You can't just create something saying people don't understand and then state an opinion without any sort of fact to back anything up.
I mean, you can, because you just did, but that doesn't make you right. I agree, there are people who have a severe lack of understanding about the industry and how much knowledge they have. I will agree that there are people who have a great misunderstanding of what people want..........
If you had any sort of insight into what sort of data is collected and what information is used in the decision-making process you'd probably be much more enlightened. To believe that developers are out there free-balling with a $30 million budget is hilarious.
Great.....This is a good time to jump in
People are under the impression developers are using statistics of what players want. NO !
They use statistics saying " players will play anything ". So lets just advertise !
Actually, there isn't. Statistics actually DO say they won't play harder games. There is actually plenty of evidence to support this. SWG is one. The introduction of the Jedi and the unnecessarily difficult grind for that is what ultimately killed the game. Saga of Lucimia is another game that was unapologetic about being difficult...and....... it went from super hype train to train wreck and now you hear very little, if anything, about it. Probably because it simply won't come to fruition. Pantheon is another. Again, this is probably the most hyped "difficult" game in development at the moment, but we're talking about thousands of people interested, not even tens of thousands.
OH! Let's not forget about Wildstar, the game which was going to be so punishing that it would cater to those hardcore. They actually promoted it as such. What happened? Oh!!!! Like a month in and they tune it down because people were complaining about the difficulty.
Please! Please, prove me wrong. Show me the evidence that a hard, ball-grinding MMO "works". I'm really sorry, but it doesn't. They are niche games, it's not what the majority of the player base wants and that's just how it is. There are hard games out there, though. You may need to deal with lesser graphics, etc., but that's a sacrifice that you make. The game you're playing has been created for a group of thousands (maybe tens of thousands) and not millions. So instead of complaining, or claiming to know "something" go play the games that are available. Even better, go make a game yourself! I'm sure you'll discover very quickly why companies cater to the masses.
You can't just create something saying people don't understand and then state an opinion without any sort of fact to back anything up.
I mean, you can, because you just did, but that doesn't make you right. I agree, there are people who have a severe lack of understanding about the industry and how much knowledge they have. I will agree that there are people who have a great misunderstanding of what people want..........
If you had any sort of insight into what sort of data is collected and what information is used in the decision-making process you'd probably be much more enlightened. To believe that developers are out there free-balling with a $30 million budget is hilarious.
Great.....This is a good time to jump in
People are under the impression developers are using statistics of what players want. NO !
They use statistics saying " players will play anything ". So lets just advertise !
Actually, there isn't. Statistics actually DO say they won't play harder games. There is actually plenty of evidence to support this. SWG is one. The introduction of the Jedi and the unnecessarily difficult grind for that is what ultimately killed the game. Saga of Lucimia is another game that was unapologetic about being difficult...and....... it went from super hype train to train wreck and now you hear very little, if anything, about it. Probably because it simply won't come to fruition. Pantheon is another. Again, this is probably the most hyped "difficult" game in development at the moment, but we're talking about thousands of people interested, not even tens of thousands.
OH! Let's not forget about Wildstar, the game which was going to be so punishing that it would cater to those hardcore. They actually promoted it as such. What happened? Oh!!!! Like a month in and they tune it down because people were complaining about the difficulty.
Please! Please, prove me wrong. Show me the evidence that a hard, ball-grinding MMO "works". I'm really sorry, but it doesn't. They are niche games, it's not what the majority of the player base wants and that's just how it is. There are hard games out there, though. You may need to deal with lesser graphics, etc., but that's a sacrifice that you make. The game you're playing has been created for a group of thousands (maybe tens of thousands) and not millions. So instead of complaining, or claiming to know "something" go play the games that are available. Even better, go make a game yourself! I'm sure you'll discover very quickly why companies cater to the masses.
Well, I really don't have any intentions of proving you wrong, it's more like how people view things.
SWG is what, 16 years old ?........ This was a rough draft back then, leading to a lot of future potential. It's just old !
Saga of Luchimia and Pantheon isn't even released yet. I TOTALLY think one or both will be surprisingly accepted !
Wildstar ?........I would love to shout bad language that would surly get me kicked from the site....The combat was one of the worst things ever invented. Was it hard, no ?.....it was trying to project a telegraph on the ground to fight........Talking about wrist pain, how many people had to see their doctors over that crap.....Hard no......Suck ass combat yes.
It seems to come down to when people started playing MMOs....People that started before WoW find todays games too easy, and people that started with WoW or later play them more for entertainment than for challenge.
Players who began playing earlier like making this generalization and blaming WoW. But the trend began before WoW; it began on the EQ message boards ("Forced grouping" was coined on the EQ boards), it took place in virtually every release of 2003-2004. The entire INDUSTRY made a turn in the direction of player QOL changes...including Everquest and Everquest2.
CoH held the new "fastest time to cap" title briefly, for just about six months...until some 2% speed racers proved you could "cap out" in WoW even faster.
But you can blame Blizzard if it makes you feel better. The industry (virtually all of it) was chasing new player retention, the buzzword of the 00s.
Way back when there was Project 1999 (or Everquest), and a few other old school MMOs. Then WoW came along and made everything easier, introduced some dumbing-down, etc. (Don't get me wrong, WoW is a great game in certain aspects, however...)
The problem is "dumbing-down" as applied to WOW is just objectively false. 1. Combat is the most common activity. 2. Time after time I've posted the demonology rotation as an example of WOW's combat depth: players must maintain awareness and react correctly to many factors (including many factors outside the class rotation) on an ongoing basis in order to perform perfectly. 3. I've then challenged players to post objective evidence showing other games were actually deeper than that -- if WOW was "dumbed down" as many claim then not only would it be easy to provide such evidence, but that sort of evidence would be all over the place! 4. Thus far, one class in one game (Lancer, FFXIV) has been shown to be deeper than the demonology rotation.
As in those earlier threads, I welcome you to provide evidence of other classes/games providing deeper gameplay than WOW. My expectations are low.
Everything I've seen regarding EQ1 leads me to believe the gameplay was much shallower than typical WOW play. So from the perspective of how hard these games are to master, EQ1 seemed far more dumbed-down than WOW.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Way back when there was Project 1999 (or Everquest), and a few other old school MMOs. Then WoW came along and made everything easier, introduced some dumbing-down, etc. (Don't get me wrong, WoW is a great game in certain aspects, however...)
