The whole point of a good Sandbox's travel is wondering MOBs, and random chances of encounters, between fixed content. That adds the game play of keeping your eyes and ears open.
I know, I know, that's not "good game design" according to you. Where waypoints and controlled experience is just the bomb.
Well I've pointed out the simple truth that travel in existingtraditional MMORPGs is virtually devoid of gameplay. Which makes it bad game design for a developer to force players into that undesirable non-gameplay for more than the bare minimum.
If you want to discuss a theoretical MMORPG which made travel fun (by filling it with interesting gameplay), then obviously I'm going to agree that's smart game design.
No traditional MMORPG is like that.
The non-traditional MMORPG which made travel fun (Puzzle Pirates) did it by making travel be the game. The very act of traveling had a depth of gameplay completely unlike any traditional MMORPGs, and as a result: it was fun.
"If you want to discuss a theoretical MMORPG which made travel fun (by filling it with interesting gameplay), then obviously I'm going to agree that's smart game design."
But you never do. Instead you always argue with us that it's bad game design or isn't possible or whatever other excuse. Until now, anyways, but it comes with that "theoretical" and...
I think Axehilt already answered your question for "Why is that?"
WoW evolved away from sandbox features as it progressed through vanilla, into BC, into WotLK. The developers designed the game based on what the players found interesting, and creating more efficient quest hubs and quest objectives was one of those, as well as having quests for every single level. With no holes.
Killing and exploring while I travel implies that I need to do that. If all the quests are streamlined for my levelling process, why do I need to go exploring and mob killing outside the quest process? And if I wanted to go exploring and random mob killing in a game with streamlined quests, I would be at a dis-advantage to the people who did the quests properly, and I would level in-efficiently and my gear would suffer, etc. etc.
So, when the quests become super streamlined, and travelling is pointless but for going to quest hubs, why even have long travel times?
Of course, I'm pretty sure Axehilt already explained this, and better then I did.
"If you want to discuss a theoretical MMORPG which made travel fun (by filling it with interesting gameplay), then obviously I'm going to agree that's smart game design."
But you never do. Instead you always argue with us that it's bad game design or isn't possible or whatever other excuse. Until now, anyways, but it comes with that "theoretical" and...
"No traditional MMORPG is like that."
Exactly. Why is that?
I do agree with it. Every time it's brought up. (Which is basically never.)
No traditional MMORPG is made like that because "let's make a game about awesome travel!" isn't the game people think to make, nor is it necessarily a driving player desire.
"Let's make a game about awesome heroism!" is what people think to make, and can be just as fun (but involves minimizing travel; in the same way that you aren't tediously forced to read about every uneventful day in the Hobbits' journey to Mordor in Tolkien's trilogy. It's omitted because it's uninteresting, much like uneventful travel must be in a heroism-focused MMORPG.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The whole point of a good Sandbox's travel is wondering MOBs, and random chances of encounters, between fixed content. That adds the game play of keeping your eyes and ears open.
I know, I know, that's not "good game design" according to you. Where waypoints and controlled experience is just the bomb.
Well I've pointed out the simple truth that travel in existingtraditional MMORPGs is virtually devoid of gameplay. Which makes it bad game design for a developer to force players into that undesirable non-gameplay for more than the bare minimum.
If you want to discuss a theoretical MMORPG which made travel fun (by filling it with interesting gameplay), then obviously I'm going to agree that's smart game design.
No traditional MMORPG is like that.
The non-traditional MMORPG which made travel fun (Puzzle Pirates) did it by making travel be the game. The very act of traveling had a depth of gameplay completely unlike any traditional MMORPGs, and as a result: it was fun.
What do you think about TSWs circular questing system in conjunction with investigation missions?
Well, I will not go in to trying to expain why things are the way they are, been doing it for years and I am simply fed up, as fed us as with the MMORPG's hitingthe market since WoW...fed up of the quests fed up of the Progression Focus fed up of the Gear Focus...Fed up of these Designs.
So I only speak about myself and how i have been feeling since a couple of years now with the Genre. I think it seriously needs change...
