For example, if you attack a castle NPCs should respond in some coordination. Doors should close, murder holes used, pour boiling oil and etc. I hate how they all stand around while they're comrades are being killed.
More intelligent players is much better option I think As for the NPCs - the problem is that in a MMO, you are not alone - maybe many people here forget that fact. So if you attack the NPC and other players attack it too, how the NPC should react? The simplest and most effective solution is to use scheduled actions, with some random timing that will simulate AI. If you use real AI - you will need a supercomputer. For challenging and intelligent conflict - well, there are other players. Amazing, but in the MMOs there are other people.
Ah sorry - read only the first part Well you can make one attack to trigger group defense, in fact that is implemented in many games - L2 too. It just makes the PvE too hard and the solo players hate it.
Not all content is meant to be solo'd and not all content is meant to be grouped. It's just bad design. The optics are terrible.
What is the grouped content in WoW, GW2, ESO? You have to leave the game and to play another game on a different map, with different rules. I think all the content should be made for group in a MMO. So even if you play solo, there will be the challenge another player to KS, PvP, PK and etc. or both to cooperate. Anyway - different mindset - I think for the MMOs as multiplayer first, you think for online solo RPG with some multiplayer options.
I prefer to look at it as s multiplayer online world. In fantasy you have groups, lone wolves, crafters and ultimately choice. I believe in natural interactions. There is no reason as a hero I shouldn't be able to kill a wolf, rabbit or whatever. I shouldn't in turn being able to siege castle because NPCs are just standing around being dumb. It makes sense to group up to enter the plane of hell.
Forced grouping in a combat oriented shallow online world can be done better CoOp. All you need is a Destiny with swords and magic.
In a better sim you have a backbone of character interdependency is in craft, trade and services that you don't need to crutch people into 8 man groups to kill rabbits.
For example, if you attack a castle NPCs should respond in some coordination. Doors should close, murder holes used, pour boiling oil and etc. I hate how they all stand around while they're comrades are being killed.
More intelligent players is much better option I think As for the NPCs - the problem is that in a MMO, you are not alone - maybe many people here forget that fact. So if you attack the NPC and other players attack it too, how the NPC should react? The simplest and most effective solution is to use scheduled actions, with some random timing that will simulate AI. If you use real AI - you will need a supercomputer. For challenging and intelligent conflict - well, there are other players. Amazing, but in the MMOs there are other people.
Ah sorry - read only the first part Well you can make one attack to trigger group defense, in fact that is implemented in many games - L2 too. It just makes the PvE too hard and the solo players hate it.
Not all content is meant to be solo'd and not all content is meant to be grouped. It's just bad design. The optics are terrible.
What is the grouped content in WoW, GW2, ESO? You have to leave the game and to play another game on a different map, with different rules. I think all the content should be made for group in a MMO. So even if you play solo, there will be the challenge another player to KS, PvP, PK and etc. or both to cooperate. Anyway - different mindset - I think for the MMOs as multiplayer first, you think for online solo RPG with some multiplayer options.
I prefer to look at it as s multiplayer online world. In fantasy you have groups, lone wolves, crafters and ultimately choice. I believe in natural interactions. There is no reason as a hero I shouldn't be able to kill a wolf, rabbit or whatever. I shouldn't in turn being able to siege castle because NPCs are just standing around being dumb. It makes sense to group up to enter the plane of hell.
Forced grouping in a combat oriented shallow online world can be done better CoOp. All you need is a Destiny with swords and magic.
In a better sim you have a backbone of character interdependency is in craft, trade and services that you don't need to crutch people into 8 man groups to kill rabbits.
For example, if you attack a castle NPCs should respond in some coordination. Doors should close, murder holes used, pour boiling oil and etc. I hate how they all stand around while they're comrades are being killed.
More intelligent players is much better option I think As for the NPCs - the problem is that in a MMO, you are not alone - maybe many people here forget that fact. So if you attack the NPC and other players attack it too, how the NPC should react? The simplest and most effective solution is to use scheduled actions, with some random timing that will simulate AI. If you use real AI - you will need a supercomputer. For challenging and intelligent conflict - well, there are other players. Amazing, but in the MMOs there are other people.
Ah sorry - read only the first part Well you can make one attack to trigger group defense, in fact that is implemented in many games - L2 too. It just makes the PvE too hard and the solo players hate it.