The problem is "dumbing-down" as applied to WOW is just objectively false. 1. Combat is the most common activity. 2. Time after time I've posted the demonology rotation as an example of WOW's combat depth: players must maintain awareness and react correctly to many factors (including many factors outside the class rotation) on an ongoing basis in order to perform perfectly. 3. I've then challenged players to post objective evidence showing other games were actually deeper than that -- if WOW was "dumbed down" as many claim then not only would it be easy to provide such evidence, but that sort of evidence would be all over the place! 4. Thus far, one class in one game (Lancer, FFXIV) has been shown to be deeper than the demonology rotation.
As in those earlier threads, I welcome you to provide evidence of other classes/games providing deeper gameplay than WOW. My expectations are low.
Everything I've seen regarding EQ1 leads me to believe the gameplay was much shallower than typical WOW play. So from the perspective of how hard these games are to master, EQ1 seemed far more dumbed-down than WOW.
I don't believe combat rotation is really that interesting when considering the complexity of a game, deciding that is what everyone means by dumbed down then insisting that people are wrong isn't a good argument.
I could say the number of pets available determines complexity. In wow this is higher than any game thus far, except 1 game - riders of icarus, therefore wow is the most complex game out there. I mean, factually (ignoring the complexity statement) that could be a true statement, but it's entirely meaningless to the game as a whole.
There's a lot more to games than combat rotation. Examples of other metrics might be class interaction complexity, difficulty to take down ordinary world monsters, amount monsters cc or require timed interrupts or strategic play to defeat etc.
Way back when there was Project 1999 (or Everquest), and a few other old school MMOs. Then WoW came along and made everything easier, introduced some dumbing-down, etc. (Don't get me wrong, WoW is a great game in certain aspects, however...)
The problem is "dumbing-down" as applied to WOW is just objectively false. 1. Combat is the most common activity. 2. Time after time I've posted the demonology rotation as an example of WOW's combat depth: players must maintain awareness and react correctly to many factors (including many factors outside the class rotation) on an ongoing basis in order to perform perfectly. 3. I've then challenged players to post objective evidence showing other games were actually deeper than that -- if WOW was "dumbed down" as many claim then not only would it be easy to provide such evidence, but that sort of evidence would be all over the place! 4. Thus far, one class in one game (Lancer, FFXIV) has been shown to be deeper than the demonology rotation.
As in those earlier threads, I welcome you to provide evidence of other classes/games providing deeper gameplay than WOW. My expectations are low.
Everything I've seen regarding EQ1 leads me to believe the gameplay was much shallower than typical WOW play. So from the perspective of how hard these games are to master, EQ1 seemed far more dumbed-down than WOW.
Let me be more clear. To me, WoW was the start of the trend to 'dumb-down'. The game was more easily accessible for several reasons. 1.) '?' and '!' over NPC heads. 2.) Waypoint feature with animated line to guide you to your objective. To name a few elements of the game.
Like I said, I don't think WoW is a bad game, or easypeazy to play. However, it started to introduce some elements to me that started to take away from the 'journey into the unknown' aspect of MMOs.
Everquest was indeed quite challenging on the combat side of things. Mobs needed to be split, so crowd control was very important, in the form of roots, slows, mez. Group and Raid content was also quite challenging and strategic. While Planes of Power brought in a virtual 'instant' travel system that really started to trivialize the world, it also brought in even more challenging raid content. Max of 75man raids. Some content needed almost that much to handle the strategy.
There were lots of elements of EQ1 that I would never consider 'dumbed-down'. In fact, some of these elements are looked at as hardcore, and also likely the cause for game-makers to dumb things down in the future, as such elements were a barrier of entry for the 'masses' into MMO games. Some elements of EQ1 (and some may call these things 'hard-core'): 1. Mob trains (i.e. you could even train tons of mob on other players and get them killed haha) 2. Mob camps (Multiple people camping the same mob and literally standing in line for the next respawn, which was 12 hours away!) 3. Death Penalty (you basically had to retrieve your corpse, and could take hours to do, depend on where you died). 4. Class dependency (promotes need for group play) <--- I don't view this as a negative, but players with only a few hours a week to play definitely do.. 5. Death resulted in a loss of experience, and you could even lose LEVELS due to death.
So to me, EQ1 is really not dumbed-down.
Post EQ1, MMOs started to introduce things that made it easier for the player, i.e.: 1. Instant Travel 2. '?' & '!' over NPC heads 3. Flushed out game-maps, or easily discover-able maps 4. Removal of class dependency (promotes more solo play) i.e. GW2 5. Easy inconsequential death
etc..
Point I want to make really is:
While EQ1 had lots of elements that made it difficult and challenging, and while there were some poorly designed negative elements, the game actually really promoted the middle 'M' in MMO. The game has tons of content, lore, easter eggs, interesting chain quests. World is huge and lots of races and classes to play. Things are not just given to you easily in EQ1, and you need to go out and explore the world and make friends and discover stuff. Games now-a-days are more 'grind' focused. More focused on holding one's hand in the game-world. More focused on getting you to buy things in order to avoid the whatever tedious and uninspired PvE content may be in the game. Focused on you insta-travelling everywhere.
I don't believe combat rotation is really that interesting when considering the complexity of a game, deciding that is what everyone means by dumbed down then insisting that people are wrong isn't a good argument.
I could say the number of pets available determines complexity. In wow this is higher than any game thus far, except 1 game - riders of icarus, therefore wow is the most complex game out there. I mean, factually (ignoring the complexity statement) that could be a true statement, but it's entirely meaningless to the game as a whole.
There's a lot more to games than combat rotation. Examples of other metrics might be class interaction complexity, difficulty to take down ordinary world monsters, amount monsters cc or require timed interrupts or strategic play to defeat etc.
If someone is using the phrase dumbed-down and not referring to the amount of intelligence involved in a game, then well...that's a pretty dumb definition.
My definition revolves around the intelligence/skill required to master a game. This varies by game activity. You could have the deepest game in the world, but if 99% of your game time is spent waiting (for travel or mining, or whatever) then the actual experienced depth is extremely shallow. So the quickest gut-check to a game's overall depth is the depth of its most common activity
So while your definition is weirdly arbitrary (complexity is a measure of pets) mine is rooted in logic (where "dumbed-down" is simply the low end of a scale that measures how much intelligence/skill a game requires overall)
There is more to games than combat rotations. But combat is often the most common activity in a game, and so has by far the largest influence over the game's overall depth. If you want to cite evidence of a game you believe is deeper then by all means provide evidence of one or several activities whose weighted average is greater than WOW's. Keep in mind the time spent forcibly waiting involves zero decisions and therefore zero depth, and therefore drags down a game's average depth. Even WOW has some of this (few games escape it entirely). But it's a weighted average, so if we guess that 5% of your WOW time is spent waiting (0 depth) and 40% is spent in combat (85 depth) and 55% in other activities whose average depth is (40 depth) then that all multiplies out to the final weighted average (56).