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
- Zones have more quests than necessary to "progress"
- Quests lead you around the zone, sometimes in stages
- When you reach the end of a quest, there is usually a quest nearby to pick up (usually related to the previous task)
- There is no running back to turn in quests (you turn them in via your ingame cellphone)
- Quests "lie around" on the ground or in the environment
I call it "circular" because the quests essentially leads you in concentric circles around the zone.
You never have the feeling that you are actively traveling (i.e. running to reach your next hub).
Well sure, it sounds like that's an improvement over the already-somewhat-efficient Quest Hub system.
Anything that lets players engage more frequently in a game's deepest systems (often, but not always, combat) and less frequently in its shallowest systems (like typical MMORPG travel), the better the game is.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What do you think about TSWs circular questing system in conjunction with investigation missions?
Haven't seen anything on it yet. Got a link?
Not really.
I can describe it to you though from the beta.
In short:
- Zones have more quests than necessary to "progress"
- Quests lead you around the zone, sometimes in stages
- When you reach the end of a quest, there is usually a quest nearby to pick up (usually related to the previous task)
- There is no running back to turn in quests (you turn them in via your ingame cellphone)
- Quests "lie around" on the ground or in the environment
I call it "circular" because the quests essentially leads you in concentric circles around the zone.
You never have the feeling that you are actively traveling (i.e. running to reach your next hub).
Sounds a lot like the DEs in GW2, except that those DEs may or may not be there when you pass through - and well... they don't necessarily take you anywhere.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
My thoughts are that the future of the gaming industry lies with indie devs. We live in an age where people are monotonously apathetic. People are content with buying rubbish, this does not only apply to games. CEO's don't care about making good games, as long as they have a formulae which makes money, they will use it. That is why there's so many CoD games, that's why there so many WoW clones.
As it gets easier and easier to produce games, we will see small dev teams flourish. The video game genre isn't like other corporate ran genres. It isn't like music where the underground generally stays underground. As long as something is good people will usually play it.
I am extremely optimistic for the future or online gaming and gaming in general. The monopolies are learning we don't take the cr*p that other media users do. The whole EA/Bioware day one DLC comes to mind. We are very vocal.
I am a MMORPG gamer of a different ilk. I've stayed with one game for around fifteen years. Crazy right? I've tried other games like Asheron's Call, Guild Wars and ones like that. I've stayed with this one because it actually allows for Roleplaying. Which doesn't happen in all the games currently released. It was made by an indy dev group obviously in the Late 90's.
I don't know if anybody here remembers Mplayer but back in it's hayday. This game which was called Underlight at that time. Was probably the biggest MMORPG on the site. Had alot of players and if they had gotten the right exposure and been able to produce their sequel game which they had in testing but were lacking funding. It could've been this style of game.
Shades of Truth is all that's left of this game now, a small community but it shows what actual MMORPG is supposed to be. Not hack and slash cookie cutter quests where you can mindlessly play. Honestly those games insult the intelligence of the player somewhat. Being so simple often times that anyone can complete them. Relatively no skill involved.
The only reason I still play Shades of Truth is for the emersion of the roleplay. You have to because the graphics are not the best by any stretch (Still 2D and pixel based). But the game is still fun and playable 15 years later for me. Which says something when i've turned away from all other games.
What do you think about TSWs circular questing system in conjunction with investigation missions?
Haven't seen anything on it yet. Got a link?
Not really.
I can describe it to you though from the beta.
In short:
- Zones have more quests than necessary to "progress"
- Quests lead you around the zone, sometimes in stages
- When you reach the end of a quest, there is usually a quest nearby to pick up (usually related to the previous task)
- There is no running back to turn in quests (you turn them in via your ingame cellphone)
- Quests "lie around" on the ground or in the environment
I call it "circular" because the quests essentially leads you in concentric circles around the zone.
You never have the feeling that you are actively traveling (i.e. running to reach your next hub).
Sounds a lot like the DEs in GW2, except that those DEs may or may not be there when you pass through - and well... they don't necessarily take you anywhere.
Well, I will not go in to trying to expain why things are the way they are, been doing it for years and I am simply fed up, as fed us as with the MMORPG's hitingthe market since WoW...fed up of the quests fed up of the Progression Focus fed up of the Gear Focus...Fed up of these Designs.
