Voice overs in game quests generally annoy me to death. On average the convorsation is long and boring as I speed read faster than they talk. In TOR I'll probably end up just reading the quest and skipping the voice if I can. (To me voice overs are a large waste of capitol that could be spent in other places).
See this is where I play devils advocate.
I agree with what you said, but not because of habit or playstyle, but because most times the voice acting sucks, the lines are crappy, and it takes them forever to get to the point, and yes, I always seem to be a ble to speed read faster than they can talk.
However, this seems almost sacreligious seeings I am the OP, but I think you understand where I am coming from. In fact, I thijnk it would be more interesting to let the story play out before me, and keep the chit chat to a minimum unless I am in a chatty mood.
Another point. Why do I always have to find the quest givers. If those lazy bastards need someone to do their bidding...come find me.
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
Where does the assumption that he's looking for "entirely non-violent games" come from?
Oh, that's right. You're a developer that seeks to promote yet more of the tired, boring crap you all have been trying to force feed us through lack of anything else. Now I understand where that comes from.
But thank you for the good wishes in seeking that which we want and you refuse to make.
By the way. There's 10 rats somewhere that I didn't kill. Sorry about that.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And Rift doesn't waste any time before waving its few authentic innovations in your face. The first you'll discover is its rich class and talent system. Immediately after selecting one of four archetypical "callings" (warrior, mage, cleric and rogue) during character creation, you choose your first "soul" to kick off your adventures in Telara. Souls are essentially individual talent trees in other games, but the key difference here is that you can collect up to nine of them. You get your first three early on through story progression, and then you get most of the rest by stealing souls from evil versions of representative classes summoned through rifts. The process isn't hard; if anything, it's a little too easy. Thanks to the endlessly spawning rifts, our mage picked up all but one of his available souls in around two hours just by running back and forth between the quest NPCs and the ever-present rifts.
Where does the assumption that he's looking for "entirely non-violent games" come from?
Oh, that's right. You're a developer that seeks to promote yet more of the tired, boring crap you all have been trying to force feed us through lack of anything else. Now I understand where that comes from.
But thank you for the good wishes in seeking that which we want and you refuse to make.
By the way. There's 10 rats somewhere that I didn't kill. Sorry about that.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
Axe, quests are just another presentation of grinding. Players are tired of games that are about the grinding. The alternative that I think games need to go to is games that are about the world. What happens in it, players interacting with that, and having it full of action and adventure because of that.
Where does the assumption that he's looking for "entirely non-violent games" come from?
Oh, that's right. You're a developer that seeks to promote yet more of the tired, boring crap you all have been trying to force feed us through lack of anything else. Now I understand where that comes from.
But thank you for the good wishes in seeking that which we want and you refuse to make.
By the way. There's 10 rats somewhere that I didn't kill. Sorry about that.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
Axe, quests are just another presentation of grinding. Players are tired of games that are about the grinding. The alternative that I think games need to go to is games that are about the world. What happens in it, players interacting with that, and having it full of action and adventure because of that.
Quests have nothing to do with grinding.
If you want to criticize grinding, criticize grinding.
But if you're playing a game which is (a) subscription-based and (b) a game which intends to suck up 200+ hours of your time, you're gonna be grinding. Period.
This has absolutely nothing to do with questing. I did maybe 1 single quest in Darkfall, but that game was still an ultra-grind.
I did lots of quests in EVE, but even if I hadn't it'd have still been an ultra-grind to earn money.
If you believe quests are the cause of grind, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Quests are actually a mechanism for making the grind seem like less of a grind. That's why they've been successful.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Where does the assumption that he's looking for "entirely non-violent games" come from?
Oh, that's right. You're a developer that seeks to promote yet more of the tired, boring crap you all have been trying to force feed us through lack of anything else. Now I understand where that comes from.
But thank you for the good wishes in seeking that which we want and you refuse to make.
By the way. There's 10 rats somewhere that I didn't kill. Sorry about that.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
Axe, quests are just another presentation of grinding. Players are tired of games that are about the grinding. The alternative that I think games need to go to is games that are about the world. What happens in it, players interacting with that, and having it full of action and adventure because of that.
Quests have nothing to do with grinding.
If you want to criticize grinding, criticize grinding.
But if you're playing a game which is (a) subscription-based and (b) a game which intends to suck up 200+ hours of your time, you're gonna be grinding. Period.
This has absolutely nothing to do with questing. I did maybe 1 single quest in Darkfall, but that game was still an ultra-grind.
I did lots of quests in EVE, but even if I hadn't it'd have still been an ultra-grind to earn money.
If you believe quests are the cause of grind, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Quests are actually a mechanism for making the grind seem like less of a grind. That's why they've been successful.
Quests are simply the mechanism to make you grind. I think Aramanthar nailed it.
It almost seems as if quests by nature have become an unimaginative, stereotype. In fact, I think as we head into the next batch of releases, we will begin to see the potential of dynamic worlds, and dynamic stories. Soon it will be unacceptable to kill x # of rats, instead we will be fighting of an invading swarm of mutated rats. We will see the damge done to the farm stead, and even more exciting, we will see them rebuild after we save them. This is the future...
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
Where does the assumption that he's looking for "entirely non-violent games" come from?
