Originally posted by bunnyhopper At no point have I suggested that simply making it impossible to AFK is a good idea. I have posited dynamic, engaging and interesting worlds, where the player is actively invovled in interesting decision making whilst moving through said worlds on a number of levels. At the same time retaining all the benefits and interlinked systems an open, dynamic and engaging game world can have. All without the need for superfluous skills, minigames or instancing.
If someone wants to try and AFK that or numlock walk through that they are welcome to try it, if they are walking from their house to a shop 500m away in the same town they most likely will be able to AFK it. If they only want to move just outside of town, again they may well be able to try it. But further? Well they can try it, the option is there to give it a go, but it really wont end well.
I never implied you did.
But that's the reality of travel in these games. It's a shallow system but you can't fully AFK.
Because travel is shallow it'd be better if you could AFK, because then players would be free to ignore the shallow system. It still wouldn't be a good overall system, because you'd basically be saying "go do something else for a while, this part of the game isn't fun".
Hence the need for deep travel, so players aren't even considering AFKing. Instead they're actively traveling for travel's sake because travel is really fun to do. Just like Puzzle Pirates (where I seriously did nothing but travel and had no other goals for the game, yet completely enjoyed my time because travel was a fun game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by bunnyhopper At no point have I suggested that simply making it impossible to AFK is a good idea. I have posited dynamic, engaging and interesting worlds, where the player is actively invovled in interesting decision making whilst moving through said worlds on a number of levels. At the same time retaining all the benefits and interlinked systems an open, dynamic and engaging game world can have. All without the need for superfluous skills, minigames or instancing.
If someone wants to try and AFK that or numlock walk through that they are welcome to try it, if they are walking from their house to a shop 500m away in the same town they most likely will be able to AFK it. If they only want to move just outside of town, again they may well be able to try it. But further? Well they can try it, the option is there to give it a go, but it really wont end well.
I never implied you did.
But that's the reality of travel in these games. It's a shallow system but you can't fully AFK.
Because travel is shallow it'd be better if you could AFK, because then players would be free to ignore the shallow system. It still wouldn't be a good overall system, because you'd basically be saying "go do something else for a while, this part of the game isn't fun".
Hence the need for deep travel, so players aren't even considering AFKing. Instead they're actively traveling for travel's sake because travel is really fun to do. Just like Puzzle Pirates (where I seriously did nothing but travel and had no other goals for the game, yet completely enjoyed my time because travel was a fun game.)
I'd like ot see a "Faster" travel system implemented. Maybe make it a monthly perk you pay fo rin a cash shop that let's you take a train, boat, or airship to your destination. It should by no means be instant. Turning MMO's into Lobby based deathmatch games is NOT helping the genre.
In fact I am renaming the entire Genre.
Persistent Lobby RPG.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
The market is huge and may still be expanding. Going into a direction you do not like != dead.
In fact, i think it is becoming MORE ALIVE, solving all the old problems (like camping & finding groups with instances & LFD/LFR), while giving a large part of the games to the players for FREE.
It is getting BETTER.
Disagree. WoW lost a million subscribers, SWTOR lost probably just as many. Where'd they go?
The probably went back to playing single player games or other non-MMO games.
The market is huge and may still be expanding. Going into a direction you do not like != dead.
In fact, i think it is becoming MORE ALIVE, solving all the old problems (like camping & finding groups with instances & LFD/LFR), while giving a large part of the games to the players for FREE.
It is getting BETTER.
Disagree. WoW lost a million subscribers, SWTOR lost probably just as many. Where'd they go?
The probably went back to playing single player games or other non-MMO games.
Or possibly returned to the mother ship...
That or their sentence in the Chinese Prison was up.
Soon this is all you will need to play any MMO...
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Hip hop is dead.. Classic action movies are dead.. Sidescrolling beat em ups are dead.. Michael Jackson, the king of pop, is dead..
MMORPG's, however, are not dead.. They have simply evolved.. Just like everything else in life that follows evolution cycles, you either adapt or perish..
What you consider MMOs by todays standerds arent really MMOs at all. Dont take my word for it. look it up. Theres no evolving goin on here. Its a MUTATION.