As in every thread where I've brought this up, I welcome you to provide evidence of a deeper overall game but I expect zero evidence out of the vast majority of people flinging insults at WOW because they're not insults rooted in a logical critique of the game; they're just an emotional dislike of the game which has nothing at all to do with it being dumbed down.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How can combat rotations be depth I have no clue. It's more like playing a really shallow musical arrangement. It also points to that combat is the same no matter the npc barring the 1% that make you do anything.
To me situational combat is much deeper. Probably much harder to do with all the classes and specs. I mean, where are immunities, strengths, weaknesses, running, calling for help, and etc. Everything is so predictable. Skill is now people who know math making builds and power arrangments and people imitating by learning on youtube.
I always saw "simplification" as a response to "bureaucratic" mechanics. So when someone says WoW didn't dumb down, it simplified, I just don't get it. The early mechanics weren't bureaucratic, they had depth - not as much depth as other mmorpgs - and to me what strikes in opposition to depth is shallow.
So WoW became shallow. And the mainstream mmo market followed it's trend as a shallow experience requiring less focus.
Ffs! There are bosses which a big fu***** yellow message appears in the middle of the screen saying Look out the boss is about to do a big attack that is quite dangerous in x seconds yet people still use add-ons to alarm it ... What's next? Your pc chair actually shocks you before something happens? How can someone need that much of heads up to proper play anything is beyond me.
I'm not playing any mmorpg myself, and wish something amazing come out.
But complaning about it isn't changing anything.
Yes, nothing amazing,
Your right, complaining doesn't change anything. I guess I'm irritated about the same vocal 10 people that say things are fine, and will fight to the death saying it is !
Polls show one thing, responses from the same 10 reflect something else.
I could name all 10, but that wouldn't be nice would it ?
How can combat rotations be depth I have no clue. It's more like playing a really shallow musical arrangement. It also points to that combat is the same no matter the npc barring the 1% that make you do anything.
To me situational combat is much deeper. Probably much harder to do with all the classes and specs. I mean, where are immunities, strengths, weaknesses, running, calling for help, and etc. Everything is so predictable. Skill is now people who know math making builds and power arrangments and people imitating by learning on youtube.
No matter what system you're describing, it has a rotation of some kind -- a set of rules that would guide you to flawless execution.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I always saw "simplification" as a response to "bureaucratic" mechanics. So when someone says WoW didn't dumb down, it simplified, I just don't get it. The early mechanics weren't bureaucratic, they had depth - not as much depth as other mmorpgs - and to me what strikes in opposition to depth is shallow.
So WoW became shallow. And the mainstream mmo market followed it's trend as a shallow experience requiring less focus.
Ffs! There are bosses which a big fu***** yellow message appears in the middle of the screen saying Look out the boss is about to do a big attack that is quite dangerous in x seconds yet people still use add-ons to alarm it ... What's next? Your pc chair actually shocks you before something happens? How can someone need that much of heads up to proper play anything is beyond me.
Most gamers are dumber than glue.
Including all the gamers calling WOW "shallow" or "dumbed-down" when it has probably the deepest gameplay of MMORPGs.
If WOW was shallow, all players of any given class would end up doing exactly the same damage on any given fight. Instead, the variation between skilled and unskilled players (and even variations within skilled players) creates a situation where that almost never happens. Apart from gear the difference is largely caused by what makes WOW deep: all of the potential ways to play the game imperfectly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The big problem is that it's a fantasy to imagine that there is one 'MMO Player' consumer group. The market is fractured along many lines, from basic design choices possible to sub genres and flavors of fantasy vs. sci-fi and the like. I think I'm with you on combat and enemy ai or behavior, but we may differ greatly on the rest of the things we'd like to see in an MMO. This is a problem due to the cost of producing these games as well as the complexity inherent in them. With so many moving pieces needing to fit together, the chances of something you or I must have not being included or something we can't stand making it in rises greatly. So someone could come up with a combat and AI system for dealing with the encampment of bandits down the hill we could both get behind but one or both of us may never play the game because of other reasons.
I know I'll never get my perfect game, but somebody has to come closer than somewhat close to get me to stick around. The wow-clone era was not for me, after The Burning Crusade ended and WoW itself was no longer for me (though this took years to accept). Who the era was for was the majority of players, I think. I can't blame any dev for chasing after a group that i'm not a part of when that group is much larger than mine, though I can question their decision in focusing on a market that is literally referred to as content locusts who eat up what's available and swiftly move on.
The good news is that technology advances, computers get better, internet infrastructure gets better. I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that the hotbar combat standard will go away before too long because it will no longer be needed given the machines everyone is using and the bandwidth they have. So we may see a time when every new game coming out will satisfy both of us in terms of the bandits down the hill, and it's just all the rest of it which needs to work out for us. One hurdle cleared in every new release is fine with me and I do think that's coming in terms of combat, I just hope enemy ai will be part of that at the same time.
I always saw "simplification" as a response to "bureaucratic" mechanics. So when someone says WoW didn't dumb down, it simplified, I just don't get it. The early mechanics weren't bureaucratic, they had depth - not as much depth as other mmorpgs - and to me what strikes in opposition to depth is shallow.
So WoW became shallow. And the mainstream mmo market followed it's trend as a shallow experience requiring less focus.
Ffs! There are bosses which a big fu***** yellow message appears in the middle of the screen saying Look out the boss is about to do a big attack that is quite dangerous in x seconds yet people still use add-ons to alarm it ... What's next? Your pc chair actually shocks you before something happens? How can someone need that much of heads up to proper play anything is beyond me.
Most gamers are dumber than glue.
Including all the gamers calling WOW "shallow" or "dumbed-down" when it has probably the deepest gameplay of MMORPGs.
If WOW was shallow, all players of any given class would end up doing exactly the same damage on any given fight. Instead, the variation between skilled and unskilled players (and even variations within skilled players) creates a situation where that almost never happens. Apart from gear the difference is largely caused by what makes WOW deep: all of the potential ways to play the game imperfectly.
I think they are complaining about the outdoor experience where you don't need to execute anything perfectly because the mob are so easy.
I didn't get far in wow pass the first few years. So don't quote me if it's changed.
I always saw "simplification" as a response to "bureaucratic" mechanics. So when someone says WoW didn't dumb down, it simplified, I just don't get it. The early mechanics weren't bureaucratic, they had depth - not as much depth as other mmorpgs - and to me what strikes in opposition to depth is shallow.
So WoW became shallow. And the mainstream mmo market followed it's trend as a shallow experience requiring less focus.