Not all content is meant to be solo'd and not all content is meant to be grouped. It's just bad design. The optics are terrible.
What is the grouped content in WoW, GW2, ESO? You have to leave the game and to play another game on a different map, with different rules. I think all the content should be made for group in a MMO. So even if you play solo, there will be the challenge another player to KS, PvP, PK and etc. or both to cooperate. Anyway - different mindset - I think for the MMOs as multiplayer first, you think for online solo RPG with some multiplayer options.
I prefer to look at it as s multiplayer online world. In fantasy you have groups, lone wolves, crafters and ultimately choice. I believe in natural interactions. There is no reason as a hero I shouldn't be able to kill a wolf, rabbit or whatever. I shouldn't in turn being able to siege castle because NPCs are just standing around being dumb. It makes sense to group up to enter the plane of hell.
Forced grouping in a combat oriented shallow online world can be done better CoOp. All you need is a Destiny with swords and magic.
In a better sim you have a backbone of character interdependency is in craft, trade and services that you don't need to crutch people into 8 man groups to kill rabbits.
Some of them rabbits are pretty tough
Yeah these guys are going to have us in raids killing elite rabbits and the rabbit king lol.
For example, if you attack a castle NPCs should respond in some coordination. Doors should close, murder holes used, pour boiling oil and etc. I hate how they all stand around while they're comrades are being killed.
More intelligent players is much better option I think As for the NPCs - the problem is that in a MMO, you are not alone - maybe many people here forget that fact. So if you attack the NPC and other players attack it too, how the NPC should react? The simplest and most effective solution is to use scheduled actions, with some random timing that will simulate AI. If you use real AI - you will need a supercomputer. For challenging and intelligent conflict - well, there are other players. Amazing, but in the MMOs there are other people.
Ah sorry - read only the first part Well you can make one attack to trigger group defense, in fact that is implemented in many games - L2 too. It just makes the PvE too hard and the solo players hate it.
Not all content is meant to be solo'd and not all content is meant to be grouped. It's just bad design. The optics are terrible.
What is the grouped content in WoW, GW2, ESO? You have to leave the game and to play another game on a different map, with different rules. I think all the content should be made for group in a MMO. So even if you play solo, there will be the challenge another player to KS, PvP, PK and etc. or both to cooperate. Anyway - different mindset - I think for the MMOs as multiplayer first, you think for online solo RPG with some multiplayer options.
I prefer to look at it as s multiplayer online world. In fantasy you have groups, lone wolves, crafters and ultimately choice. I believe in natural interactions. There is no reason as a hero I shouldn't be able to kill a wolf, rabbit or whatever. I shouldn't in turn being able to siege castle because NPCs are just standing around being dumb. It makes sense to group up to enter the plane of hell.
Forced grouping in a combat oriented shallow online world can be done better CoOp. All you need is a Destiny with swords and magic.
In a better sim you have a backbone of character interdependency is in craft, trade and services that you don't need to crutch people into 8 man groups to kill rabbits.
You will have to forgive ikcin, he simply does not grasp the idea that players might to play a game where they can work together to complete objectives in the game as opposed to just being trolling asses to each other via PvP.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I prefer to look at it as s multiplayer online world. In fantasy you have groups, lone wolves, crafters and ultimately choice. I believe in natural interactions. There is no reason as a hero I shouldn't be able to kill a wolf, rabbit or whatever. I shouldn't in turn being able to siege castle because NPCs are just standing around being dumb. It makes sense to group up to enter the plane of hell.
Forced grouping in a combat oriented shallow online world can be done better CoOp. All you need is a Destiny with swords and magic.
In a better sim you have a backbone of character interdependency is in craft, trade and services that you don't need to crutch people into 8 man groups to kill rabbits.
Say whatever you want, but the only valid reason MMOs to exit is the competition and the cooperation among the players. You can share any offline or online world or character with video, screenshot, or even if you are talking about the game. You do not need MMO for sharing, no matter what marketing department of Blizzard says. When I was young there were these big old automates for games - do not know the word. You know, like flipper, but with singleplayer game instead. So one guy played and others watched. And we shared the game. Even emotionally, with passion.