That is just semantics. Whatever you call them .. are better (for me) games than the old MMOs.
If Gamestop and all the game reviewers are calling WOW a MMO, are calling TSW a MMO, are calling GW2 a MMO, that is the label i will use.
SEMANTICS
You can keep talking all you want. Not making youeself look very good at all. No real MMOer today considers these POSs true MMOs. Think what ever you like but in the end you know it to be true. You yourself said what these mmos of today have be come, and its not what makes up a real mmo.
Waitng on ban from someone reporting me. Seems to be the thing to do these days when someone doesent agree with someone else.
Oh please great and mighty dude on an internet forum. Please tell all of us what a real MMOer is, and what a true MMO is. Please.
Get over yourself dude. You want a certain type of MMO, other people want other types. You like certain game mechanics, dislike others and other people don't necessarily like what you like. In the end, it's up to the devs to make the games they want to make. You'll either play them because you like them or you won't. That's all there is to it. You can spout all you want on a message board about what a true MMOer is and a true MMO is but in the end it's your opinion that is all. You really come across as a jackass by the way. No offence, but I thought you'd might like to know one dude on an internet forum to another.
Hip hop is dead.. Classic action movies are dead.. Sidescrolling beat em ups are dead.. Michael Jackson, the king of pop, is dead..
MMORPG's, however, are not dead.. They have simply evolved.. Just like everything else in life that follows evolution cycles, you either adapt or perish..
What you consider MMOs by todays standerds arent really MMOs at all. Dont take my word for it. look it up. Theres no evolving goin on here. Its a MUTATION.
That is just semantics. Whatever you call them .. are better (for me) games than the old MMOs.
If Gamestop and all the game reviewers are calling WOW a MMO, are calling TSW a MMO, are calling GW2 a MMO, that is the label i will use.
SEMANTICS
You can keep talking all you want. Not making youeself look very good at all. No real MMOer today considers these POSs true MMOs. Think what ever you like but in the end you know it to be true. You yourself said what these mmos of today have be come, and its not what makes up a real mmo.
Waitng on ban from someone reporting me. Seems to be the thing to do these days when someone doesent agree with someone else.
Oh please great and mighty dude on an internet forum. Please tell all of us what a real MMOer is, and what a true MMO is. Please.
Get over yourself dude. You want a certain type of MMO, other people want other types. You like certain game mechanics, dislike others and other people don't necessarily like what you like. In the end, it's up to the devs to make the games they want to make. You'll either play them because you like them or you won't. That's all there is to it. You can spout all you want on a message board about what a true MMOer is and a true MMO is but in the end it's your opinion that is all. You really come across as a jackass by the way. No offence, but I thought you'd might like to know one dude on an internet forum to another.
Awwww how cute you still think the Devs call the shots. It's all decided by a suit in an office who has probably never even played an MMO before.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Hip hop is dead.. Classic action movies are dead.. Sidescrolling beat em ups are dead.. Michael Jackson, the king of pop, is dead..
MMORPG's, however, are not dead.. They have simply evolved.. Just like everything else in life that follows evolution cycles, you either adapt or perish..
What you consider MMOs by todays standerds arent really MMOs at all. Dont take my word for it. look it up. Theres no evolving goin on here. Its a MUTATION.
That is just semantics. Whatever you call them .. are better (for me) games than the old MMOs.
If Gamestop and all the game reviewers are calling WOW a MMO, are calling TSW a MMO, are calling GW2 a MMO, that is the label i will use.
SEMANTICS
You can keep talking all you want. Not making youeself look very good at all. No real MMOer today considers these POSs true MMOs. Think what ever you like but in the end you know it to be true. You yourself said what these mmos of today have be come, and its not what makes up a real mmo.
Waitng on ban from someone reporting me. Seems to be the thing to do these days when someone doesent agree with someone else.
Oh please great and mighty dude on an internet forum. Please tell all of us what a real MMOer is, and what a true MMO is. Please.
Get over yourself dude. You want a certain type of MMO, other people want other types. You like certain game mechanics, dislike others and other people don't necessarily like what you like. In the end, it's up to the devs to make the games they want to make. You'll either play them because you like them or you won't. That's all there is to it. You can spout all you want on a message board about what a true MMOer is and a true MMO is but in the end it's your opinion that is all. You really come across as a jackass by the way. No offence, but I thought you'd might like to know one dude on an internet forum to another.