Oh, that's right. You're a developer that seeks to promote yet more of the tired, boring crap you all have been trying to force feed us through lack of anything else. Now I understand where that comes from.
But thank you for the good wishes in seeking that which we want and you refuse to make.
By the way. There's 10 rats somewhere that I didn't kill. Sorry about that.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
Axe, quests are just another presentation of grinding. Players are tired of games that are about the grinding. The alternative that I think games need to go to is games that are about the world. What happens in it, players interacting with that, and having it full of action and adventure because of that.
Quests have nothing to do with grinding.
If you want to criticize grinding, criticize grinding.
But if you're playing a game which is (a) subscription-based and (b) a game which intends to suck up 200+ hours of your time, you're gonna be grinding. Period.
This has absolutely nothing to do with questing. I did maybe 1 single quest in Darkfall, but that game was still an ultra-grind.
I did lots of quests in EVE, but even if I hadn't it'd have still been an ultra-grind to earn money.
If you believe quests are the cause of grind, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Quests are actually a mechanism for making the grind seem like less of a grind. That's why they've been successful.
The fact that 'the grind' has been accepted as a standard part of gameplay that must be over come with tedium is plain madness.
When you control the entire paradigm it would be far better to make 'the grind' the reason to play. In the case of each and every wow clone out there the core content are these tedius quests, some of which seem to have cohesion, some don't.
Running around collecting different hue'd boar snoats is a big passtime for the mass consumer. I see it a different way, I see it as utter madness.
I'm not sure what killing has to do with it? But since you got me started mass murder in video games is a little over the top. If I'm going to lay waste to a bunch of guys standing in their marked positions in Scaret Monastary it would be nice if I was imbued with some sense of purpose.
Respectfully, I see your inability to discern between a 'killless game' and the rut this industry in just a symptom of the bigger problem.
Where does the assumption that he's looking for "entirely non-violent games" come from?
Oh, that's right. You're a developer that seeks to promote yet more of the tired, boring crap you all have been trying to force feed us through lack of anything else. Now I understand where that comes from.
But thank you for the good wishes in seeking that which we want and you refuse to make.
By the way. There's 10 rats somewhere that I didn't kill. Sorry about that.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
Axe, quests are just another presentation of grinding. Players are tired of games that are about the grinding. The alternative that I think games need to go to is games that are about the world. What happens in it, players interacting with that, and having it full of action and adventure because of that.
Quests have nothing to do with grinding.
If you want to criticize grinding, criticize grinding.
But if you're playing a game which is (a) subscription-based and (b) a game which intends to suck up 200+ hours of your time, you're gonna be grinding. Period.
This has absolutely nothing to do with questing. I did maybe 1 single quest in Darkfall, but that game was still an ultra-grind.
I did lots of quests in EVE, but even if I hadn't it'd have still been an ultra-grind to earn money.
If you believe quests are the cause of grind, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Quests are actually a mechanism for making the grind seem like less of a grind. That's why they've been successful.
Successful according to who?
People don't quest because its a disguise for the grind. They blow out quests asap cuz its the fastest way to gain xp. Like people forgot that just killing things gives fairly much crap xp. Compared to the days that aoe'ing entire civilizations was "the way" to do it.
When my girl friend wanted to give WoW another go I was playing a tank and she was playing a healer. At whatever point we started splitting our time between BG's and random dungeons. On our battlegroup as a tank we got insta que for random dungeons. So we just stopped doing quests all together because BG's and Randoms were more fun.
So I suppose I would say quests in and of them selves are not successful to disguise the grind. Quest should have been intended as content. Part of a story that felt like it had a reason to be there.
Disguise the grind... you know I have another way of saying this. You design a game one of two ways.
1) You advance to play. This is the type of game where you grind through content and gear so that eventually you can just play it.
2) You play to advance. Fairly obvious this version you just play the game and advance as you play.
Now do you really have to ask yourself which one would be more fun?
There was this paticular MMO I used to play, its destruction was what lead me to this site to begin with. Now in that game I needed things for crafting and such. Things like hides, meat and bone and I got those things by killing creatures. So I was out "grinding" but I had a purpose. So within my purpose of getting stuff I wanted I didn't really notice I was grinding. Just to give an example...
Where does the assumption that he's looking for "entirely non-violent games" come from?
Oh, that's right. You're a developer that seeks to promote yet more of the tired, boring crap you all have been trying to force feed us through lack of anything else. Now I understand where that comes from.
But thank you for the good wishes in seeking that which we want and you refuse to make.
By the way. There's 10 rats somewhere that I didn't kill. Sorry about that.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
Axe, quests are just another presentation of grinding. Players are tired of games that are about the grinding. The alternative that I think games need to go to is games that are about the world. What happens in it, players interacting with that, and having it full of action and adventure because of that.
Quests have nothing to do with grinding.
If you want to criticize grinding, criticize grinding.
But if you're playing a game which is (a) subscription-based and (b) a game which intends to suck up 200+ hours of your time, you're gonna be grinding. Period.
This has absolutely nothing to do with questing. I did maybe 1 single quest in Darkfall, but that game was still an ultra-grind.
I did lots of quests in EVE, but even if I hadn't it'd have still been an ultra-grind to earn money.
If you believe quests are the cause of grind, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Quests are actually a mechanism for making the grind seem like less of a grind. That's why they've been successful.
Axe, the other replies to this all hit on points that are inclusive in the overall aspect. I'll add here that I don't think that quests cause grind, but that grind causes quests. And I've posted about that many times. If you make a game with grind, then you have to add the quests so as to lead players through your content properly.
But the overriding fact is that quests these days are indeed simply a presentation of that grind that you guys want to make. No, quests don't have to be, if you make a game where the grind isn't the primary focus. I know you guys are game makers and don't know any other way to make "games". But these are supposed to be worlds, not simply games. You need to learn how to do that. Or you'll be forced to step aside when the results are no longer bringing in the accounts, and that has started already. And as you well know, because I've told you this several times, I think the end has happened for your type of "game". Rift was supposed to be the next great thing, but is only the latest installment of the proof. Next you'll see, as I have told you, SWTOR with the same lack of success. GW2 won't be all that successful either, but they won't have to support their game like a standard MMO, so I guess you can call that success.
You developers have to start thinking of it as simulated worlds deluxe (to some degree or another), instead of games.
Where does the assumption that he's looking for "entirely non-violent games" come from?
Oh, that's right. You're a developer that seeks to promote yet more of the tired, boring crap you all have been trying to force feed us through lack of anything else. Now I understand where that comes from.
But thank you for the good wishes in seeking that which we want and you refuse to make.
By the way. There's 10 rats somewhere that I didn't kill. Sorry about that.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
Axe, quests are just another presentation of grinding. Players are tired of games that are about the grinding. The alternative that I think games need to go to is games that are about the world. What happens in it, players interacting with that, and having it full of action and adventure because of that.
Quests have nothing to do with grinding.
If you want to criticize grinding, criticize grinding.
But if you're playing a game which is (a) subscription-based and (b) a game which intends to suck up 200+ hours of your time, you're gonna be grinding. Period.
This has absolutely nothing to do with questing. I did maybe 1 single quest in Darkfall, but that game was still an ultra-grind.
I did lots of quests in EVE, but even if I hadn't it'd have still been an ultra-grind to earn money.
If you believe quests are the cause of grind, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Quests are actually a mechanism for making the grind seem like less of a grind. That's why they've been successful.
Quests are simply the mechanism to make you grind. I think Aramanthar nailed it.
It almost seems as if quests by nature have become an unimaginative, stereotype. In fact, I think as we head into the next batch of releases, we will begin to see the potential of dynamic worlds, and dynamic stories. Soon it will be unacceptable to kill x # of rats, instead we will be fighting of an invading swarm of mutated rats. We will see the damge done to the farm stead, and even more exciting, we will see them rebuild after we save them. This is the future...
Imagine an entire zone next to a newbie starting area, where farmsteads, villages, crossroad inns, etc., are under constant assault from any number of things. Orcs from the mountains, evil temples, dungeons, what have you. And newbies can venture forth to the fringes, while those past the newbie stages can delve deeper into the war zone. Defend, run building supplies and caravans into the zone, a constant stream of activity where quests are simply something that needs to be done.
Where does the assumption that he's looking for "entirely non-violent games" come from?
Oh, that's right. You're a developer that seeks to promote yet more of the tired, boring crap you all have been trying to force feed us through lack of anything else. Now I understand where that comes from.
But thank you for the good wishes in seeking that which we want and you refuse to make.
By the way. There's 10 rats somewhere that I didn't kill. Sorry about that.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
Axe, quests are just another presentation of grinding. Players are tired of games that are about the grinding. The alternative that I think games need to go to is games that are about the world. What happens in it, players interacting with that, and having it full of action and adventure because of that.
Quests have nothing to do with grinding.
If you want to criticize grinding, criticize grinding.
But if you're playing a game which is (a) subscription-based and (b) a game which intends to suck up 200+ hours of your time, you're gonna be grinding. Period.
This has absolutely nothing to do with questing. I did maybe 1 single quest in Darkfall, but that game was still an ultra-grind.
I did lots of quests in EVE, but even if I hadn't it'd have still been an ultra-grind to earn money.
If you believe quests are the cause of grind, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Quests are actually a mechanism for making the grind seem like less of a grind. That's why they've been successful.
The fact that 'the grind' has been accepted as a standard part of gameplay that must be over come with tedium is plain madness.
When you control the entire paradigm it would be far better to make 'the grind' the reason to play. In the case of each and every wow clone out there the core content are these tedius quests, some of which seem to have cohesion, some don't.
Running around collecting different hue'd boar snoats is a big passtime for the mass consumer. I see it a different way, I see it as utter madness.
I'm not sure what killing has to do with it? But since you got me started mass murder in video games is a little over the top. If I'm going to lay waste to a bunch of guys standing in their marked positions in Scaret Monastary it would be nice if I was imbued with some sense of purpose.
Respectfully, I see your inability to discern between a 'killless game' and the rut this industry in just a symptom of the bigger problem.
I'd love to see a worldwide faction system here with your monastary. If there are two monastaries, each with their own faction, and conflicting with eachother, and these factions carry on into the world at large.
So, if you are allied with one of these monastaries, you get a boost to that faction by fighting the other, and a negative from the other. If you aren't allied with either, you get no boost but you get the negative. As you go out into the world, these faction points affect your encounters out there with these factions. You might be Kill On Sight to the NPCs and higher ranking players in a faction (if said faction accepts players), but protected when in a city. You might have gained access to monastic resources such as training or libraries of world knowledge or even supplies.
You developers have to start thinking of it as simulated worlds deluxe (to some degree or another), instead of games.
As I often suggest, look back over the course of the entirety of videogame history. Notice that simulations have always been a tiny niche group.
Marketing tiny niche games -- especially when they need to be "massive" -- just isn't what most companies chase after. Some do (and examples already exist), but most don't -- and expecting otherwise is silly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You developers have to start thinking of it as simulated worlds deluxe (to some degree or another), instead of games.
As I often suggest, look back over the course of the entirety of videogame history. Notice that simulations have always been a tiny niche group.
Marketing tiny niche games -- especially when they need to be "massive" -- just isn't what most companies chase after. Some do (and examples already exist), but most don't -- and expecting otherwise is silly.
You developers have to start thinking of it as simulated worlds deluxe (to some degree or another), instead of games.
As I often suggest, look back over the course of the entirety of videogame history. Notice that simulations have always been a tiny niche group.
Marketing tiny niche games -- especially when they need to be "massive" -- just isn't what most companies chase after. Some do (and examples already exist), but most don't -- and expecting otherwise is silly.
Name one.
Edit to add: And don't make me laugh.
EVE and Darkfall are obvious examples of MMORPGs which have targetted niche markets. DCUO, Puzzle Pirates, POTBS, and Global Agenda are only the start of the rest of the list of varied MMOs targetting different niche markets.
But the big, beefy AAA companies are going strong into the big beefy market: the game players.
But again, this is all proven out by the history of the videogame industry. Look at every game which leaned Simulation when it could've leaned Game: they all perform poorly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only thing that you really need to know about Rift is this: it will let you do things at level 10 that other MMOs won’t let you do until level 85.
As I said in my recent World of Warcraft: Cataclysm review, the new expansion for WoW hooked me. But having leveled a character all the way to maximum for the first time, I eventually stalled. Raiding in World of Warcraft, and virtually every other MMO in existence, takes a tremendous amount of effort and preparation.
In Rift I took down my first Invasion raid boss with a group of at least fifty random people at level 11. It was an absolute blast. And if you don’t mind dealing with the ganking that occurs on the PvP servers, there is even more in store for you; in later zones the Guardians and Defiant share the space and the invasions, which means that running open-world PvP battles occur for the right to take down the Invasion raid boss and earn the rewards that go with it. Rift puts the multi-player back into MMO.
Will Rift ultimately be a huge hit? I haven’t a clue. But what I can tell you is that Rift is the best MMO I have ever played. Some players, having noticed the similarities to World of Warcraft, have questioned why they would play Rift instead. I think the question should be turned on its head; why play World of Warcraft instead of Rift? Why wait until level 85 to raid? Why spend days leveling with nary a player in site? Why run and fly about a world that is large but empty? Why put up with inflexible talent trees when you can instead mix-and-match however your please?
I’ve canceled my World of Warcraft subscription, and I don’t see myself going back.
You developers have to start thinking of it as simulated worlds deluxe (to some degree or another), instead of games.
As I often suggest, look back over the course of the entirety of videogame history. Notice that simulations have always been a tiny niche group.
Marketing tiny niche games -- especially when they need to be "massive" -- just isn't what most companies chase after. Some do (and examples already exist), but most don't -- and expecting otherwise is silly.
Name one.
Edit to add: And don't make me laugh.
EVE and Darkfall are obvious examples of MMORPGs which have targetted niche markets. DCUO, Puzzle Pirates, POTBS, and Global Agenda are only the start of the rest of the list of varied MMOs targetting different niche markets.
But the big, beefy AAA companies are going strong into the big beefy market: the game players.
But again, this is all proven out by the history of the videogame industry. Look at every game which leaned Simulation when it could've leaned Game: they all perform poorly.
I asked you not to make me laugh. Where did games that are designed to go after tiny, niche markets come from? We're talking major markets.
No one has tried to make a rich, diverse, major MMORPG out of a sandbox simulated world yet.
The closest was UO, but rampant PKing and a lack of a means to stop it caused players to leave in droves. And then they added an item based grind to mimic level based grinds, and suffere dyet more.
The second closest was SWG, but they failed to achieve a true sandbox world when they added level grind like power gaps that divided players just as surely as you do.
Eve isn't in consideration because they don't have a world, they have space.
Heck, Axe, why are you talking about such niche stuff? That has absolutely no bearing on this.
You developers have to start thinking of it as simulated worlds deluxe (to some degree or another), instead of games.
As I often suggest, look back over the course of the entirety of videogame history. Notice that simulations have always been a tiny niche group.
Marketing tiny niche games -- especially when they need to be "massive" -- just isn't what most companies chase after. Some do (and examples already exist), but most don't -- and expecting otherwise is silly.
Name one.
Edit to add: And don't make me laugh.
EVE and Darkfall are obvious examples of MMORPGs which have targetted niche markets. DCUO, Puzzle Pirates, POTBS, and Global Agenda are only the start of the rest of the list of varied MMOs targetting different niche markets.
But the big, beefy AAA companies are going strong into the big beefy market: the game players.
But again, this is all proven out by the history of the videogame industry. Look at every game which leaned Simulation when it could've leaned Game: they all perform poorly.
I asked you not to make me laugh. Where did games that are designed to go after tiny, niche markets come from? We're talking major markets.
No one has tried to make a rich, diverse, major MMORPG out of a sandbox simulated world yet.
The closest was UO, but rampant PKing and a lack of a means to stop it caused players to leave in droves. And then they added an item based grind to mimic level based grinds, and suffere dyet more.
The second closest was SWG, but they failed to achieve a true sandbox world when they added level grind like power gaps that divided players just as surely as you do.
Eve isn't in consideration because they don't have a world, they have space.
Heck, Axe, why are you talking about such niche stuff? That has absolutely no bearing on this.
You suggested devs think of MMORPs as "Virtual Worlds Deluxe" -- aka Simulations, aka niche games, aka games companies don't spend AAA budgets on (if they're smart.)
You asked which companies chased after niche audiences, I told you.
So that's exactly why I'm talking about niche stuff: you made it the subject of conversation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No one has tried to make a rich, diverse, major MMORPG out of a sandbox simulated world yet.
The closest was UO, but rampant PKing and a lack of a means to stop it caused players to leave in droves. And then they added an item based grind to mimic level based grinds, and suffere dyet more.
Uhhh...UO had zeropopulation decline pre-trammel - hell, they had close to 200k subs. It was only after they added their carebear PVP system to compete with EQ that they started losing subs.
IMO the (original) PVP system was the best thing about UO, besides it's sandbox world.
In Rift I took down my first Invasion raid boss with a group of at least fifty random people at level 11. It was an absolute blast. And if you don’t mind dealing with the ganking that occurs on the PvP servers, there is even more in store for you; in later zones the Guardians and Defiant share the space and the invasions, which means that running open-world PvP battles occur for the right to take down the Invasion raid boss and earn the rewards that go with it. Rift puts the multi-player back into MMO.
Except at endgame people realise the only viable way to earn prestige/PVP points is to grind warfronts, thus most people are sitting in their home towns waiting to WF's to pop - which means raid rifts don't spawn, which means world PVP is dead (well, combined with the fact that there are no open rvr zones or objectives, and they added invisible guards everywhere.. even on pvp servers).
Rift endgame = grinding instances you've already done for the past 49 levels (except mobs have more hp/dps), and grinding warfronts, again, most of which you've already played to death for the past 49 level's.
-snore-
Glad you're enjoying it though, just wasn't my cup of tea I guess.
The problem with quest in general is the massive over use of them that I really do not care at all what story they are trying to tell. Having to listen to talking NPC's and/or having to watch cut scenes for every quest, hell even 25% of the quest in a typical modern MMO would drive me crazy.
As the comments about UO they killed the game with Trammel. Up until then they were adding players. That coupled with the launch of EQ started the slide. Still impressive they have enough people playing to keep the game alive today.
I hopped ship to EQ mostly because I was awestruck by the graphics and sound. Funny now but going from 2D UO to EQ was something you had to experience to understand how impressive it was for the time. I still remember the first time going through the Dark Elf city, the cackle of those skeletons and the sounds of the world.
I have pretty much given up hope for anything outside of easy mode theme park games at this point. They are not making MMO's for me anymore they making them for the A-D-D instant gratification generation now.
Except at endgame people realise the only viable way to earn prestige/PVP points if to grind warfronts, thus most people are sitting in their home towns waiting to WF's to pop
Which is funny because this was causing an increase in the Rift spawns in the starter regions that were so massive that would wipe the zone because those people counted towards Rift-spawn population but weren't actually active in helping close them down for the zone.
Nothing more depressing than having major Rift invasions to occur back to back only to have them fail repeatedly due to lack of caring on ANYONES part in the zone (normally a small group of 5-10 are TRYING to piece things together but failing).
Well, this is one of the reason hate threads will appear about SW:TOR and how Bioware will lore-snore us. Some people don't really like reading and play the whole experience as an action MMO. Considering that most MMO worlds are static, there isn't anything to notice in the world that would create an adventure for the player that is not given by quest givers.
Didnt Bioware declare quite early on that they were going to do as much voiceover work as possible ?
Well, this is one of the reason hate threads will appear about SW:TOR and how Bioware will lore-snore us. Some people don't really like reading and play the whole experience as an action MMO. Considering that most MMO worlds are static, there isn't anything to notice in the world that would create an adventure for the player that is not given by quest givers.
Didnt Bioware declare quite early on that they were going to do as much voiceover work as possible ?
Which only reinforce what I'm trying to say. Basically you're doing the same thing you were doing with the text quests, the difference being that somebody is reading them to you. I was talking more in terms of something happening in the world and you decide whether to participate or not.
I love to read books, but I read books, I could never get into reading text on a computer screen. I think this is the main thing that needs to evolve in order to truly foster a next gen experience. We need voice overs and quality voice acting. I think it is essential for immersion, and thus essential to creating a more fun experience (funner?)
When I play a single player RPG I get into the story. Because the world actually changes, the story actually matters, and what I do matters (or at least seems to).
In Fallout for example, I can save a city. Or, I can blow it to smithereens.
It's not "phased". It's not kinda sorta blown to smithereens in an illusion, but still there at the same time.
It's really, truly, blown up by a nuclear bomb, and it's not coming back, and you can't ever visit it again.
That's fun.
But when an MMORPG tells you a story, nothign happens. The city is never blown up, because other players have to go there.
Or, it's "phased" out, like you have to pretend it's gone, but it's really not because other players are like, yea, I just went to that city. It's right there.
You developers have to start thinking of it as simulated worlds deluxe (to some degree or another), instead of games.
As I often suggest, look back over the course of the entirety of videogame history. Notice that simulations have always been a tiny niche group.
Marketing tiny niche games -- especially when they need to be "massive" -- just isn't what most companies chase after. Some do (and examples already exist), but most don't -- and expecting otherwise is silly.
Name one.
Edit to add: And don't make me laugh.
EVE and Darkfall are obvious examples of MMORPGs which have targetted niche markets. DCUO, Puzzle Pirates, POTBS, and Global Agenda are only the start of the rest of the list of varied MMOs targetting different niche markets.
But the big, beefy AAA companies are going strong into the big beefy market: the game players.
But again, this is all proven out by the history of the videogame industry. Look at every game which leaned Simulation when it could've leaned Game: they all perform poorly.
I asked you not to make me laugh. Where did games that are designed to go after tiny, niche markets come from? We're talking major markets.
No one has tried to make a rich, diverse, major MMORPG out of a sandbox simulated world yet.
The closest was UO, but rampant PKing and a lack of a means to stop it caused players to leave in droves. And then they added an item based grind to mimic level based grinds, and suffere dyet more.
The second closest was SWG, but they failed to achieve a true sandbox world when they added level grind like power gaps that divided players just as surely as you do.
Eve isn't in consideration because they don't have a world, they have space.
Heck, Axe, why are you talking about such niche stuff? That has absolutely no bearing on this.
You suggested devs think of MMORPs as "Virtual Worlds Deluxe" -- aka Simulations, aka niche games, aka games companies don't spend AAA budgets on (if they're smart.)
You asked which companies chased after niche audiences, I told you.
So that's exactly why I'm talking about niche stuff: you made it the subject of conversation.
Why do you assume that sandbox worlds must be niche? We're talking about AAA efforts here, not efforts designed from the get-go to be niche. It's only the gaming industry's belief that "sandbox" has to be niche that's preventing it's production in a AAA game. And this is despite player's attempts to tell you that we want it, and explanations as to why, and how it can be fun and exciting. Instead of listening, talking about it and solving problems in making it, your entire industry is circling the wagons and focusing on not doing it.
Comments
See this is where I play devils advocate.
I agree with what you said, but not because of habit or playstyle, but because most times the voice acting sucks, the lines are crappy, and it takes them forever to get to the point, and yes, I always seem to be a ble to speed read faster than they can talk.
However, this seems almost sacreligious seeings I am the OP, but I think you understand where I am coming from. In fact, I thijnk it would be more interesting to let the story play out before me, and keep the chit chat to a minimum unless I am in a chatty mood.
Another point. Why do I always have to find the quest givers. If those lazy bastards need someone to do their bidding...come find me.
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
Well I assumed he was critcizing the violence. The alternative was that he was quitting a game immediately for having any questing whatsoever -- which is clearly a very extreme and unusual mindset, if true.
If we're discussing tired vs. not tired, it's pretty clear that non-questing games lose out. Games without questing devolve into ultra-repetitive grinding, which is clearly not what players desire.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And Rift doesn't waste any time before waving its few authentic innovations in your face. The first you'll discover is its rich class and talent system. Immediately after selecting one of four archetypical "callings" (warrior, mage, cleric and rogue) during character creation, you choose your first "soul" to kick off your adventures in Telara. Souls are essentially individual talent trees in other games, but the key difference here is that you can collect up to nine of them. You get your first three early on through story progression, and then you get most of the rest by stealing souls from evil versions of representative classes summoned through rifts. The process isn't hard; if anything, it's a little too easy. Thanks to the endlessly spawning rifts, our mage picked up all but one of his available souls in around two hours just by running back and forth between the quest NPCs and the ever-present rifts.
Axe, quests are just another presentation of grinding. Players are tired of games that are about the grinding. The alternative that I think games need to go to is games that are about the world. What happens in it, players interacting with that, and having it full of action and adventure because of that.
Once upon a time....
Quests have nothing to do with grinding.
If you want to criticize grinding, criticize grinding.
But if you're playing a game which is (a) subscription-based and (b) a game which intends to suck up 200+ hours of your time, you're gonna be grinding. Period.
This has absolutely nothing to do with questing. I did maybe 1 single quest in Darkfall, but that game was still an ultra-grind.
I did lots of quests in EVE, but even if I hadn't it'd have still been an ultra-grind to earn money.
If you believe quests are the cause of grind, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Quests are actually a mechanism for making the grind seem like less of a grind. That's why they've been successful.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Quests are simply the mechanism to make you grind. I think Aramanthar nailed it.
It almost seems as if quests by nature have become an unimaginative, stereotype. In fact, I think as we head into the next batch of releases, we will begin to see the potential of dynamic worlds, and dynamic stories. Soon it will be unacceptable to kill x # of rats, instead we will be fighting of an invading swarm of mutated rats. We will see the damge done to the farm stead, and even more exciting, we will see them rebuild after we save them. This is the future...
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
The fact that 'the grind' has been accepted as a standard part of gameplay that must be over come with tedium is plain madness.
When you control the entire paradigm it would be far better to make 'the grind' the reason to play. In the case of each and every wow clone out there the core content are these tedius quests, some of which seem to have cohesion, some don't.
Running around collecting different hue'd boar snoats is a big passtime for the mass consumer. I see it a different way, I see it as utter madness.
I'm not sure what killing has to do with it? But since you got me started mass murder in video games is a little over the top. If I'm going to lay waste to a bunch of guys standing in their marked positions in Scaret Monastary it would be nice if I was imbued with some sense of purpose.
Respectfully, I see your inability to discern between a 'killless game' and the rut this industry in just a symptom of the bigger problem.
Successful according to who?
People don't quest because its a disguise for the grind. They blow out quests asap cuz its the fastest way to gain xp. Like people forgot that just killing things gives fairly much crap xp. Compared to the days that aoe'ing entire civilizations was "the way" to do it.
When my girl friend wanted to give WoW another go I was playing a tank and she was playing a healer. At whatever point we started splitting our time between BG's and random dungeons. On our battlegroup as a tank we got insta que for random dungeons. So we just stopped doing quests all together because BG's and Randoms were more fun.
So I suppose I would say quests in and of them selves are not successful to disguise the grind. Quest should have been intended as content. Part of a story that felt like it had a reason to be there.
Disguise the grind... you know I have another way of saying this. You design a game one of two ways.
1) You advance to play. This is the type of game where you grind through content and gear so that eventually you can just play it.
2) You play to advance. Fairly obvious this version you just play the game and advance as you play.
Now do you really have to ask yourself which one would be more fun?
There was this paticular MMO I used to play, its destruction was what lead me to this site to begin with. Now in that game I needed things for crafting and such. Things like hides, meat and bone and I got those things by killing creatures. So I was out "grinding" but I had a purpose. So within my purpose of getting stuff I wanted I didn't really notice I was grinding. Just to give an example...
Axe, the other replies to this all hit on points that are inclusive in the overall aspect. I'll add here that I don't think that quests cause grind, but that grind causes quests. And I've posted about that many times. If you make a game with grind, then you have to add the quests so as to lead players through your content properly.
But the overriding fact is that quests these days are indeed simply a presentation of that grind that you guys want to make. No, quests don't have to be, if you make a game where the grind isn't the primary focus. I know you guys are game makers and don't know any other way to make "games". But these are supposed to be worlds, not simply games. You need to learn how to do that. Or you'll be forced to step aside when the results are no longer bringing in the accounts, and that has started already. And as you well know, because I've told you this several times, I think the end has happened for your type of "game". Rift was supposed to be the next great thing, but is only the latest installment of the proof. Next you'll see, as I have told you, SWTOR with the same lack of success. GW2 won't be all that successful either, but they won't have to support their game like a standard MMO, so I guess you can call that success.
You developers have to start thinking of it as simulated worlds deluxe (to some degree or another), instead of games.
Once upon a time....
Imagine an entire zone next to a newbie starting area, where farmsteads, villages, crossroad inns, etc., are under constant assault from any number of things. Orcs from the mountains, evil temples, dungeons, what have you. And newbies can venture forth to the fringes, while those past the newbie stages can delve deeper into the war zone. Defend, run building supplies and caravans into the zone, a constant stream of activity where quests are simply something that needs to be done.
Once upon a time....
I'd love to see a worldwide faction system here with your monastary. If there are two monastaries, each with their own faction, and conflicting with eachother, and these factions carry on into the world at large.
So, if you are allied with one of these monastaries, you get a boost to that faction by fighting the other, and a negative from the other. If you aren't allied with either, you get no boost but you get the negative. As you go out into the world, these faction points affect your encounters out there with these factions. You might be Kill On Sight to the NPCs and higher ranking players in a faction (if said faction accepts players), but protected when in a city. You might have gained access to monastic resources such as training or libraries of world knowledge or even supplies.
Once upon a time....
As I often suggest, look back over the course of the entirety of videogame history. Notice that simulations have always been a tiny niche group.
Marketing tiny niche games -- especially when they need to be "massive" -- just isn't what most companies chase after. Some do (and examples already exist), but most don't -- and expecting otherwise is silly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Name one.
Edit to add: And don't make me laugh.
Once upon a time....
EVE and Darkfall are obvious examples of MMORPGs which have targetted niche markets. DCUO, Puzzle Pirates, POTBS, and Global Agenda are only the start of the rest of the list of varied MMOs targetting different niche markets.
But the big, beefy AAA companies are going strong into the big beefy market: the game players.
But again, this is all proven out by the history of the videogame industry. Look at every game which leaned Simulation when it could've leaned Game: they all perform poorly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only thing that you really need to know about Rift is this: it will let you do things at level 10 that other MMOs won’t let you do until level 85.
As I said in my recent World of Warcraft: Cataclysm review, the new expansion for WoW hooked me. But having leveled a character all the way to maximum for the first time, I eventually stalled. Raiding in World of Warcraft, and virtually every other MMO in existence, takes a tremendous amount of effort and preparation.
