Well, I'd think of interactive fiction, rather than acting. The goal in playing a game isn't to present a performance, it's to have a satisfying wish-fulfillment, escapist, individuality-expressing adventure; something that allows you to feel clever, creative, strong, wealthy, accomplished, proud, and all those other good things we usually lack in reality. Some players like horror or melodrama; that's not my cup of tea though. I like a bit of romantic angst or a bit of a story about an underdog fighting against prejudice, but mostly I like cheerful and positive content.
As far as MMOs, the roles available for players would depend a lot on the game world and its culture. I personally like to be a rancher; ideally, a robinson crusoe wilderness survivalist crossed with a da vinci craftsman/inventor. I also like being a student attending some magical, ninja, or space academy, where I'm learning to use new cool powers. I'd love to play a role where there were several NPCs (which could be dragons or mechas, not necessarily humanoids) I could attempt to 'court' to become my partner in combat and travel and the game's story. I would also like to play a game that did a lot with achievements as player-set goals that were recognized within the game, not in some irrelevant external setting like Steam or Kongregate or whatever.
You are entirely correct in how the environment defines part of the role. What about the past? Or future of the role? Is their value in providing players with tools to define their role's past or future and supporting that?
One approach for designing a more lasting or open ended experience is to allow players to create their own roles and support them. Well supported roles encourage players to find the limits of their interactions. Achievements, if woven into development of the role or the world, are one way to build such support.
As far a role that actually interacts with other players, in the past I've enjoyed creating art that I could display to others within a game and get compliments on. If a game gives players a minigame level creation tool or a custom texture uploader I'll play with those in a way that includes interacting with other players. I often come up with suggestions for new features for a game, which I like discussing with other players, and it would be better if that could happen within the game (and actually paid attention to by the devs) than in an external forum or not at all.
Sounds good. What if there is a connection with what you are doing with some purpose in the game? Do you think that would make more people do it? Do you think it would make the activity more stressful and as such something you would eventually end up avoiding? Or would it make you feel like the game supports your way of gaming? What if you limit the market so that the amount of suppliers is low and it is possible to find local maxima?
If a game is designed to get players into a hierarchy, I would avoid playing that game at all, so incentivizing me to participate wouldn't be an issue. I especially don't want to invest myself into a world that other players might change out from under me. What I am interested in is creating dungeons, sculptures, collection exhibits, or other in-game experienced for other players in hopes of getting comments on them. I'm also interested in breeding pets or mounts to sell to other players, or selling other kind of unique creations, like clothing or sculptures. But that's only fun if there isn't much competition, like if I had a near monopoly because no one else wanted to breed pets, or something like that. In most games there's either a lot of competing sellers, or no buyers.
Now, if there was some kind of matchmaking system designed to bring like-minded players together, I'd try that out because I've never played an MMO that did matchmaking other than for dungeon groups or PvP. I'd be surprised if the matchmaking was actually any good, but I'd try it because it's something new.
I can respect that. I believe, a lot of people do not want to engage arguments and that's what it often boils down to; establishing authority and decision making. What I'm saying is that with multiple people having a goal, it just happens and the systems should support it happening in a way that is good for the game as a whole. In practically all situations.
Creating such a matchmaking tool would at minimum require players (and the system, and perhaps the community) defining their roles and goals with good amount of details. The problem I foresee is most players being characterized as dishonest bullies and the whole thing collapsing:P That aside, having players define their own roles already encourages them to follow it. If the roles were well supported, the system could work, after multiple iterations.
How would you incentivize players to follow their role and do you think it's something that should be done?
I don't know how he phrases it, but I call it the most common type of fun. Two other main types being zen and social.
Zen could be paraphrased "relaxation activities", as there is often little decision-making to be had as one tends crops in farmville or mines asteroids in EVE, and instead the player mostly just sits there being calm. One might question whether these activities are even games, as there's no interaction and no patterns to learn.
Social is any true socialization (not to be confused with social games). I think one component of socialization is the same sort of pattern recognition and mastery that makes games successful actually, with people learning to successfully navigate social situations (and charismatic people are, in part, simply very practiced and skilled socializers), but certainly that's not the only reason people socialize.
Many ways to look at it (similar concepts, different viewpoints) and it took me a while to think, how I'd rather like it. Just an example, of course. First off, instead of types of fun, I'd concentrate on pleasure. Types of pleasure you can extract from online environment include
Emotional and esthetic: my high point still remains FFVII. There are many ways games can appeal to people emotionally and give pleasure or even cause grief.
Intellectual: solving puzzles are a form of intellectual pleasure. All game systems and possibly all sources personal pleasure can be interpreted as puzzles.
Primal (sexual and violent): For better or worse, games are full of this. It might be simultaneously one of the main reasons gaming has been popularizing, but it could be argued it's also dragging the development down with resources and marketing focus primarily here.
As a good example, socialization provides both emotional and intellectual pleasure, if you enjoy the people and the topic. Forming social contacts can provide intellectual pleasure also, if it furthers another purpose.
Relaxation or zen.. I find there a direct contradiction with instant fun, but nvm:) I kinda find the effects similar to meditation and have to say I like it at times quite a bit. Grinding or gathering for an hour or so. It's very difficult to classify it as a source of fun or pleasure, but for me it's relatively close to emotional pleasure.
Edit. Actually, I guess there's no contradiction as you have expanded "fun" beyond it's everyday use quite a bit.
Patterns can be interpreted at least as themes and solutions without concern for importance or size. As a development term, isn't it too broad? Wouldn't you want to structure the story and the possibilities better? I wonder, if in the future kids will be doing game analyses:P
As an aside, in your words, zen as a source of fun exists, but you abhor time sinks. Do you view anything that limits the player as a time sink? What kind of progression constraints do you view acceptable? Mobas also contain some progression. Do you feel progression should work as a tutorial only? Is gear progression an exception?
So, what do you find fun in mmorpgs and why? Is there a single aspect you could not see put into a moba or a mmomoba?
And that is the crux and problem with most of this genre.. Rather it be in gaming or in real life.. We have a split population that views life differently, which does flow into how they play games as well.. Here is a quick example.. I'm playing golf with others.. With every drive, chip and putt, I'm playing against the course (aka against myself).. However, I always have playing partners that are trying to out drive me, and out score me.. WHY? I'm not playing against you, but you are trying to outdo me..
I see that same competitive attitude in gaming as well.. People trying to "one up" their fellow players.. Too many view the game content is actually OUT PERFORMING other players, not actually playing the game.. I guess it's like a status thing, who knows.. It's actually funny, yet sad to see how others act.. These people I call the Esporters of the generation.. They bounce from game to game in hopes of being one of the recognized top 10%.. If they fail, they move to another game in hopes of achieving that respect there, or they recreate new accounts and characters in hopes of fixing their mistakes and try again..