So I only speak about myself and how i have been feeling since a couple of years now with the Genre. I think it seriously needs change...
No. IMHO, we need more progression, gear, combat focus games.
Diablo 3 is the perfect example. Totally additive and fun game. It does not need any of the usual MMO trappings/ features to be successful. It distill down to the core gameplay: have a DEEP system to hack & slash, lots of gear progression, multiplayer, and add a AH.
I hope there are more games like it .. in fact .. perhaps more games in different settings.
It is not a MMO, but it captures the important part of the modern MMO gameplay better than any MMO (small group, instanced combat & progression).
Sounds a lot like the DEs in GW2, except that those DEs may or may not be there when you pass through - and well... they don't necessarily take you anywhere.
So its nothing like DEs in GW2 then....
"Nothing" would be an overstatement. They are quite similar how players go about engaging content.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
No. IMHO, we need more progression, gear, combat focus games.
Diablo 3 is the perfect example. Totally additive and fun game. It does not need any of the usual MMO trappings/ features to be successful. It distill down to the core gameplay: have a DEEP system to hack & slash, lots of gear progression, multiplayer, and add a AH.
I hope there are more games like it .. in fact .. perhaps more games in different settings.
It is not a MMO, but it captures the important part of the modern MMO gameplay better than any MMO (small group, instanced combat & progression).
Well, you are in luck, try a "modern" mmo i and some other people bash here, d3 has unfortunately borrowed many mechanics from that game type
Things like progression only within limited boundaries as to make the game challenging (cant really overgear/overspec stuff late in the game, materials tiered, too much focus on item type stats, like wepon base damage, instead of magic enchants), inconsistencies and strange things due to game "balance" (mobs immune in "spawning" animation, disintegrate not working on "resurrectable" monsters, like fallen + shaman, bombardier on a group that is ranged and has ai to stay in range... ), mobs actually dictating gameplay (arcane waller vortex anyone? ).
D3 is a solid game (rare these days, dont get me wrong), but i kinda expected to play something different than "endgame always challenging grind" (you may remember that since baal in nightmare d2, you would meet 80+ lvl monsters with the ability to drop everything in the game, only chances increased, i dont think they did the same with inferno tiers, but i could be wrong)
It is not a MMO, but it captures the important part of the modern MMO gameplay better than any MMO (small group, instanced combat & progression).
That is exactly how I felt about GW1 back in 2005. Pick the good from MMOs, leave the shit out (the grind, the travel times and other timesinks, FFA PvP etc.) Good times...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I'm just getting tired of MMOs...and it has little to do with the games themselves...it's the horrendous, self-absorbed, narcassistic, self-righteous, clingy, needy players that flock to these games. They're overwhelmingly pessimistic and cynical, often deluded.
The effort it takes to find the10% of good people online who are optimistic, confident, happy, and positive is better spent in finding people in real life to hang with. Maybe there's a correlation here....hmmm
It is not a MMO, but it captures the important part of the modern MMO gameplay better than any MMO (small group, instanced combat & progression).
That is exactly how I felt about GW1 back in 2005. Pick the good from MMOs, leave the shit out (the grind, the travel times and other timesinks, FFA PvP etc.) Good times...
The good times are back. With D3 being hugely successful (just reading it sold 3.5M copies on the FIRST DAY, EXCLUDING the 1.2M WOW annual pass and up to 6.3M (total player) in a week), more games like that probably will be made.
The good times are back. With D3 being hugely successful (just reading it sold 3.5M copies on the FIRST DAY, EXCLUDING the 1.2M WOW annual pass and up to 6.3M (total player) in a week), more games like that probably will be made.
Sadly 99% of them will completely lack the design chops of Blizzard and completely fail to understand what makes the genre fun.
That Path of Exile game people were toting recently looked like a perfect example. They vaguely understood the surface level traits that make a Diablo game successful (click monsters, get loot) but then each of their classes looks extremely shallow (few abilities.) Abilities are the toys of an action RPG, and failing to provide variety in both the player's capabilities and the mobs' capabilities is failure to create a fun action RPG (and I suppose this could be said of most games in general really.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It is not a MMO, but it captures the important part of the modern MMO gameplay better than any MMO (small group, instanced combat & progression).
