A lot to respond to but I shall do my best. Also, I defend myself when needed, as you will soon see. If you get a scolding don't cry foul as if it were not warranted.
Originally posted by defenestrate
If you dont like it, then dont play it, simple as that. I dont like AoC, the fighting style, the setting, the community. So I wont play it, if you dont think WAR is interesting, then shove off.
Astute and thoughtful as I am sure you always are. You may try to explain your stance rather than just take one of non compliance. The topic isn't about why I don't find it interesting, otherwise the repetend of this thread would be my posts alone. It is in regards to why an almost carbon copied experience is something you look forward to.
Originally posted by dendea
With that line of thinking why would any one ever buy more then one FPS game in there life time. It just doesnt work that way, you are focusing on something that is way to small and ignoring the rest of the game. You call your self a game designer but you write that game off before you even tried it, you dont even have a clue what its like yet........
Quote much, who are you speaking to? I'll infer myself as I am probably one of the few on this site with "game designer" in their bio.
Do you like throwing stones from your glass house? I write the game off before I have even tried it, well, seeing as many people in this thread including yourself are in one way or another defending the legitimacy of "fun" and "improvement" that this game will have I'd say that's a fairly hypocritical statement.
What does being a game designer have to do with giving the game the benefit of the doubt. I know mechanics, I know content, I know the "lingo" and from what I've seen they are bringing little if anything to the "next-gen" table.
Originally posted by Thedrizzle
On a side note, what exactly is "real pvp"? Player vs. Player doesn't nessecarily mean total looting. I am a Pre-UOR vet and loved full loot, and I also feel that consequence makes games more exciting, but as a business trying to make money they cannot do this or they will not pull in the numbers they want. We have to remember that this is a business first, not a bunch of gamers creating a gmae that they want to play soley for their own selfish reasons. To create a good game you need investors, to make investors happy you have to bring in revenue post release, and to bring that revenue in you have to offer something to MMORPG gaming community as a whole, not to a handfull of people like you and I who want all-out-pvp.
You say consequence is important to make games exciting, that you understand its importance yet you defend the fact that non-consequential PvP is being implemented more and more? Hmm, confusing. Whatever makes the game more exciting is a positive no? So if so, where is the benefit in making everything error proof, where few actions have a negative outcome, almost no risk whatsoever. Please explain to me from a design standpoint how that would gain more revenue.
"To create a good game you need investors". No, to create a good game you need intelligent, creative, diligent, and forward thinking designers. To create a game you need investors. Investors or the lack there of has and always will be a cop out for bad designs/designers.
Originally posted by Xennith
ah right, you're one of those.
i prefer fun to "consequences", i have a job, i play games for fun, WAR looks fun, therefore i will play WAR.
seriously, the darkfall beta is great, you should try to get in, looks just like your cup of tea.
Fun games are about the threat of "consequence" rofl. You ever play a game where you had no possible consequence, no risk and no possibility of reward, and still manage to have fun? Go ahead, try to out think me and come up with an example, I'll give you time.
Originally posted by Rhoklaw
Were not fans of WAR simply because it's Warhammer, cause I don't do that kind of favoritism. I'm going to play WAR cause DAoC was an awesome game and WAR has the same core concept, only better from the looks of it.
Are you joking, do you not see the complete flip flop there? You don't simply like WAR because it's Warhammer, no, that would be "favoritism", you like it cause it is DAoC! Whether it is one IP or another matters not, what matters is does it stand alone after features, mechanics, and philosophies are thouroughly researched.
Which if you were wondering, are nothing new or "improved" to the genre.
Originally posted by Obadno
its not the same ol thing, it is probably the most inivative and orginal game out in a long time
Really, the most "innovative" and "original" game in a long time. Here I thought Spore was "original" and "innovative". So tell me, what exactly do you perceive to be so brand spanking creatively new? As someone who spends his time searching endlessly for new and original concepts I can't seem to find any in this game.
Originally posted by Distaste
If you don't get it then your not going to get it.
If you really want to talk about nothing being new and exciting thats fine. One could argue that ALL games coming out aren't new and exciting. All games have a player controlled object and are supposed to accomplish a goal. All games follow that so basically all games are the same. Thusly playing any game is the same thing and you shouldn't play games anymore. Things don't have to be New or Innovative to be fun. WoW brought nothing new nor nothing innovative to the genre and yet it was a big success.
WAR is going to be a PvP game. You can only do so much with PvP because it always comes down to players killing other players. You can give them FPS type controls but in the end it is still push a button. If you try and pack to much "new" into a game it becomes a burden on players rather than being fun. WAR is looking to make a basic, fun, PvP game and do it as good as possible. I will take a 110% done right PvP mmo over a 50% done right Innovative mmo.
Bottom line is your looking for a game that reinvents the wheel and you can't do it. You can add in things like player cities, FPS style, or "skill" based pvp but it all depends on what your trying to accomplish and who you are trying to bring in. AoC can do player cities because they made the game towards that, WAR has main Realm cities which goes for RvR. If you had player cities in WAR it wouldn't be WAR or RvR anymore.
Look at Counter Strike. Thousands upon thousands still play both 1.6 and Source. It has basic guns, basic maps, and basic FPS play. Why do people still play it? It is fun. Lots of people know that DAoC had the funnest and best balanced PvP so they look forward to an mmo put out by the same company because it will be fun.
I should really go no further than your obtuse remark, "If you don't get it then your not going to get it.". Hilarious, although it holds truth as I have never gotten how people could play a game which isn't far removed from assembly line factory work, and pay for the "pleasure". But seeing as your essay is riddled with insightful quotes I figured I might meander a bit further.
What an absolute gibberish argument, nearly every living thing on earth is Carbon based, does that make us the same? The fact that most games have player controlled objects means nothing in this debate. New, creative and correctly implemented features will undoubtedly enhance any game.
"You can only do so much with PvP". Ah, your creative genius talking I see, lol. Well, this is where a creative designer would come in handy, as they would indeed find so much more. The excuse that there is no more, that the peak has been reached or all there is left is to mimic or remold an existing style is as true as it is intelligent.
"If you try and pack to much "new" into a game it becomes a burden on players rather than being fun." The only way a player would be left feeling burdened is if the designers were so absolutely thoughtless in there designed implementation. The idea or concept alone is meaningless if the designer hasn't the slightest idea of where and how to place it.
You are correct that "it all depends on what your trying to accomplish", one of your few correct statements. As for not having Player cities in WAR as it would somehow, magically not be RvR or WAR anymore is simply a weak attempt to defend uncreative designers. I'm extremely excited to know why it wouldn't be WAR or RvR if you had player cities, rofl.
Yes, and thousands upon thousands of people play Chess even though it hasn't had a rule change or addition for hundreds of years but you are comparing a totally different genre. Can you name me an MMO which hasn't had one change or addition and is or was still played for 4 years+, no, of course you can't because unlike an FPS or RTS game there is a lot more to an MMO, for it to be fun, enjoyable, or competitive.
Originally posted by kraiden
The "same old thing" is why we have this website. If nobody liked to do the same old thing, we wouldnt have this wide open subculture known as "the gamers" running all over cyber space chewing up bandwith.
If you do the "same old thing" only in a good way .... we will flock to it. I like magic and swords and healing and working together in a group to prove my group is better than any other group out there, I like to strugle.....compensate... adapt..... overcome.....anniahalate.... conquor. the struggle of mmorpgs appeals to me.
I like the same old thing... this is why I have a wife.
Funny, I thought the "reason" we had this website was to be privy to NEW events, NEW games, NEW news, NEW thoughts and NEW experiences. If it was all about the same old thing why would we bother to talk about anything that was varied or different, we would simply rehash and reform are same sordid, boring, uneventful opinions, and respond in same.
How exactly can you do the same old thing in a good way? Wouldn't that make it a different new thing?
There is a reason that almost all Kings, Emperors and Sultans had harems throughout history, and it wasn't to "appear" Pimp.
Originally posted by Horpse
If you dun like it, dun play it.
It is NOT common sense for revolutionary features to equivate fun. The Sims Online is a good example of being revolutionary in its franchise but not in the online world.
That which is common is generally regarded as common sense, so, as the majority of "revolutionary" ideas are fun, or positive they would also be considered common, or quite possibly, common sense. If "The Sims Online" was considered revolutionary and as we know was an abhorrent failure, then it would be logical to infer that it was implemented poorly, "Second Life" would be a good PROOF of that.
Examples are great but they tend to pale in comparison to proofs.