Another sad part that stems from this, is that those Esporters I call them, love to look for prey they can beat, then feel good about themselves.. Any game that doesn't promote or allow this type of predatory behavior is called inferior, etc etc.. The closer a game becomes direct PvP the more competitive the mentality becomes.. But what is FUN? To me it's me against the PvE content, but others view predatory esport behavior as fun.. This encompasses a gang of players ganking a single player for shits and giggles, this also includes the end game raid achievement BS that we see in WoW.. I just call it indirect PvP..
My problem with modern MMOs is basically just the fact that 90% of the gameworld is so incredible easy so a chimp could play. Heck, I really loved GW2 in the beta before they nerfed the difficulty, it was totally awesome but people were complaining because they got challenged so they nerfed it.
The only possible solution to that would be if they actually add a hard serverset to the games, because no publisher will allow a MMO with the difficulty of the classic games. And I think thta is possible if I ain't the only one wanting it.
Besides that I actually don't have that much problems with modern MMOs, sure they rewards people for soloing and punishes them for grouping far too often, leveling is too fast and the worlds are usually too small but no-one is perfect and I can live with that. The lack of challenge is my main problem in PvE MMOs.
PvP is a very different matter, I think MMOs generally lack good PvP combat mechanics and that the huge powergap between the players takes away 90% of the fun out of it.
I pretty much agree with you on both pve-encounter difficulty at least during leveling and pvp.
Leveling is made extremely easy for multiple reasons and risk taking is neither encouraged nor rewarded. In my opinion, the genre is old enough for some games to let go of some of the hand holding: abolish the compartmental modelling of mobs by level and area and decrease the actual power attained by leveling. Those seeking challenge should be encouraged to do so throughout the game.
Likewise the number game with leveling (including gear progressing) is quite a hindrance to non-instanced pvp. Instanced pvp relatively often implements generalized gear and levels. Open world you cannot do that and many games are extremely reluctant to cut down the number game as a lot of people see the rpg in them.
About difficulty, have you considered that the way characters are built these days provides very little difficulty? The certainty of what you expect to find in new zones or areas also represents low difficulty, doesn't it? Same with zones being static as there is typically very little that changes in them over time. Basically, knowledge, ability to escape, avoid and postpone fights, and extremely low death penalties lead to there being no fear of unknown. How would you like to see difficulty upped in mmorpgs?
GW2 made a good attempt with the down-leveling and dynamic events, but would you consider such design (consider just the design, pls:)) sufficient? After a bit experience, you start to notice patterns in the event design and what happens then? Down-leveling puts you several levels above average mobs and scales your gear correspondingly. Even if the numbers were brought lower and you'd temporarily lose some abilities, do you think it would provide you any challenge?
As an aside, in your words, zen as a source of fun exists, but you abhor time sinks. Do you view anything that limits the player as a time sink? What kind of progression constraints do you view acceptable? Mobas also contain some progression. Do you feel progression should work as a tutorial only? Is gear progression an exception?
You might have put it better than me by questioning whether zen is fun. I think people would generally say "what? oh...yeah sure it's fun" when asked whether they're having fun in zen-heavy games, but that their true purpose is more about giving your brain a break. Their gameplay is deliberately light on conscious decisions, which lets you just cruise on subconscious for a while. One might say the game acts as a convenient way to feel like you're doing something even while you're essentially doing nothing.
I theorize our society overall attempts to be too active all the time, so that our brain doesn't get the natural breaks it may benefit from. Inspiration strikes in the shower or bathroom or a walk because we're giving our conscious mind a break, which allows the subconscious mind some time to release all the ideas it's been grinding out in the background. Zen games thus form a sort of rationalized meditation: your conscious mind is tricked that it's "doing something" but what's really happening is you're taking a break from thinking for a while. I would guess that actual meditation is probably more effective overall, but that using an aid to reach that meditative state is at least better than not doing it.
Still all of that is just a theory based on random articles I've read from time to time on how the mind works. One example being the fantastic John Cleese on Creativity video which hints at how he deliberately took steps to get his mind into a different biological 'mode'. Admittedly not all of them (including the Cleese one) are particularly scientific so this is just a theory.
Timesinks essentially describe a low decisions / time ratio. It's the relationship that matters, so getting hung up on "how do you quantify 'decisions'?" isn't really the point. Also, time is specifically related to time which demands the player's attention. If you send a follower on a mission in SWTOR, that mission might take a few hours, but the act of making the decision only takes you a few seconds -- and then you can do something else.
So not everything that limits the player or takes time is a timesink. It's only the things which force you into a mode where you either have no decisions to make (downtime) or very few decisions (travel).
There's also grind. Grind essentially describes a low fun / time ratio.
So there's nothing inherently wrong with progression. You only have to avoid providing too little decisions or fun over time. The amount of decisions is basically objective (so whether something is a timesink is objective as well.) The amount of fun is subjective -- one man's grind is another's favorite game. And the only way progression really interacts with these things is it's usually something that takes a lot of time (and both equations involve time.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You might have put it better than me by questioning whether zen is fun. I think people would generally say "what? oh...yeah sure it's fun" when asked whether they're having fun in zen-heavy games, but that their true purpose is more about giving your brain a break. Their gameplay is deliberately light on conscious decisions, which lets you just cruise on subconscious for a while. One might say the game acts as a convenient way to feel like you're doing something even while you're essentially doing nothing.
I agree it is something that is very much capitalized in games. Some games also make it their main focus, which is perfectly fine, if they are honest about it.
On the other hand, one could argue that most simple tasks become that way after mastering them and that the actual source for the fun is not the task, but the existing attachment to the game; the emotional and esthetic appreciation of the game. What follows, is that the enjoyment is not sustainable; if the game relies too much on simple tasks, boredom will settle in and the player will eventually want to find new stimuli. Of course, how much a player can tolerate repetitiveness, depends on how receptive he is to relaxation, which is very subjective.
I theorize our society overall attempts to be too active all the time, so that our brain doesn't get the natural breaks it may benefit from. Inspiration strikes in the shower or bathroom or a walk because we're giving our conscious mind a break, which allows the subconscious mind some time to release all the ideas it's been grinding out in the background. Zen games thus form a sort of rationalized meditation: your conscious mind is tricked that it's "doing something" but what's really happening is you're taking a break from thinking for a while. I would guess that actual meditation is probably more effective overall, but that using an aid to reach that meditative state is at least better than not doing it.
Still all of that is just a theory based on random articles I've read from time to time on how the mind works. One example being the fantastic John Cleese on Creativity video which hints at how he deliberately took steps to get his mind into a different biological 'mode'. Admittedly not all of them (including the Cleese one) are particularly scientific so this is just a theory.