You do not need MMO for sharing of virtual world, for graphics, for physics, for simulation - often the NPCs in the solo RPGs are better companions than the players - TW3, do not sleep with both , for story, lore, and etc. The only reason MMOs, and in general multiplayer games to exist is to play with other players, so to compete and to cooperate with them. You may dislike it, you may deny it, you may try to change it to fit to the idea of shared world with solo game, but this is the rude fact. MMOs are for group content. Everything else is secondary or even against the purpose of the multiplayer gameplay. And yes, I do not think most of the games with the label MMO wort it.
Now the real MMO games are LoL, Fortnite, FPS and etc. There you can play solo. But there is not solo content if you get the difference. I liked more the old ones like L2 and EVE - there is solo content, but they are group focused. Definitively slower, but with more longevity.
That is why WoW broke the genre. Instead that group focused games to improve, to add more complexity and immersion of the multiplayer content, WoW and EQ changed the direction to the solo content. And after each update and clone that solo content became wider and stronger. Now honestly most so called MMOs are just solo RPGs with shared world and endless grind. It could be enjoyable if you play like a squirrel - collect items, levels, artificial achievements. (the "famous" guy who achieved all in WoW), but it is not fun. And in general without competition and need of cooperation, it is kind of pointless.
And I have to admit there is a different point of view - the VR. If this is your point, I'm completely wrong. But in such a case we are not talking about games.
Again you do not need a MMORPG to have coop combat. You do need a MMORPG to have open world shops, trades, and etc. SWG is more MMORPG than most games. It had themepark and sandbox. It had voluntary Open World PvP. Most of all the game play had choice.
Combat is only one aspect of a MMORPG. You can have MMORPG without combat. You can have CoOp combat without MMORPG as well.
I literally logged into UO Atlantic server and killed fresh people logging in on Moonglow island. This was phase 2 beta test and before guards teleported. I know the thrills of PvP and being hunted. It was great and unpredictable.
Problem is the typical MMORPG does not lend well to PvP to be fun for everyone. Power gaps and PvE put players in situations where their fun or advancement is messed up. Not only that many times they have no way to fight back.
I literally logged into UO Atlantic server and killed fresh people logging in on Moonglow island. This was phase 2 beta test and before guards teleported. I know the thrills of PvP and being hunted. It was great and unpredictable.
Problem is the typical MMORPG does not lend well to PvP to be fun for everyone. Power gaps and PvE put players in situations where their fun or advancement is messed up. Not only that many times they have no way to fight back.
But the problem is the solo PvE, not the PvP. As for the power gaps - indeed, the vertical progression is a part of the solo games. It does not fit well with the MMOs, where you need balance among thousands of players.
I think your presumption is people who like soloing want to spend 100% of the time soloing. Which isn't necessary true. People can like both.
Not to mention many crafter spend much of the time soloing but do need other real people interaction to sell their goods.
I literally logged into UO Atlantic server and killed fresh people logging in on Moonglow island. This was phase 2 beta test and before guards teleported. I know the thrills of PvP and being hunted. It was great and unpredictable.
Problem is the typical MMORPG does not lend well to PvP to be fun for everyone. Power gaps and PvE put players in situations where their fun or advancement is messed up. Not only that many times they have no way to fight back.
But the problem is the solo PvE, not the PvP. As for the power gaps - indeed, the vertical progression is a part of the solo games. It does not fit well with the MMOs, where you need balance among thousands of players.
I think your presumption is people who like soloing want to spend 100% of the time soloing. Which isn't necessary true. People can like both.
Not to mention many crafter spend much of the time soloing but do need other real people interaction to sell their goods.
Moral of the story is play whatever you want.
I prefer doing combat with people I know or alone. Sometimes I will team up with people around if there is a common goal. That is a natural interaction.
I have little interest in PvP anymore. I don't feel like grinding endlessly or even spending money to compete. It gets even worst if I have to group up to get gear.
Selling, trading and buying stuff from strangers is fine. Having to see blacksmith to repair weapons is fine. Much more natural interactions. Those are interdependent traits that make the world feel more alive.
Not being able to step out of town without a group because of hoards of Pks or sword sponge NPCs sucks.
To radically change mmorpgs, an obvious one would be the removal of f2p.
Anyways, a radically change would be the dynamic evolving virtual world to replace the story driven overcontrolled/overdesigned content mmorpg. Governed mostly by AI and player influenced. And I don't mean the traditional pvp sandbox, or voxel/cube builder sandbox types, or even destructable world as a main feature. Instead the actual content, the world, and everything being AI controlled entities dynamically changing the world and its content, with players collectively playing a role in powerstruggles, content availability&details, and evolving history on massive as well as micro scale.
