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.
This is not a quote just ripped out of your small book you posted, its wasnt worth the time deleteing your ungodly long quote.
Hypocritical? I said you shouldnt write a game off before you tried it...... You must be right, i must be some hugh WAR fanboy, right........
And i found it very funny your next-gen comment, im sure all game developers are dieing for there game to be just like vanguard since thats 3rd gen!
If your 4th gen game is more of what vanguard brought i cant wait to play your game! or you can use your "lingo", and skip 4th gen and just call it 5th gen! with that "lingo" the game has to be great.
Sorry to come off so hard but media spin and idea's are a dime a dozen, they only thing that matters is how a finished game turns out.
If only i could find a troll with a tin foil hat. =(
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.
Hmm, that is a new twist, didn't realize you misunderstood, but even though we are fully through this area of our debate I still want to "pointedly" refer you to your first post. Look how you reacted to Bat, and what he/she was saying, he/she wasn't overbearing, he/she was not bad mouthing the game, only giving a valid opinion which you in turn satirized.
Although, even though I desperately want you to see why I attacked you in the first place (because of your aggressive satire of another) I can see that had you not done that, and then I had not added you to my massive response post, we would not have come to this point where I honestly see your POV and can discuss with you in an intelligent manner.
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 was going to add time in my statement as well, but as I usually argue my own points validity before I post I figured that it could be easily argued that time cannot be lost because it is already lost for the subsequent gain in entertainment, meaning you can't lose it a second time due to it already being allotted earlier in the equation. I think the time aspect is important only to the degree that, the time a player is required to do anything is equal to what they feel the object is worth. When it takes a small amount of time to gain a reward or too much there will be varying responses of boredom or no accomplishment on one side and frustration and irritation on the other. The time abstract however only need be addressed when fun is not present, for as we all know when having fun time matters not and seems to move faster or not be present at all. The concept of loss of a potential gain is not directly speaking about an item, it is more rightly focused on an goal oriented achievement.
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!"
I think the only way to go about reinstating the proper "risk for reward" system is to go back and look at not only what we have to deal with in real life but also what kinds of risk and rewards were acceptable or "fun" in past games. I think a huge problem with the current MMORPG design philosophy is that it is treated as one large project rather than a collective of parts of many various games. There is nothing in an MMO that I can see not being broken down into a comparative to another single game style. Looking at the make up of say a Tony Hawk game, you might come to one conclusion about risk and reward, falling (dying) and you restart (respawn) at a designated point in the level. Comparing games and seeing what is validly implemented and what is not any why, along with a great deal of knowledge and understanding regarding the sociology of the player base is really the only way to go. I really attempt to see all viewpoints when designing, not thinking, "players like this and that", but rather "some players like this and others that". The fact that some players absolutely like grinding away for a level must be taken into account no matter how ludicrous I think it is and how useless I feel it can be, because in all actuality it can be useful, although I can't really say how as that my friend, is part of my design. I don't believe giving gamers rewards is a problem, it is the kind of rewards, the frequency of the rewards and how they are forced to gain those rewards that are the problem.
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.
Exactly what I have been saying, Fun although not a designable item in and of itself can be designed for, as there is a cause and effect to it. A player who's only joy in an MMO is to explore the four corners of the world will quit when done, as the fun is gone for that player. But if lets say the world was massive enough, or ever changing due to player destruction / construction and the NPC elements in place, that player would never be out of work / fun and could explore in a repeating manner and always manage to find new things.
Originally posted by dendea
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. This is not a quote just ripped out of your small book you posted, its wasnt worth the time deleteing your ungodly long quote. Hypocritical? I said you shouldnt write a game off before you tried it...... You must be right, i must be some hugh WAR fanboy, right........ And i found it very funny your next-gen comment, im sure all game developers are dieing for there game to be just like vanguard since thats 3rd gen! If your 4th gen game is more of what vanguard brought i cant wait to play your game! or you can use your "lingo", and skip 4th gen and just call it 5th gen! with that "lingo" the game has to be great. Sorry to come off so hard but media spin and idea's are a dime a dozen, they only thing that matters is how a finished game turns out.