Awwww how cute you still think the Devs call the shots. It's all decided by a suit in an office who has probably never even played an MMO before.
Yeah, devs was a bad choice of word. I should have went with companies.
It should be interesting to see what happens in a post-TOR world though. TOR will have a lasting impact on the industry, as an example of what happens when the wrong people make the decisions.
Some players enjoy travelling in games. They dont want teleports and lobbys that makes it possible to start killing mobs without "wasting time". Because for some players its not a waste of time. They like it... They dont want to AFK and return to the computer when travelling is finished. And if there is a chance something will happen you cant go AFK. Because the character will often be dead when you return...
If I need to run for 15 min from A to B it should be possible I will be attacked and that I will need to defend myself. I think it should happen most of the time. And if there is also a harch death penalty and long corpse runs going AFK will be a very bad idea... This makes travelling interesting. It is somewhat dangerous even if you will just run most of the time. But there is no action and if you need to fight it will only be a small part of the travelling experience. But you will also be able to kill more mobs if you attack them instead of trying to avoid them. I mean you can stop every minute and kill a mob if you prefer that. Or you can avoid most or all of them.
And it is gameplay in a "virtual world game" intended for people that like it. Even if action gamers think it is a waste of time. And I think it makes sense that people should play games they like. There is no reason to play a game that you think is boring. But its important to recognize that other players like the features or game design that you think makes it boring. They are different and like the game for what it is.
Again, as I keep pointing out throughout the thread there are two ways games will go. Either travel will be eliminated, or it will be made more interesting.
Clearly some players enjoy traveling in games. If they want travel to continue to be part of games, and in fact to become an even larger part of games than it is currently, then they should be open to making travel a deeper more engaging gameplay experience.
Because if not, the overwhelming majority of players who hate mandatory non-gameplay are not going to play games which have it -- and through the natural selection of which games are successful (live) or not (die), you will see fewer and fewer non-fast-travel games.
You already see fewer and fewer non-fast travel games.
So if players are interested in travel, they should be excited about what I'm proposing: making travel more fun. Because when the majority plays a game with deep, fun travel, they will like it too -- thus making those new travel-heavy games more successful, thus resulting in more travel-heavy games.
If the virtual world is interesting travel will also be interesting. This is all that matters. There can also be mobs that sometimes attack you and random things that you might find when travelling. A good game needs a good virtual world. But I dont want mini games or scripted events. Exploring must be fun.
Obviously..if the virtual world is bland and boring travelling will also be boring. But a persistant world created by devs that understands fun and good design will make travelling fun. Perhaps not for action gamers. But for everyone that likes games like that.
I like virtual world games. And if the virtual world is good the game is good. I dont want fast travel or lobby features intended to save time and make the game world something that you dont need to live in to play. That will never be a good game for me. Why should all games be the same? There are a lot of players that dont like linear lobby action MMO:s. Enough to make virtual world games a profitable nish.
I think there could and should be games for everyone. I dont think its a problem that there are action MMO:s. Or that more games like that will be released. But that market will be saturated... And some companies should focus on virtual world games instead.
People like different types of music, food, art, cars and so on. And people also prefer and like different types of MMO:s. There should be good games for people that like the traditional virtual world design. Games like that can be profitable. People that starts playing a game like that should not complain and demand that the devs must change it and add fast travel, group finders or that they should streamline it in general. The true fans that like the game dont want any of that. But it happens anyway. And that is sad...
For some reason I want to watch The Princess Bride now...