That is exactly how I felt about GW1 back in 2005. Pick the good from MMOs, leave the shit out (the grind, the travel times and other timesinks, FFA PvP etc.) Good times...
The good times are back. With D3 being hugely successful (just reading it sold 3.5M copies on the FIRST DAY, EXCLUDING the 1.2M WOW annual pass and up to 6.3M (total player) in a week), more games like that probably will be made.
As much as I enjoy D3, much of what makes it enjoyable is the lack of depth and the ease at which a player can jump in and get to it so to speak. An MMORPG is not in the same ballpark as D3 in the sense that Diablo has a very basic concept, is user friendly and can be played with success for 30 mins or 4 hours.
To me, a good MMO has content that requires some time to be spent. Travelling should be included as part of the experience. I don't want to log in and just grind constantly. Maybe I want to explore, group, craft, build. These are things that feel more substantial then the pure hack and slash that Diablo 3 offers and the creative use of this content driven type of MMO is whats been lacking imo.
It is not a MMO, but it captures the important part of the modern MMO gameplay better than any MMO (small group, instanced combat & progression).
That is exactly how I felt about GW1 back in 2005. Pick the good from MMOs, leave the shit out (the grind, the travel times and other timesinks, FFA PvP etc.) Good times...
The good times are back. With D3 being hugely successful (just reading it sold 3.5M copies on the FIRST DAY, EXCLUDING the 1.2M WOW annual pass and up to 6.3M (total player) in a week), more games like that probably will be made.
As much as I enjoy D3, much of what makes it enjoyable is the lack of depth and the ease at which a player can jump in and get to it so to speak. An MMORPG is not in the same ballpark as D3 in the sense that Diablo has a very basic concept, is user friendly and can be played with success for 30 mins or 4 hours.
You obviously have not finished INFERNO mode. People are trying many builds, with much optimization (of gear) before some parts of INFERNO mode is even possible. A perfect example of easy to get into (normal mode), hard to master. See all the QQing about how difficult it is on the official forum.
I would say a MMO should be the same .. plus players need to be able to achieve something in 30 min. No one has time for 4 hour sessions all the time.
To me, a good MMO has content that requires some time to be spent. Travelling should be included as part of the experience. I don't want to log in and just grind constantly. Maybe I want to explore, group, craft, build. These are things that feel more substantial then the pure hack and slash that Diablo 3 offers and the creative use of this content driven type of MMO is whats been lacking imo.
No. Games should be required a commitment like a marriage. Travelling is never a popular core gameplay element, even for MMOs. For the 4 things you talk about, you can group (and finding group is EASY) in Diablo 3. Most MMOs are hack-n-slash anyway. May as well do it well, and don't focus on the unnecessary elements.
It is not a MMO, but it captures the important part of the modern MMO gameplay better than any MMO (small group, instanced combat & progression).
That is exactly how I felt about GW1 back in 2005. Pick the good from MMOs, leave the shit out (the grind, the travel times and other timesinks, FFA PvP etc.) Good times...
The good times are back. With D3 being hugely successful (just reading it sold 3.5M copies on the FIRST DAY, EXCLUDING the 1.2M WOW annual pass and up to 6.3M (total player) in a week), more games like that probably will be made.
As much as I enjoy D3, much of what makes it enjoyable is the lack of depth and the ease at which a player can jump in and get to it so to speak. An MMORPG is not in the same ballpark as D3 in the sense that Diablo has a very basic concept, is user friendly and can be played with success for 30 mins or 4 hours.
You obviously have not finished INFERNO mode. People are trying many builds, with much optimization (of gear) before some parts of INFERNO mode is even possible. A perfect example of easy to get into (normal mode), hard to master. See all the QQing about how difficult it is on the official forum.
I would say a MMO should be the same .. plus players need to be able to achieve something in 30 min. No one has time for 4 hour sessions all the time.
To me, a good MMO has content that requires some time to be spent. Travelling should be included as part of the experience. I don't want to log in and just grind constantly. Maybe I want to explore, group, craft, build. These are things that feel more substantial then the pure hack and slash that Diablo 3 offers and the creative use of this content driven type of MMO is whats been lacking imo.