You're post is really not worth spending too much time on, as you obviously couldn't comprehend what I was saying. You, are DEFENDING something with "no evidence through testing", yet are accusing me of OFFENDING with "no evidence through testing", thus you are a HYPOCRITE. If we both are defensive and offensive while using the same mechanics to argue our points, one can be no better than the other, THE DIFFERENCE IS, I attack your points and the validity there-of, you do nothing of the sort, you do not in anyway argue my statements point but rather focus on a single part and talk about that when it had no real value to the statement in the first place.
I speak of "next-gen" as we have yet to leave the first. It is hilarious that through trying to mock me you show how much you accept the current marketing BS that the games companies feed you. You speak of 3rd, 4th, and 5th as though it is a well known fact we have left the first. There is no GREAT difference between the supposed "first-gen" MMO's like UO and these supposed "3rd-gen" MMO's like WAR, it is a mere rehashing and re-skinning of the same concepts, with little to no actual time spent understanding the philosophy of design and why certain puzzle pieces are placed where.
Originally posted by tunabun There is no GREAT difference between the supposed "first-gen" MMO's like UO and these supposed "3rd-gen" MMO's like WAR, it is a mere rehashing and re-skinning of the same concepts, with little to no actual time spent understanding the philosophy of design and why certain puzzle pieces are placed where. Just another Protea soaking up the propaganda.
If you believe there is no great difference between games like UO and even something out currently like WoW you have no grasp on reality. They are wildly different games and while Warhammer might not be a huge change from WoW it is a huge change from UO and the earlier games. Warhammer is also different from WoW in it's focus, which is PVP, not PVE. They also are introducing new styles of questing like public quests and the other "christmas" quests. Yea at it's base level it's a online game where you kill things to get experience, that doesn't mean the game around that has not changed.
Some people want a new pvp oriented game. Warhammer is that game and also has a fan base from the PnP version.
You sure seem to talk a lot of "smack" about these games but until you can provide some sort of ground breaking ideas you're just another smack talking forum drone.
I agree with tunabun about the "generations" thing being a load of crap. Still, I would say (not enough to argue) that there's differences among games, which as superficial as they may be, have helped further the development of the genre. Most, if not all of the games out now are essentially similar or almost the same. No one here can give essential descriptions of two "completely different" games which are worlds apart. But everyone can give totally different descriptions when it comes to the cake topping, be it focus in PvP, gameplay styles (UO to WoW), or even visuals. This tells us one thing about the genre: it's being developed from the top to the bottom, and not the other way around. Changes in games are being done from the waves, not from the deep-sea currents. Look at all the games out there, including the ones coming out soon, they all talk about the same things: PvE, PvP, questing system, character customization, levels, skills, currency, classes, zones, and so on. They just handle those same things in different ways, and yet, people talk about "revolutionary aspects" and "innovative new X thing".
What I'm getting to here is that all company developers are grasping the concept of innovation and "revolutionary" in the wrong way, and feeding it to us, the gamers, in the wrongness of their misconception. Instead of going for the fundaments of what makes a game fun, of what's worth programming and what's not, of tying concepts into gameplay mechanics, they go for everything that's already out there and make adjustments, kinda like the car industry. Therefore, we get the same old things in new packages.
This approach to game-making, while not wrong, is insufficient to drive a quick-enough change as people like you would expect and appreciate. But I say you should give it time, and have a little patience. The genre's been around what... ten years? While technology changes a lot faster, creative impulses such as those that supposedly are the driving force of game design are, like all creative impulses, a lot slower in their development. Not getting into the art debate here, but consider that most creative movements and currents in Western culture have spanned decades from which only a few truly outstanding persons are recognized. Extrapolarize that into gaming, and we're yet to see a new movement, if it's even close to take effect in the near future. We already have an "outstanding person" (guess who?). We just need the antithesis in order for the synthesis to come to be.