Inigo Montoya: Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. [Inigo advances on Rugen, but stumbles into the table with sudden pain. Rugen attacks, but Inigo parries and rises to his feet again] Inigo Montoya: Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. [Rugen attacks again, Inigo parries more fiercely, gaining strength] Inigo Montoya: Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die! Count Rugen: Stop saying that! [Rugen attacks, twice. Inigo avoids and wounds Rugen in both shoulders, the same spots where he wounded Inigo. Inigo attacks, bellowing:] Inigo Montoya: HELLO! MY NAME IS INIGO MONTOYA! YOU KILLED MY FATHER! PREPARE TO DIE! [Inigo corners Count Rugen, knocks his sword aside, and slashes his cheek, giving him a scar just like Inigo's] Inigo Montoya: Offer me money. Count Rugen: Yes! Inigo Montoya: Power, too, promise me that. [He slashes his other cheek] Count Rugen: All that I have and more. Please... Inigo Montoya: Offer me anything I ask for. Count Rugen: Anything you want... [Rugen knocks Inigo's sword aside and lunges. But Inigo traps his arm and aims his sword at Rugen's stomach] Inigo Montoya: I want my father back, you son of a bitch! [He runs Count Rugen through and shoves him back against the table. Rugen falls to the floor, dead]
If the virtual world is interesting travel will also be interesting. This is all that matters. There can also be mobs that sometimes attack you and random things that you might find when travelling. A good game needs a good virtual world. But I dont want mini games or scripted events. Exploring must be fun.
Obviously..if the virtual world is bland and boring travelling will also be boring. But a persistant world created by devs that understands fun and good design will make travelling fun. Perhaps not for action gamers. But for everyone that likes games like that.
I like virtual world games. And if the virtual world is good the game is good. I dont want fast travel or lobby features intended to save time and make the game world something that you dont need to live in to play. That will never be a good game for me. Why should all games be the same? There are a lot of players that dont like linear lobby action MMO:s. Enough to make virtual world games a profitable nish.
EVE's virtual world is considered "interesting", yet its travel is still 5-15 minutes of mostly-AFK non-gameplay. So I'm not sure we can say travel will automatically be interesting if the world is interesting.
...unless you're implying that because travel consistently is 5-15 minutes of non-gameplay that means EVE's world isn't interesting. I suppose that argument could hold some weight.
I definitely don't feel all games need to be the same. After all, I'm suggesting something (interesting travel) that I've only seen in a single game so far.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'd like ot see a "Faster" travel system implemented. Maybe make it a monthly perk you pay fo rin a cash shop that let's you take a train, boat, or airship to your destination. It should by no means be instant. Turning MMO's into Lobby based deathmatch games is NOT helping the genre.
In fact I am renaming the entire Genre.
Persistent Lobby RPG.
This entire post was sarcasm, right?
Also, go play RIFT. Had several 60+ player rift events today which I snagged some great screenshots of. Kinda think one of them was more like 100+ players. Nothing close to "persistent lobby" there.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You can keep talking all you want. Not making youeself look very good at all. No real MMOer today considers these POSs true MMOs. Think what ever you like but in the end you know it to be true. You yourself said what these mmos of today have be come, and its not what makes up a real mmo.
Waitng on ban from someone reporting me. Seems to be the thing to do these days when someone doesent agree with someone else.
As someone who pushes the envelope on this site sometimes, disagreement doesn't get you banned.
Having said that, lets have a look at this post.
1. Who is a 'real MMOer'? If you have to ask this then your not one.
2. What's a 'true MMO'? If you have to ask then you never played one.
So you are the sole judge of what's a 'real' MMO player and MMO game? How does that work?
Speaking for other people is why your post doesn't make sense and why it won't be taken seriously.
I never said i was the sole judge. You called me that. The judges are those that know truth from fiction. And to pretend that you have no idea of whats being talked about here indicates you dont care about the topic.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper At no point have I suggested that simply making it impossible to AFK is a good idea. I have posited dynamic, engaging and interesting worlds, where the player is actively invovled in interesting decision making whilst moving through said worlds on a number of levels. At the same time retaining all the benefits and interlinked systems an open, dynamic and engaging game world can have. All without the need for superfluous skills, minigames or instancing.
If someone wants to try and AFK that or numlock walk through that they are welcome to try it, if they are walking from their house to a shop 500m away in the same town they most likely will be able to AFK it. If they only want to move just outside of town, again they may well be able to try it. But further? Well they can try it, the option is there to give it a go, but it really wont end well.
I never implied you did.
But that's the reality of travel in these games. It's a shallow system but you can't fully AFK.