Ffs! There are bosses which a big fu***** yellow message appears in the middle of the screen saying Look out the boss is about to do a big attack that is quite dangerous in x seconds yet people still use add-ons to alarm it ... What's next? Your pc chair actually shocks you before something happens? How can someone need that much of heads up to proper play anything is beyond me.
Most gamers are dumber than glue.
Including all the gamers calling WOW "shallow" or "dumbed-down" when it has probably the deepest gameplay of MMORPGs.
If WOW was shallow, all players of any given class would end up doing exactly the same damage on any given fight. Instead, the variation between skilled and unskilled players (and even variations within skilled players) creates a situation where that almost never happens. Apart from gear the difference is largely caused by what makes WOW deep: all of the potential ways to play the game imperfectly.
I think they are complaining about the outdoor experience where you don't need to execute anything perfectly because the mob are so easy.
I didn't get far in wow pass the first few years. So don't quote me if it's changed.
Probably.
What I do find interesting is that people tend to say things like "WoW's idea of increasing difficulty is to increase the monsters health." Same thing was said about Destiny. However, then when asked for examples of difficult combat, they give examples like Dark Souls, where the difficulty is tied more to your LACK of health than anything else, lol. I mean people who believe that games like dark souls are any less bound by rules than any other game, they might want to watch some of the youtube videos of people beating end game bosses with guitar controllers, etc.
My first mmorpg is priston tale. I don't think the combat have any depth, but open world game play is more interesting, because mobs are more difficult.
And the community is actually great eventhough the whole game is just a map to grind mobs. Since you meet people who are within your level range and you grind mobs together to form a community.
My first mmorpg is priston tale. I don't think the combat have any depth, but open world game play is more interesting, because mobs are more difficult.
And the community is actually great eventhough the whole game is just a map to grind mobs. Since you meet people who are within your level range and you grind mobs together to form a community.
That one is pretty interest , specially how mob and boss spawn randomly . Sadly the sequel wasn't as good as first one .
Mobs not so difficult but they spawn like ants , specially hell spawn . Combat wasn't depth but the spawn rate make you easily forget time lol .
I wish they wasn't canceled another sequel called laxelore .
I always saw "simplification" as a response to "bureaucratic" mechanics. So when someone says WoW didn't dumb down, it simplified, I just don't get it. The early mechanics weren't bureaucratic, they had depth - not as much depth as other mmorpgs - and to me what strikes in opposition to depth is shallow.
So WoW became shallow. And the mainstream mmo market followed it's trend as a shallow experience requiring less focus.
Ffs! There are bosses which a big fu***** yellow message appears in the middle of the screen saying Look out the boss is about to do a big attack that is quite dangerous in x seconds yet people still use add-ons to alarm it ... What's next? Your pc chair actually shocks you before something happens? How can someone need that much of heads up to proper play anything is beyond me.
Most gamers are dumber than glue.
Including all the gamers calling WOW "shallow" or "dumbed-down" when it has probably the deepest gameplay of MMORPGs.
If WOW was shallow, all players of any given class would end up doing exactly the same damage on any given fight. Instead, the variation between skilled and unskilled players (and even variations within skilled players) creates a situation where that almost never happens. Apart from gear the difference is largely caused by what makes WOW deep: all of the potential ways to play the game imperfectly.
I think they are complaining about the outdoor experience where you don't need to execute anything perfectly because the mob are so easy.
I didn't get far in wow pass the first few years. So don't quote me if it's changed.
Probably.
What I do find interesting is that people tend to say things like "WoW's idea of increasing difficulty is to increase the monsters health." Same thing was said about Destiny. However, then when asked for examples of difficult combat, they give examples like Dark Souls, where the difficulty is tied more to your LACK of health than anything else, lol. I mean people who believe that games like dark souls are any less bound by rules than any other game, they might want to watch some of the youtube videos of people beating end game bosses with guitar controllers, etc.
For me it's more skipping to games like Mount & Blade or the likes of the "deadly reflex" mod for Oblivion.
Games where certain elements like health are held to a more stable standard more or less, and the pressure is put upon skill usage and outmaneuvering the enemies.
Less reliance on "shallow" content like heavy rotations comes about from things like better AI that allows units to have different behavioral sets and subsequently different strategies to overcome. This is a factor that can even extend as far as a "personality" modifier for creatures that gives them a unique trait or behavior to throw a small curve-ball into the the mix without completely breaking any specific type of creature's overall functionality.
I would call WoW shallow in that regard for a stack of reasons.
Combat is over-reliant on a rigid set of abilities for each class that is highly subject to stat and balance changes, making it very FOTM-driven.
Enemies show very little behavioral differences, rendering most combat scenarios subject to an easily repeated routine (such as the randomly mentioned warlock combat rotations).
Difficulty is scaled through the HP-scaling method for most vet mobs, and the special traits of bosses are heavily scripted and telegraphed which removes much of the strategic challenge.
Most every difficulty is something that can be overcome through gear progression (save for an individuals complete ineptitude).
Does Dark Souls still utilize similar mechanics such as bosses having more health and limiting player stats to force a disparity? Sure, but that ignores that there is also a strong variety of behavior built into each enemy type in Dark Souls that games like WoW does not express, and the reliance on active skills such as dodge and block pushes the combat towards a match of out-performing the enemies rather than relying so heavily on the crutch that is high stats. It's far from a perfect implementation and it's not really that hard of a challenge to overcome, but there are still differences to take note of and gives some indicators of ways games like WoW could be improved as well.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I would call WoW shallow in that regard for a stack of reasons.
Combat is over-reliant on a rigid set of abilities for each class that is highly subject to stat and balance changes, making it very FOTM-driven.
Enemies show very little behavioral differences, rendering most combat scenarios subject to an easily repeated routine (such as the randomly mentioned warlock combat rotations).
Difficulty is scaled through the HP-scaling method for most vet mobs, and the special traits of bosses are heavily scripted and telegraphed which removes much of the strategic challenge.
Most every difficulty is something that can be overcome through gear progression (save for an individuals complete ineptitude).
Does Dark Souls still utilize similar mechanics such as bosses having more health and limiting player stats to force a disparity? Sure, but that ignores that there is also a strong variety of behavior built into each enemy type in Dark Souls that games like WoW does not express, and the reliance on active skills such as dodge and block pushes the combat towards a match of out-performing the enemies rather than relying so heavily on the crutch that is high stats. It's far from a perfect implementation and it's not really that hard of a challenge to overcome, but there are still differences to take note of and gives some indicators of ways games like WoW could be improved as well.