No. Games should be required a commitment like a marriage. Travelling is never a popular core gameplay element, even for MMOs. For the 4 things you talk about, you can group (and finding group is EASY) in Diablo 3. Most MMOs are hack-n-slash anyway. May as well do it well, and don't focus on the unnecessary elements.
The fact that you can spend however much time you wish in Diablo 3 and still achieve somthing, makes this a user friendly game. Im not talking about skill required or character builds or anything else. Im just stating that a player who has feasably never played this type of genre before can pick up D3 and understand the general concept very quickly.
This is not the case with an MMORPG. To me and IMO this is what makes a good MMORPG. Having a choice of content. And again, in my opinion choice of content means being able to explore new worlds, learn new crafting techniques, build structures, group with friends etc etc. If I want to spend time in a different world I want to do so in an Massively Multiplayer Online game. If I want to hack and slash, I will play Diablo 3. Choice of games is subjective obviously and my opinion is just one of many.
All this does not take away from the fact that developers are pawning off their next big MMO as something groundbreaking when in fact they offer nothing new to the genre. Diablo 3 is a different genre and therefore not in the same MMO ballpark.
The fact that you can spend however much time you wish in Diablo 3 and still achieve somthing, makes this a user friendly game. Im not talking about skill required or character builds or anything else. Im just stating that a player who has feasably never played this type of genre before can pick up D3 and understand the general concept very quickly.
Agreed. Simple to learn & difficult to master. And D3 is extremely simple to learn.
This is not the case with an MMORPG. To me and IMO this is what makes a good MMORPG. Having a choice of content. And again, in my opinion choice of content means being able to explore new worlds, learn new crafting techniques, build structures, group with friends etc etc. If I want to spend time in a different world I want to do so in an Massively Multiplayer Online game. If I want to hack and slash, I will play Diablo 3. Choice of games is subjective obviously and my opinion is just one of many.
That is up for debate. There is no reason why the first few levels of a MMO needs to be difficult. Players need to get use to the interface and learn the geography of the immediate zone anyway.
Given how many players play MMOs (waiting for dungeon, soloing), i would say most want to hack-n-slash and progress. In fact, many MMO players *are* playing D3 right now. That is why i think there should be more Diablo type games, and fewer MMOs, or turn MMO settings into Diablo type games.
This is not the case with an MMORPG. To me and IMO this is what makes a good MMORPG. Having a choice of content. And again, in my opinion choice of content means being able to explore new worlds, learn new crafting techniques, build structures, group with friends etc etc. If I want to spend time in a different world I want to do so in an Massively Multiplayer Online game. If I want to hack and slash, I will play Diablo 3. Choice of games is subjective obviously and my opinion is just one of many.
All this does not take away from the fact that developers are pawning off their next big MMO as something groundbreaking when in fact they offer nothing new to the genre. Diablo 3 is a different genre and therefore not in the same MMO ballpark.
I agree MMORPGs don't always tend to be simple to learn and difficult to master. And that's a fundamental flaw.
It's kinda funny that exploring a world, learning new crafting recipes, building structures, and grouping with friends are all things you can do in Diablo too. You still have that choice of which content to engage in too (sometimes I craft, sometimes I explore entire maps, sometimes I dive straight for where I think the quest objective might be, sometimes I upgrade my blacksmith's hut.)
It's just not unnecessarily complex or inconvenient.
Diablo 3 has plenty of lessons for MMORPGs to learn from. Those who learn the lessons will succeed better. Those who don't will continue to have unnecessary obstructions to fun in their game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is not the case with an MMORPG. To me and IMO this is what makes a good MMORPG. Having a choice of content. And again, in my opinion choice of content means being able to explore new worlds, learn new crafting techniques, build structures, group with friends etc etc. If I want to spend time in a different world I want to do so in an Massively Multiplayer Online game. If I want to hack and slash, I will play Diablo 3. Choice of games is subjective obviously and my opinion is just one of many.
All this does not take away from the fact that developers are pawning off their next big MMO as something groundbreaking when in fact they offer nothing new to the genre. Diablo 3 is a different genre and therefore not in the same MMO ballpark.