Because travel is shallow it'd be better if you could AFK, because then players would be free to ignore the shallow system. It still wouldn't be a good overall system, because you'd basically be saying "go do something else for a while, this part of the game isn't fun".
Hence the need for deep travel, so players aren't even considering AFKing. Instead they're actively traveling for travel's sake because travel is really fun to do. Just like Puzzle Pirates (where I seriously did nothing but travel and had no other goals for the game, yet completely enjoyed my time because travel was a fun game.)
I'd like ot see a "Faster" travel system implemented. Maybe make it a monthly perk you pay fo rin a cash shop that let's you take a train, boat, or airship to your destination. It should by no means be instant. Turning MMO's into Lobby based deathmatch games is NOT helping the genre.
In fact I am renaming the entire Genre.
Persistent Lobby RPG.
Cant be a RPG when no one role plays. I like the term i came up with. Its alittle wordy but i think it works.
CLFGwGC
C (co-op) L (Lobby) F (Faceroll) G (Game) with G (Group) C (Content)
Hip hop is dead.. Classic action movies are dead.. Sidescrolling beat em ups are dead.. Michael Jackson, the king of pop, is dead..
MMORPG's, however, are not dead.. They have simply evolved.. Just like everything else in life that follows evolution cycles, you either adapt or perish..
What you consider MMOs by todays standerds arent really MMOs at all. Dont take my word for it. look it up. Theres no evolving goin on here. Its a MUTATION.
That is just semantics. Whatever you call them .. are better (for me) games than the old MMOs.
If Gamestop and all the game reviewers are calling WOW a MMO, are calling TSW a MMO, are calling GW2 a MMO, that is the label i will use.
SEMANTICS
You can keep talking all you want. Not making youeself look very good at all. No real MMOer today considers these POSs true MMOs. Think what ever you like but in the end you know it to be true. You yourself said what these mmos of today have be come, and its not what makes up a real mmo.
Waitng on ban from someone reporting me. Seems to be the thing to do these days when someone doesent agree with someone else.
Oh please great and mighty dude on an internet forum. Please tell all of us what a real MMOer is, and what a true MMO is. Please.
Do i need to tell you? Its been documented a thousand times. You know and i know what they are. Dont be a fool.
Get over yourself dude. You want a certain type of MMO, other people want other types. You like certain game mechanics, dislike others and other people don't necessarily like what you like. In the end, it's up to the devs to make the games they want to make. You'll either play them because you like them or you won't. That's all there is to it. You can spout all you want on a message board about what a true MMOer is and a true MMO is but in the end it's your opinion that is all. You really come across as a jackass by the way. No offence, but I thought you'd might like to know one dude on an internet forum to another.
What you fail to understand is that the crap being made today ARENT MMOs. Ask those that love these types and they will tell you. There lobby based co-ops and nothing more. There are no more MMOs. Get over yourself and stop drinking the coolaid.
For some reason I want to watch The Princess Bride now...
Inigo Montoya: Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. [Inigo advances on Rugen, but stumbles into the table with sudden pain. Rugen attacks, but Inigo parries and rises to his feet again] Inigo Montoya: Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. [Rugen attacks again, Inigo parries more fiercely, gaining strength] Inigo Montoya: Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die! Count Rugen: Stop saying that! [Rugen attacks, twice. Inigo avoids and wounds Rugen in both shoulders, the same spots where he wounded Inigo. Inigo attacks, bellowing:] Inigo Montoya: HELLO! MY NAME IS INIGO MONTOYA! YOU KILLED MY FATHER! PREPARE TO DIE! [Inigo corners Count Rugen, knocks his sword aside, and slashes his cheek, giving him a scar just like Inigo's] Inigo Montoya: Offer me money. Count Rugen: Yes! Inigo Montoya: Power, too, promise me that. [He slashes his other cheek] Count Rugen: All that I have and more. Please... Inigo Montoya: Offer me anything I ask for. Count Rugen: Anything you want... [Rugen knocks Inigo's sword aside and lunges. But Inigo traps his arm and aims his sword at Rugen's stomach] Inigo Montoya: I want my father back, you son of a bitch! [He runs Count Rugen through and shoves him back against the table. Rugen falls to the floor, dead]
/cheer!!!