I don't disagree with you on WoWs base mobs. Honestly, the difficulty of WoW, for me, scales with my own efforts rather than the game itself. I'll often gather up as many enemies as I can without them running away. I'll often do 10 or 11 mobs at a time. Honestly, I find more difficulty or thought-provoking gameplay in some of the mobile games I play than I do with WoW.
I do understand that Dark Souls has some unique characteristics and mechanics. However, there isn't enough to constitute it being superior in difficulty to something like WoW. The basic formula is the same. Games like Dark Souls masquerade as difficult games, but every point you make about WoW can be reflected on these games like Dark Souls, too, simply replace whatever tedious rotation you might have with incessant rolling and dodging. I mean that's basically what it boils down to is instead of running, just dodge and you win the game. They've simply escalated the price of being hit. It's not really "smart" gameplay.
So, again, the skill requirement isn't any higher. It's more about the resilience. Sure, I can, and have, fallen asleep while playing WoW sometimes, but the main reason people stop playing games like Dark Souls isn't because they aren't skilled enough to play, it's that you are penalized for learning. "Oh PLEASE send me back to the start of the level I just spent 45 minutes getting through!" said nobody, ever!
To close it out, I'll go back to Wildstar, where I'll surely be flamed again. People will say what they will, and have, about the telegraph system. However, the fact is that nobody completed the game with this supposed "easy" system in place. It's unfortunate, too, because I felt like a telegraph system was something that would allow for truly dynamic, skill-based combat. You would be able to integrate telegraphs with things like block and dodge, along with a skills rotation and create a system where skill IS actually important. Ultimately, I would challenge that anything besides straight up PvP suffers from the same predictability and isn't all that challenging, really. Punishing? Maybe. Not truly challenging or difficult, though.
I think they are complaining about the outdoor experience where you don't need to execute anything perfectly because the mob are so easy.
I didn't get far in wow pass the first few years. So don't quote me if it's changed.
A similar depth still exists there too. Or do you feel everyone advances through quests at precisely the same rate?
A player who is more skilled will blaze through quests much faster than one who isn't; rotation is still part of that, but less important than in dungeon/raid situations. Instead you have other factors like planning which quests you pursue, plotting the course through those quest objectives to minimize wasted travel, and plotting the course within those objectives to minimize completion time. And certainly these factors exist in other MMORPGs and make WOW closer to other games depth -- for that shallowest portion of gameplay. And then eventually when you reach max level and experience high end play, the difference between WOW's depth and other games becomes more pronounced.
I'm all for including a comparison of leveling gameplay among other games, but we should keep in mind the relative proportions of everything (for example leveling has only been ~7% of my main WOW character's total playtime.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I would call WoW shallow in that regard for a stack of reasons.
Combat is over-reliant on a rigid set of abilities for each class that is highly subject to stat and balance changes, making it very FOTM-driven.
Enemies show very little behavioral differences, rendering most combat scenarios subject to an easily repeated routine (such as the randomly mentioned warlock combat rotations).
Difficulty is scaled through the HP-scaling method for most vet mobs, and the special traits of bosses are heavily scripted and telegraphed which removes much of the strategic challenge.
Most every difficulty is something that can be overcome through gear progression (save for an individuals complete ineptitude).
Does Dark Souls still utilize similar mechanics such as bosses having more health and limiting player stats to force a disparity? Sure, but that ignores that there is also a strong variety of behavior built into each enemy type in Dark Souls that games like WoW does not express, and the reliance on active skills such as dodge and block pushes the combat towards a match of out-performing the enemies rather than relying so heavily on the crutch that is high stats. It's far from a perfect implementation and it's not really that hard of a challenge to overcome, but there are still differences to take note of and gives some indicators of ways games like WoW could be improved as well.
I don't disagree with you on WoWs base mobs. Honestly, the difficulty of WoW, for me, scales with my own efforts rather than the game itself. I'll often gather up as many enemies as I can without them running away. I'll often do 10 or 11 mobs at a time. Honestly, I find more difficulty or thought-provoking gameplay in some of the mobile games I play than I do with WoW.
I do understand that Dark Souls has some unique characteristics and mechanics. However, there isn't enough to constitute it being superior in difficulty to something like WoW. The basic formula is the same. Games like Dark Souls masquerade as difficult games, but every point you make about WoW can be reflected on these games like Dark Souls, too, simply replace whatever tedious rotation you might have with incessant rolling and dodging. I mean that's basically what it boils down to is instead of running, just dodge and you win the game. They've simply escalated the price of being hit. It's not really "smart" gameplay.
So, again, the skill requirement isn't any higher. It's more about the resilience. Sure, I can, and have, fallen asleep while playing WoW sometimes, but the main reason people stop playing games like Dark Souls isn't because they aren't skilled enough to play, it's that you are penalized for learning. "Oh PLEASE send me back to the start of the level I just spent 45 minutes getting through!" said nobody, ever!
To close it out, I'll go back to Wildstar, where I'll surely be flamed again. People will say what they will, and have, about the telegraph system. However, the fact is that nobody completed the game with this supposed "easy" system in place. It's unfortunate, too, because I felt like a telegraph system was something that would allow for truly dynamic, skill-based combat. You would be able to integrate telegraphs with things like block and dodge, along with a skills rotation and create a system where skill IS actually important. Ultimately, I would challenge that anything besides straight up PvP suffers from the same predictability and isn't all that challenging, really. Punishing? Maybe. Not truly challenging or difficult, though.
That sounds less about the difficulty of Dark Souls and more about the penalty.
As stated, Dark Souls does make many of the same mistakes and I did not dispute that, but I did not that there are some takeaways in terms of the behavioral difference of the AI and the variety displayed by them. While Dark Souls as a whole might not have a higher difficulty than most games to really lay claim to, it does have some elements worth pointing out in that regard and it's those elements that are of interest when someone suggests the title.
The difference on "rolling and dodging" versus a rotation would be the point that the rotation is something that is not an engaging aspect of the gameplay. It's something you can macro effectively without worrying about many interruptions to the timing of the actions. Dodging things ends up being an "active gameplay" element, something that you are reacting to. It's not a dramatic shift in depth, and it's not very deep in and of itself, but it's the difference between gameplay that relies more directly on user input versus gameplay leaning on numeric superiority.
Rather, it's the same principle as to why you just brought up Wildstar. To which I agree with your sentiment there. You're talking about a system that required the player to have a more active involvement in the moment to moment gameplay and react to actions being taken by the enemies in order to see the best results. That's again the difference of an active system.