I agree MMORPGs don't always tend to be simple to learn and difficult to master. And that's a fundamental flaw.
It's kinda funny that exploring a world, learning new crafting recipes, building structures, and grouping with friends are all things you can do in Diablo too. You still have that choice of which content to engage in too (sometimes I craft, sometimes I explore entire maps, sometimes I dive straight for where I think the quest objective might be, sometimes I upgrade my blacksmith's hut.)
It's just not unnecessarily complex or inconvenient.
Diablo 3 has plenty of lessons for MMORPGs to learn from. Those who learn the lessons will succeed better. Those who don't will continue to have unnecessary obstructions to fun in their game.
DIablo 3 gameplay is pretty predictable. Fight creatures, gain gear, rinse and repeat. Yes I can craft and group and explore to a degree, and just because these elements are preset in D3 and in MMO's does not make them equal. There are many ways to create a crafting framework in a game. I prefer something more complex that takes time to master. That may require the help of my friends or that may make me do some travelling in order to find my materials. Its the way that the game incorporates these elements that to me define a true MMO experience.
I would prefer a game world that offers longevity and depth of content. I want to play and log in to a game that gives me what I feel is a true MMO experience. I know that in 6 months from now what i can expect from Diablo 3. I know that the environments although randomly generated are still painted in a theme based on the act your playing in. This predictability is what takes away from that sense of wonder that a truly vast MMO world may offer. I am not asking for an MMO with inconvenince. Balance is key.
To me this idea of incorporating more of D3 into an MMO is taking away the massive in MMO and catering to the masses. Theres alot of that going around lately, so if thats your thing..you likely won't have long to wait. Me, Im holding out for something that suites my MMORPG playstyle.
Comments
"If you want to discuss a theoretical MMORPG which made travel fun (by filling it with interesting gameplay), then obviously I'm going to agree that's smart game design."
But you never do. Instead you always argue with us that it's bad game design or isn't possible or whatever other excuse. Until now, anyways, but it comes with that "theoretical" and...
"No traditional MMORPG is like that."
Exactly. Why is that?
Once upon a time....
I think Axehilt already answered your question for "Why is that?"
WoW evolved away from sandbox features as it progressed through vanilla, into BC, into WotLK. The developers designed the game based on what the players found interesting, and creating more efficient quest hubs and quest objectives was one of those, as well as having quests for every single level. With no holes.
Killing and exploring while I travel implies that I need to do that. If all the quests are streamlined for my levelling process, why do I need to go exploring and mob killing outside the quest process? And if I wanted to go exploring and random mob killing in a game with streamlined quests, I would be at a dis-advantage to the people who did the quests properly, and I would level in-efficiently and my gear would suffer, etc. etc.
So, when the quests become super streamlined, and travelling is pointless but for going to quest hubs, why even have long travel times?
Of course, I'm pretty sure Axehilt already explained this, and better then I did.
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
I do agree with it. Every time it's brought up. (Which is basically never.)
No traditional MMORPG is made like that because "let's make a game about awesome travel!" isn't the game people think to make, nor is it necessarily a driving player desire.
"Let's make a game about awesome heroism!" is what people think to make, and can be just as fun (but involves minimizing travel; in the same way that you aren't tediously forced to read about every uneventful day in the Hobbits' journey to Mordor in Tolkien's trilogy. It's omitted because it's uninteresting, much like uneventful travel must be in a heroism-focused MMORPG.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What do you think about TSWs circular questing system in conjunction with investigation missions?
Haven't seen anything on it yet. Got a link?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well, I will not go in to trying to expain why things are the way they are, been doing it for years and I am simply fed up, as fed us as with the MMORPG's hitingthe market since WoW...fed up of the quests fed up of the Progression Focus fed up of the Gear Focus...Fed up of these Designs.
So I only speak about myself and how i have been feeling since a couple of years now with the Genre. I think it seriously needs change...
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Not really.
I can describe it to you though from the beta.
In short:
- Zones have more quests than necessary to "progress"
- Quests lead you around the zone, sometimes in stages
- When you reach the end of a quest, there is usually a quest nearby to pick up (usually related to the previous task)
- There is no running back to turn in quests (you turn them in via your ingame cellphone)
- Quests "lie around" on the ground or in the environment
I call it "circular" because the quests essentially leads you in concentric circles around the zone.