Stress is very much present in modern day lives. E.g. my job is quite stressful, so I counter that with many activities that "take my mind off". From my point of view, it is quite natural that many people seek this in games. Do you think there is a connection with or a requirement of certain level of immersion for a game to be relaxing? What's also interesting, is how it works for kids..
Similar concepts to relaxation can be found in audio; e.g. binaural beats. It wouldn't surprise me, if there already existed some scientific work on stimuli other than audio inducing relaxation and other effects related to meditation.
Timesinks essentially describe a low decisions / time ratio. It's the relationship that matters, so getting hung up on "how do you quantify 'decisions'?" isn't really the point. Also, time is specifically related to time which demands the player's attention. If you send a follower on a mission in SWTOR, that mission might take a few hours, but the act of making the decision only takes you a few seconds -- and then you can do something else.
So not everything that limits the player or takes time is a timesink. It's only the things which force you into a mode where you either have no decisions to make (downtime) or very few decisions (travel).
Very well, if I follow, you define time sinks as activities, which take time significantly longer than what the player expects. That's a reasonable explanation and important one as the negative response can be very strong. One could argue, if games want to introduce time consuming concepts, the developers have to be able to change players' expectations about it. Basically, they need to rationalize, incentivize and provide sufficient number of secondary activities for a player to make during the timesink.
A good example are main or story quests. For a long time, they might not advance at all, but players are not bothered, because it's according to their expectations and they typically have multiple short quests to do in the meanwhile.
Travel as a timesink, on the other hand, is difficult for most games to implement so that there there is enough rationalization as to why the player should suffer the boredom. Sandboxes attempt to tie in trading and pvp risk, but for many that doesn't work. Essentially, this comes back to knowledge of and stagnancy of the environment.
An example of slow travel that could work for me, is zones forming a maze, which changes due to collective player actions. And/or some other large scale changes in the world that are potentially able to make my knowledge of the environment sufficiently outdated so that I do need to make some decisions. I would also like some incentives and thematic rationalization to do travel.
There's also grind. Grind essentially describes a low fun / time ratio.
So there's nothing inherently wrong with progression. You only have to avoid providing too little decisions or fun over time. The amount of decisions is basically objective (so whether something is a timesink is objective as well.) The amount of fun is subjective -- one man's grind is another's favorite game. And the only way progression really interacts with these things is it's usually something that takes a lot of time (and both equations involve time.)
You perhaps already understood, where I was coming to, but if you agree with how I interpret how zen takes place in games, it follows that voluntary grind can be zen and thus not always experienced as a negative. As you said, it is not good design to force grinding especially over extended periods of time. How about small filler quests? Do you think there is any meaningful decision making or do you think it's possible some might find those relaxing?
I theorize our society overall attempts to be too active all the time, so that our brain doesn't get the natural breaks it may benefit from.
Is this guy for real? "Our brain doesn't get breaks?" My brain is SCREAMING FOR ANYTHING INTELLIGENT FROM THIS DUMB AS **** WORLD, but the truly intelligent things it does, the world has no place to bring it to continue in that direction. Hence the reason I need to actually complete a book and get it published, because there is no other route to take. Please direct me to where I can find this "intelligent world" you speak of. Because my daily life is filled with "dumb... dumb... dumb..." If ever a day goes by that I honestly were to think otherwise, I would likely take myself out back somewhere and shoot myself as realizing that means I have joined "them". Good lordy lordy...
I theorise we surround ourselves in life with people who are similar to us.
I theorize our society overall attempts to be too active all the time, so that our brain doesn't get the natural breaks it may benefit from.
Is this guy for real? "Our brain doesn't get breaks?" My brain is SCREAMING FOR ANYTHING INTELLIGENT FROM THIS DUMB AS **** WORLD, but the truly intelligent things it does, the world has no place to bring it to continue in that direction. Hence the reason I need to actually complete a book and get it published, because there is no other route to take. Please direct me to where I can find this "intelligent world" you speak of. Because my daily life is filled with "dumb... dumb... dumb..." If ever a day goes by that I honestly were to think otherwise, I would likely take myself out back somewhere and shoot myself as realizing that means I have joined "them". Good lordy lordy...
I theorise we surround ourselves in life with people who are similar to us.
Some people intentionally (subconsciously even) surround themselves with dumb people
On the other hand, one could argue that most simple tasks become that way after mastering them and that the actual source for the fun is not the task, but the existing attachment to the game; the emotional and esthetic appreciation of the game. What follows, is that the enjoyment is not sustainable; if the game relies too much on simple tasks, boredom will settle in and the player will eventually want to find new stimuli. Of course, how much a player can tolerate repetitiveness, depends on how receptive he is to relaxation, which is very subjective.
Stress is very much present in modern day lives. E.g. my job is quite stressful, so I counter that with many activities that "take my mind off". From my point of view, it is quite natural that many people seek this in games. Do you think there is a connection with or a requirement of certain level of immersion for a game to be relaxing? What's also interesting, is how it works for kids..
Similar concepts to relaxation can be found in audio; e.g. binaural beats. It wouldn't surprise me, if there already existed some scientific work on stimuli other than audio inducing relaxation and other effects related to meditation.
Very well, if I follow, you define time sinks as activities, which take time significantly longer than what the player expects. That's a reasonable explanation and important one as the negative response can be very strong. One could argue, if games want to introduce time consuming concepts, the developers have to be able to change players' expectations about it. Basically, they need to rationalize, incentivize and provide sufficient number of secondary activities for a player to make during the timesink.
How about small filler quests? Do you think there is any meaningful decision making or do you think it's possible some might find those relaxing?
Yeah when our conscious mind masters something, it basically becomes a subconscious task which lets it be zen, so really good Pacman players (as an example) have turned it into a zen thing.
Immersion is definitely key to relaxation, as it implies your mind is shutting out outside thoughts for a while. However this isn't the typical virtual world style "immersion" that gets discussed on this forums, but simply the idea that you are totally engrossed (immersed) in the experience. I've heard Flow is a good book at describing the flow state and really ought to give it a read.
As for timesinks, player expectations can help mitigate the negative effects, but in the end they'll still feel like timesinks and be extremely low on gameplay. So when a developer wants something to consume more time, if they want it to avoid being a timesink they just have to do it in a way that involves a lot of decisions (combat is the most common way; if the game requires players travel for 30 minutes that's a timesink, but if it's 30 minutes of combat that's gameplay. Assuming the typical amount of decision-making anyway -- it's possible for a game to create its travel in a way which is full of constant decisions, but it simply isn't done except in racing games.)
Also you're right in pointing out that sometimes periods of non-gameplay are required to create certain forms of gameplay (long travel times to create localized economies.) However usually there's a way to have those long times without forcing players themselves to do it. For example EVE would still have its localized player-driven economy if players were prevented from doing the transportation themselves and it could only be done with automated miners and cargo-haulers. The actual time it takes to perform these tasks could remain unchanged (or possibly increaed), but players themselves would be completely freed up to engage in the more interesting gameplay. And if you assigned guards to your NPC convoy then maybe you can jump into that guard's ship to defend your convoy manually in case of attack.