The difference is that the enemies in Dark Souls telegraph their actions with just their animations for the most part instead of having any environmental indicators. That people abuse the tumble/dodge system unnecessarily isn't making their play of the game easier past the point of dodging those moves, much the same as dodging left and right when the enemy isn't even laying down a red field doesn't do one much good in Wildstar.
But it's the point that these systems have a component that makes the player have a reason to pay attention in combat. They can't just tab to the target and hit a hotbar sequence and expect perfect results, because depending on the enemy and the attacks they use, you may have to break your attack and dodge or do other stuff.
And then it cycles back to my other point on better game AI. If you took the aforementioned system and coupled it with a system that makes it so different enemies have an overarching group definition of behaviors and then a personal random modification, that would push the gameplay into a situation where there is a baseline of predictability that you can learn and capitalize on, but on top of it there is a random element to react to which helps to make each fight just a little different so the player has to be flexible in their reactions and skill usage to overcome the obstacles in front of them.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Well, I played WoW vanilla and saw the dumbing down a mile away. Also I play many other mmorpg's which requires more focus. So, no. Wow is shallow compared to it's rivals.
FFs, FF14 has mechanics withing each job and rotations. Besides paying attention to the fight requirements, boss mechanics, you have to pay attention to many other things like what side of the monster you are striking at each moment and so on. I played DW heroic snoring on my chair - and as the main tank - but if I run Alex I can not blink.
One might also say "I saw the Illuminati's destruction of the towers on 9/11 a mile away", but unless one is able to provide evidence to show conclusively that the Illuminati did in fact do that thing then the statement is equally vague and useless.
Evidence of the depth of WOW rotations is found easily. That's only one component of WOW's depth and neglects boss, environmental, and other player factors that cause the perfect rotation to vary considerably from moment to moment. The sum total of these factors is a very deep game.
As yet there has not been evidence of a game whose factors ran deeper than WOW's. And I've made this challenge for evidence in many threads. In all those threads there has been exactly one piece of evidence presented (FFXIV's Lancer) of a WOW-tier rotation (and notably the majority of other FFXIV rotations I researched were shallower than WOW's rotations; the complete lack of a deep healer class was why I gave up on the game in spite of it being fairly fun overall).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
One might also say "I saw the Illuminati's destruction of the towers on 9/11 a mile away"...
I see we're already resorting to hyperbole.
Quoting a site that lists how you can sequence you hot-bar and repeatedly press the same chain of buttons over and over is not an example of depth. That demonology link would rather be evidence of what's wrong with the system when the sum of the combat can be paired down to pressing x, y, and z to obtain victory.
And there's really only so much one can argue in the instance of any of the game's other factors given there's already been the point that the AI in the game is itself lacking, and the boss fights, while scripted to have novel elements, removes much of the challenge of sail things by telling you exactly what to do.
IE, if you can read a phonics book then you have mastered WoW's depth.
Issuing a challenge to other posters and then completely ignoring everything they say does not mean you have not been offered a mountain of evidence. It merely means you value your opinion above anything else.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
Actually, there isn't. Statistics actually DO say they won't play harder games. There is actually plenty of evidence to support this. SWG is one. The introduction of the Jedi and the unnecessarily difficult grind for that is what ultimately killed the game. Saga of Lucimia is another game that was unapologetic about being difficult...and....... it went from super hype train to train wreck and now you hear very little, if anything, about it. Probably because it simply won't come to fruition. Pantheon is another. Again, this is probably the most hyped "difficult" game in development at the moment, but we're talking about thousands of people interested, not even tens of thousands.
OH! Let's not forget about Wildstar, the game which was going to be so punishing that it would cater to those hardcore. They actually promoted it as such. What happened? Oh!!!! Like a month in and they tune it down because people were complaining about the difficulty.
Please! Please, prove me wrong. Show me the evidence that a hard, ball-grinding MMO "works". I'm really sorry, but it doesn't. They are niche games, it's not what the majority of the player base wants and that's just how it is. There are hard games out there, though. You may need to deal with lesser graphics, etc., but that's a sacrifice that you make. The game you're playing has been created for a group of thousands (maybe tens of thousands) and not millions. So instead of complaining, or claiming to know "something" go play the games that are available. Even better, go make a game yourself! I'm sure you'll discover very quickly why companies cater to the masses.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Well, I really don't have any intentions of proving you wrong, it's more like how people view things.
SWG is what, 16 years old ?........ This was a rough draft back then, leading to a lot of future potential. It's just old !
Saga of Luchimia and Pantheon isn't even released yet. I TOTALLY think one or both will be surprisingly accepted !
Wildstar ?........I would love to shout bad language that would surly get me kicked from the site....The combat was one of the worst things ever invented. Was it hard, no ?.....it was trying to project a telegraph on the ground to fight........Talking about wrist pain, how many people had to see their doctors over that crap.....Hard no......Suck ass combat yes.
CoH held the new "fastest time to cap" title briefly, for just about six months...until some 2% speed racers proved you could "cap out" in WoW even faster.
But you can blame Blizzard if it makes you feel better. The industry (virtually all of it) was chasing new player retention, the buzzword of the 00s.
1. Combat is the most common activity.
2. Time after time I've posted the demonology rotation as an example of WOW's combat depth: players must maintain awareness and react correctly to many factors (including many factors outside the class rotation) on an ongoing basis in order to perform perfectly.
3. I've then challenged players to post objective evidence showing other games were actually deeper than that -- if WOW was "dumbed down" as many claim then not only would it be easy to provide such evidence, but that sort of evidence would be all over the place!
4. Thus far, one class in one game (Lancer, FFXIV) has been shown to be deeper than the demonology rotation.
As in those earlier threads, I welcome you to provide evidence of other classes/games providing deeper gameplay than WOW. My expectations are low.
Everything I've seen regarding EQ1 leads me to believe the gameplay was much shallower than typical WOW play. So from the perspective of how hard these games are to master, EQ1 seemed far more dumbed-down than WOW.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I could say the number of pets available determines complexity. In wow this is higher than any game thus far, except 1 game - riders of icarus, therefore wow is the most complex game out there. I mean, factually (ignoring the complexity statement) that could be a true statement, but it's entirely meaningless to the game as a whole.
There's a lot more to games than combat rotation. Examples of other metrics might be class interaction complexity, difficulty to take down ordinary world monsters, amount monsters cc or require timed interrupts or strategic play to defeat etc.
To me, WoW was the start of the trend to 'dumb-down'. The game was more easily accessible for several reasons. 1.) '?' and '!' over NPC heads. 2.) Waypoint feature with animated line to guide you to your objective. To name a few elements of the game.
Like I said, I don't think WoW is a bad game, or easypeazy to play. However, it started to introduce some elements to me that started to take away from the 'journey into the unknown' aspect of MMOs.