In any case, people are hyped by this game and others of the kind because it's what we have now, and, personally, expect nothing more, either because unlike you, who apparently are a part of the gaming design crew and therefore seek to mark your place by means of difference, we don't look for content but form, or because innovation in design (game design, in this case) is just as alien to the uninitiated as, for example, innovation in philosophy, when talking about both as disciplines of the human experience.
Anyway, I hope I've given you some kind of food for thought, since it seems that's what you're looking for, and not exactly us telling you to sod off and play another game, right? Still, consider that if you're in the designer crew, it's them who you gotta convince, not us the gamers. We'll just take what we have and be happy with it, because it's not exactly the medium in which we develop our own achievements. It's contradictory that you have to work from the bottom up in order to create a different game, and from top to bottom in order to make the point of it all valid. But well, that's how I see things... hope it helped.
I speak of "next-gen" as we have yet to leave the first. It is hilarious that through trying to mock me you show how much you accept the current marketing BS that the games companies feed you. You speak of 3rd, 4th, and 5th as though it is a well known fact we have left the first. There is no GREAT difference between the supposed "first-gen" MMO's like UO and these supposed "3rd-gen" MMO's like WAR, it is a mere rehashing and re-skinning of the same concepts, with little to no actual time spent understanding the philosophy of design and why certain puzzle pieces are placed where.
Just another Protea soaking up the propaganda.
Wow.... just wow. I just talked about how trival the 3rd gen/next gen naming system is (Its nothing more then media spin.......(mostly created by vanguard) that you might as well just skip the numbers because they are trival and mean nothing.......then you post that.
You're post is really not worth spending too much time on, as you obviously couldn't comprehend what I was saying. You, are DEFENDING something with "no evidence through testing", yet are accusing me of OFFENDING with "no evidence through testing", thus you are a HYPOCRITE. If we both are defensive and offensive while using the same mechanics to argue our points, one can be no better than the other, THE DIFFERENCE IS, I attack your points and the validity there-of, you do nothing of the sort, you do not in anyway argue my statements point but rather focus on a single part and talk about that when it had no real value to the statement in the first place.
As for the first part. Where did i say I thought the game was good (thus defending it)? it could be horrible for all i know I am saying dont say its bad, dont say its good until you try it and know not just based on the rather trival things you heard so far), neither of which i have done. if you want to you can even go back and look for your self.
Wow......
BTW I am no longer going to post in this thread, It really isnt worth my time.
If only i could find a troll with a tin foil hat. =(
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.
I stand corrected.
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.
Again...I stand corrected.
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.
I try to use God mode when I'm stoned, but I'm usually too stoned to get the code to work.
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.
Again...I only do that when I'm stoned.
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 that's a pretty interesting concept if not a little abstract. I'm curious at what ideas you have.
If that link doesn't convince you this isn't your game.
Sorry Thefonz, as much as I'd enjoy ironjawed orcs, I'm afraid thats from Warhammer 40k, not the Warhammer Classic setting being used for Warhammer Online. I'm sure someone, maybe even Mythic will produce the 40k version online, but let's just concentrate on the current version at hand, shall we?
WH40k is in development by Vigil games and THQ studios.
Lets hope its not a mmofps
Yeah, I noticed that after I posted and that's pretty cool, because Dawn of War rocked. Granted, THQ knows nothing about MMO's, we'll have to wait and see how that one unfolds.
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.
No one can say from a WAR point of view (those with knowledge of the game) the points I brought up in my first post?
Too worried or just dont know?
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 and your back to square one. Adrenaline rush to massive come down - what do you have to show for it that is meaningfull to the core gameplay?
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.
No one can say from a WAR point of view (those with knowledge of the game) the points I brought up in my first post?
Too worried or just dont know?
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 and your back to square one. Adrenaline rush to massive come down - what do you have to show for it that is meaningfull to the core gameplay?
Get your facts right first. THE WORLD DOES NOT RESET ITSELF.
Mythic is a solid gaming company, they know that DAOC's RvR hit it big, its what made it last this long. WAR is basically they're RvR recipe combined with WoW. Come on guys, its obvious that Warhammer is really WoWhammer. Its basically going to be WoW with a great RvR system - fixing the mistakes of Blizzard in PvP. You can easily tell from the videos and game decriptions etc
Originally posted by DreamsIn3D 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.