LOL this all day. Very good sir. Believe it or not but The Princess Bride is one HUGE reason im with my wife of 16 years.
Got a call to come over to this girls house that wanted to hook up with one of my boys and djr told me her cuz was there and wanted to meet someone. So i show up and lay on the charm. At some point during the night someone said "STOP IT NOW I MEAN IT" and i said "ANYONE WANT A PEANUT?" She fell in love wtih me right then and there
What you fail to understand is that the crap being made today ARENT MMOs. Ask those that love these types and they will tell you. There lobby based co-ops and nothing more. There are no more MMOs. Get over yourself and stop drinking the coolaid.
I love modern mmos (WoW, RIFT, SWTOR etc) and I will tell you 'yes they are MMOs.'
You don't think so?
That's fine but you shouting 'This is what an MMO IS!' is pointless.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Well I wouldn't say that it's dead, but the Sandbox genre is definately not healthy. Maybe some of the new sandboxes will breathe some life back into the whole sandbox genre.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Originally posted by eyelolled Well I wouldn't say that it's dead, but the Sandbox genre is definately not healthy. Maybe some of the new sandboxes will breathe some life back into the whole sandbox genre.
I disagree.
Sandbox (with EVE Online leading the charge with 400k) are doing better than ever.
Are they on par (in terms of $$$ / sub number) with 'themeparks'?
No they are not, but there are more subs in sandbox mmos than ever before.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Originally posted by eyelolled Well I wouldn't say that it's dead, but the Sandbox genre is definately not healthy. Maybe some of the new sandboxes will breathe some life back into the whole sandbox genre.
I disagree.
Sandbox (with EVE Online leading the charge with 400k) are doing better than ever.
Are they on par (in terms of $$$ / sub number) with 'themeparks'?
No they are not, but there are more subs in sandbox mmos than ever before.
Sure Eve is doing reasonably well, but you can't deny that there is a definate cry for more quality sandboxes.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Originally posted by eyelolled Well I wouldn't say that it's dead, but the Sandbox genre is definately not healthy. Maybe some of the new sandboxes will breathe some life back into the whole sandbox genre.
I disagree.
Sandbox (with EVE Online leading the charge with 400k) are doing better than ever.
Are they on par (in terms of $$$ / sub number) with 'themeparks'?
No they are not, but there are more subs in sandbox mmos than ever before.
Sure Eve is doing reasonably well, but you can't deny that there is a definate cry for more quality sandboxes.
More are on the horizon, like Archage / Repopulation etc
We have more people playing Sandbox MMOs and more actual Sandbox MMOs as well.
Same applies to themeparks.
That's why this thread's title is factually wrong.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
EVE's virtual world is considered "interesting", yet its travel is still 5-15 minutes of mostly-AFK non-gameplay. So I'm not sure we can say travel will automatically be interesting if the world is interesting.
...unless you're implying that because travel consistently is 5-15 minutes of non-gameplay that means EVE's world isn't interesting. I suppose that argument could hold some weight.
I definitely don't feel all games need to be the same. After all, I'm suggesting something (interesting travel) that I've only seen in a single game so far.
EVE's virtual world is primarily considered interesting because of the large scale mechanics that it generates and the freedom it gives, specifically in terms of player~agent interactions. Not because it is supremely interesting to constantly interact with as a world space in and off itself.
You can certainly create game worlds which have those large scale mechanics and also have more consistent "interest" on the basis of the player protagonist actually directly interacting with the game world. I have given general examples as to how already, so I wont go over that again.
You have to be somewhat careful with the term "interesting" as some people find one thing interesting, whilst others may find it quite boring. The same goes for the term "shallow". For me you make the world more engaging, increase the interaction between the player, the game world and the agents within the game world. EVE has the model for the agent part, it has less engagment on the direct player to world part (which is primarily down to the scope/ship avatar model in fairness).
That direct engagement can indeed be improved upon in other games (as already demonstrated), whilst at the same time keeping the vital open, player agent interlinked systems and meta games in place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
I never implied you did.
But that's the reality of travel in these games. It's a shallow system but you can't fully AFK.
Because travel is shallow it'd be better if you could AFK, because then players would be free to ignore the shallow system. It still wouldn't be a good overall system, because you'd basically be saying "go do something else for a while, this part of the game isn't fun".