Everquest was indeed quite challenging on the combat side of things. Mobs needed to be split, so crowd control was very important, in the form of roots, slows, mez. Group and Raid content was also quite challenging and strategic. While Planes of Power brought in a virtual 'instant' travel system that really started to trivialize the world, it also brought in even more challenging raid content. Max of 75man raids. Some content needed almost that much to handle the strategy.
There were lots of elements of EQ1 that I would never consider 'dumbed-down'. In fact, some of these elements are looked at as hardcore, and also likely the cause for game-makers to dumb things down in the future, as such elements were a barrier of entry for the 'masses' into MMO games.
Some elements of EQ1 (and some may call these things 'hard-core'):
1. Mob trains (i.e. you could even train tons of mob on other players and get them killed haha)
2. Mob camps (Multiple people camping the same mob and literally standing in line for the next respawn, which was 12 hours away!)
3. Death Penalty (you basically had to retrieve your corpse, and could take hours to do, depend on where you died).
4. Class dependency (promotes need for group play) <--- I don't view this as a negative, but players with only a few hours a week to play definitely do..
5. Death resulted in a loss of experience, and you could even lose LEVELS due to death.
So to me, EQ1 is really not dumbed-down.
Post EQ1, MMOs started to introduce things that made it easier for the player, i.e.:
1. Instant Travel
2. '?' & '!' over NPC heads
3. Flushed out game-maps, or easily discover-able maps
4. Removal of class dependency (promotes more solo play) i.e. GW2
5. Easy inconsequential death
etc..
Point I want to make really is:
While EQ1 had lots of elements that made it difficult and challenging, and while there were some poorly designed negative elements, the game actually really promoted the middle 'M' in MMO.
The game has tons of content, lore, easter eggs, interesting chain quests. World is huge and lots of races and classes to play. Things are not just given to you easily in EQ1, and you need to go out and explore the world and make friends and discover stuff.
Games now-a-days are more 'grind' focused. More focused on holding one's hand in the game-world. More focused on getting you to buy things in order to avoid the whatever tedious and uninspired PvE content may be in the game. Focused on you insta-travelling everywhere.
My definition revolves around the intelligence/skill required to master a game. This varies by game activity. You could have the deepest game in the world, but if 99% of your game time is spent waiting (for travel or mining, or whatever) then the actual experienced depth is extremely shallow. So the quickest gut-check to a game's overall depth is the depth of its most common activity
So while your definition is weirdly arbitrary (complexity is a measure of pets) mine is rooted in logic (where "dumbed-down" is simply the low end of a scale that measures how much intelligence/skill a game requires overall)
There is more to games than combat rotations. But combat is often the most common activity in a game, and so has by far the largest influence over the game's overall depth. If you want to cite evidence of a game you believe is deeper then by all means provide evidence of one or several activities whose weighted average is greater than WOW's. Keep in mind the time spent forcibly waiting involves zero decisions and therefore zero depth, and therefore drags down a game's average depth. Even WOW has some of this (few games escape it entirely). But it's a weighted average, so if we guess that 5% of your WOW time is spent waiting (0 depth) and 40% is spent in combat (85 depth) and 55% in other activities whose average depth is (40 depth) then that all multiplies out to the final weighted average (56).
As in every thread where I've brought this up, I welcome you to provide evidence of a deeper overall game but I expect zero evidence out of the vast majority of people flinging insults at WOW because they're not insults rooted in a logical critique of the game; they're just an emotional dislike of the game which has nothing at all to do with it being dumbed down.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To me situational combat is much deeper. Probably much harder to do with all the classes and specs. I mean, where are immunities, strengths, weaknesses, running, calling for help, and etc. Everything is so predictable. Skill is now people who know math making builds and power arrangments and people imitating by learning on youtube.
Your out numbered 2,000,000 to 11
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If WOW was shallow, all players of any given class would end up doing exactly the same damage on any given fight. Instead, the variation between skilled and unskilled players (and even variations within skilled players) creates a situation where that almost never happens. Apart from gear the difference is largely caused by what makes WOW deep: all of the potential ways to play the game imperfectly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I know I'll never get my perfect game, but somebody has to come closer than somewhat close to get me to stick around. The wow-clone era was not for me, after The Burning Crusade ended and WoW itself was no longer for me (though this took years to accept). Who the era was for was the majority of players, I think. I can't blame any dev for chasing after a group that i'm not a part of when that group is much larger than mine, though I can question their decision in focusing on a market that is literally referred to as content locusts who eat up what's available and swiftly move on.
The good news is that technology advances, computers get better, internet infrastructure gets better. I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that the hotbar combat standard will go away before too long because it will no longer be needed given the machines everyone is using and the bandwidth they have. So we may see a time when every new game coming out will satisfy both of us in terms of the bandits down the hill, and it's just all the rest of it which needs to work out for us. One hurdle cleared in every new release is fine with me and I do think that's coming in terms of combat, I just hope enemy ai will be part of that at the same time.
I didn't get far in wow pass the first few years. So don't quote me if it's changed.
Probably.
What I do find interesting is that people tend to say things like "WoW's idea of increasing difficulty is to increase the monsters health." Same thing was said about Destiny. However, then when asked for examples of difficult combat, they give examples like Dark Souls, where the difficulty is tied more to your LACK of health than anything else, lol. I mean people who believe that games like dark souls are any less bound by rules than any other game, they might want to watch some of the youtube videos of people beating end game bosses with guitar controllers, etc.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
And the community is actually great eventhough the whole game is just a map to grind mobs. Since you meet people who are within your level range and you grind mobs together to form a community.
Mobs not so difficult but they spawn like ants , specially hell spawn .
Combat wasn't depth but the spawn rate make you easily forget time lol .
I wish they wasn't canceled another sequel called laxelore .
Games where certain elements like health are held to a more stable standard more or less, and the pressure is put upon skill usage and outmaneuvering the enemies.
Less reliance on "shallow" content like heavy rotations comes about from things like better AI that allows units to have different behavioral sets and subsequently different strategies to overcome. This is a factor that can even extend as far as a "personality" modifier for creatures that gives them a unique trait or behavior to throw a small curve-ball into the the mix without completely breaking any specific type of creature's overall functionality.
I would call WoW shallow in that regard for a stack of reasons.
- Combat is over-reliant on a rigid set of abilities for each class that is highly subject to stat and balance changes, making it very FOTM-driven.
- Enemies show very little behavioral differences, rendering most combat scenarios subject to an easily repeated routine (such as the randomly mentioned warlock combat rotations).