DAoC wasn't/isn't exactly a good game though. Mind Mastery Mentalist, anyone?? (I was one of the only 6 active MM Mentalists in the whole game all the time I played, one other was our teamlead for a long time, Tessa - sidenote: Giev Tess!)
Anyways, I will check out WAR. For a reason - I am hoping they do remotely right what they failed miserably in DAoC. The concept is really nice, PvP heavy, mass-fights, yet "serious" gameplay, no RPG-Counterstrike. All a nice idea, the question is: will it work that way in the final game, too?
PRO: + A new game. They can start over, try it without the slack of DAoC. + GW universe. Pre-set balance for many things, they can point and say it will remain imbalanced since it's true to the universe. + EA bought Mythic. Brainless clashing against Stupid, there might actually come something useful from that.
CON: - Only 2 realms. Sounds good, 3 are way easier to balance though. - Different lore. No matter how "nice" Warhammer is, the DAoC-lore is simply more rich to use as a game, plus I miss Hibernia in a way. The lush design was kinda interesting, sadly got screwed a lot later in the game - Mythic. Need I say more? :P
SQUEAK. --(The Death of Rats, Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)
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.
WAR is an evolution of the “same old thing”, with an addition of a few new “things”. Not to mention an improved RVR model is something to salivate over. I just hope to actually bear witness to the RVR this time, instead of being locked into a horrible leveling grind.
Now, being an evolution of the “same old thing” isn’t a terrible place to be. WoW apparently sold well, people like what we have. So an improved model is win/win. It’s not desirable or preferred over an improved open RPG (sandbox) but so long as too few people support/make those I’ll take what we have and play it.
The only thing I see against WAR is that people could do better, but thus far no one has – so that’s not even an issue.
I'm excited for this game because it does add a new layer to PvP. The constant faction-driven struggles that constitute battling over resources and cities that actually impact the game world around you interests me. Not to mention I've been a fan of the Warhammer TT since I was very young. The lore behind it is quite fun.
I also find that the ToK (Tome of Knowledge) will be a nice addition to the MMO scene since it records/tracks all of the data for your opponents and equipment that you have uncovered up to date. There's very few MMOs that come standard with a feature like that.
You say your a game designer...what games have you made? Anything important? no? ok then, stop putting that in our faces to further your stance as though you have a higher insight into gameing than any of us. Now, instead of helping the situation, which I fail to see, your merely exacerbating a fan base that has been hounded by people who wish to do nothing more than tear down their reason for being a fan.
As someone who has made a few games and actually tested one or two, I can assure you the mechanics of this game may be simuler, but the actual gameplay will differ due to the way its interpreted.
Now...Im sure your going to dodge actually responding to mine or misinterpret me some way shape or form that you find highly convienent, so Im just going to ask that you just stop trying to create flame wars for the fun of it, go troll some where else.
I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad, The dreams in which I'm dieing are the best I've ever had.
And I have been slugging out table-top battles for the last 15 years!
If its even 1/4 the enjoyment that I have gotten from the table-top, to me it will be worth it. To see some of those places that I have only read about or imagined (cities,towns, other named places). To actually be in them,seige them, destroy them!
By the gods! Let war comence, Let the blood flow!
The only thing really holding me back is the fact that EAMythic is now in charge of it. Not much confidence in that company anymore. But I might at least try it.
Comments
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.
This is not a quote just ripped out of your small book you posted, its wasnt worth the time deleteing your ungodly long quote.
Hypocritical? I said you shouldnt write a game off before you tried it...... You must be right, i must be some hugh WAR fanboy, right........
And i found it very funny your next-gen comment, im sure all game developers are dieing for there game to be just like vanguard since thats 3rd gen!
If your 4th gen game is more of what vanguard brought i cant wait to play your game! or you can use your "lingo", and skip 4th gen and just call it 5th gen! with that "lingo" the game has to be great.