As for filler quests I feel they're largely zen gameplay currently, and that's bad. A better design would make it a choice where you can choose easy (low rewards) or hard (high rewards) questing. Selecting easy would naturally be zen (decisions aren't too meaningful when things are easy.) Selecting hard would naturally be gameplay-intensive (decisions are very meaningful when things are difficult; up to a point.) Allowing players to choose the mode of play is ideal.
Being able to choose the mode of play isn't specific to filler quests. It benefits all types of gameplay, and is mainly limited by the developer's ability to create the gameplay for each thing (for example WOW offers zen fishing which involves no significant decisions; there's no reason they couldn't also have a skill-intensive fishing minigame somewhere with better rewards but which was very difficult -- no reason except the fact that it would take developer time/resources, and maybe isn't completely aligned with the direction they want to take the game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Immersion is definitely key to relaxation, as it implies your mind is shutting out outside thoughts for a while. However this isn't the typical virtual world style "immersion" that gets discussed on this forums, but simply the idea that you are totally engrossed (immersed) in the experience. I've heard Flow is a good book at describing the flow state and really ought to give it a read.
Interesting concept. Athletes have talked of flow or zone for years and it is often used to describe extreme concentration and the resulting good performance. It is true, that concentration is very much related to immersion and can similarly be used to describe how people can achieve zen in games. Concentrate on the activity and block out everything else.
In my opinion, the term immersion used for games has quite as fun expanded beyond its everyday use. What I believe people use it for, is to describe how easy it is for them to get immersed in it. Naturally feelings like, "I've done this before" or "this is too easy" are very subjective, but nonetheless hamper their immersion. The usage is very broad and it is very difficult to interpret what the player means if he doesn't give further explanation. Ultimately, I think it's still a similar if not exactly the same concept.
As for timesinks, player expectations can help mitigate the negative effects, but in the end they'll still feel like timesinks and be extremely low on gameplay. So when a developer wants something to consume more time, if they want it to avoid being a timesink they just have to do it in a way that involves a lot of decisions (combat is the most common way; if the game requires players travel for 30 minutes that's a timesink, but if it's 30 minutes of combat that's gameplay. Assuming the typical amount of decision-making anyway -- it's possible for a game to create its travel in a way which is full of constant decisions, but it simply isn't done except in racing games.)
You are right that with a strict definition of devoid of any gameplay, expectations don't help much at all. It is crucial, that the player is provided optional gameplay for the duration and preferably incentivized with for example progression. The type of gameplay is, as you say, less important.
Consider the following scenario, the player wants to go to another town to join a friend. He is not capable of teleporting there so the game anticipates or is directly told what the player wants to do, and the player is provided gameplay for the journey. Be it in the form of quests, encounters the player needs to clear or info of a mining site or crafting master on the way. Or a lore master to name a few. It is not done today, but it is important to discuss possibilities. What you should be asking is why or why not:)
It is, of course, important to also consider the benefits of the timesink that is filled with sufficient decision making. I come back to the example of a main quest that asks you to go someplace quite far without teleport and with much too strong enemies. The player is given two options: go and grind along the way to level or do filler quests to level and follow their path. Practically everyone takes the filler quests. Without them, would it be a timesink?
Also you're right in pointing out that sometimes periods of non-gameplay are required to create certain forms of gameplay (long travel times to create localized economies.) However usually there's a way to have those long times without forcing players themselves to do it. For example EVE would still have its localized player-driven economy if players were prevented from doing the transportation themselves and it could only be done with automated miners and cargo-haulers. The actual time it takes to perform these tasks could remain unchanged (or possibly increaed), but players themselves would be completely freed up to engage in the more interesting gameplay. And if you assigned guards to your NPC convoy then maybe you can jump into that guard's ship to defend your convoy manually in case of attack.
Depending on the time/profit and how much it would affect the risk/reward gameplay, it is possible that automated transfer could destroy the localized aspect of the economies. If it is simply delayed but increased profit, the incentive to transport instead of selling locally is too high. The risk/reward gameplay could also suffer. It would be interesting, if the transporter would choose the route and have the possibility to change it any given moment and also to teleport in it. Given practically total control of the transport while not having to sit in the cockpit, would possibly maintain much of the tension for both the attacker and the defender.
However, it is questionable whether it would be better to provide more decision making in the cockpit. Such a change would essentially make eve a lobby game with rampart autopiloting; the game would over time have to change much more focus to what the players can do while not actively piloting. The feeling of a ding - your mule has arrived vs. the feeling of successfully evading many dangers yourself, is very different, but the convenience factor is huge so it would definitely become the main mode of transport. Giving players more decision making while piloting would perhaps work without such risk.
Personal transport has its benefits, if there is enough decision making for example due to sufficient risk. It often has sufficient thematic background. If there is not enough risk, there is easily a void of decision making and the transport becomes a timesink. In those cases, even eve should consider adding more decision making. However, those timesinks partially work as incentives (also as tutorials to some) to engage more risky routes. It is obvious, many players do not enjoy risk, but for eve as a whole it works. For games without said pvp risk, filling the gameplay void becomes much more crucial or the problem has to be circumvented with teleporting.
I want interactive combat that is also challenging,i do not want to 1-2 shot everything like some hyper kid at an arcade machine.I want my character to feel it's role,i do not want anything automated.I do not want to do a somersault and automate a heal or buff,i want ideas to be plausible ,some what realistic.I find watching these games and players are constantly rolling somersaults looks absolutely retarded and not fun.
I also despise SPAMMY combat,i want controlled combat that might actually have me think in between abilities or spells ,instead of just click 1-1-1-1-1-1 and kill 5 creatures,in 5 secs.
Fun for me is being able to play the game the way i want and go where i want to go,a game on rails ,telling me where to go is a super big no thanks.
When i explore ,i want to be the one exploring,i don't want some markers on a map and a quest telling me to go to point a,then the game says YAY you have just discovered a new area....R U kidding me?You told me to come here,held my hand to get there,how is that a discovery?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
As for filler quests I feel they're largely zen gameplay currently, and that's bad. A better design would make it a choice where you can choose easy (low rewards) or hard (high rewards) questing. Selecting easy would naturally be zen (decisions aren't too meaningful when things are easy.) Selecting hard would naturally be gameplay-intensive (decisions are very meaningful when things are difficult; up to a point.) Allowing players to choose the mode of play is ideal.
I agree that currently the design is very close to zen gameplay. At times, the minor decisions interrupt the zen, and their mundane aspects nonetheless provide no intellectual or emotional pleasure. Simply there being a decision is not enough. At times, the overall effect might be worse than the standard alternative of grinding.