- Difficulty is scaled through the HP-scaling method for most vet mobs, and the special traits of bosses are heavily scripted and telegraphed which removes much of the strategic challenge.
- Most every difficulty is something that can be overcome through gear progression (save for an individuals complete ineptitude).
Does Dark Souls still utilize similar mechanics such as bosses having more health and limiting player stats to force a disparity? Sure, but that ignores that there is also a strong variety of behavior built into each enemy type in Dark Souls that games like WoW does not express, and the reliance on active skills such as dodge and block pushes the combat towards a match of out-performing the enemies rather than relying so heavily on the crutch that is high stats. It's far from a perfect implementation and it's not really that hard of a challenge to overcome, but there are still differences to take note of and gives some indicators of ways games like WoW could be improved as well."The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I don't disagree with you on WoWs base mobs. Honestly, the difficulty of WoW, for me, scales with my own efforts rather than the game itself. I'll often gather up as many enemies as I can without them running away. I'll often do 10 or 11 mobs at a time. Honestly, I find more difficulty or thought-provoking gameplay in some of the mobile games I play than I do with WoW.
I do understand that Dark Souls has some unique characteristics and mechanics. However, there isn't enough to constitute it being superior in difficulty to something like WoW. The basic formula is the same. Games like Dark Souls masquerade as difficult games, but every point you make about WoW can be reflected on these games like Dark Souls, too, simply replace whatever tedious rotation you might have with incessant rolling and dodging. I mean that's basically what it boils down to is instead of running, just dodge and you win the game. They've simply escalated the price of being hit. It's not really "smart" gameplay.
So, again, the skill requirement isn't any higher. It's more about the resilience. Sure, I can, and have, fallen asleep while playing WoW sometimes, but the main reason people stop playing games like Dark Souls isn't because they aren't skilled enough to play, it's that you are penalized for learning. "Oh PLEASE send me back to the start of the level I just spent 45 minutes getting through!" said nobody, ever!
To close it out, I'll go back to Wildstar, where I'll surely be flamed again. People will say what they will, and have, about the telegraph system. However, the fact is that nobody completed the game with this supposed "easy" system in place. It's unfortunate, too, because I felt like a telegraph system was something that would allow for truly dynamic, skill-based combat. You would be able to integrate telegraphs with things like block and dodge, along with a skills rotation and create a system where skill IS actually important. Ultimately, I would challenge that anything besides straight up PvP suffers from the same predictability and isn't all that challenging, really. Punishing? Maybe. Not truly challenging or difficult, though.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
A player who is more skilled will blaze through quests much faster than one who isn't; rotation is still part of that, but less important than in dungeon/raid situations. Instead you have other factors like planning which quests you pursue, plotting the course through those quest objectives to minimize wasted travel, and plotting the course within those objectives to minimize completion time. And certainly these factors exist in other MMORPGs and make WOW closer to other games depth -- for that shallowest portion of gameplay. And then eventually when you reach max level and experience high end play, the difference between WOW's depth and other games becomes more pronounced.
I'm all for including a comparison of leveling gameplay among other games, but we should keep in mind the relative proportions of everything (for example leveling has only been ~7% of my main WOW character's total playtime.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As stated, Dark Souls does make many of the same mistakes and I did not dispute that, but I did not that there are some takeaways in terms of the behavioral difference of the AI and the variety displayed by them. While Dark Souls as a whole might not have a higher difficulty than most games to really lay claim to, it does have some elements worth pointing out in that regard and it's those elements that are of interest when someone suggests the title.
The difference on "rolling and dodging" versus a rotation would be the point that the rotation is something that is not an engaging aspect of the gameplay. It's something you can macro effectively without worrying about many interruptions to the timing of the actions. Dodging things ends up being an "active gameplay" element, something that you are reacting to. It's not a dramatic shift in depth, and it's not very deep in and of itself, but it's the difference between gameplay that relies more directly on user input versus gameplay leaning on numeric superiority.
Rather, it's the same principle as to why you just brought up Wildstar. To which I agree with your sentiment there. You're talking about a system that required the player to have a more active involvement in the moment to moment gameplay and react to actions being taken by the enemies in order to see the best results. That's again the difference of an active system.
The difference is that the enemies in Dark Souls telegraph their actions with just their animations for the most part instead of having any environmental indicators. That people abuse the tumble/dodge system unnecessarily isn't making their play of the game easier past the point of dodging those moves, much the same as dodging left and right when the enemy isn't even laying down a red field doesn't do one much good in Wildstar.
But it's the point that these systems have a component that makes the player have a reason to pay attention in combat. They can't just tab to the target and hit a hotbar sequence and expect perfect results, because depending on the enemy and the attacks they use, you may have to break your attack and dodge or do other stuff.
And then it cycles back to my other point on better game AI. If you took the aforementioned system and coupled it with a system that makes it so different enemies have an overarching group definition of behaviors and then a personal random modification, that would push the gameplay into a situation where there is a baseline of predictability that you can learn and capitalize on, but on top of it there is a random element to react to which helps to make each fight just a little different so the player has to be flexible in their reactions and skill usage to overcome the obstacles in front of them.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"Most gamers are dumber than glue (of course not me)"--"Games need to be harder (cause I'm mad skilled)"
Regardless of how you assume your individual mantle of superiority, threads like this one will always deliver the egoboo for you (and you, and you).
So do keep coming, this stuff never gets old.
Evidence of the depth of WOW rotations is found easily. That's only one component of WOW's depth and neglects boss, environmental, and other player factors that cause the perfect rotation to vary considerably from moment to moment. The sum total of these factors is a very deep game.
As yet there has not been evidence of a game whose factors ran deeper than WOW's. And I've made this challenge for evidence in many threads. In all those threads there has been exactly one piece of evidence presented (FFXIV's Lancer) of a WOW-tier rotation (and notably the majority of other FFXIV rotations I researched were shallower than WOW's rotations; the complete lack of a deep healer class was why I gave up on the game in spite of it being fairly fun overall).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Quoting a site that lists how you can sequence you hot-bar and repeatedly press the same chain of buttons over and over is not an example of depth. That demonology link would rather be evidence of what's wrong with the system when the sum of the combat can be paired down to pressing x, y, and z to obtain victory.
And there's really only so much one can argue in the instance of any of the game's other factors given there's already been the point that the AI in the game is itself lacking, and the boss fights, while scripted to have novel elements, removes much of the challenge of sail things by telling you exactly what to do.
IE, if you can read a phonics book then you have mastered WoW's depth.
Issuing a challenge to other posters and then completely ignoring everything they say does not mean you have not been offered a mountain of evidence. It merely means you value your opinion above anything else.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다