I literally logged into UO Atlantic server and killed fresh people logging in on Moonglow island. This was phase 2 beta test and before guards teleported. I know the thrills of PvP and being hunted. It was great and unpredictable.
Problem is the typical MMORPG does not lend well to PvP to be fun for everyone. Power gaps and PvE put players in situations where their fun or advancement is messed up. Not only that many times they have no way to fight back.
But the problem is the solo PvE, not the PvP. As for the power gaps - indeed, the vertical progression is a part of the solo games. It does not fit well with the MMOs, where you need balance among thousands of players.
I think your presumption is people who like soloing want to spend 100% of the time soloing. Which isn't necessary true. People can like both.
Not to mention many crafter spend much of the time soloing but do need other real people interaction to sell their goods.
Moral of the story is play whatever you want.
Yes, the reason solo players play MMO's is to include interaction with others, and to play in a "world." And as you said, they often play with others too, it's just that they like to "mountain man" it alone. There's a challenge in going solo in a world where most play in groups that I find fun.
The problem with wide open PvP with no mechanism to restrict it is that it becomes way too common. Players pretty much waste their time playing. And then they quit, and the game loses all those crafters and trades folks that make it come alive outside of PvP. It also strangles the game company of needed funds to keep up a quality product. Restrictions are needed, a Justice System that works is needed if you want open world PvP.
There are reasons to want open world PvP. -It makes the world feel more "realistic" -It allows for on-demand Roleplay in confrontations, and these can be heavily geared towards the game's lore -And there are times you just want to get rid of that griefer who's messing things up, such as loot stealing and MOB training onto you.
So, you want a Faction System that allows roleplay interaction, and a Justice System that starts out with small penalties that grows with constant application.
The point is that I do not want to radically change anything. In my mind a MMO should be a game you can play for years and decades. Thus I prefer the most conservative approach possible to them, to guarantee longtime satisfaction.
Meaning I want a classic fantasy setting, because classic fantasy is the most varied of all settings and can easily integrate pretty much any other genre. Like steampunk, horror, you name it, it can easily fit in. Even robots and space ships can be fit into a classic fantasy setting; the Wizardry games for example had that.
I played the early access/beta, or whatever it was, of Black Desert Online. I think it is the most interesting MMORPG released since WoW, the node system and combat is really good. There are a lot of great features in that game and it felt like a new experience compared to what I've played before. Too bad it was ruined by greedy monetization and a weird system incentivizing AFK progression, in my opinion.
I believe a westernized game inspired by BDO could do really well, with less focus on grind and a better monetization. Blizzard get on it
I played the early access/beta, or whatever it was, of Black Desert Online. I think it is the most interesting MMORPG released since WoW, the node system and combat is really good. There are a lot of great features in that game and it felt like a new experience compared to what I've played before. Too bad it was ruined by greedy monetization and a weird system incentivizing AFK progression, in my opinion.
I believe a westernized game inspired by BDO could do really well, with less focus on grind and a better monetization. Blizzard get on it
I think Archeage was also a game ruined by greed. Just needed a larger and more organized building areas. Less endless progression.
The recurring theme that strikes me as most likely to be a real game-changer is game development emphasis that allows both players and NPCs to be much more realistic and have more persistent, less scripted effects on the game world.
Given the relatively large number of players who will cheerfully break systems just so they can jump up and down on the rubble, that emphasis is going to need to involve some very robust stabilizing mechanics that are still in their conceptual infancy. And it will take some real changes in how developers think about their creations and make changes to them--by tweaking the rules that define the system's evolution, rather than simply changing item X into item Y and calling it a day.
But these ideas really aren't at all new and hopefully there's some studios out there who have been playing with them for a while.
I played the early access/beta, or whatever it was, of Black Desert Online. I think it is the most interesting MMORPG released since WoW, the node system and combat is really good. There are a lot of great features in that game and it felt like a new experience compared to what I've played before. Too bad it was ruined by greedy monetization and a weird system incentivizing AFK progression, in my opinion.
I believe a westernized game inspired by BDO could do really well, with less focus on grind and a better monetization. Blizzard get on it
BDO was ruined by the solo PvE. Exactly that node system. It was great idea for the guild wars. But it turned into a base of building solo, in fact instanced, trading empires. That simply have no place in a MMO. And the absurd PK and loot rules. At the end - players dress up, cook, craft, trade - everything singleplayer. And simply there is not a MMO left.