Sorry to come off so hard but media spin and idea's are a dime a dozen, they only thing that matters is how a finished game turns out.
If only i could find a troll with a tin foil hat. =(
Hmm, that is a new twist, didn't realize you misunderstood, but even though we are fully through this area of our debate I still want to "pointedly" refer you to your first post. Look how you reacted to Bat, and what he/she was saying, he/she wasn't overbearing, he/she was not bad mouthing the game, only giving a valid opinion which you in turn satirized.
Although, even though I desperately want you to see why I attacked you in the first place (because of your aggressive satire of another) I can see that had you not done that, and then I had not added you to my massive response post, we would not have come to this point where I honestly see your POV and can discuss with you in an intelligent manner.
I was going to add time in my statement as well, but as I usually argue my own points validity before I post I figured that it could be easily argued that time cannot be lost because it is already lost for the subsequent gain in entertainment, meaning you can't lose it a second time due to it already being allotted earlier in the equation. I think the time aspect is important only to the degree that, the time a player is required to do anything is equal to what they feel the object is worth. When it takes a small amount of time to gain a reward or too much there will be varying responses of boredom or no accomplishment on one side and frustration and irritation on the other. The time abstract however only need be addressed when fun is not present, for as we all know when having fun time matters not and seems to move faster or not be present at all. The concept of loss of a potential gain is not directly speaking about an item, it is more rightly focused on an goal oriented achievement.
its a perfectly cromulent idea (
I think the only way to go about reinstating the proper "risk for reward" system is to go back and look at not only what we have to deal with in real life but also what kinds of risk and rewards were acceptable or "fun" in past games. I think a huge problem with the current MMORPG design philosophy is that it is treated as one large project rather than a collective of parts of many various games. There is nothing in an MMO that I can see not being broken down into a comparative to another single game style. Looking at the make up of say a Tony Hawk game, you might come to one conclusion about risk and reward, falling (dying) and you restart (respawn) at a designated point in the level.
Comparing games and seeing what is validly implemented and what is not any why, along with a great deal of knowledge and understanding regarding the sociology of the player base is really the only way to go. I really attempt to see all viewpoints when designing, not thinking, "players like this and that", but rather "some players like this and others that". The fact that some players absolutely like grinding away for a level must be taken into account no matter how ludicrous I think it is and how useless I feel it can be, because in all actuality it can be useful, although I can't really say how as that my friend, is part of my design.
I don't believe giving gamers rewards is a problem, it is the kind of rewards, the frequency of the rewards and how they are forced to gain those rewards that are the problem.
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.
Exactly what I have been saying, Fun although not a designable item in and of itself can be designed for, as there is a cause and effect to it. A player who's only joy in an MMO is to explore the four corners of the world will quit when done, as the fun is gone for that player. But if lets say the world was massive enough, or ever changing due to player destruction / construction and the NPC elements in place, that player would never be out of work / fun and could explore in a repeating manner and always manage to find new things.
You're post is really not worth spending too much time on, as you obviously couldn't comprehend what I was saying. You, are DEFENDING something with "no evidence through testing", yet are accusing me of OFFENDING with "no evidence through testing", thus you are a HYPOCRITE. If we both are defensive and offensive while using the same mechanics to argue our points, one can be no better than the other, THE DIFFERENCE IS, I attack your points and the validity there-of, you do nothing of the sort, you do not in anyway argue my statements point but rather focus on a single part and talk about that when it had no real value to the statement in the first place.
I speak of "next-gen" as we have yet to leave the first. It is hilarious that through trying to mock me you show how much you accept the current marketing BS that the games companies feed you. You speak of 3rd, 4th, and 5th as though it is a well known fact we have left the first. There is no GREAT difference between the supposed "first-gen" MMO's like UO and these supposed "3rd-gen" MMO's like WAR, it is a mere rehashing and re-skinning of the same concepts, with little to no actual time spent understanding the philosophy of design and why certain puzzle pieces are placed where.
Just another Protea soaking up the propaganda.