You never have the feeling that you are actively traveling (i.e. running to reach your next hub).
Well sure, it sounds like that's an improvement over the already-somewhat-efficient Quest Hub system.
Anything that lets players engage more frequently in a game's deepest systems (often, but not always, combat) and less frequently in its shallowest systems (like typical MMORPG travel), the better the game is.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sounds a lot like the DEs in GW2, except that those DEs may or may not be there when you pass through - and well... they don't necessarily take you anywhere.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
OP-
My thoughts are that the future of the gaming industry lies with indie devs. We live in an age where people are monotonously apathetic. People are content with buying rubbish, this does not only apply to games. CEO's don't care about making good games, as long as they have a formulae which makes money, they will use it. That is why there's so many CoD games, that's why there so many WoW clones.
As it gets easier and easier to produce games, we will see small dev teams flourish. The video game genre isn't like other corporate ran genres. It isn't like music where the underground generally stays underground. As long as something is good people will usually play it.
I am extremely optimistic for the future or online gaming and gaming in general. The monopolies are learning we don't take the cr*p that other media users do. The whole EA/Bioware day one DLC comes to mind. We are very vocal.
I am a MMORPG gamer of a different ilk. I've stayed with one game for around fifteen years. Crazy right? I've tried other games like Asheron's Call, Guild Wars and ones like that. I've stayed with this one because it actually allows for Roleplaying. Which doesn't happen in all the games currently released. It was made by an indy dev group obviously in the Late 90's.
I don't know if anybody here remembers Mplayer but back in it's hayday. This game which was called Underlight at that time. Was probably the biggest MMORPG on the site. Had alot of players and if they had gotten the right exposure and been able to produce their sequel game which they had in testing but were lacking funding. It could've been this style of game.
Shades of Truth is all that's left of this game now, a small community but it shows what actual MMORPG is supposed to be. Not hack and slash cookie cutter quests where you can mindlessly play. Honestly those games insult the intelligence of the player somewhat. Being so simple often times that anyone can complete them. Relatively no skill involved.
The only reason I still play Shades of Truth is for the emersion of the roleplay. You have to because the graphics are not the best by any stretch (Still 2D and pixel based). But the game is still fun and playable 15 years later for me. Which says something when i've turned away from all other games.
So its nothing like DEs in GW2 then....
No. IMHO, we need more progression, gear, combat focus games.
Diablo 3 is the perfect example. Totally additive and fun game. It does not need any of the usual MMO trappings/ features to be successful. It distill down to the core gameplay: have a DEEP system to hack & slash, lots of gear progression, multiplayer, and add a AH.
I hope there are more games like it .. in fact .. perhaps more games in different settings.
It is not a MMO, but it captures the important part of the modern MMO gameplay better than any MMO (small group, instanced combat & progression).
"Nothing" would be an overstatement. They are quite similar how players go about engaging content.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well, you are in luck, try a "modern" mmo i and some other people bash here, d3 has unfortunately borrowed many mechanics from that game type
Things like progression only within limited boundaries as to make the game challenging (cant really overgear/overspec stuff late in the game, materials tiered, too much focus on item type stats, like wepon base damage, instead of magic enchants), inconsistencies and strange things due to game "balance" (mobs immune in "spawning" animation, disintegrate not working on "resurrectable" monsters, like fallen + shaman, bombardier on a group that is ranged and has ai to stay in range... ), mobs actually dictating gameplay (arcane waller vortex anyone? ).
D3 is a solid game (rare these days, dont get me wrong), but i kinda expected to play something different than "endgame always challenging grind" (you may remember that since baal in nightmare d2, you would meet 80+ lvl monsters with the ability to drop everything in the game, only chances increased, i dont think they did the same with inferno tiers, but i could be wrong)
/d3 disappointment mode off
Flame on!
That is exactly how I felt about GW1 back in 2005. Pick the good from MMOs, leave the shit out (the grind, the travel times and other timesinks, FFA PvP etc.) Good times...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I'm just getting tired of MMOs...and it has little to do with the games themselves...it's the horrendous, self-absorbed, narcassistic, self-righteous, clingy, needy players that flock to these games. They're overwhelmingly pessimistic and cynical, often deluded.