Originally posted by Drgonzothx
Whats innovative about WAR isn't any specific feature. Its an innovative design style to the whole game. The approach they are taking to the game is completly different then any other game I've looked into. Its not about being uber leet, its about making and playing a game that is fun to play. Innovation isn't adding tons of useless features that bog down gameplay or performance. This game will be far more innovative in philosophy then many other games are in useless features. Also why do the people who come around to bash the war community sound like they have IQ's that would make good golf scores? Just makes you wonder about peoples maturity when people come around and say stuff like "War will be for little babies because its cartoony while AOC will be for grown up cause it has boobies tee hee". Or something similar
What is this "innovative design style", I am a mere underling with a thirst for design wisdom. I mean, the game is "completly" different "then" any other game you have looked into, and with my megar amount of knowledge about games, and my liberal ability to critique I need all the help I can gather, so please enlighten me.
Technically innovation is the addition of anything, but as we generally use it as a synonym to improvement you would be right in your assumption that "Innovation isn't adding tons of useless features". Again, it is the designers job to not only be creative enough to think of new paths to peruse, but also intelligible and wise enough to know the proper way to implement them. Here is another line, "innovative in philosophy", mind pointing out that philo, so I can try to comprehend its inspired divinity?
I.Q. is an arguable concept as it stands, grammar and spelling on the other hand are not as debatable.
Originally posted by jor8888
look at GM they created all these new cars no body buys and now they are going back to the old style and stick with the same old thing that works. Just b/c someone came up with a vision and brillian ideas doesnt mean massive ppl are going to like it.
What was new, and what did they go back to, and why? You can find exceptions to most rules, but as I do not know the full story I can not take your 1/4 of an anecdote and debate it.
Originally posted by h00b1nat0r
Uhm. Because its good?
Because Games workshop have been making games since 1979(ish) and therefore understand the mechanics of what makes a game far better than most games houses.
Because their character concepts whilst not being original, are solid and far more in line with what I want from a fantasy based game.
Because I like the trailer vid, and it exhibits the kind of humour I appreciate. which is classically warhammer also.
waaagh?
Because it's good! Thank you, finally someone who knows and understands the inner workings of empirical proof or evidence. I can finally rest for my search is over. WAR is good, end or story, statement and search.
Originally posted by tapeworm00
Everyone likes the same old things in their essence, that is, in the fundament of acting upon it not in the exact same ways every time, but in very similar ways every time.
To the OP, innovation doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes out of the same old things. I already said this in another post with exactly the same topic. People who are looking for innovation in WAR will be disappointed, because there's little to be had. People who are looking for improvement and cool new ways to do the same old things will be the ones ultimately satisfied, because for the most part, WAR very well represents "breathing new life into a stale genre", in the meaning that the body is the same, the life is the same, but it has a new impulse.
Ok, so essentially what you are saying is; being able to play the same game, with similar features, with a slightly new skin, and slightly more PvP, which happens to have the same risk/reward factor, made by the same "stale" designers who work for the same "stale" companies, and make the same overused marketing statements while for payment (impulse is how you put it I believe) is what will make WAR a success.
Well then, CHECK and MATE for black it seems.
While I am glad that you all have found a game that you consider to be great, please don't expect me to swallow the little if any evidences that you have in support of your "feelings" regarding this title. You have your reasons, you have stated them, but the truth is, you pretty much are relying on religious faith and aren't being at all critical. I choose not to be blinded by buzz words and readily critique the so called quality in this industry. I can only hope that after a few more turns on the merri-go-round of featureless, uncreative drivel you are constantly handed you too will be willing to fight for a game correctly labled as "good", because honestly, what we have seen for years now has barely been "mediocre".
Can anyway prove to the contrary the following from a WAR point of view? Why is RvR so great here isn't it more of the same stuff?
It's just more of the same... only they've managed to dumb it down to 4 classes per faction.
There is little to no accountability for behavior in RvR; punks, gankers, and smack talkers can fade into the anominity and safety of their faction. Not to mention leechers and people there for the ride doing nothing to help in a battle… Often such behavior is encouraged in RvR because the enemy is faceless and the consequences are few. No RvR for me. I want to choose who my enemies are and not have the game choose them for me. GvG offers more freedom. RvR is repetitive really unless there are more than 2 facets and balanced properly. Once a certain time has passed, the entire regions are reset. There is no long-lasting effect. It just starts all over.
In an RvR system, I am stuck with idiots. I cannot throw them out of my faction. I cannot kill them, and they are free to annoy me with their childish behaviour. I don’t even get to chose who my "friends and allies" are. The Computer decides for me. And in return I get an ever repeating, yet senseless struggle on a never changing world map.
In a factional system you have built-in friends and enemies. It's just the way the game is designed. People on your faction are your friends (you typically can't attack them at all except in a /duel), and people on the other faction are your enemies. It's a very black and white situation.
Now you have to wonder how long anyone will play the game when nothing they accomplish means anything because the world resets all by itself.
I doubt you'll see anything really "new" in the MMO field, or at least nothing that will ever be considered "popular" and really different. The only reason a game like WoW is as successful as it is is because they did the same old thing, but they did it a lot better (for Average Joe) than everyone else did. If a publisher can't see a "winner", then you're not likely to get the funding you'll need to make a viable MMO (See the trouble EVE has growing, and it's actually one of the "good" different games).
Regardless of your disdain, I think War will do rather well. Warhammer itself has a history of "fun", has well tested rules/systems and is "solid". Mythic has a proven track record with DAoC. As long as they include the Warhammer "feel" and make sure they have a polished product, I think they may well have a decent hit on heir hands.
For "new concepts and play mechanics, possibly even giving the power to create and manipulate the world.", Tabula Rasa seems to be the MMO that is most likely to fit the bill in the near term (player actions effect the game world in a fairly solid way), but if you're looking for "terrain deformation" style manipulation, then I think your out of luck for the next few years. Or perhaps you might like the "new" SWG (where everything old is new again!) where they've just introduced player made quests/stories.
Best of luck with your "TBA" tunabun, maybe something "really different" will catch on and you'll be the first to crack it, or maybe by the time your ready to release your "really different" revolutionary game, it'll just be another evolution of what everyone else is doing...
The thing is I'm not looking for a "unique" MMO, only one that actually puts out a lot of new concepts and play mechanics, possibly even giving the power to create and manipulate the world. Spore is a good example of a unique game, not an MMO but standing up and doing something different.
So, this is why I still don't understand why people seem content, in fact ecstatic to tout WAR and other such games as the next big thing, when in fact they are just the, next thing.
As far as being a DAOC clone I think that's a pretty damning statement, saying they really have done nothing to improve the product is exactly why I ask about your excitement. If it is just a remake why are you so pumped to play it?
I'd like to play a sandbox game like Darkfall too, but it isn't slated to come out till 2025.
Fun games are about the threat of "consequence" rofl.
lets day i pop out with some mates for a game of football or frisbee, what are the concequences? and yet i still have fun.
You ever play a game where you had no possible consequence, no risk and no possibility of reward, and still manage to have fun? Go ahead, try to out think me and come up with an example, I'll give you time.
Wow, that sounds hard:
Armed assault. - i die, i reload a save. still fun. Sim city - i mess up, the people leave, they come back later. still fun. Dungeon Keeper - i kill something, it gets dragged back to its lair. still fun. Hitman - you dont lose anything if you mess up, you just reload or do the level again. still fun. tribes 2 - you die, you respawn. you kill someone, you get some points. OHHHHHH!!!! precious points! lifegiving points!!!! still fun. ... <this is me going through the rest of my games, im sure you get the point>
you keep throwing this "games designer" thing around like it makes your opinions carry more merit, you dont like fun, you like concequence. ok, thats cool you enjoy your shoot-yourself-irl-if-char-dies game, ill go and enjoy dying for a bit. you should probably stop saying "im a games designer" because its kind making you look a bit foolish. im a software engineer, i make games for a living, doesnt mean my opinion is worth more than the next mans. *shrug* oh, and tell me what you've made so i can avoid them like the plague.
After watching some videos and reading a little more on WAR my perception is that it is pretty much the same old thing. I see very little that would cause me to stutter in disbelief, very little that I could call amazing and very little that doesn't resemble what I have seen in many of the releases of the past.
So, I would like to know what exactly is revving you up to play WAR?
Are you a long time offline WAR player, or possibly you see something which I have missed that is new and exciting.
Would like to see your point of view.
The "same old things" in life are the best. Lots of stuff are the "same old things" and work just fine.
You cannot expect game designers just to try new ideas to be different and for no other reason (aha, let's see, a space game with permadeath, PVP, FPS, reincarnation, and evolution. Hmmm).
Fantasy works and is a beloved genre. The reason there are so many fantasy MMORPG's out there is that it is quite a trick to get things just right; to create another EQ or WOW. And the abundance of fantasy games does not mean we are playing all of them. Like myself, most folks are playing only one or two games, so to us the MMORPG world is those one or two games.
WAR appears to be taking "tried and true" elements and delivering them in a well-polished package, and that beats the heck out of "new and different" any day for most of us.
lets day i pop out with some mates for a game of football or frisbee, what are the concequences?
and yet i still have fun.