- Burying Threads Since 1979 -
If you believe there is no great difference between games like UO and even something out currently like WoW you have no grasp on reality. They are wildly different games and while Warhammer might not be a huge change from WoW it is a huge change from UO and the earlier games. Warhammer is also different from WoW in it's focus, which is PVP, not PVE. They also are introducing new styles of questing like public quests and the other "christmas" quests. Yea at it's base level it's a online game where you kill things to get experience, that doesn't mean the game around that has not changed.
Some people want a new pvp oriented game. Warhammer is that game and also has a fan base from the PnP version.
You sure seem to talk a lot of "smack" about these games but until you can provide some sort of ground breaking ideas you're just another smack talking forum drone.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
I agree with tunabun about the "generations" thing being a load of crap. Still, I would say (not enough to argue) that there's differences among games, which as superficial as they may be, have helped further the development of the genre. Most, if not all of the games out now are essentially similar or almost the same. No one here can give essential descriptions of two "completely different" games which are worlds apart. But everyone can give totally different descriptions when it comes to the cake topping, be it focus in PvP, gameplay styles (UO to WoW), or even visuals. This tells us one thing about the genre: it's being developed from the top to the bottom, and not the other way around. Changes in games are being done from the waves, not from the deep-sea currents. Look at all the games out there, including the ones coming out soon, they all talk about the same things: PvE, PvP, questing system, character customization, levels, skills, currency, classes, zones, and so on. They just handle those same things in different ways, and yet, people talk about "revolutionary aspects" and "innovative new X thing".
What I'm getting to here is that all company developers are grasping the concept of innovation and "revolutionary" in the wrong way, and feeding it to us, the gamers, in the wrongness of their misconception. Instead of going for the fundaments of what makes a game fun, of what's worth programming and what's not, of tying concepts into gameplay mechanics, they go for everything that's already out there and make adjustments, kinda like the car industry. Therefore, we get the same old things in new packages.
This approach to game-making, while not wrong, is insufficient to drive a quick-enough change as people like you would expect and appreciate. But I say you should give it time, and have a little patience. The genre's been around what... ten years? While technology changes a lot faster, creative impulses such as those that supposedly are the driving force of game design are, like all creative impulses, a lot slower in their development. Not getting into the art debate here, but consider that most creative movements and currents in Western culture have spanned decades from which only a few truly outstanding persons are recognized. Extrapolarize that into gaming, and we're yet to see a new movement, if it's even close to take effect in the near future. We already have an "outstanding person" (guess who?). We just need the antithesis in order for the synthesis to come to be.
In any case, people are hyped by this game and others of the kind because it's what we have now, and, personally, expect nothing more, either because unlike you, who apparently are a part of the gaming design crew and therefore seek to mark your place by means of difference, we don't look for content but form, or because innovation in design (game design, in this case) is just as alien to the uninitiated as, for example, innovation in philosophy, when talking about both as disciplines of the human experience.
Anyway, I hope I've given you some kind of food for thought, since it seems that's what you're looking for, and not exactly us telling you to sod off and play another game, right?
Still, consider that if you're in the designer crew, it's them who you gotta convince, not us the gamers. We'll just take what we have and be happy with it, because it's not exactly the medium in which we develop our own achievements. It's contradictory that you have to work from the bottom up in order to create a different game, and from top to bottom in order to make the point of it all valid. 
But well, that's how I see things... hope it helped.
I speak of "next-gen" as we have yet to leave the first. It is hilarious that through trying to mock me you show how much you accept the current marketing BS that the games companies feed you. You speak of 3rd, 4th, and 5th as though it is a well known fact we have left the first. There is no GREAT difference between the supposed "first-gen" MMO's like UO and these supposed "3rd-gen" MMO's like WAR, it is a mere rehashing and re-skinning of the same concepts, with little to no actual time spent understanding the philosophy of design and why certain puzzle pieces are placed where.
Just another Protea soaking up the propaganda.
Wow.... just wow. I just talked about how trival the 3rd gen/next gen naming system is (Its nothing more then media spin.......(mostly created by vanguard) that you might as well just skip the numbers because they are trival and mean nothing.......then you post that.