Giving more choice is a good idea, but I would argue, it would be even better, if the game made the decision based on inputted and collected data. That is, the game offers the type, difficulty and length based on whether the player enjoys challenge, gathering, crafting, bite sized content, slow gameplay with more appreciation for details or whatever the player has defined his goal to be and what the game can also ascertain. Also the way the quest is presented should vary based on the players desires; some want immediate quest and reward giving with clear objectives while some might want to only get hints to follow.
Being able to choose the mode of play isn't specific to filler quests. It benefits all types of gameplay, and is mainly limited by the developer's ability to create the gameplay for each thing (for example WOW offers zen fishing which involves no significant decisions; there's no reason they couldn't also have a skill-intensive fishing minigame somewhere with better rewards but which was very difficult -- no reason except the fact that it would take developer time/resources, and maybe isn't completely aligned with the direction they want to take the game.)
I believe you are correct, the direction the devs choose is what defines the gameplay possibilities and their incentives. While mobas and different other mmos focus on combat, it is my opinion that mmorpgs should expand choices and support more individualistic playstyles.
How do you see choice of gameplay mode to carry over to multiplayer realm?
I want interactive combat that is also challenging,i do not want to 1-2 shot everything like some hyper kid at an arcade machine.I want my character to feel it's role,i do not want anything automated.I do not want to do a somersault and automate a heal or buff,i want ideas to be plausible ,some what realistic.I find watching these games and players are constantly rolling somersaults looks absolutely retarded and not fun.
I also despise SPAMMY combat,i want controlled combat that might actually have me think in between abilities or spells ,instead of just click 1-1-1-1-1-1 and kill 5 creatures,in 5 secs.
Fun for me is being able to play the game the way i want and go where i want to go,a game on rails ,telling me where to go is a super big no thanks.
When i explore ,i want to be the one exploring,i don't want some markers on a map and a quest telling me to go to point a,then the game says YAY you have just discovered a new area....R U kidding me?You told me to come here,held my hand to get there,how is that a discovery?
Very well put as it describes my likes as well.. If my character is a druid for example, I want the feeling of actually being a druid in tune and connected with the land and animals.. I don't want to feel like a dps unit with no define role, that only pretends to fulfill roles like healing.. Playing a paladin should feel different and special, as should a necro, or any other class.. Too many games I play today give me the feeling that I'm only playing ONE class just dresses differently.. I play class A that does nothing but hit the 1,2,3,1,2,3 buttons in 10 seconds.. I play class B that does exactly the same thing, and same with class C , D and on and on.. The only differences are the titles (labels) of buttons 1, 2 and 3..
MMORPG that are played on the PC feel no different then some lobby based console game.. If the fact that so many games promote and allow for combat "macros" doesn't clue you just how fail broken, and predictable the game is.. I don't know what does.. /shrug.. lol
I am afraid of one idea. Other players having control over me . They take over areas and keep me out or I have to be in their guild to be allowed in and so on. This is something I will run away from. Players are cruel and they are petty. I do not want them to have control over me.
I do not know what I want anymore. Once when you asked me I would have said Everquest with updated graphics. I do not want that anymore especially after playing so many games since 1999. I really like so many things in other games as well. Anarchy Online had this very interesting way of improving your skills. Age of Conan had a combat system I liked. I love the dungeon role of healer in FFXIV ARR and enjoy the challenge of harder dungeons. I liked the WoW world. I loved Vanguard crafting. I loved Everquest 2 housing. I loved the classes in City of Heroes/Villains. I loved the quests in SWTOR the voice over and the class stories. To my surprise when I could do it I liked the puzzle jumping in GW 2 although mostly they frustrated me from lack of ability to finish them
I do not think anyone is going to ever make a game for me . So I settle for what there is now.
The ideal game of the future will be a secluded interpersonal social elitism shared by players all over the cell phone medias - it will be VR headsets and terrible things will happen. And CEOs will be able to record and share this content between themselves.
You will never know that they're watching your characters doing horrible things like buying new cloth sets and walking around town - only to be killed by immersion.
You could make an MMORPG with all of the features you personally desire, but it's not going to succeed.
I think the people here forget that games are made for gamers, which is a demographic consisting primarily of teenage kids. Developers want to make money, not waste millions trying to rope in a niche demographic that will net them virtually nothing.
There are also 9 preliminary articles, introducing the overall book1, introducing chapter 1 (specifically to it's being based on a different approach than what has been yet attempted)2, introducing chapter 23, treating the science vs religion discussion4, treating what science is and misconceptions5, treating the stigma attached to Einstein's theory6, treating the scientific methodology debate which includes pre-scientific times into philosophy7, treating a revised scientific methodology of realism8, and presenting various forms or logical tools (from mathematics/geometry, the subject of logic, argumentative essays, and the US Federal court system)9. The 9 preliminary articles are done already, and I am on the first chapter, which may take some months still in itself at least. After that, the rest of the book will be done quick.
Interesting, but you being self-taught does raise some questions. I take in none of the articles are published and you are non-affiliated, but perhaps that shouldn't be too much of an obstacle on your chosen path. I hope so, at least. The scientific world can be rather wretched about those things, but ultimately you seem correct especially on importance of philosophy in the study of quantum phenomena. In any case, I hope you get your work published.
I theorize our society overall attempts to be too active all the time, so that our brain doesn't get the natural breaks it may benefit from.
Is this guy for real? "Our brain doesn't get breaks?" My brain is SCREAMING FOR ANYTHING INTELLIGENT FROM THIS DUMB AS **** WORLD, but the truly intelligent things it does, the world has no place to bring it to continue in that direction. Hence the reason I need to actually complete a book and get it published, because there is no other route to take. Please direct me to where I can find this "intelligent world" you speak of. Because my daily life is filled with "dumb... dumb... dumb..." If ever a day goes by that I honestly were to think otherwise, I would likely take myself out back somewhere and shoot myself as realizing that means I have joined "them". Good lordy lordy...
I theorise we surround ourselves in life with people who are similar to us.
Which is really bad news for the judgmental.
It's really the very best recipe for serial unhappiness.
I am afraid of one idea. Other players having control over me . They take over areas and keep me out or I have to be in their guild to be allowed in and so on. This is something I will run away from. Players are cruel and they are petty. I do not want them to have control over me.
You raise important points. The more power players are given over each others, the more likely it typically is that the power is abused. The example of control you give should be designed so that it is extremely difficult for the guild to find lone individuals. In such a case, the risk of getting caught is minor and the guild risks losing face attempting to enforce rules like that. There are certainly worse examples, but it is up to the devs what kind of gameplay they offer guilds, small groups and solo players. It is important to offer possibilities, but likewise to not allow severe diminishing of possibilities of other playstyles.
I do not think anyone is going to ever make a game for me . So I settle for what there is now.