Wow, that sounds hard:
Armed assault. - i die, i reload a save. still fun.
Sim city - i mess up, the people leave, they come back later. still fun.
Dungeon Keeper - i kill something, it gets dragged back to its lair. still fun.
Hitman - you dont lose anything if you mess up, you just reload or do the level again. still fun.
tribes 2 - you die, you respawn. you kill someone, you get some points. OHHHHHH!!!! precious points! lifegiving points!!!! still fun.
... <this is me going through the rest of my games, im sure you get the point>
you keep throwing this "games designer" thing around like it makes your opinions carry more merit, you dont like fun, you like concequence. ok, thats cool you enjoy your shoot-yourself-irl-if-char-dies game, ill go and enjoy dying for a bit. you should probably stop saying "im a games designer" because its kind making you look a bit foolish. im a software engineer, i make games for a living, doesnt mean my opinion is worth more than the next mans. *shrug* oh, and tell me what you've made so i can avoid them like the plague.
I love baiting arrogant know-it-alls.
Consequence is ANY positive or negative outcome, the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier.
The consequence of playing a game of Football or whatnot is the time spent with your friends, possibly the competition you experience. The problem you have is you attempt to separate causality from the "Fun", you somehow assume that Fun is an arbitrary concept fully removed from cause and effect. Well, guess what, it isn't.
So, that being stated, everything on your list gives you something, which in turn translates into Fun. Not only that, the act of winning utterly is far less enjoyable than having friction applied to your journey on the way to the outcome.
As for throwing "this games designer thing around", you mind pointing out where I have done so? I responded to someone mentioning I was one but I don't randomly point it out. I'm much more libel to use my ability to grind arrogant people and their vacuous statements into a fine pristine powder. I am glad you mentioned you are a Software Engineer, it's now apparent why you think you have a clue what you are talking about, as programmers are stereotypically an arrogant bunch, somehow thinking they have stronger logical abilities. You being in the industry I infer is another reason why you think you know what's up.
The industry's lifeblood is made up of people who haven't the slightest clue about design, or fun, they only know how to parrot each other and attend random conferences in an attempt to look professional. Do you think it is a coincidence that many of the greatest minds in this industry are usually on the outskirts of it. The industry is a joke, get over yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I like a person with a strong idea of self, if you think you are right, fine, but you better show some evidence when replying to my posts, otherwise I will gladly rip your point, your concepts, and your baseless "conclusions" into itty bitty pieces, which you may in turn swallow.
Originally posted by tunabun I love baiting arrogant know-it-alls.
Consequence is ANY positive or negative outcome, the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier.
oh christ, you have the temerity to call me arrogant?
As for throwing "this games designer thing around", you mind pointing out where I have done so?
sure: "I'll infer myself as I am probably one of the few on this site with "game designer" in their bio." " Please explain to me from a design standpoint how that would gain more revenue." "Ah, your creative genius talking I see, lol." "I am a mere underling with a thirst for design wisdom." "with my megar amount of knowledge about games, and my liberal ability to critique I need all the help I can gather"
I responded to someone mentioning I was one but I don't randomly point it out.
ah ha. nor do you make oblique reference to it. (the above are all from one post btw (in fairness it was a monster post)).
I'm much more libel to use my ability to grind arrogant people and their vacuous statements into a fine pristine powder.
physician, heal thyself.
I am glad you mentioned you are a Software Engineer, it's now apparent why you think you have a clue what you are talking about, as programmers are stereotypically an arrogant bunch, somehow thinking they have stronger logical abilities.
im glad that you dont think of youself as an arrogant man, sadly, i do.
Don't get me wrong, I like a person with a strong idea of self, if you think you are right, fine, but you better show some evidence when replying to my posts
ok, so lets get off your soapbox shall we? lets put aside the "zomg xennith is arrogant and ignorant and i am teh pwn! (and a designer!)" and do as you suggest, and actually debate the point rather than launch into personal attacks. unless you want to be a hypocrit of course.
im not one to hold grudges, so if you want to discuss this with me, then good, lets get cracking. if however you want to throw some insults around and act like a petulant child then thats fine too, just dont expect me to take you seriously.
Now, concequences is a word thrown around a great deal on these boards, the first time i used it i wasnt actually addressing you, (which is where the confusion creeps in when you replied to me), it was used in a "full loot" kind of sense. the connotation of course being negative, the idea is that it is impossible to have fun if you dont risk anything. thats a gambler's perspective. for a sportsman fun can be had without negative concequence, you achieve X or you dont, if you fail you lose nothing, you are exactly where you started from.
If you use a dictionary definition of concequence you find yourself unable to find a single example of anything that does not have an effect (affect?) on anything. a game without concequence would be a game of chess where no one can move. perhaps a better way to argue this is "repurcussions", can you have fun without repurcussions? sure, of course you can, my above list is a perfect example of games i enjoyed mightily without any negative effects from me having a "special moment" and dropping godzilla on my city.
Now that was a LONG post Tuna! Can anyway prove to the contrary the following from a WAR point of view? Why is RvR so great here isn't it more of the same stuff? It's just more of the same... only they've managed to dumb it down to 4 classes per faction. There is little to no accountability for behavior in RvR; punks, gankers, and smack talkers can fade into the anominity and safety of their faction. Not to mention leechers and people there for the ride doing nothing to help in a battle… Often such behavior is encouraged in RvR because the enemy is faceless and the consequences are few. No RvR for me. I want to choose who my enemies are and not have the game choose them for me. GvG offers more freedom. RvR is repetitive really unless there are more than 2 facets and balanced properly. Once a certain time has passed, the entire regions are reset. There is no long-lasting effect. It just starts all over. In an RvR system, I am stuck with idiots. I cannot throw them out of my faction. I cannot kill them, and they are free to annoy me with their childish behaviour. I don’t even get to chose who my "friends and allies" are. The Computer decides for me. And in return I get an ever repeating, yet senseless struggle on a never changing world map.
In a factional system you have built-in friends and enemies. It's just the way the game is designed. People on your faction are your friends (you typically can't attack them at all except in a /duel), and people on the other faction are your enemies. It's a very black and white situation.
Now you have to wonder how long anyone will play the game when nothing they accomplish means anything because the world resets all by itself.
You have not played doac much eh.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Have to go with Xennith mostly on this one. the agrument that new = better is not a correrct one ... SB was new and it sucked sadly still does pasted the massive improvment it has went throught.
Agruing that it doesn't suck is pretty off, seeing as it was doing so bad they made it free to play.
But really Why is WAr old becuase you have deemed it so if you ask me its loosm pretty new to me.
Public quest system which looks like a blast (you can say well in a way these existed in other mmos but in the forum that WAr is using them they are NEW).
Meanignful pvp (yeah there has been meaningful PVP before but none in a rpg that you could lvl up loot up and money up from while just playing and progressing the game, THATS NEW).
The character customization looks liek it will be deep and honestly this is rare to see in mmos. Some have ok customization , but most don't. (looks and skills)
AS far as mmorpgs go the mobs, npc, and players animations are top notch , its not innovative but i like it.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Originally posted by Xennith oh christ, you have the temerity to call me arrogant? I don't know, it may have something to do with the hot venom you were spewing from from your first reply and onwards. You responded to someone posting an opinion in a pretty aggressive way. I tend to home in on those who target weaker opponents. I've been that way all my life, at least from a verbal standpoint.
sure:
"I'll infer myself as I am probably one of the few on this site with "game designer" in their bio."
" Please explain to me from a design standpoint how that would gain more revenue."
"Ah, your creative genius talking I see, lol."
"I am a mere underling with a thirst for design wisdom."
"with my megar amount of knowledge about games, and my liberal ability to critique I need all the help I can gather" Well the first statement is the only one where I mentioned being one, and as it was in direct response, being the example I used in my very own post it can't be an evidence "for" the prosecution. The others however I perceive any designer or non-designer having the ability to make, I don't say that I am a designer, I don't go out of my way to point it out, I merely point out that if you don't understand design elements, creative ability, or Societal theory you should probably learn before attempting to speak "factually".
ah ha. nor do you make oblique reference to it. (the above are all from one post btw (in fairness it was a monster post)). Again, pointing out the lack of knowledge in someones argument regarding design elements does not constitute "pointing out" my design accolades, which by the way I haven't any.
im glad that you dont think of youself as an arrogant man, sadly, i do. Where did I say I wasn't arrogant, unless you see me galloping along in front of a carriage please don't imply that I have blinders on. I can freely admit my arrogance, but I can also admit my wrongdoings, the question is, can you, seeing as you have again "wrongfully" placed words in my mouth.
ok, so lets get off your soapbox shall we? lets put aside the "zomg xennith is arrogant and ignorant and i am teh pwn! (and a designer!)" and do as you suggest, and actually debate the point rather than launch into personal attacks. unless you want to be a hypocrit of course. im not one to hold grudges, so if you want to discuss this with me, then good, lets get cracking. if however you want to throw some insults around and act like a petulant child then thats fine too, just dont expect me to take you seriously. At least you admit to being upon my soapbox. I don't really see your evidence for my "childish petulance". You, along with others, attacked, in one form or another, my and a few others viewpoints with very little instigation. As I said in my mythologically long post, "I defend myself when needed, as you will soon see. If you get a scolding don't cry foul as if it were not warranted." I would ask you to read through my posts again, possibly reading through yours and others. I am far from the type whom launches personal attacks first and debatory remarks second. I consistantly argue the idea first and then turn to ad hominem remarks as a nice finishing touch. As for moving forward, I was actually waiting for another defensible post from yourself before declaring my resignation from this line of postage. I will gladly discuss the issues of importance I see and why I have such "player hater" mentality towards the gaming industry.