In fact if they implement better AI, BDO will be a great solo RPG. But the cash shop system there is pretty good and balanced, definitely it is not P2W. BDO is a good example how F2P game should be made. Amazing as it is not F2P.
I think Archeage was also a game ruined by greed. Just needed a larger and more organized building areas. Less endless progression.
Indeed. They literally sold the pixels of the map. Also the factions - why? OK, there are safe zones, but why factions? And the most stupid and anti MMO model - you even cannot talk with a player from other faction. So you have no idea with who you PvP and why?
I actually had an idea of shared clan abilities that basically made joining a guild mandatory. You GM/NPv run clans as well.
If you force a player to login ,right in front of a npc with a yellow maker over it's head,you have just removed all immersion and lead the player into a single player game with hand holding.
Sadly this is 99% of the mmorpg's,you are NOT playing YOUR game,you are playing the way the developer wants you to play.Maybe we should just give our money to the developers and let them play it,while i go take the dogs for a walk.
Game design has a LOT of sections to it's design,most all of them need to be done really well or the entire game can be ruined.PVP no problem,spend 5 seconds flagging pvp,game ruined. Gear scores,no problem,throw YOUR thought process out the window,your not playing remember,they are,so just insert said number,ok good to go now press automate.
Questing..oh i can hardly wait for this..
See those sparkles over there,yeah no need to think or look,they staring you right in the face,go click them. Discovery... Oh joy can't wait to start discovering new areas."markers on the game screen on the map showing destination,never mind discovering,we already did that for you,your not playing remember?
I could go on and on,imo 99% of the developers should not be making immersive games,they should stick to Anime arpg's or moba's or PubG's,designs that take very little thought.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The recurring theme that strikes me as most likely to be a real game-changer is game development emphasis that allows both players and NPCs to be much more realistic and have more persistent, less scripted effects on the game world.
Given the relatively large number of players who will cheerfully break systems just so they can jump up and down on the rubble, that emphasis is going to need to involve some very robust stabilizing mechanics that are still in their conceptual infancy. And it will take some real changes in how developers think about their creations and make changes to them--by tweaking the rules that define the system's evolution, rather than simply changing item X into item Y and calling it a day.
But these ideas really aren't at all new and hopefully there's some studios out there who have been playing with them for a while.
I wouldn't say realistic, I'd say creative problem solving. And I think there's a cost. This is more than just hackers breaking systems or players using exploits. It's also about consistency of gameplay. What if a player hits a bump in progression? What if htey get lost? It's a very real outcome they'll be frustrated as much as they enjoy it. This is hte result of imbalances. This is why designers frequently construct linear progressions or stories. This is to guarantee consistency in gameplay. But for it to be truly creative and non-linear, I think the sacrifice has to be gameplay consistency. Players must be allowed to become frustrated; like when they hit dead ends or find themselves lost. The game must be allowed to be imbalanced. Real-time adjustments can be made by the code, though. This is the tricky part. How does code or gameplay correct itself? It has to. It can't be perfect, however.
I don't thinik every player enjoys this kind of thing. In fact, I think most players prefer the linear progression often seen in RPGs. This scenario is favored by both player and designer. So we're in a predicament where creative gameplay is thrown to the side because of the challenges inherent in manifesting it.
I've never enjoyed hte lienar progression RPGs. The ones where story and "quality of life" reign over everything else? I much prefer scattered quests and dungeons and events and NPCs, with little thought towards coddling the player. So what if they get lost sometimes or hit a lull or get frustrated and quit? I'd rather create my own story than be railroaded, even with added frustration. I've made that sacrifice when I choose which RPGs to play. In fact, I was googling "non-linear" and "open world" and "tedious" in the 1990's!!! That's how I found the RPGs I wanted to play. I'd rather feel the frustration sometimes. Let me feel the highs and lows because that's what stories are when they become real. This is the essence of non-linear gaming.
EDIT: Let me give example. Once I bought a RPG (circa 2000). It had good graphics. Good presentation. Players said it had good story. I played it and it was extremely linear. I was bored out of my mind. I enjoyed Daggerfall at the time; for comparison. I returned it to EB. From that day on, I've understood most players prefer linear games, but I don't. I far preferred just loading Daggerfall and going out in the world, ignoring the plot and creating my own adventure. I also enjoyed generic open world games like Quarantine or Myst or Bc3000AD or XBTF. And this is why I liked Everquest so much. It didn't force me down one path. It didn't force content.