Wise, and I also pretty much think that way. However, I enjoy thinking on possibilities and now and then also these discussions:)
There is also the matter of gamers growing older and more and more adults keeping to it, which should eventually increase demand for more complex/thought-out/diverse/deep/mature/whatever kind of games. Conceptually, I believe mmorpgs have potential to be at the top of those, even if it these days might not seem so. I guess, the trend for more direct gameplay will continue for a long time, but I'm sure there is a need and room for ideas and ways to make bigger, more inclusive games "fun", for the people who are looking for them.
Were mmorpgs once titled kings of games or was it just wow marketing? My memory fails me and currently the title might seem.. what exactly?
Comments
You are entirely correct in how the environment defines part of the role. What about the past? Or future of the role? Is their value in providing players with tools to define their role's past or future and supporting that?
One approach for designing a more lasting or open ended experience is to allow players to create their own roles and support them. Well supported roles encourage players to find the limits of their interactions. Achievements, if woven into development of the role or the world, are one way to build such support.
Sounds good. What if there is a connection with what you are doing with some purpose in the game? Do you think that would make more people do it? Do you think it would make the activity more stressful and as such something you would eventually end up avoiding? Or would it make you feel like the game supports your way of gaming? What if you limit the market so that the amount of suppliers is low and it is possible to find local maxima?
I can respect that. I believe, a lot of people do not want to engage arguments and that's what it often boils down to; establishing authority and decision making. What I'm saying is that with multiple people having a goal, it just happens and the systems should support it happening in a way that is good for the game as a whole. In practically all situations.
Creating such a matchmaking tool would at minimum require players (and the system, and perhaps the community) defining their roles and goals with good amount of details. The problem I foresee is most players being characterized as dishonest bullies and the whole thing collapsing:P That aside, having players define their own roles already encourages them to follow it. If the roles were well supported, the system could work, after multiple iterations.
How would you incentivize players to follow their role and do you think it's something that should be done?
Many ways to look at it (similar concepts, different viewpoints) and it took me a while to think, how I'd rather like it. Just an example, of course. First off, instead of types of fun, I'd concentrate on pleasure. Types of pleasure you can extract from online environment include
And that is the crux and problem with most of this genre.. Rather it be in gaming or in real life.. We have a split population that views life differently, which does flow into how they play games as well.. Here is a quick example.. I'm playing golf with others.. With every drive, chip and putt, I'm playing against the course (aka against myself).. However, I always have playing partners that are trying to out drive me, and out score me.. WHY? I'm not playing against you, but you are trying to outdo me..
I see that same competitive attitude in gaming as well.. People trying to "one up" their fellow players.. Too many view the game content is actually OUT PERFORMING other players, not actually playing the game.. I guess it's like a status thing, who knows.. It's actually funny, yet sad to see how others act.. These people I call the Esporters of the generation.. They bounce from game to game in hopes of being one of the recognized top 10%.. If they fail, they move to another game in hopes of achieving that respect there, or they recreate new accounts and characters in hopes of fixing their mistakes and try again..
Another sad part that stems from this, is that those Esporters I call them, love to look for prey they can beat, then feel good about themselves.. Any game that doesn't promote or allow this type of predatory behavior is called inferior, etc etc.. The closer a game becomes direct PvP the more competitive the mentality becomes.. But what is FUN? To me it's me against the PvE content, but others view predatory esport behavior as fun.. This encompasses a gang of players ganking a single player for shits and giggles, this also includes the end game raid achievement BS that we see in WoW.. I just call it indirect PvP..
I pretty much agree with you on both pve-encounter difficulty at least during leveling and pvp.
Leveling is made extremely easy for multiple reasons and risk taking is neither encouraged nor rewarded. In my opinion, the genre is old enough for some games to let go of some of the hand holding: abolish the compartmental modelling of mobs by level and area and decrease the actual power attained by leveling. Those seeking challenge should be encouraged to do so throughout the game.
Likewise the number game with leveling (including gear progressing) is quite a hindrance to non-instanced pvp. Instanced pvp relatively often implements generalized gear and levels. Open world you cannot do that and many games are extremely reluctant to cut down the number game as a lot of people see the rpg in them.
About difficulty, have you considered that the way characters are built these days provides very little difficulty? The certainty of what you expect to find in new zones or areas also represents low difficulty, doesn't it? Same with zones being static as there is typically very little that changes in them over time. Basically, knowledge, ability to escape, avoid and postpone fights, and extremely low death penalties lead to there being no fear of unknown. How would you like to see difficulty upped in mmorpgs?
GW2 made a good attempt with the down-leveling and dynamic events, but would you consider such design (consider just the design, pls:)) sufficient? After a bit experience, you start to notice patterns in the event design and what happens then? Down-leveling puts you several levels above average mobs and scales your gear correspondingly. Even if the numbers were brought lower and you'd temporarily lose some abilities, do you think it would provide you any challenge?
You might have put it better than me by questioning whether zen is fun. I think people would generally say "what? oh...yeah sure it's fun" when asked whether they're having fun in zen-heavy games, but that their true purpose is more about giving your brain a break. Their gameplay is deliberately light on conscious decisions, which lets you just cruise on subconscious for a while. One might say the game acts as a convenient way to feel like you're doing something even while you're essentially doing nothing.
I theorize our society overall attempts to be too active all the time, so that our brain doesn't get the natural breaks it may benefit from. Inspiration strikes in the shower or bathroom or a walk because we're giving our conscious mind a break, which allows the subconscious mind some time to release all the ideas it's been grinding out in the background. Zen games thus form a sort of rationalized meditation: your conscious mind is tricked that it's "doing something" but what's really happening is you're taking a break from thinking for a while. I would guess that actual meditation is probably more effective overall, but that using an aid to reach that meditative state is at least better than not doing it.
Still all of that is just a theory based on random articles I've read from time to time on how the mind works. One example being the fantastic John Cleese on Creativity video which hints at how he deliberately took steps to get his mind into a different biological 'mode'. Admittedly not all of them (including the Cleese one) are particularly scientific so this is just a theory.
Timesinks essentially describe a low decisions / time ratio. It's the relationship that matters, so getting hung up on "how do you quantify 'decisions'?" isn't really the point. Also, time is specifically related to time which demands the player's attention. If you send a follower on a mission in SWTOR, that mission might take a few hours, but the act of making the decision only takes you a few seconds -- and then you can do something else.
So not everything that limits the player or takes time is a timesink. It's only the things which force you into a mode where you either have no decisions to make (downtime) or very few decisions (travel).
There's also grind. Grind essentially describes a low fun / time ratio.