/*****************************************************************************************/ Now, concequences is a word thrown around a great deal on these boards, the first time i used it i wasnt actually addressing you, (which is where the confusion creeps in when you replied to me), it was used in a "full loot" kind of sense. the connotation of course being negative, the idea is that it is impossible to have fun if you dont risk anything. thats a gambler's perspective. for a sportsman fun can be had without negative concequence, you achieve X or you dont, if you fail you lose nothing, you are exactly where you started from. If you use a dictionary definition of concequence you find yourself unable to find a single example of anything that does not have an effect (affect?) on anything. a game without concequence would be a game of chess where no one can move. perhaps a better way to argue this is "repurcussions", can you have fun without repurcussions? sure, of course you can, my above list is a perfect example of games i enjoyed mightily without any negative effects from me having a "special moment" and dropping godzilla on my city. I think I've shown that I understand the remark wasn't directed towards me but rather another, which is why I attacked so viscously. I think again what you are misunderstanding is that you have no loss, the loss that you incur when you do not accomplish what you have set out to is the loss of the potential gain. I totally agree the gamblers outlook alone would be ridiculous to implement as a design philosophy, however my idea is that a variation, a combination of the two styles would serve a game better, both in flavour of play and in the differing palettes it serves. I think you are entirely correct that you can have fun with a game without any negative implementation, but that game will soon lose its appeal. There is a lot of sociological / psychological evidence recently that shows people in many mediums gather more enjoyment from the unknown and / or slight negative set backs. Be it in a novel, a movie, or game, negative set backs before eventually overcoming and reaching winning conditions are important to enhance the experience of play. EVERYTHING in design is important, far more important than most realize, the main issue I have is extremes, saying something is not important, or is the "be and end all" is what irks me. These things are all important in that they need to be balanced and implemented by someone who understands the nature of the object and what it will affect within the game model. I can count on my fingers all the designers in the industry who firstly grasp the importance of this and secondly understand the virtual creation process enough to properly design for the residents. Even they however have can some incredibly single minded views on incredibly important aspects of the creation of a virtual world. Edit: Maybe we should make a separate thread in the design area as I think we may have gone a bit off topic here.
After watching some videos and reading a little more on WAR my perception is that it is pretty much the same old thing. I see very little that would cause me to stutter in disbelief, very little that I could call amazing and very little that doesn't resemble what I have seen in many of the releases of the past.
So, I would like to know what exactly is revving you up to play WAR?
Are you a long time offline WAR player, or possibly you see something which I have missed that is new and exciting.
Would like to see your point of view.
Perhaps it'd best if you would dig around some more then. Some videos and a little reading haven't dug up fantastic things that are being done against the norm isn't brand new, but then again it does reflect on what you did read.
I for one would be a little wary of anything that totally jumps off the page. Innovation is great if you can pull it off, but look at the original specs for Tabula Rasa. That didn't pan out so well. Had to start, ironically, from the start.
No, the game isn't pulling out all the stops in being this superbly unique game. Why should it? A lot of the fantasy stuff out there drew inspiration from Warhammer. Warcraft took the formula and did something different with it, kinda. Ditto for Starcraft and WH40K (plus Ender's Game).
And yet Warhammer too has its own sources, from Tolkien to Heinlein. It's hard not to be that successful and not "inspire" others.
Let's see... you may be referring to the same old mechanics found in other MMOs: That of the Tank/Healer/Nuker trinity.
That's present here. Why not? Warhammer is an army-fighting game, and while healing isn't that big a part of it, certainly the tactical aspects of having meatshields protecting the fragile heavy damage dealers is just a basic part of the tabletop game.
Healing, for one, is supposed to be different. Quite unlike WoW's Paladin which mutated into the most efficient healing class at max level, ignoring the heavy weaponry and plate armour of course, the standard healing set up isn't one of focused healing. Everyone fights. This is also the same for Age of Conan.
Quests
Quests are a bit more engaging with a totally different focus. The reward is now the pleasure of doing a unique quest with a good story and a humourous look at a world a quarter to the apocalypse. Sure there'd be gear, but how many players simply clicked "Accept" in WoW every time a Quest came along and didn't bother reading the text? Just took a look at the rewards to see if it was nice.
That was WoW's fault. They focused on the generic quests way too much that any attempts at storytelling revolved around creative ways to make a player kill X of Y mobs for maybe Z drops any of which could be random.
You'll have very different quests available in WoW. And frankly the Public Quests just sound amazing. These are zone-wide quests available to everyone in the zone, letting them contribute (or not if they so choose) at a series of quests that could swing one way or another.
Through player participation and actions. With deep stories worth sticking around for.
That alone is enough for me. The fact that there are more than 300 of those massive quests alone, not counting all the other kinds, is quite astounding.
There are also Christmas Quests which are rewards for exploring and such. What did you get for that in WoW? Not even bonus crap XP.
Perhaps the greatest innovation they truly are trying is to remove the "reward" from such pithy things as gear. Game balance wouldn't have to revolve around equalizing classes on roles instead of what makes them unique.
In short:
This isn't the game that's going to re-invent the wheel. Why should they? They were amongst the first users of the wheel, a lot of the patterns were based off their work. But what they can do is make sure it runs better than the other wheels out there, removing the crap that all MMO players suffer through.
WAR is for those that like Wheels but have gotten sick of the current batch that just go around in circles.
Fun games are about the threat of "consequence" rofl.
lets day i pop out with some mates for a game of football or frisbee, what are the concequences?
and yet i still have fun.
You ever play a game where you had no possible consequence, no risk and no possibility of reward, and still manage to have fun? Go ahead, try to out think me and come up with an example, I'll give you time.
Wow, that sounds hard:
Armed assault. - i die, i reload a save. still fun.
Sim city - i mess up, the people leave, they come back later. still fun.
Dungeon Keeper - i kill something, it gets dragged back to its lair. still fun.
Hitman - you dont lose anything if you mess up, you just reload or do the level again. still fun.
tribes 2 - you die, you respawn. you kill someone, you get some points. OHHHHHH!!!! precious points! lifegiving points!!!! still fun.
... <this is me going through the rest of my games, im sure you get the point>
you keep throwing this "games designer" thing around like it makes your opinions carry more merit, you dont like fun, you like concequence. ok, thats cool you enjoy your shoot-yourself-irl-if-char-dies game, ill go and enjoy dying for a bit. you should probably stop saying "im a games designer" because its kind making you look a bit foolish. im a software engineer, i make games for a living, doesnt mean my opinion is worth more than the next mans. *shrug* oh, and tell me what you've made so i can avoid them like the plague.
YIKES!
Xennith, although I see where you're coming from not only did you miss Tunabun's point completely, you actually validated it.
The list of games you give...all have consequences. A perfect example you give is Sim City "I mess up, the people leave, they come back later. still fun." Having the people leave IS the consequence. In all games, at the very least, failure IS the main consequence. It may not necessarily be a huge or important consequence, but it is a consequence nonetheless. Ask yourself this, would you play Sim City if no matter how poorly you played the population would ALWAYS go up? I'm willing to bet the answer is no. Where's the fun? Have you ever played a shooter and used a God mode cheat so that no matter what happens you never die? If you haven't, try it and see how boring a game is when you remove consequence from it. If you have done it before, how long have you played it? Did you have fun?
Your football analogy is interesting because we can all relate, but let me ask this, I'm going to assume you and your friends play for fun, shits and giggles, go for a beer afterwards, goodtimes had all around. Not only will I bet that you ALWAYS keep track of the score (ask yourself why), I'm also willing to bet that the concept of playing and NOT keeping track of score has never even occured to you. If there is no consequences when you play football with your friends as you suggest, theoretically you should have just as much fun not keeping score as when you do keep track of the score. But we both know that's BS. It's a cliche saying but if winning isn't important, why do we keep track of the score. The consequence of failure when playing football with friends may be completely unimportant, but it is a consequence nontheless. Everytime a goal is scored, in the back of your mind, you know you're keeping track. You may not really care about losing, but wouldn't you rather win? Why play if that element didn't exist on some level?