Comments
Forced grouping in a combat oriented shallow online world can be done better CoOp. All you need is a Destiny with swords and magic.
In a better sim you have a backbone of character interdependency is in craft, trade and services that you don't need to crutch people into 8 man groups to kill rabbits.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Combat is only one aspect of a MMORPG. You can have MMORPG without combat. You can have CoOp combat without MMORPG as well.
Problem is the typical MMORPG does not lend well to PvP to be fun for everyone. Power gaps and PvE put players in situations where their fun or advancement is messed up. Not only that many times they have no way to fight back.
Not to mention many crafter spend much of the time soloing but do need other real people interaction to sell their goods.
Moral of the story is play whatever you want.
I have little interest in PvP anymore. I don't feel like grinding endlessly or even spending money to compete. It gets even worst if I have to group up to get gear.
Selling, trading and buying stuff from strangers is fine. Having to see blacksmith to repair weapons is fine. Much more natural interactions. Those are interdependent traits that make the world feel more alive.
Not being able to step out of town without a group because of hoards of Pks or sword sponge NPCs sucks.
Anyways, a radically change would be the dynamic evolving virtual world to replace the story driven overcontrolled/overdesigned content mmorpg. Governed mostly by AI and player influenced. And I don't mean the traditional pvp sandbox, or voxel/cube builder sandbox types, or even destructable world as a main feature. Instead the actual content, the world, and everything being AI controlled entities dynamically changing the world and its content, with players collectively playing a role in powerstruggles, content availability&details, and evolving history on massive as well as micro scale.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
And as you said, they often play with others too, it's just that they like to "mountain man" it alone.
There's a challenge in going solo in a world where most play in groups that I find fun.
The problem with wide open PvP with no mechanism to restrict it is that it becomes way too common. Players pretty much waste their time playing. And then they quit, and the game loses all those crafters and trades folks that make it come alive outside of PvP.
It also strangles the game company of needed funds to keep up a quality product.
Restrictions are needed, a Justice System that works is needed if you want open world PvP.
There are reasons to want open world PvP.
-It makes the world feel more "realistic"
-It allows for on-demand Roleplay in confrontations, and these can be heavily geared towards the game's lore
-And there are times you just want to get rid of that griefer who's messing things up, such as loot stealing and MOB training onto you.
So, you want a Faction System that allows roleplay interaction, and a Justice System that starts out with small penalties that grows with constant application.
Once upon a time....
The rest the "system" should develop and be completed when solved. I hate unsolvable quest that just have the problem on going.
The recurring theme that strikes me as most likely to be a real game-changer is game development emphasis that allows both players and NPCs to be much more realistic and have more persistent, less scripted effects on the game world.
Given the relatively large number of players who will cheerfully break systems just so they can jump up and down on the rubble, that emphasis is going to need to involve some very robust stabilizing mechanics that are still in their conceptual infancy. And it will take some real changes in how developers think about their creations and make changes to them--by tweaking the rules that define the system's evolution, rather than simply changing item X into item Y and calling it a day.
But these ideas really aren't at all new and hopefully there's some studios out there who have been playing with them for a while.
If you force a player to login ,right in front of a npc with a yellow maker over it's head,you have just removed all immersion and lead the player into a single player game with hand holding.
Sadly this is 99% of the mmorpg's,you are NOT playing YOUR game,you are playing the way the developer wants you to play.Maybe we should just give our money to the developers and let them play it,while i go take the dogs for a walk.
Game design has a LOT of sections to it's design,most all of them need to be done really well or the entire game can be ruined.PVP no problem,spend 5 seconds flagging pvp,game ruined.
Gear scores,no problem,throw YOUR thought process out the window,your not playing remember,they are,so just insert said number,ok good to go now press automate.
Questing..oh i can hardly wait for this..
See those sparkles over there,yeah no need to think or look,they staring you right in the face,go click them.
Discovery...
Oh joy can't wait to start discovering new areas."markers on the game screen on the map showing destination,never mind discovering,we already did that for you,your not playing remember?
I could go on and on,imo 99% of the developers should not be making immersive games,they should stick to Anime arpg's or moba's or PubG's,designs that take very little thought.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo