers the barest trickle of gameplay decisions, but largely is a gameplay-less timesink,) and so you would want to ensure that filling a zone with content that isn't relevant to everyone in the zone doesn't result in excessive travel, because players play games for the gameplay. Second is that dangerous mobs need to be well-communicated, otherwise newer players will run into them, die, blame the game for being designed stupidly, and quit. If there was a good reason for those mobs to be there, then these shortcomings might be worth it, but the only real reason to have high-level mobs in a low-level zone would be to create aspirations for low-level players ("I can't face that ogre now, but eventually I'll be able to.") So even though the disadvantages aren't insurmountable, the advantages aren't particularly compelling in the first place.
A game being easy or hard has nothing to do with this stuff. Things can still be incredibly difficult in games, regardless of whether they mix their zones with high and low level mobs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
@Axehilt I am trying to understand your viewpoint here. Are you saying that Combat has always been the main defining factor in MMORPGs?
Agree
Are you saying that it must always be the same dynamic (Combat primary/most important activity) ?
"The main defining factor" overstates it. RPGs have always had three pillars of design: story, progression, and stats-driven combat.
I think games can be fun with all sorts of different sets of interesting decisions.
Starcraft is a set of interesting decisions that are largely combat-related. The genre we use to describe it is Real-Time Strategy (RTS).
Sim City involves no combat, and its fun comes from the interesting decisions involved in managing a city.
Even though Sim City is literally strategic decisions made in real-time, we don't call Sim City an RTS.
The reason why is the RTS genre has so consistently been about combat that if you create a non-combat game the RTS label doesn't really fit.
So what I'm saying isn't that you can't or shouldn't make a Sim City. I'm saying that if you make Sim City, it won't be an RTS.
I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't make a game that's about crafting or exploration or some other non-combat activity. I'm saying that if you make that game, it won't be an RPG. And that shouldn't really concern anyone, because it's not the end of the world to not be an RPG (just like it wasn't the end of the world for Sim City not to be called an RTS.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
RPGs have always had three pillars of design: story, progression, and stats-driven gameplay.
Corrected the technical inaccuracy for ya.
An RPG is still an RPG even if there is no combat, and we have the likes of Fantasy Life, To the Moon, even Deus Ex and New Vegas were RPGs that offered a means to victory without resorting to combat.
It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them.
You do the genre a great disservice by pointlessly marginalizing the character's and player's options.
"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
An RPG is still an RPG even if there is no combat, and we have the likes of Fantasy Life, To the Moon, even Deus Ex and New Vegas were RPGs that offered a means to victory without resorting to combat.
"offered a means to victory without resorting to combat" != "no combat".
In fact, that is misleading. How many ways you can kill in Deus Ex? It is also possible to play WoW without combat too (google"wow pacifists"), is WoW a game with no combat?
Sure, technically a RPG does not need combat. But be real. Tell me, what is the percentage of computer/video game RPG that has no combat?
An RPG is still an RPG even if there is no combat, and we have the likes of Fantasy Life, To the Moon, even Deus Ex and New Vegas were RPGs that offered a means to victory without resorting to combat.
"offered a means to victory without resorting to combat" != "no combat".
You can see in the quoted part of my post that there is a division between the first two games mentioned which are games with little to no combat at all, versus the other two that I stated "without resorting to combat".
Which is a matter that they are RPGs that offer more freedom of choice based on expanded player and character skill options.
"It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them."
At no point has my conversation ever said there should be no combat, so please don't make up pointless arguments. If you'd like to not make up a straw man argument from thin air and discuss the actual content of the post next time, please try that instead of lying.
EDIT: It's comedic that @axehilt upvoted your statement, seeing how blatantly wrong it was. But I guess that's par for the course since he's more interested in opinion than fact.
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
Which is a matter that they are RPGs that offer more freedom of choice based on expanded player and character skill options.
So? If most options are combat related, games are still combat centric.
In fact, you mentioned Deus Ex ... there are more combat option than non-combat option. In fact, some of the non-lethal option involve knocking people out without killing them .. and that is still combat.
Which is a matter that they are RPGs that offer more freedom of choice based on expanded player and character skill options.
So? If most options are combat related, games are still combat centric.
In fact, you mentioned Deus Ex ... there are more combat option than non-combat option. In fact, some of the non-lethal option involve knocking people out without killing them .. and that is still combat.
That is again nothing to do with what I have stated.
"You can see in the quoted part of my post that there is a division between the first two games mentioned which are games with little to no combat at all, versus the other two that I stated "without resorting to combat"."
Did you see me claim those were games that weren't combat centric? No, what I did say is that they were deep enough RPG systems behind their mechanics that they offered alternative play through non-combat character skill challenges.
Hence cycling right back to my previously stated point;
"It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them."
Again, please don't create fictional straw man arguments and lie in your responses just to try and create an argument. Having to correct you every post is tiresome.
"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
Did you see me claim those were games that weren't combat centric?
So you agree that most games are combat centric? If so, why the hoopla about the few options of non-combat gameplay in some games?
You can argue whether combat is fundamental or not .. but isn't it clear that devs spend most of their effort in making combat gameplay, and most players spend their time in said combat gameplay?
Combat will always been a big part of RPG but it doesn't have to be the only thing.
MMORPG in particular open up lots of options to be more than what the themepark branch has shown. There ways to build worlds and content without it just being zoned as stepping stones to max level. There are roles and activities outside of combat.
Did you see me claim those were games that weren't combat centric?
So you agree that...
Because there seems to be a unique dissonance in what the moderators think is ok and certain poster are apparently free to troll to their hearts content, let me restate this.
You just created another false argument. You keep doing this and it is excessively dishonest and only serves to distract from the point that has been made;
"It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them."
"RPGs are historically the evolution of narrative adventure. The reason we see a shift on computer RPGs is because it's very hard to deliver deep narrative in a finitely interactive medium. As time progresses and technology improves so that we can deliver on deeper and more interactive narrative elements there is no reason people shouldn't return to such variety of choice rather than pigeon-holing themselves nonsensically into strictly combat gameplay."
Please stop trying to derail reasonable discussion with red herrings and nonsense.
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 just created another false argument. You keep doing this and it is excessively dishonest and only serves to distract from the point that has been made;
So you don't have any arguments to disgree with what I said, and you resort to personal attacks? Got it!
For your reference, here is the statement you are implicitly agreeing with, again.
"So you agree that most games are combat centric? If so, why the hoopla about the few options of non-combat gameplay in some games?"
You just created another false argument. You keep doing this and it is excessively dishonest and only serves to distract from the point that has been made;
So...
So you still have yet to even address the argument actually made, and instead persist with a false argument.
To repeat again;
"It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them."
"RPGs are historically the evolution of narrative adventure. The reason we see a shift on computer RPGs is because it's very hard to deliver deep narrative in a finitely interactive medium. As time progresses and technology improves so that we can deliver on deeper and more interactive narrative elements there is no reason people shouldn't return to such variety of choice rather than pigeon-holing themselves nonsensically into strictly combat gameplay."
If you would like to make a valid argument about what's actually been stated instead of persisting in a meaningless tangent, feel free. Otherwise, this chain of fallacies you are building is without merit.
"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 just created another false argument. You keep doing this and it is excessively dishonest and only serves to distract from the point that has been made;
So...
So ...
So you just repeat your old argument without offering anything to refute mine (except, of course, calling it "false"). I get it .. you don't have an argument.
But it is certainly fun having a serious of "so ..." posts. Keep it up!
You just created another false argument. You keep doing this and it is excessively dishonest and only serves to distract from the point that has been made;
So...
So ...
So you just repeat your old argument without offering anything to refute mine (except, of course, calling it "false"). I get it .. you don't have an argument.
But it is certainly fun having a serious of "so ..." posts. Keep it up!
The problem is you offered no argument. You presented a meaningless side argument that was never in contention, and are now harping on it. I restate what I previously said specifically because that was the topic.
Your meaningless tirade about how combat games are combat games is inconsequential to the question of the thread (does an RPG need to focus directly on combat), and entirely inconsequential to my answer to that (that RPGs have a wide variety of character skill challenges and variance so combat does not necessarily have to be the focus).
Hence the quoting of the previous content.
I can't agree or disagree with you because you have no valid argument, just a fallacious straw man of a tangent that doesn't even have to do with what you've been responding to.
And we wind back up again with me having to restate this;
"If you would like to make a valid argument about what's actually been stated instead of persisting in a meaningless tangent, feel free. Otherwise, this chain of fallacies you are building is without merit."
Despite some of your best efforts, I still don't agree that combat defines the MMORPG.
Combat doesn't even have to happen all that often and many times I find myself spending more time talking to real life people or reading quests, lore, and running or exploring, checking out my character and arranging my bank. These kinds of activities have nothing to do with combat.. and many MMORPGs have crafting, harvesting, and some have many other features. This makes the game an RPG.. and combat is only part of it so claiming that all MMORPGs are combat-centric feels off. I thought that we have evolved beyond that already.
The only game that I played for primarily the combat was Guild Wars.. in other games I have many more reasons to play. I've played a lot of games.
For the most part I feel that combat is not done very well in MMORPGs when compared to single-player games but that is the price that I pay so that I can play with other people..
Fact is that most of the time that people are engaged in combat is because they want experience points or loot. People don't just do it for the fun of it most of the time.
When I think combat-centric or combat defining a game, I think Street Fighter 2.
I don't even remember how the combat was played in most RPGs.. but I do remember exploring and things that I would discover or epic loot that I found... I'm thinking oldschool games though. I'd have to play them again to remember how the combat was... so why don't I remember the combat first?
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
Unfortunately it does, developers seem to think we can only be entertained by the destruction of things and nothing else.
I think that was the whole point of this thread . .. MMORPGs are getting better and becoming less and less about the combat.. but since I play these game mostly for the PVP I sometimes get annoyed that they are not combat-centric.. lol but only sometimes, usually I'm grateful that its only one reason the play the game.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
You just created another false argument. You keep doing this and it is excessively dishonest and only serves to distract from the point that has been made;
So...
So ...
So you just repeat your old argument without offering anything to refute mine (except, of course, calling it "false"). I get it .. you don't have an argument.
But it is certainly fun having a serious of "so ..." posts. Keep it up!
The problem is you offered no argument. You presented a meaningless side argument that was never in contention
Wait .. is it a "meaningless side argument" or "no argument"? You are contradicting yourself. For someone who is so keen in framing an argument, you don't seem to understand the logic of how to form an argument.
So (and .. "so" again) .. so, and I quote, "that was never in contention" .. that means that you agree with it? Is that a roundable way to admit you have no argument to disagree?
Unfortunately it does, developers seem to think we can only be entertained by the destruction of things and nothing else.
Not you, but their audience.
And given how successful combat centric games are, i would say the devs are correct. Their audiences are indeed very much entertained by destruction of things.
A meaningless argument is effectively the same as having no argument at all, save you have wasted more words. Try mastering this before trying to deconstruct another's statements.
And second verse same asthe first. This tired tirade is over-rehearsed.
Until you make a reasonable argument, there's no progress to be made.
EDIT: If you are so hell-bent of responding to my posts without actually refuting any of my original statements in favor of pushing your pointless tangent, then I might as well take a tip from you and take that as a cue that you actually believe what I said to be true, and that your continued responses and avoidance of them even though they are the core of what you are replying to is an admission of your acceptance of them as fact.
Therefore, your tangent is basically just you seeking to acknowledge me as right and to get me to acknowledge you in return.
To which I have to apologize, but that's not how logic works. If you respond to a statement then your response should apply to the statement you have responded to. As yours does not then there is nothing of value for me to address.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
Agree
Are you saying that it must always be the same dynamic (Combat primary/most important activity) ?
It's also slightly easier to create new content in new zones than to worry about fitting it into existing zones (even though it's a little more work overall to create those new zones.) But the main driving factor is players' desire to go somewhere new, rather than simply rehash old areas.
Multiple levels worth of content in a zone isn't impossible, but is confronted by several problems. First is that travel is essentially non-gameplay in MMORPGs (it offers the barest trickle of gameplay decisions, but largely is a gameplay-less timesink,) and so you would want to ensure that filling a zone with content that isn't relevant to everyone in the zone doesn't result in excessive travel, because players play games for the gameplay. Second is that dangerous mobs need to be well-communicated, otherwise newer players will run into them, die, blame the game for being designed stupidly, and quit. If there was a good reason for those mobs to be there, then these shortcomings might be worth it, but the only real reason to have high-level mobs in a low-level zone would be to create aspirations for low-level players ("I can't face that ogre now, but eventually I'll be able to.") So even though the disadvantages aren't insurmountable, the advantages aren't particularly compelling in the first place.
A game being easy or hard has nothing to do with this stuff. Things can still be incredibly difficult in games, regardless of whether they mix their zones with high and low level mobs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No it doesn't
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
"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 think games can be fun with all sorts of different sets of interesting decisions.
- Starcraft is a set of interesting decisions that are largely combat-related. The genre we use to describe it is Real-Time Strategy (RTS).
- Sim City involves no combat, and its fun comes from the interesting decisions involved in managing a city.
- Even though Sim City is literally strategic decisions made in real-time, we don't call Sim City an RTS.
- The reason why is the RTS genre has so consistently been about combat that if you create a non-combat game the RTS label doesn't really fit.
So what I'm saying isn't that you can't or shouldn't make a Sim City. I'm saying that if you make Sim City, it won't be an RTS.I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't make a game that's about crafting or exploration or some other non-combat activity. I'm saying that if you make that game, it won't be an RPG. And that shouldn't really concern anyone, because it's not the end of the world to not be an RPG (just like it wasn't the end of the world for Sim City not to be called an RTS.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
An RPG is still an RPG even if there is no combat, and we have the likes of Fantasy Life, To the Moon, even Deus Ex and New Vegas were RPGs that offered a means to victory without resorting to combat.
It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them.
You do the genre a great disservice by pointlessly marginalizing the character's and player's options.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
In fact, that is misleading. How many ways you can kill in Deus Ex? It is also possible to play WoW without combat too (google"wow pacifists"), is WoW a game with no combat?
Sure, technically a RPG does not need combat. But be real. Tell me, what is the percentage of computer/video game RPG that has no combat?
Which is a matter that they are RPGs that offer more freedom of choice based on expanded player and character skill options.
"It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them."
At no point has my conversation ever said there should be no combat, so please don't make up pointless arguments. If you'd like to not make up a straw man argument from thin air and discuss the actual content of the post next time, please try that instead of lying.
EDIT: It's comedic that @axehilt upvoted your statement, seeing how blatantly wrong it was. But I guess that's par for the course since he's more interested in opinion than fact.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
In fact, you mentioned Deus Ex ... there are more combat option than non-combat option. In fact, some of the non-lethal option involve knocking people out without killing them .. and that is still combat.
"You can see in the quoted part of my post that there is a division between the first two games mentioned which are games with little to no combat at all, versus the other two that I stated "without resorting to combat"."
Did you see me claim those were games that weren't combat centric? No, what I did say is that they were deep enough RPG systems behind their mechanics that they offered alternative play through non-combat character skill challenges.
Hence cycling right back to my previously stated point;
"It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them."
Again, please don't create fictional straw man arguments and lie in your responses just to try and create an argument. Having to correct you every post is tiresome.
"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 can argue whether combat is fundamental or not .. but isn't it clear that devs spend most of their effort in making combat gameplay, and most players spend their time in said combat gameplay?
MMORPG in particular open up lots of options to be more than what the themepark branch has shown. There ways to build worlds and content without it just being zoned as stepping stones to max level. There are roles and activities outside of combat.
You just created another false argument. You keep doing this and it is excessively dishonest and only serves to distract from the point that has been made;
"It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them."
"RPGs are historically the evolution of narrative adventure. The reason we see a shift on computer RPGs is because it's very hard to deliver deep narrative in a finitely interactive medium. As time progresses and technology improves so that we can deliver on deeper and more interactive narrative elements there is no reason people shouldn't return to such variety of choice rather than pigeon-holing themselves nonsensically into strictly combat gameplay."
Please stop trying to derail reasonable discussion with red herrings and nonsense.
"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
For your reference, here is the statement you are implicitly agreeing with, again.
"So you agree that most games are combat centric? If so, why the hoopla about the few options of non-combat gameplay in some games?"
To repeat again;
"It's very simply a false statement to say that combat is a fundamental when the reality is simply that the core mechanic is character skill challenges. This comes in a massive variety of forms that all qualify as an RPG gaming experience and combat is but one of them."
"RPGs are historically the evolution of narrative adventure. The reason we see a shift on computer RPGs is because it's very hard to deliver deep narrative in a finitely interactive medium. As time progresses and technology improves so that we can deliver on deeper and more interactive narrative elements there is no reason people shouldn't return to such variety of choice rather than pigeon-holing themselves nonsensically into strictly combat gameplay."
If you would like to make a valid argument about what's actually been stated instead of persisting in a meaningless tangent, feel free. Otherwise, this chain of fallacies you are building is without merit.
"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
But it is certainly fun having a serious of "so ..." posts. Keep it up!
Your meaningless tirade about how combat games are combat games is inconsequential to the question of the thread (does an RPG need to focus directly on combat), and entirely inconsequential to my answer to that (that RPGs have a wide variety of character skill challenges and variance so combat does not necessarily have to be the focus).
Hence the quoting of the previous content.
I can't agree or disagree with you because you have no valid argument, just a fallacious straw man of a tangent that doesn't even have to do with what you've been responding to.
And we wind back up again with me having to restate this;
"If you would like to make a valid argument about what's actually been stated instead of persisting in a meaningless tangent, feel free. Otherwise, this chain of fallacies you are building is without merit."
And I'll link this again, perhaps you can read it this time.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Combat doesn't even have to happen all that often and many times I find myself spending more time talking to real life people or reading quests, lore, and running or exploring, checking out my character and arranging my bank. These kinds of activities have nothing to do with combat.. and many MMORPGs have crafting, harvesting, and some have many other features. This makes the game an RPG.. and combat is only part of it so claiming that all MMORPGs are combat-centric feels off. I thought that we have evolved beyond that already.
The only game that I played for primarily the combat was Guild Wars.. in other games I have many more reasons to play. I've played a lot of games.
For the most part I feel that combat is not done very well in MMORPGs when compared to single-player games but that is the price that I pay so that I can play with other people..
Fact is that most of the time that people are engaged in combat is because they want experience points or loot. People don't just do it for the fun of it most of the time.
When I think combat-centric or combat defining a game, I think Street Fighter 2.
I don't even remember how the combat was played in most RPGs.. but I do remember exploring and things that I would discover or epic loot that I found... I'm thinking oldschool games though. I'd have to play them again to remember how the combat was... so why don't I remember the combat first?
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
So (and .. "so" again) .. so, and I quote, "that was never in contention" .. that means that you agree with it? Is that a roundable way to admit you have no argument to disagree?
I understand.
And given how successful combat centric games are, i would say the devs are correct. Their audiences are indeed very much entertained by destruction of things.
And second verse same as the first. This tired tirade is over-rehearsed.
Until you make a reasonable argument, there's no progress to be made.
EDIT: If you are so hell-bent of responding to my posts without actually refuting any of my original statements in favor of pushing your pointless tangent, then I might as well take a tip from you and take that as a cue that you actually believe what I said to be true, and that your continued responses and avoidance of them even though they are the core of what you are replying to is an admission of your acceptance of them as fact.
Therefore, your tangent is basically just you seeking to acknowledge me as right and to get me to acknowledge you in return.
To which I have to apologize, but that's not how logic works. If you respond to a statement then your response should apply to the statement you have responded to. As yours does not then there is nothing of value for me to address.
"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