In Rift I took down my first Invasion raid boss with a group of at least fifty random people at level 11. It was an absolute blast. And if you don’t mind dealing with the ganking that occurs on the PvP servers, there is even more in store for you; in later zones the Guardians and Defiant share the space and the invasions, which means that running open-world PvP battles occur for the right to take down the Invasion raid boss and earn the rewards that go with it. Rift puts the multi-player back into MMO.
Will Rift ultimately be a huge hit? I haven’t a clue. But what I can tell you is that Rift is the best MMO I have ever played. Some players, having noticed the similarities to World of Warcraft, have questioned why they would play Rift instead. I think the question should be turned on its head; why play World of Warcraft instead of Rift? Why wait until level 85 to raid? Why spend days leveling with nary a player in site? Why run and fly about a world that is large but empty? Why put up with inflexible talent trees when you can instead mix-and-match however your please?
I’ve canceled my World of Warcraft subscription, and I don’t see myself going back.
I asked you not to make me laugh. Where did games that are designed to go after tiny, niche markets come from? We're talking major markets.
No one has tried to make a rich, diverse, major MMORPG out of a sandbox simulated world yet.
The closest was UO, but rampant PKing and a lack of a means to stop it caused players to leave in droves. And then they added an item based grind to mimic level based grinds, and suffere dyet more.
The second closest was SWG, but they failed to achieve a true sandbox world when they added level grind like power gaps that divided players just as surely as you do.
Eve isn't in consideration because they don't have a world, they have space.
Heck, Axe, why are you talking about such niche stuff? That has absolutely no bearing on this.
Once upon a time....
You suggested devs think of MMORPs as "Virtual Worlds Deluxe" -- aka Simulations, aka niche games, aka games companies don't spend AAA budgets on (if they're smart.)
You asked which companies chased after niche audiences, I told you.
So that's exactly why I'm talking about niche stuff: you made it the subject of conversation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Uhhh...UO had zero population decline pre-trammel - hell, they had close to 200k subs. It was only after they added their carebear PVP system to compete with EQ that they started losing subs.
IMO the (original) PVP system was the best thing about UO, besides it's sandbox world.
Except at endgame people realise the only viable way to earn prestige/PVP points is to grind warfronts, thus most people are sitting in their home towns waiting to WF's to pop - which means raid rifts don't spawn, which means world PVP is dead (well, combined with the fact that there are no open rvr zones or objectives, and they added invisible guards everywhere.. even on pvp servers).
Rift endgame = grinding instances you've already done for the past 49 levels (except mobs have more hp/dps), and grinding warfronts, again, most of which you've already played to death for the past 49 level's.
-snore-
Glad you're enjoying it though, just wasn't my cup of tea I guess.
The problem with quest in general is the massive over use of them that I really do not care at all what story they are trying to tell. Having to listen to talking NPC's and/or having to watch cut scenes for every quest, hell even 25% of the quest in a typical modern MMO would drive me crazy.
As the comments about UO they killed the game with Trammel. Up until then they were adding players. That coupled with the launch of EQ started the slide. Still impressive they have enough people playing to keep the game alive today.
I hopped ship to EQ mostly because I was awestruck by the graphics and sound. Funny now but going from 2D UO to EQ was something you had to experience to understand how impressive it was for the time. I still remember the first time going through the Dark Elf city, the cackle of those skeletons and the sounds of the world.
I have pretty much given up hope for anything outside of easy mode theme park games at this point. They are not making MMO's for me anymore they making them for the A-D-D instant gratification generation now.
Which is funny because this was causing an increase in the Rift spawns in the starter regions that were so massive that would wipe the zone because those people counted towards Rift-spawn population but weren't actually active in helping close them down for the zone.
Nothing more depressing than having major Rift invasions to occur back to back only to have them fail repeatedly due to lack of caring on ANYONES part in the zone (normally a small group of 5-10 are TRYING to piece things together but failing).
Didnt Bioware declare quite early on that they were going to do as much voiceover work as possible ?
Which only reinforce what I'm trying to say. Basically you're doing the same thing you were doing with the text quests, the difference being that somebody is reading them to you. I was talking more in terms of something happening in the world and you decide whether to participate or not.
When I play a single player RPG I get into the story. Because the world actually changes, the story actually matters, and what I do matters (or at least seems to).
In Fallout for example, I can save a city. Or, I can blow it to smithereens.
It's not "phased". It's not kinda sorta blown to smithereens in an illusion, but still there at the same time.
It's really, truly, blown up by a nuclear bomb, and it's not coming back, and you can't ever visit it again.
That's fun.
But when an MMORPG tells you a story, nothign happens. The city is never blown up, because other players have to go there.
Or, it's "phased" out, like you have to pretend it's gone, but it's really not because other players are like, yea, I just went to that city. It's right there.
Why do you assume that sandbox worlds must be niche? We're talking about AAA efforts here, not efforts designed from the get-go to be niche. It's only the gaming industry's belief that "sandbox" has to be niche that's preventing it's production in a AAA game. And this is despite player's attempts to tell you that we want it, and explanations as to why, and how it can be fun and exciting. Instead of listening, talking about it and solving problems in making it, your entire industry is circling the wagons and focusing on not doing it.
Once upon a time....