Hence the need for deep travel, so players aren't even considering AFKing. Instead they're actively traveling for travel's sake because travel is really fun to do. Just like Puzzle Pirates (where I seriously did nothing but travel and had no other goals for the game, yet completely enjoyed my time because travel was a fun game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'd like ot see a "Faster" travel system implemented. Maybe make it a monthly perk you pay fo rin a cash shop that let's you take a train, boat, or airship to your destination. It should by no means be instant. Turning MMO's into Lobby based deathmatch games is NOT helping the genre.
In fact I am renaming the entire Genre.
Persistent Lobby RPG.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
The probably went back to playing single player games or other non-MMO games.
Or possibly returned to the mother ship...
That or their sentence in the Chinese Prison was up.
Soon this is all you will need to play any MMO...
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Oh please great and mighty dude on an internet forum. Please tell all of us what a real MMOer is, and what a true MMO is. Please.
Get over yourself dude. You want a certain type of MMO, other people want other types. You like certain game mechanics, dislike others and other people don't necessarily like what you like. In the end, it's up to the devs to make the games they want to make. You'll either play them because you like them or you won't. That's all there is to it. You can spout all you want on a message board about what a true MMOer is and a true MMO is but in the end it's your opinion that is all. You really come across as a jackass by the way. No offence, but I thought you'd might like to know one dude on an internet forum to another.
Awwww how cute you still think the Devs call the shots. It's all decided by a suit in an office who has probably never even played an MMO before.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Yeah, devs was a bad choice of word. I should have went with companies.
It should be interesting to see what happens in a post-TOR world though. TOR will have a lasting impact on the industry, as an example of what happens when the wrong people make the decisions.
So the only options are...
a) Someone that agrees with me on some sort of level creates a new MMO like they use to make.
b) Quit MMO's until devs stop catoring to the casual MMO. MMO's should be immersive not easy mode so more people are interested in "pretty colors."
In my opinion if the easy mode players want a game go play a facebook game and stay out of our house.
Time to fix this genre.
If the virtual world is interesting travel will also be interesting. This is all that matters. There can also be mobs that sometimes attack you and random things that you might find when travelling. A good game needs a good virtual world. But I dont want mini games or scripted events. Exploring must be fun.
Obviously..if the virtual world is bland and boring travelling will also be boring. But a persistant world created by devs that understands fun and good design will make travelling fun. Perhaps not for action gamers. But for everyone that likes games like that.
I like virtual world games. And if the virtual world is good the game is good. I dont want fast travel or lobby features intended to save time and make the game world something that you dont need to live in to play. That will never be a good game for me. Why should all games be the same? There are a lot of players that dont like linear lobby action MMO:s. Enough to make virtual world games a profitable nish.
I think there could and should be games for everyone. I dont think its a problem that there are action MMO:s. Or that more games like that will be released. But that market will be saturated... And some companies should focus on virtual world games instead.
People like different types of music, food, art, cars and so on. And people also prefer and like different types of MMO:s. There should be good games for people that like the traditional virtual world design. Games like that can be profitable. People that starts playing a game like that should not complain and demand that the devs must change it and add fast travel, group finders or that they should streamline it in general. The true fans that like the game dont want any of that. But it happens anyway. And that is sad...
For some reason I want to watch The Princess Bride now...
Inigo Montoya: Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
[Inigo advances on Rugen, but stumbles into the table with sudden pain. Rugen attacks, but Inigo parries and rises to his feet again]
Inigo Montoya: Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
[Rugen attacks again, Inigo parries more fiercely, gaining strength]
Inigo Montoya: Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die!
Count Rugen: Stop saying that!
[Rugen attacks, twice. Inigo avoids and wounds Rugen in both shoulders, the same spots where he wounded Inigo. Inigo attacks, bellowing:]
Inigo Montoya: HELLO! MY NAME IS INIGO MONTOYA! YOU KILLED MY FATHER! PREPARE TO DIE!
[Inigo corners Count Rugen, knocks his sword aside, and slashes his cheek, giving him a scar just like Inigo's]
Inigo Montoya: Offer me money.
Count Rugen: Yes!