So there's nothing inherently wrong with progression. You only have to avoid providing too little decisions or fun over time. The amount of decisions is basically objective (so whether something is a timesink is objective as well.) The amount of fun is subjective -- one man's grind is another's favorite game. And the only way progression really interacts with these things is it's usually something that takes a lot of time (and both equations involve time.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I agree it is something that is very much capitalized in games. Some games also make it their main focus, which is perfectly fine, if they are honest about it.
On the other hand, one could argue that most simple tasks become that way after mastering them and that the actual source for the fun is not the task, but the existing attachment to the game; the emotional and esthetic appreciation of the game. What follows, is that the enjoyment is not sustainable; if the game relies too much on simple tasks, boredom will settle in and the player will eventually want to find new stimuli. Of course, how much a player can tolerate repetitiveness, depends on how receptive he is to relaxation, which is very subjective.
Stress is very much present in modern day lives. E.g. my job is quite stressful, so I counter that with many activities that "take my mind off". From my point of view, it is quite natural that many people seek this in games. Do you think there is a connection with or a requirement of certain level of immersion for a game to be relaxing? What's also interesting, is how it works for kids..
Similar concepts to relaxation can be found in audio; e.g. binaural beats. It wouldn't surprise me, if there already existed some scientific work on stimuli other than audio inducing relaxation and other effects related to meditation.
Very well, if I follow, you define time sinks as activities, which take time significantly longer than what the player expects. That's a reasonable explanation and important one as the negative response can be very strong. One could argue, if games want to introduce time consuming concepts, the developers have to be able to change players' expectations about it. Basically, they need to rationalize, incentivize and provide sufficient number of secondary activities for a player to make during the timesink.
A good example are main or story quests. For a long time, they might not advance at all, but players are not bothered, because it's according to their expectations and they typically have multiple short quests to do in the meanwhile.
Travel as a timesink, on the other hand, is difficult for most games to implement so that there there is enough rationalization as to why the player should suffer the boredom. Sandboxes attempt to tie in trading and pvp risk, but for many that doesn't work. Essentially, this comes back to knowledge of and stagnancy of the environment.
An example of slow travel that could work for me, is zones forming a maze, which changes due to collective player actions. And/or some other large scale changes in the world that are potentially able to make my knowledge of the environment sufficiently outdated so that I do need to make some decisions. I would also like some incentives and thematic rationalization to do travel.
You perhaps already understood, where I was coming to, but if you agree with how I interpret how zen takes place in games, it follows that voluntary grind can be zen and thus not always experienced as a negative. As you said, it is not good design to force grinding especially over extended periods of time. How about small filler quests? Do you think there is any meaningful decision making or do you think it's possible some might find those relaxing?I theorise we surround ourselves in life with people who are similar to us.
Some people intentionally (subconsciously even) surround themselves with dumb people
Yeah when our conscious mind masters something, it basically becomes a subconscious task which lets it be zen, so really good Pacman players (as an example) have turned it into a zen thing.
Immersion is definitely key to relaxation, as it implies your mind is shutting out outside thoughts for a while. However this isn't the typical virtual world style "immersion" that gets discussed on this forums, but simply the idea that you are totally engrossed (immersed) in the experience. I've heard Flow is a good book at describing the flow state and really ought to give it a read.
As for timesinks, player expectations can help mitigate the negative effects, but in the end they'll still feel like timesinks and be extremely low on gameplay. So when a developer wants something to consume more time, if they want it to avoid being a timesink they just have to do it in a way that involves a lot of decisions (combat is the most common way; if the game requires players travel for 30 minutes that's a timesink, but if it's 30 minutes of combat that's gameplay. Assuming the typical amount of decision-making anyway -- it's possible for a game to create its travel in a way which is full of constant decisions, but it simply isn't done except in racing games.)
Also you're right in pointing out that sometimes periods of non-gameplay are required to create certain forms of gameplay (long travel times to create localized economies.) However usually there's a way to have those long times without forcing players themselves to do it. For example EVE would still have its localized player-driven economy if players were prevented from doing the transportation themselves and it could only be done with automated miners and cargo-haulers. The actual time it takes to perform these tasks could remain unchanged (or possibly increaed), but players themselves would be completely freed up to engage in the more interesting gameplay. And if you assigned guards to your NPC convoy then maybe you can jump into that guard's ship to defend your convoy manually in case of attack.
As for filler quests I feel they're largely zen gameplay currently, and that's bad. A better design would make it a choice where you can choose easy (low rewards) or hard (high rewards) questing. Selecting easy would naturally be zen (decisions aren't too meaningful when things are easy.) Selecting hard would naturally be gameplay-intensive (decisions are very meaningful when things are difficult; up to a point.) Allowing players to choose the mode of play is ideal.
Being able to choose the mode of play isn't specific to filler quests. It benefits all types of gameplay, and is mainly limited by the developer's ability to create the gameplay for each thing (for example WOW offers zen fishing which involves no significant decisions; there's no reason they couldn't also have a skill-intensive fishing minigame somewhere with better rewards but which was very difficult -- no reason except the fact that it would take developer time/resources, and maybe isn't completely aligned with the direction they want to take the game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah it is a good idea. What kind of a book are you writing?
Interesting concept. Athletes have talked of flow or zone for years and it is often used to describe extreme concentration and the resulting good performance. It is true, that concentration is very much related to immersion and can similarly be used to describe how people can achieve zen in games. Concentrate on the activity and block out everything else.
In my opinion, the term immersion used for games has quite as fun expanded beyond its everyday use. What I believe people use it for, is to describe how easy it is for them to get immersed in it. Naturally feelings like, "I've done this before" or "this is too easy" are very subjective, but nonetheless hamper their immersion. The usage is very broad and it is very difficult to interpret what the player means if he doesn't give further explanation. Ultimately, I think it's still a similar if not exactly the same concept.
You are right that with a strict definition of devoid of any gameplay, expectations don't help much at all. It is crucial, that the player is provided optional gameplay for the duration and preferably incentivized with for example progression. The type of gameplay is, as you say, less important.
Consider the following scenario, the player wants to go to another town to join a friend. He is not capable of teleporting there so the game anticipates or is directly told what the player wants to do, and the player is provided gameplay for the journey. Be it in the form of quests, encounters the player needs to clear or info of a mining site or crafting master on the way. Or a lore master to name a few. It is not done today, but it is important to discuss possibilities. What you should be asking is why or why not:)
It is, of course, important to also consider the benefits of the timesink that is filled with sufficient decision making. I come back to the example of a main quest that asks you to go someplace quite far without teleport and with much too strong enemies. The player is given two options: go and grind along the way to level or do filler quests to level and follow their path. Practically everyone takes the filler quests. Without them, would it be a timesink?
Depending on the time/profit and how much it would affect the risk/reward gameplay, it is possible that automated transfer could destroy the localized aspect of the economies. If it is simply delayed but increased profit, the incentive to transport instead of selling locally is too high. The risk/reward gameplay could also suffer. It would be interesting, if the transporter would choose the route and have the possibility to change it any given moment and also to teleport in it. Given practically total control of the transport while not having to sit in the cockpit, would possibly maintain much of the tension for both the attacker and the defender.