The effort it takes to find the10% of good people online who are optimistic, confident, happy, and positive is better spent in finding people in real life to hang with. Maybe there's a correlation here....hmmm
The good times are back. With D3 being hugely successful (just reading it sold 3.5M copies on the FIRST DAY, EXCLUDING the 1.2M WOW annual pass and up to 6.3M (total player) in a week), more games like that probably will be made.
Sadly 99% of them will completely lack the design chops of Blizzard and completely fail to understand what makes the genre fun.
That Path of Exile game people were toting recently looked like a perfect example. They vaguely understood the surface level traits that make a Diablo game successful (click monsters, get loot) but then each of their classes looks extremely shallow (few abilities.) Abilities are the toys of an action RPG, and failing to provide variety in both the player's capabilities and the mobs' capabilities is failure to create a fun action RPG (and I suppose this could be said of most games in general really.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As much as I enjoy D3, much of what makes it enjoyable is the lack of depth and the ease at which a player can jump in and get to it so to speak. An MMORPG is not in the same ballpark as D3 in the sense that Diablo has a very basic concept, is user friendly and can be played with success for 30 mins or 4 hours.
To me, a good MMO has content that requires some time to be spent. Travelling should be included as part of the experience. I don't want to log in and just grind constantly. Maybe I want to explore, group, craft, build. These are things that feel more substantial then the pure hack and slash that Diablo 3 offers and the creative use of this content driven type of MMO is whats been lacking imo.
The fact that you can spend however much time you wish in Diablo 3 and still achieve somthing, makes this a user friendly game. Im not talking about skill required or character builds or anything else. Im just stating that a player who has feasably never played this type of genre before can pick up D3 and understand the general concept very quickly.
This is not the case with an MMORPG. To me and IMO this is what makes a good MMORPG. Having a choice of content. And again, in my opinion choice of content means being able to explore new worlds, learn new crafting techniques, build structures, group with friends etc etc. If I want to spend time in a different world I want to do so in an Massively Multiplayer Online game. If I want to hack and slash, I will play Diablo 3. Choice of games is subjective obviously and my opinion is just one of many.
All this does not take away from the fact that developers are pawning off their next big MMO as something groundbreaking when in fact they offer nothing new to the genre. Diablo 3 is a different genre and therefore not in the same MMO ballpark.
I agree MMORPGs don't always tend to be simple to learn and difficult to master. And that's a fundamental flaw.
It's kinda funny that exploring a world, learning new crafting recipes, building structures, and grouping with friends are all things you can do in Diablo too. You still have that choice of which content to engage in too (sometimes I craft, sometimes I explore entire maps, sometimes I dive straight for where I think the quest objective might be, sometimes I upgrade my blacksmith's hut.)
It's just not unnecessarily complex or inconvenient.
Diablo 3 has plenty of lessons for MMORPGs to learn from. Those who learn the lessons will succeed better. Those who don't will continue to have unnecessary obstructions to fun in their game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
DIablo 3 gameplay is pretty predictable. Fight creatures, gain gear, rinse and repeat. Yes I can craft and group and explore to a degree, and just because these elements are preset in D3 and in MMO's does not make them equal. There are many ways to create a crafting framework in a game. I prefer something more complex that takes time to master. That may require the help of my friends or that may make me do some travelling in order to find my materials. Its the way that the game incorporates these elements that to me define a true MMO experience.
I would prefer a game world that offers longevity and depth of content. I want to play and log in to a game that gives me what I feel is a true MMO experience. I know that in 6 months from now what i can expect from Diablo 3. I know that the environments although randomly generated are still painted in a theme based on the act your playing in. This predictability is what takes away from that sense of wonder that a truly vast MMO world may offer. I am not asking for an MMO with inconvenince. Balance is key.
To me this idea of incorporating more of D3 into an MMO is taking away the massive in MMO and catering to the masses. Theres alot of that going around lately, so if thats your thing..you likely won't have long to wait. Me, Im holding out for something that suites my MMORPG playstyle.