Inigo Montoya: Power, too, promise me that.
[He slashes his other cheek]
Count Rugen: All that I have and more. Please...
Inigo Montoya: Offer me anything I ask for.
Count Rugen: Anything you want...
[Rugen knocks Inigo's sword aside and lunges. But Inigo traps his arm and aims his sword at Rugen's stomach]
Inigo Montoya: I want my father back, you son of a bitch!
[He runs Count Rugen through and shoves him back against the table. Rugen falls to the floor, dead]
/cheer!!!
EVE's virtual world is considered "interesting", yet its travel is still 5-15 minutes of mostly-AFK non-gameplay. So I'm not sure we can say travel will automatically be interesting if the world is interesting.
...unless you're implying that because travel consistently is 5-15 minutes of non-gameplay that means EVE's world isn't interesting. I suppose that argument could hold some weight.
I definitely don't feel all games need to be the same. After all, I'm suggesting something (interesting travel) that I've only seen in a single game so far.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This entire post was sarcasm, right?
Also, go play RIFT. Had several 60+ player rift events today which I snagged some great screenshots of. Kinda think one of them was more like 100+ players. Nothing close to "persistent lobby" there.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I never said i was the sole judge. You called me that. The judges are those that know truth from fiction. And to pretend that you have no idea of whats being talked about here indicates you dont care about the topic.
Move along.
Cant be a RPG when no one role plays. I like the term i came up with. Its alittle wordy but i think it works.
CLFGwGC
C (co-op) L (Lobby) F (Faceroll) G (Game) with G (Group) C (Content)
Come to the World of Magic Earth. http://dragona.sc.gameclub.com
Do i need to tell you? Its been documented a thousand times. You know and i know what they are. Dont be a fool.
What you fail to understand is that the crap being made today ARENT MMOs. Ask those that love these types and they will tell you. There lobby based co-ops and nothing more. There are no more MMOs. Get over yourself and stop drinking the coolaid.
LOL this all day. Very good sir. Believe it or not but The Princess Bride is one HUGE reason im with my wife of 16 years.
Got a call to come over to this girls house that wanted to hook up with one of my boys and djr told me her cuz was there and wanted to meet someone. So i show up and lay on the charm. At some point during the night someone said "STOP IT NOW I MEAN IT" and i said "ANYONE WANT A PEANUT?" She fell in love wtih me right then and there
I love modern mmos (WoW, RIFT, SWTOR etc) and I will tell you 'yes they are MMOs.'
You don't think so?
That's fine but you shouting 'This is what an MMO IS!' is pointless.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
I disagree.
Sandbox (with EVE Online leading the charge with 400k) are doing better than ever.
Are they on par (in terms of $$$ / sub number) with 'themeparks'?
No they are not, but there are more subs in sandbox mmos than ever before.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Sure Eve is doing reasonably well, but you can't deny that there is a definate cry for more quality sandboxes.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Yeah but they wont lock it because there are'nt too many sales invloved for them to do anytrhing. The'll bann you for a popular game.
Or ignore you for a semi-popular game. Its all about profits here.
More are on the horizon, like Archage / Repopulation etc
We have more people playing Sandbox MMOs and more actual Sandbox MMOs as well.
Same applies to themeparks.
That's why this thread's title is factually wrong.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
EVE's virtual world is primarily considered interesting because of the large scale mechanics that it generates and the freedom it gives, specifically in terms of player~agent interactions. Not because it is supremely interesting to constantly interact with as a world space in and off itself.
You can certainly create game worlds which have those large scale mechanics and also have more consistent "interest" on the basis of the player protagonist actually directly interacting with the game world. I have given general examples as to how already, so I wont go over that again.
You have to be somewhat careful with the term "interesting" as some people find one thing interesting, whilst others may find it quite boring. The same goes for the term "shallow". For me you make the world more engaging, increase the interaction between the player, the game world and the agents within the game world. EVE has the model for the agent part, it has less engagment on the direct player to world part (which is primarily down to the scope/ship avatar model in fairness).
That direct engagement can indeed be improved upon in other games (as already demonstrated), whilst at the same time keeping the vital open, player agent interlinked systems and meta games in place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."