Have you not played Mythics Dark Age of Camelot? If not, then you needed to. It was the only true PVP that really worked. Warhammer is an old game and they are bringing it to surface in the same way they did DAOC. It will have RVR, which is the funnest pvp of any MMO I've played.
It might not be exactly brand new and exciting, but its by Mythic and it will be good. Even if they do something wrong, they usually implement something old to make up for it. Much like when they F'D up with ToA. They heard the fans cry out "Classic Servers!" ..and they did it. They have a strong fan base because of their support and listening to it's players and the people who are paying to play.
well said tuna ^^, yeah i have to agree, theres nothing revolutionary about this game, however; it does seem to have a pvp system that actualy might work so yay ^^. We will see how this game goes, personaly i think it'll do well not because of originality, but because it is new and semi-fresh, which will drive alot of the new mmo gamers to it (i think it'll hurt wow's PvP side since Blizzard doesn't add anything new to PvP, but i have no idea of how it'll work with the PvE side which worries me about Warhammer). but in all things, i agree with tuna, this game isn't original, just "new" which is good enough
BTW consequences ARE fun , and are part of the laws of life ^^
well said tuna ^^, yeah i have to agree, theres nothing revolutionary about this game, however; it does seem to have a pvp system that actualy might work so yay ^^. We will see how this game goes, personaly i think it'll do well not because of originality, but because it is new and semi-fresh, which will drive alot of the new mmo gamers to it (i think it'll hurt wow's PvP side since Blizzard doesn't add anything new to PvP, but i have no idea of how it'll work with the PvE side which worries me about Warhammer). but in all things, i agree with tuna, this game isn't original, just "new" which is good enough
BTW consequences ARE fun , and are part of the laws of life ^^
I hope the PVP works as well. Right now it's the only think that's keeping my interest in this game.
I am a little worried about the success of PvP in WAR. I read an article interviewing a Blizzard designer about what the design team had learned from the WoW experience. He said more than anything, it was A) The complete unpredictability of gamers, and Trying to control said behaviour.
That comment was in reference to to the lack of world PvP in WoW and how before the game was released it was touted as a major feature of the game. The designer went on to say that they had to redesign/reapproach PvP because gamers were doing things they never thought possible, that never occurred to them could be done and had to rein in before things got too far out of control (which I believe it did on some servers).
Now that was a LONG post Tuna! Can anyway prove to the contrary the following from a WAR point of view? Why is RvR so great here isn't it more of the same stuff? It's just more of the same... only they've managed to dumb it down to 4 classes per faction. There is little to no accountability for behavior in RvR; punks, gankers, and smack talkers can fade into the anominity and safety of their faction. Not to mention leechers and people there for the ride doing nothing to help in a battle… Often such behavior is encouraged in RvR because the enemy is faceless and the consequences are few. No RvR for me. I want to choose who my enemies are and not have the game choose them for me. GvG offers more freedom. RvR is repetitive really unless there are more than 2 facets and balanced properly. Once a certain time has passed, the entire regions are reset. There is no long-lasting effect. It just starts all over. In an RvR system, I am stuck with idiots. I cannot throw them out of my faction. I cannot kill them, and they are free to annoy me with their childish behaviour. I don’t even get to chose who my "friends and allies" are. The Computer decides for me. And in return I get an ever repeating, yet senseless struggle on a never changing world map.
In a factional system you have built-in friends and enemies. It's just the way the game is designed. People on your faction are your friends (you typically can't attack them at all except in a /duel), and people on the other faction are your enemies. It's a very black and white situation.
Now you have to wonder how long anyone will play the game when nothing they accomplish means anything because the world resets all by itself.
You have not played doac much eh.
Actually I did play DAoC not doac.
If you think just because Mythic is making this game and because of the fact it made DAoC - don't think its going to be anything like DAoC.
DAoC had 3 unbalanced aspects to it imo.
I asked if anyone could post to the contrary from a WAR point of view.
Comparing it to DAoC is silly as to comparing it to WoW, I would rather someone tell me from a WAR point of view, having it stand on its own merits (if any) with the information we know so far.
I listed some reasons why im not keen on RvR I want to know how these things wont happen in WAR, and how can the monotony of a reseting world not get tiresome after a few goes?
This game seems fun for all of 5 seconds without any real depth to it, with people runnning around screaming the same thing over and over.
Originally posted by tikovoo Actually I did play DAoC not doac. If you think just because Mythic is making this game and because of the fact it made DAoC - don't think its going to be anything like DAoC. DAoC had 3 unbalanced aspects to it imo. I asked if anyone could post to the contrary from a WAR point of view. Comparing it to DAoC is silly as to comparing it to WoW, I would rather someone tell me from a WAR point of view, having it stand on its own merits (if any) with the information we know so far. I listed some reasons why im not keen on RvR I want to know how these things wont happen in WAR, and how can the monotony of a reseting world not get tiresome after a few goes? This game seems fun for all of 5 seconds without any real depth to it, with people runnning around screaming the same thing over and over.
"There is little to no accountability for behavior in RvR; punks, gankers, and smack talkers can fade into the anominity and safety of their faction. Not to mention leechers and people there for the ride doing nothing to help in a battle… Often such behavior is encouraged in RvR because the enemy is faceless and the consequences are few. No RvR for me"
I played daoc forever... i rarely have ever seen this.... I seen it in wow pvp tho.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
The way that the support classes are handled...(you actually have to fight)
Thinking about how much fun I'm going to have w/ my friends
The secrecy about the game*
* The last one is really what gets me. EA Mythic tells about features in the game, yes, but they don't tell us how they are going to work or how they are going to be in the game. They keep lots of secrets, and I'm led to believe that there are a many more things that they're holding in until release. I'm extremely confident that it will be a great game.
Originally posted by sylum69 YIKES! Xennith, although I see where you're coming from not only did you miss Tunabun's point completely, you actually validated it.
i disagree, originally my post was made in response to batdie who was talking about "concequences for death" ie, full loot. tunabun decided to jump into the argument and take my use of "concequences" out of context. naturally i assumed that it was tunabun who i responded to in the first place, so we are now having an argument about semantics rather than gameplay.
The list of games you give...all have consequences.
this is where the problem lies, my original use of consequences was intended to mean "bad things happen from which you cannot recover easily", that has now been changed by tunabun to a more literal interpretation which basically makes the argument ludicrous, as there is nothing that has no concequences. my list is correct within my original context and meaning, but utterly incorrect in the redefined context.
Have you ever played a shooter and used a God mode cheat so that no matter what happens you never die?
actually yes i have, i played red faction with god mode on and all the weapons and had a blast, i did the same for half life 2 the second time through. god mode, all weapons and a bullet time mod, i skipped ravenholme and went right to the lost coast. it was fantastic, enjoyed myself thoroughly for a weekend.
Not only will I bet that you ALWAYS keep track of the score (ask yourself why), I'm also willing to bet that the concept of playing and NOT keeping track of score has never even occured to you.
ill take that bet, half the time we dont even have goals, we just enjoy kicking a ball around.
Why play if that element didn't exist on some level?
same reason as my hl2 spree, for the experience of doing it. look at garrys mod, the process is fun, failing is fun, succeding is fun, and making a levitating bathtub is fun WoW and UO have spoiled us as MMO gamers, if you dont get rewarded its not worth doing, if you dont get punished its no worth doing.
if the game mechanics are properly implemented you dont need risk or reward to have fun. sure, having a little doesnt hurt but its not something you need to base the system on. base the system on fun and then add the reward, not the other way round.
I think I've shown that I understand the remark wasn't directed towards me but rather another, which is why I attacked so viscously. I think again what you are misunderstanding
when i replied to you, i assumed (falsely) that you were the person i originally quoted. what i was misunderstanding was that you were refering to consequences in one context, and myself in another. however, this is an argument about game design rather than semantics. as we both now understand what we mean we can probably have a better arguement. to that end i refuse to respond further to your pointed statements, think of me how you will, i will think of you how you conduct yourself. seems fair to me.
the loss that you incur when you do not accomplish what you have set out to is the loss of the potential gain.
its a fairly abstract way of looking at the whole thing, you could also argue that what you have lost is the time it took you to fail. however, thats leaning in quite heavily to risk / reward paradigms. in X time you can gain Y reward, you waste X time by failing so you have lost Y reward. the way i see it, i have spent X time enjoying myself, it would be nice to get Y reward in addition to that, but i dont look at a situation in a rewards-first way. to me rewards have always been secondary to the experience, in WoW when i wanted to get a certain item i always begrudged the time it took me to get it, sure, i enjoyed actually having it but that comes after the annoyance.
I totally agree the gamblers outlook alone would be ridiculous to implement as a design philosophy, however my idea is that a variation, a combination of the two styles would serve a game better, both in flavour of play and in the differing palettes it serves.
its a perfectly cromulent idea ( ) but the problem is how do you go about doing it? lots of recent games have reinforced this idea that something isnt worth doing for no reward, essentially a load of gamers have become addicted to rewards and act like junkies. "how do i get my fix, need my fix now! i deserve a fix!"
EVERYTHING in design is important, far more important than most realize, the main issue I have is extremes, saying something is not important, or is the "be and end all" is what irks me.
fun and enjoyment are an overarching aim of games, its something you aim for, but risk/reward and mechanics are a part of that. you cant design fun, its something you design to create.
Comments
A lot to respond to but I shall do my best. Also, I defend myself when needed, as you will soon see. If you get a scolding don't cry foul as if it were not warranted.
Astute and thoughtful as I am sure you always are. You may try to explain your stance rather than just take one of non compliance. The topic isn't about why I don't find it interesting, otherwise the repetend of this thread would be my posts alone. It is in regards to why an almost carbon copied experience is something you look forward to.
Quote much, who are you speaking to? I'll infer myself as I am probably one of the few on this site with "game designer" in their bio.
Do you like throwing stones from your glass house? I write the game off before I have even tried it, well, seeing as many people in this thread including yourself are in one way or another defending the legitimacy of "fun" and "improvement" that this game will have I'd say that's a fairly hypocritical statement.
What does being a game designer have to do with giving the game the benefit of the doubt. I know mechanics, I know content, I know the "lingo" and from what I've seen they are bringing little if anything to the "next-gen" table.
You say consequence is important to make games exciting, that you understand its importance yet you defend the fact that non-consequential PvP is being implemented more and more? Hmm, confusing. Whatever makes the game more exciting is a positive no? So if so, where is the benefit in making everything error proof, where few actions have a negative outcome, almost no risk whatsoever. Please explain to me from a design standpoint how that would gain more revenue.
"To create a good game you need investors". No, to create a good game you need intelligent, creative, diligent, and forward thinking designers. To create a game you need investors. Investors or the lack there of has and always will be a cop out for bad designs/designers.
Fun games are about the threat of "consequence" rofl. You ever play a game where you had no possible consequence, no risk and no possibility of reward, and still manage to have fun? Go ahead, try to out think me and come up with an example, I'll give you time.
Are you joking, do you not see the complete flip flop there? You don't simply like WAR because it's Warhammer, no, that would be "favoritism", you like it cause it is DAoC! Whether it is one IP or another matters not, what matters is does it stand alone after features, mechanics, and philosophies are thouroughly researched.
Which if you were wondering, are nothing new or "improved" to the genre.
Really, the most "innovative" and "original" game in a long time. Here I thought Spore was "original" and "innovative". So tell me, what exactly do you perceive to be so brand spanking creatively new? As someone who spends his time searching endlessly for new and original concepts I can't seem to find any in this game.
I should really go no further than your obtuse remark, "If you don't get it then your not going to get it.". Hilarious, although it holds truth as I have never gotten how people could play a game which isn't far removed from assembly line factory work, and pay for the "pleasure". But seeing as your essay is riddled with insightful quotes I figured I might meander a bit further.
What an absolute gibberish argument, nearly every living thing on earth is Carbon based, does that make us the same? The fact that most games have player controlled objects means nothing in this debate. New, creative and correctly implemented features will undoubtedly enhance any game.
"You can only do so much with PvP". Ah, your creative genius talking I see, lol. Well, this is where a creative designer would come in handy, as they would indeed find so much more. The excuse that there is no more, that the peak has been reached or all there is left is to mimic or remold an existing style is as true as it is intelligent.
"If you try and pack to much "new" into a game it becomes a burden on players rather than being fun." The only way a player would be left feeling burdened is if the designers were so absolutely thoughtless in there designed implementation. The idea or concept alone is meaningless if the designer hasn't the slightest idea of where and how to place it.
You are correct that "it all depends on what your trying to accomplish", one of your few correct statements. As for not having Player cities in WAR as it would somehow, magically not be RvR or WAR anymore is simply a weak attempt to defend uncreative designers. I'm extremely excited to know why it wouldn't be WAR or RvR if you had player cities, rofl.
Yes, and thousands upon thousands of people play Chess even though it hasn't had a rule change or addition for hundreds of years but you are comparing a totally different genre. Can you name me an MMO which hasn't had one change or addition and is or was still played for 4 years+, no, of course you can't because unlike an FPS or RTS game there is a lot more to an MMO, for it to be fun, enjoyable, or competitive.
Funny, I thought the "reason" we had this website was to be privy to NEW events, NEW games, NEW news, NEW thoughts and NEW experiences. If it was all about the same old thing why would we bother to talk about anything that was varied or different, we would simply rehash and reform are same sordid, boring, uneventful opinions, and respond in same.
How exactly can you do the same old thing in a good way? Wouldn't that make it a different new thing?
There is a reason that almost all Kings, Emperors and Sultans had harems throughout history, and it wasn't to "appear" Pimp.
That which is common is generally regarded as common sense, so, as the majority of "revolutionary" ideas are fun, or positive they would also be considered common, or quite possibly, common sense. If "The Sims Online" was considered revolutionary and as we know was an abhorrent failure, then it would be logical to infer that it was implemented poorly, "Second Life" would be a good PROOF of that.
Examples are great but they tend to pale in comparison to proofs.
What is this "innovative design style", I am a mere underling with a thirst for design wisdom. I mean, the game is "completly" different "then" any other game you have looked into, and with my megar amount of knowledge about games, and my liberal ability to critique I need all the help I can gather, so please enlighten me.
Technically innovation is the addition of anything, but as we generally use it as a synonym to improvement you would be right in your assumption that "Innovation isn't adding tons of useless features". Again, it is the designers job to not only be creative enough to think of new paths to peruse, but also intelligible and wise enough to know the proper way to implement them. Here is another line, "innovative in philosophy", mind pointing out that philo, so I can try to comprehend its inspired divinity?
I.Q. is an arguable concept as it stands, grammar and spelling on the other hand are not as debatable.
What was new, and what did they go back to, and why? You can find exceptions to most rules, but as I do not know the full story I can not take your 1/4 of an anecdote and debate it.
Because it's good! Thank you, finally someone who knows and understands the inner workings of empirical proof or evidence. I can finally rest for my search is over. WAR is good, end or story, statement and search.
Ok, so essentially what you are saying is; being able to play the same game, with similar features, with a slightly new skin, and slightly more PvP, which happens to have the same risk/reward factor, made by the same "stale" designers who work for the same "stale" companies, and make the same overused marketing statements while for payment (impulse is how you put it I believe) is what will make WAR a success.
Well then, CHECK and MATE for black it seems.
While I am glad that you all have found a game that you consider to be great, please don't expect me to swallow the little if any evidences that you have in support of your "feelings" regarding this title. You have your reasons, you have stated them, but the truth is, you pretty much are relying on religious faith and aren't being at all critical. I choose not to be blinded by buzz words and readily critique the so called quality in this industry. I can only hope that after a few more turns on the merri-go-round of featureless, uncreative drivel you are constantly handed you too will be willing to fight for a game correctly labled as "good", because honestly, what we have seen for years now has barely been "mediocre".
- Burying Threads Since 1979 -
Now that was a LONG post Tuna!
Can anyway prove to the contrary the following from a WAR point of view? Why is RvR so great here isn't it more of the same stuff?
It's just more of the same... only they've managed to dumb it down to 4 classes per faction.
There is little to no accountability for behavior in RvR; punks, gankers, and smack talkers can fade into the anominity and safety of their faction. Not to mention leechers and people there for the ride doing nothing to help in a battle… Often such behavior is encouraged in RvR because the enemy is faceless and the consequences are few. No RvR for me. I want to choose who my enemies are and not have the game choose them for me. GvG offers more freedom. RvR is repetitive really unless there are more than 2 facets and balanced properly. Once a certain time has passed, the entire regions are reset. There is no long-lasting effect. It just starts all over.
In a factional system you have built-in friends and enemies. It's just the way the game is designed. People on your faction are your friends (you typically can't attack them at all except in a /duel), and people on the other faction are your enemies. It's a very black and white situation.
Now you have to wonder how long anyone will play the game when nothing they accomplish means anything because the world resets all by itself.
I would like to see a Warhammer 40K mmo. WAR doesnt interest me. Ive played enough fantasy MMOs, but who knows.
I doubt you'll see anything really "new" in the MMO field, or at least nothing that will ever be considered "popular" and really different. The only reason a game like WoW is as successful as it is is because they did the same old thing, but they did it a lot better (for Average Joe) than everyone else did. If a publisher can't see a "winner", then you're not likely to get the funding you'll need to make a viable MMO (See the trouble EVE has growing, and it's actually one of the "good" different games).
Regardless of your disdain, I think War will do rather well. Warhammer itself has a history of "fun", has well tested rules/systems and is "solid". Mythic has a proven track record with DAoC. As long as they include the Warhammer "feel" and make sure they have a polished product, I think they may well have a decent hit on heir hands.
For "new concepts and play mechanics, possibly even giving the power to create and manipulate the world.", Tabula Rasa seems to be the MMO that is most likely to fit the bill in the near term (player actions effect the game world in a fairly solid way), but if you're looking for "terrain deformation" style manipulation, then I think your out of luck for the next few years. Or perhaps you might like the "new" SWG (where everything old is new again!) where they've just introduced player made quests/stories.
Best of luck with your "TBA" tunabun, maybe something "really different" will catch on and you'll be the first to crack it, or maybe by the time your ready to release your "really different" revolutionary game, it'll just be another evolution of what everyone else is doing...
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12947
Looks like your in luck today Mad
I'd like to play a sandbox game like Darkfall too, but it isn't slated to come out till 2025.
and yet i still have fun.
Wow, that sounds hard:
Armed assault. - i die, i reload a save. still fun.
Sim city - i mess up, the people leave, they come back later. still fun.
Dungeon Keeper - i kill something, it gets dragged back to its lair. still fun.
Hitman - you dont lose anything if you mess up, you just reload or do the level again. still fun.
tribes 2 - you die, you respawn. you kill someone, you get some points. OHHHHHH!!!! precious points! lifegiving points!!!! still fun.
... <this is me going through the rest of my games, im sure you get the point>
you keep throwing this "games designer" thing around like it makes your opinions carry more merit, you dont like fun, you like concequence. ok, thats cool you enjoy your shoot-yourself-irl-if-char-dies game, ill go and enjoy dying for a bit. you should probably stop saying "im a games designer" because its kind making you look a bit foolish. im a software engineer, i make games for a living, doesnt mean my opinion is worth more than the next mans. *shrug* oh, and tell me what you've made so i can avoid them like the plague.
You cannot expect game designers just to try new ideas to be different and for no other reason (aha, let's see, a space game with permadeath, PVP, FPS, reincarnation, and evolution. Hmmm).
Fantasy works and is a beloved genre. The reason there are so many fantasy MMORPG's out there is that it is quite a trick to get things just right; to create another EQ or WOW. And the abundance of fantasy games does not mean we are playing all of them. Like myself, most folks are playing only one or two games, so to us the MMORPG world is those one or two games.
WAR appears to be taking "tried and true" elements and delivering them in a well-polished package, and that beats the heck out of "new and different" any day for most of us.
BORING!!
I love baiting arrogant know-it-alls.
Consequence is ANY positive or negative outcome, the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier.
The consequence of playing a game of Football or whatnot is the time spent with your friends, possibly the competition you experience. The problem you have is you attempt to separate causality from the "Fun", you somehow assume that Fun is an arbitrary concept fully removed from cause and effect. Well, guess what, it isn't.
So, that being stated, everything on your list gives you something, which in turn translates into Fun. Not only that, the act of winning utterly is far less enjoyable than having friction applied to your journey on the way to the outcome.
As for throwing "this games designer thing around", you mind pointing out where I have done so? I responded to someone mentioning I was one but I don't randomly point it out. I'm much more libel to use my ability to grind arrogant people and their vacuous statements into a fine pristine powder. I am glad you mentioned you are a Software Engineer, it's now apparent why you think you have a clue what you are talking about, as programmers are stereotypically an arrogant bunch, somehow thinking they have stronger logical abilities. You being in the industry I infer is another reason why you think you know what's up.
The industry's lifeblood is made up of people who haven't the slightest clue about design, or fun, they only know how to parrot each other and attend random conferences in an attempt to look professional. Do you think it is a coincidence that many of the greatest minds in this industry are usually on the outskirts of it. The industry is a joke, get over yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I like a person with a strong idea of self, if you think you are right, fine, but you better show some evidence when replying to my posts, otherwise I will gladly rip your point, your concepts, and your baseless "conclusions" into itty bitty pieces, which you may in turn swallow.
- Burying Threads Since 1979 -
oh christ, you have the temerity to call me arrogant?
sure:
ah ha. nor do you make oblique reference to it. (the above are all from one post btw (in fairness it was a monster post))."I'll infer myself as I am probably one of the few on this site with "game designer" in their bio."
" Please explain to me from a design standpoint how that would gain more revenue."
"Ah, your creative genius talking I see, lol."
"I am a mere underling with a thirst for design wisdom."
"with my megar amount of knowledge about games, and my liberal ability to critique I need all the help I can gather"
physician, heal thyself.
im glad that you dont think of youself as an arrogant man, sadly, i do.
ok, so lets get off your soapbox shall we? lets put aside the "zomg xennith is arrogant and ignorant and i am teh pwn! (and a designer!)" and do as you suggest, and actually debate the point rather than launch into personal attacks. unless you want to be a hypocrit of course.
im not one to hold grudges, so if you want to discuss this with me, then good, lets get cracking. if however you want to throw some insults around and act like a petulant child then thats fine too, just dont expect me to take you seriously.
/*****************************************************************************************/
Now, concequences is a word thrown around a great deal on these boards, the first time i used it i wasnt actually addressing you, (which is where the confusion creeps in when you replied to me), it was used in a "full loot" kind of sense. the connotation of course being negative, the idea is that it is impossible to have fun if you dont risk anything. thats a gambler's perspective. for a sportsman fun can be had without negative concequence, you achieve X or you dont, if you fail you lose nothing, you are exactly where you started from.
If you use a dictionary definition of concequence you find yourself unable to find a single example of anything that does not have an effect (affect?) on anything. a game without concequence would be a game of chess where no one can move. perhaps a better way to argue this is "repurcussions", can you have fun without repurcussions? sure, of course you can, my above list is a perfect example of games i enjoyed mightily without any negative effects from me having a "special moment" and dropping godzilla on my city.
You have not played doac much eh.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Have to go with Xennith mostly on this one. the agrument that new = better is not a correrct one ... SB was new and it sucked sadly still does pasted the massive improvment it has went throught.
Agruing that it doesn't suck is pretty off, seeing as it was doing so bad they made it free to play.
But really Why is WAr old becuase you have deemed it so if you ask me its loosm pretty new to me.
Public quest system which looks like a blast (you can say well in a way these existed in other mmos but in the forum that WAr is using them they are NEW).
Meanignful pvp (yeah there has been meaningful PVP before but none in a rpg that you could lvl up loot up and money up from while just playing and progressing the game, THATS NEW).
The character customization looks liek it will be deep and honestly this is rare to see in mmos. Some have ok customization , but most don't. (looks and skills)
AS far as mmorpgs go the mobs, npc, and players animations are top notch , its not innovative but i like it.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
- Burying Threads Since 1979 -
Perhaps it'd best if you would dig around some more then. Some videos and a little reading haven't dug up fantastic things that are being done against the norm isn't brand new, but then again it does reflect on what you did read.
I for one would be a little wary of anything that totally jumps off the page. Innovation is great if you can pull it off, but look at the original specs for Tabula Rasa. That didn't pan out so well. Had to start, ironically, from the start.
No, the game isn't pulling out all the stops in being this superbly unique game. Why should it? A lot of the fantasy stuff out there drew inspiration from Warhammer. Warcraft took the formula and did something different with it, kinda. Ditto for Starcraft and WH40K (plus Ender's Game).
And yet Warhammer too has its own sources, from Tolkien to Heinlein. It's hard not to be that successful and not "inspire" others.
Let's see... you may be referring to the same old mechanics found in other MMOs: That of the Tank/Healer/Nuker trinity.
That's present here. Why not? Warhammer is an army-fighting game, and while healing isn't that big a part of it, certainly the tactical aspects of having meatshields protecting the fragile heavy damage dealers is just a basic part of the tabletop game.
Healing, for one, is supposed to be different. Quite unlike WoW's Paladin which mutated into the most efficient healing class at max level, ignoring the heavy weaponry and plate armour of course, the standard healing set up isn't one of focused healing. Everyone fights. This is also the same for Age of Conan.
Quests
Quests are a bit more engaging with a totally different focus. The reward is now the pleasure of doing a unique quest with a good story and a humourous look at a world a quarter to the apocalypse. Sure there'd be gear, but how many players simply clicked "Accept" in WoW every time a Quest came along and didn't bother reading the text? Just took a look at the rewards to see if it was nice.
That was WoW's fault. They focused on the generic quests way too much that any attempts at storytelling revolved around creative ways to make a player kill X of Y mobs for maybe Z drops any of which could be random.