However, it is questionable whether it would be better to provide more decision making in the cockpit. Such a change would essentially make eve a lobby game with rampart autopiloting; the game would over time have to change much more focus to what the players can do while not actively piloting. The feeling of a ding - your mule has arrived vs. the feeling of successfully evading many dangers yourself, is very different, but the convenience factor is huge so it would definitely become the main mode of transport. Giving players more decision making while piloting would perhaps work without such risk.
Personal transport has its benefits, if there is enough decision making for example due to sufficient risk. It often has sufficient thematic background. If there is not enough risk, there is easily a void of decision making and the transport becomes a timesink. In those cases, even eve should consider adding more decision making. However, those timesinks partially work as incentives (also as tutorials to some) to engage more risky routes. It is obvious, many players do not enjoy risk, but for eve as a whole it works. For games without said pvp risk, filling the gameplay void becomes much more crucial or the problem has to be circumvented with teleporting.
Fun is very simple for me.
I want interactive combat that is also challenging,i do not want to 1-2 shot everything like some hyper kid at an arcade machine.I want my character to feel it's role,i do not want anything automated.I do not want to do a somersault and automate a heal or buff,i want ideas to be plausible ,some what realistic.I find watching these games and players are constantly rolling somersaults looks absolutely retarded and not fun.
I also despise SPAMMY combat,i want controlled combat that might actually have me think in between abilities or spells ,instead of just click 1-1-1-1-1-1 and kill 5 creatures,in 5 secs.
Fun for me is being able to play the game the way i want and go where i want to go,a game on rails ,telling me where to go is a super big no thanks.
When i explore ,i want to be the one exploring,i don't want some markers on a map and a quest telling me to go to point a,then the game says YAY you have just discovered a new area....R U kidding me?You told me to come here,held my hand to get there,how is that a discovery?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I agree that currently the design is very close to zen gameplay. At times, the minor decisions interrupt the zen, and their mundane aspects nonetheless provide no intellectual or emotional pleasure. Simply there being a decision is not enough. At times, the overall effect might be worse than the standard alternative of grinding.
Giving more choice is a good idea, but I would argue, it would be even better, if the game made the decision based on inputted and collected data. That is, the game offers the type, difficulty and length based on whether the player enjoys challenge, gathering, crafting, bite sized content, slow gameplay with more appreciation for details or whatever the player has defined his goal to be and what the game can also ascertain. Also the way the quest is presented should vary based on the players desires; some want immediate quest and reward giving with clear objectives while some might want to only get hints to follow.
I believe you are correct, the direction the devs choose is what defines the gameplay possibilities and their incentives. While mobas and different other mmos focus on combat, it is my opinion that mmorpgs should expand choices and support more individualistic playstyles.
How do you see choice of gameplay mode to carry over to multiplayer realm?
Very well put as it describes my likes as well.. If my character is a druid for example, I want the feeling of actually being a druid in tune and connected with the land and animals.. I don't want to feel like a dps unit with no define role, that only pretends to fulfill roles like healing.. Playing a paladin should feel different and special, as should a necro, or any other class.. Too many games I play today give me the feeling that I'm only playing ONE class just dresses differently.. I play class A that does nothing but hit the 1,2,3,1,2,3 buttons in 10 seconds.. I play class B that does exactly the same thing, and same with class C , D and on and on.. The only differences are the titles (labels) of buttons 1, 2 and 3..
MMORPG that are played on the PC feel no different then some lobby based console game.. If the fact that so many games promote and allow for combat "macros" doesn't clue you just how fail broken, and predictable the game is.. I don't know what does.. /shrug.. lol
I am afraid of one idea. Other players having control over me . They take over areas and keep me out or I have to be in their guild to be allowed in and so on. This is something I will run away from. Players are cruel and they are petty. I do not want them to have control over me.
I do not know what I want anymore. Once when you asked me I would have said Everquest with updated graphics. I do not want that anymore especially after playing so many games since 1999. I really like so many things in other games as well. Anarchy Online had this very interesting way of improving your skills. Age of Conan had a combat system I liked. I love the dungeon role of healer in FFXIV ARR and enjoy the challenge of harder dungeons. I liked the WoW world. I loved Vanguard crafting. I loved Everquest 2 housing. I loved the classes in City of Heroes/Villains. I loved the quests in SWTOR the voice over and the class stories. To my surprise when I could do it I liked the puzzle jumping in GW 2 although mostly they frustrated me from lack of ability to finish them
I do not think anyone is going to ever make a game for me . So I settle for what there is now.
The ideal game of the future will be a secluded interpersonal social elitism shared by players all over the cell phone medias - it will be VR headsets and terrible things will happen. And CEOs will be able to record and share this content between themselves.
You will never know that they're watching your characters doing horrible things like buying new cloth sets and walking around town - only to be killed by immersion.
There will be much laughing on the playground.
You could make an MMORPG with all of the features you personally desire, but it's not going to succeed.
I think the people here forget that games are made for gamers, which is a demographic consisting primarily of teenage kids. Developers want to make money, not waste millions trying to rope in a niche demographic that will net them virtually nothing.
Interesting, but you being self-taught does raise some questions. I take in none of the articles are published and you are non-affiliated, but perhaps that shouldn't be too much of an obstacle on your chosen path. I hope so, at least. The scientific world can be rather wretched about those things, but ultimately you seem correct especially on importance of philosophy in the study of quantum phenomena. In any case, I hope you get your work published.
Which is really bad news for the judgmental.
It's really the very best recipe for serial unhappiness.
You raise important points. The more power players are given over each others, the more likely it typically is that the power is abused. The example of control you give should be designed so that it is extremely difficult for the guild to find lone individuals. In such a case, the risk of getting caught is minor and the guild risks losing face attempting to enforce rules like that. There are certainly worse examples, but it is up to the devs what kind of gameplay they offer guilds, small groups and solo players. It is important to offer possibilities, but likewise to not allow severe diminishing of possibilities of other playstyles.
Wise, and I also pretty much think that way. However, I enjoy thinking on possibilities and now and then also these discussions:)
There is also the matter of gamers growing older and more and more adults keeping to it, which should eventually increase demand for more complex/thought-out/diverse/deep/mature/whatever kind of games. Conceptually, I believe mmorpgs have potential to be at the top of those, even if it these days might not seem so. I guess, the trend for more direct gameplay will continue for a long time, but I'm sure there is a need and room for ideas and ways to make bigger, more inclusive games "fun", for the people who are looking for them.
Were mmorpgs once titled kings of games or was it just wow marketing? My memory fails me and currently the title might seem.. what exactly?