You'll have very different quests available in WoW. And frankly the Public Quests just sound amazing. These are zone-wide quests available to everyone in the zone, letting them contribute (or not if they so choose) at a series of quests that could swing one way or another.
Through player participation and actions. With deep stories worth sticking around for.
That alone is enough for me. The fact that there are more than 300 of those massive quests alone, not counting all the other kinds, is quite astounding.
There are also Christmas Quests which are rewards for exploring and such. What did you get for that in WoW? Not even bonus crap XP.
Perhaps the greatest innovation they truly are trying is to remove the "reward" from such pithy things as gear. Game balance wouldn't have to revolve around equalizing classes on roles instead of what makes them unique.
In short:
This isn't the game that's going to re-invent the wheel. Why should they? They were amongst the first users of the wheel, a lot of the patterns were based off their work. But what they can do is make sure it runs better than the other wheels out there, removing the crap that all MMO players suffer through.
WAR is for those that like Wheels but have gotten sick of the current batch that just go around in circles.
and yet i still have fun.
Wow, that sounds hard:
Armed assault. - i die, i reload a save. still fun.
Sim city - i mess up, the people leave, they come back later. still fun.
Dungeon Keeper - i kill something, it gets dragged back to its lair. still fun.
Hitman - you dont lose anything if you mess up, you just reload or do the level again. still fun.
tribes 2 - you die, you respawn. you kill someone, you get some points. OHHHHHH!!!! precious points! lifegiving points!!!! still fun.
... <this is me going through the rest of my games, im sure you get the point>
you keep throwing this "games designer" thing around like it makes your opinions carry more merit, you dont like fun, you like concequence. ok, thats cool you enjoy your shoot-yourself-irl-if-char-dies game, ill go and enjoy dying for a bit. you should probably stop saying "im a games designer" because its kind making you look a bit foolish. im a software engineer, i make games for a living, doesnt mean my opinion is worth more than the next mans. *shrug* oh, and tell me what you've made so i can avoid them like the plague.
YIKES!
Xennith, although I see where you're coming from not only did you miss Tunabun's point completely, you actually validated it.
The list of games you give...all have consequences. A perfect example you give is Sim City "I mess up, the people leave, they come back later. still fun." Having the people leave IS the consequence. In all games, at the very least, failure IS the main consequence. It may not necessarily be a huge or important consequence, but it is a consequence nonetheless. Ask yourself this, would you play Sim City if no matter how poorly you played the population would ALWAYS go up? I'm willing to bet the answer is no. Where's the fun? Have you ever played a shooter and used a God mode cheat so that no matter what happens you never die? If you haven't, try it and see how boring a game is when you remove consequence from it. If you have done it before, how long have you played it? Did you have fun?
Your football analogy is interesting because we can all relate, but let me ask this, I'm going to assume you and your friends play for fun, shits and giggles, go for a beer afterwards, goodtimes had all around. Not only will I bet that you ALWAYS keep track of the score (ask yourself why), I'm also willing to bet that the concept of playing and NOT keeping track of score has never even occured to you. If there is no consequences when you play football with your friends as you suggest, theoretically you should have just as much fun not keeping score as when you do keep track of the score. But we both know that's BS. It's a cliche saying but if winning isn't important, why do we keep track of the score. The consequence of failure when playing football with friends may be completely unimportant, but it is a consequence nontheless. Everytime a goal is scored, in the back of your mind, you know you're keeping track. You may not really care about losing, but wouldn't you rather win? Why play if that element didn't exist on some level?
no.... Ultima Online OWNS DAoC!!!!!
well said tuna ^^, yeah i have to agree, theres nothing revolutionary about this game, however; it does seem to have a pvp system that actualy might work so yay ^^. We will see how this game goes, personaly i think it'll do well not because of originality, but because it is new and semi-fresh, which will drive alot of the new mmo gamers to it (i think it'll hurt wow's PvP side since Blizzard doesn't add anything new to PvP, but i have no idea of how it'll work with the PvE side which worries me about Warhammer). but in all things, i agree with tuna, this game isn't original, just "new" which is good enough
BTW consequences ARE fun
, and are part of the laws of life ^^
I am a little worried about the success of PvP in WAR. I read an article interviewing a Blizzard designer about what the design team had learned from the WoW experience. He said more than anything, it was A) The complete unpredictability of gamers, and
Trying to control said behaviour.
That comment was in reference to to the lack of world PvP in WoW and how before the game was released it was touted as a major feature of the game. The designer went on to say that they had to redesign/reapproach PvP because gamers were doing things they never thought possible, that never occurred to them could be done and had to rein in before things got too far out of control (which I believe it did on some servers).
I guess it's just wait and see.
You have not played doac much eh.
Actually I did play DAoC not doac.
If you think just because Mythic is making this game and because of the fact it made DAoC - don't think its going to be anything like DAoC.
DAoC had 3 unbalanced aspects to it imo.
I asked if anyone could post to the contrary from a WAR point of view.
Comparing it to DAoC is silly as to comparing it to WoW, I would rather someone tell me from a WAR point of view, having it stand on its own merits (if any) with the information we know so far.
I listed some reasons why im not keen on RvR I want to know how these things wont happen in WAR, and how can the monotony of a reseting world not get tiresome after a few goes?
This game seems fun for all of 5 seconds without any real depth to it, with people runnning around screaming the same thing over and over.
"There is little to no accountability for behavior in RvR; punks, gankers, and smack talkers can fade into the anominity and safety of their faction. Not to mention leechers and people there for the ride doing nothing to help in a battle… Often such behavior is encouraged in RvR because the enemy is faceless and the consequences are few. No RvR for me"
I played daoc forever... i rarely have ever seen this.... I seen it in wow pvp tho.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
To the OP...
What keeps me interested in WAR...
* The last one is really what gets me. EA Mythic tells about features in the game, yes, but they don't tell us how they are going to work or how they are going to be in the game. They keep lots of secrets, and I'm led to believe that there are a many more things that they're holding in until release. I'm extremely confident that it will be a great game.
just cause it seems a game that will last a LONG time
_____________________________
Xp>vista>2000>98se>98>95>3.1>dos>linux0.54beta1>Hamster Running in a wheel>milenium
i disagree, originally my post was made in response to batdie who was talking about "concequences for death" ie, full loot. tunabun decided to jump into the argument and take my use of "concequences" out of context. naturally i assumed that it was tunabun who i responded to in the first place, so we are now having an argument about semantics rather than gameplay.
this is where the problem lies, my original use of consequences was intended to mean "bad things happen from which you cannot recover easily", that has now been changed by tunabun to a more literal interpretation which basically makes the argument ludicrous, as there is nothing that has no concequences. my list is correct within my original context and meaning, but utterly incorrect in the redefined context.
actually yes i have, i played red faction with god mode on and all the weapons and had a blast, i did the same for half life 2 the second time through. god mode, all weapons and a bullet time mod, i skipped ravenholme and went right to the lost coast. it was fantastic, enjoyed myself thoroughly for a weekend. ill take that bet, half the time we dont even have goals, we just enjoy kicking a ball around.same reason as my hl2 spree, for the experience of doing it. look at garrys mod, the process is fun, failing is fun, succeding is fun, and making a levitating bathtub is fun
WoW and UO have spoiled us as MMO gamers, if you dont get rewarded its not worth doing, if you dont get punished its no worth doing.
if the game mechanics are properly implemented you dont need risk or reward to have fun. sure, having a little doesnt hurt but its not something you need to base the system on. base the system on fun and then add the reward, not the other way round.
when i replied to you, i assumed (falsely) that you were the person i originally quoted. what i was misunderstanding was that you were refering to consequences in one context, and myself in another. however, this is an argument about game design rather than semantics. as we both now understand what we mean we can probably have a better arguement. to that end i refuse to respond further to your pointed statements, think of me how you will, i will think of you how you conduct yourself. seems fair to me.
its a fairly abstract way of looking at the whole thing, you could also argue that what you have lost is the time it took you to fail. however, thats leaning in quite heavily to risk / reward paradigms. in X time you can gain Y reward, you waste X time by failing so you have lost Y reward. the way i see it, i have spent X time enjoying myself, it would be nice to get Y reward in addition to that, but i dont look at a situation in a rewards-first way. to me rewards have always been secondary to the experience, in WoW when i wanted to get a certain item i always begrudged the time it took me to get it, sure, i enjoyed actually having it but that comes after the annoyance.its a perfectly cromulent idea (
) but the problem is how do you go about doing it? lots of recent games have reinforced this idea that something isnt worth doing for no reward, essentially a load of gamers have become addicted to rewards and act like junkies. "how do i get my fix, need my fix now! i deserve a fix!"
fun and enjoyment are an overarching aim of games, its something you aim for, but risk/reward and mechanics are a part of that. you cant design fun, its something you design to create.