You're post is really not worth spending too much time on, as you obviously couldn't comprehend what I was saying. You, are DEFENDING something with "no evidence through testing", yet are accusing me of OFFENDING with "no evidence through testing", thus you are a HYPOCRITE. If we both are defensive and offensive while using the same mechanics to argue our points, one can be no better than the other, THE DIFFERENCE IS, I attack your points and the validity there-of, you do nothing of the sort, you do not in anyway argue my statements point but rather focus on a single part and talk about that when it had no real value to the statement in the first place.
As for the first part. Where did i say I thought the game was good (thus defending it)? it could be horrible for all i know I am saying dont say its bad, dont say its good until you try it and know not just based on the rather trival things you heard so far), neither of which i have done. if you want to you can even go back and look for your self.
Wow......
BTW I am no longer going to post in this thread, It really isnt worth my time.
If only i could find a troll with a tin foil hat. =(
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.
I stand corrected.
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.
Again...I stand corrected.
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.
I think that's a pretty interesting concept if not a little abstract. I'm curious at what ideas you have.Sorry Thefonz, as much as I'd enjoy ironjawed orcs, I'm afraid thats from Warhammer 40k, not the Warhammer Classic setting being used for Warhammer Online. I'm sure someone, maybe even Mythic will produce the 40k version online, but let's just concentrate on the current version at hand, shall we?
WH40k is in development by Vigil games and THQ studios.
Lets hope its not a mmofps
Yeah, I noticed that after I posted and that's pretty cool, because Dawn of War rocked. Granted, THQ knows nothing about MMO's, we'll have to wait and see how that one unfolds.
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.
No one can say from a WAR point of view (those with knowledge of the game) the points I brought up in my first post?
Too worried or just dont know?
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 and your back to square one. Adrenaline rush to massive come down - what do you have to show for it that is meaningfull to the core gameplay?
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.
No one can say from a WAR point of view (those with knowledge of the game) the points I brought up in my first post?
Too worried or just dont know?
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 and your back to square one. Adrenaline rush to massive come down - what do you have to show for it that is meaningfull to the core gameplay?
Get your facts right first. THE WORLD DOES NOT RESET ITSELF.
Mythic is a solid gaming company, they know that DAOC's RvR hit it big, its what made it last this long. WAR is basically they're RvR recipe combined with WoW. Come on guys, its obvious that Warhammer is really WoWhammer. Its basically going to be WoW with a great RvR system - fixing the mistakes of Blizzard in PvP. You can easily tell from the videos and game decriptions etc
DAoC wasn't/isn't exactly a good game though. Mind Mastery Mentalist, anyone?? (I was one of the only 6 active MM Mentalists in the whole game all the time I played, one other was our teamlead for a long time, Tessa - sidenote: Giev Tess!)
Anyways, I will check out WAR. For a reason - I am hoping they do remotely right what they failed miserably in DAoC. The concept is really nice, PvP heavy, mass-fights, yet "serious" gameplay, no RPG-Counterstrike. All a nice idea, the question is: will it work that way in the final game, too?
PRO:
+ A new game. They can start over, try it without the slack of DAoC.
+ GW universe. Pre-set balance for many things, they can point and say it will remain imbalanced since it's true to the universe.
+ EA bought Mythic. Brainless clashing against Stupid, there might actually come something useful from that.
CON:
- Only 2 realms. Sounds good, 3 are way easier to balance though.
- Different lore. No matter how "nice" Warhammer is, the DAoC-lore is simply more rich to use as a game, plus I miss Hibernia in a way. The lush design was kinda interesting, sadly got screwed a lot later in the game
- Mythic. Need I say more? :P
SQUEAK.
--(The Death of Rats, Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)
WAR is an evolution of the “same old thing”, with an addition of a few new “things”. Not to mention an improved RVR model is something to salivate over. I just hope to actually bear witness to the RVR this time, instead of being locked into a horrible leveling grind.
Now, being an evolution of the “same old thing” isn’t a terrible place to be. WoW apparently sold well, people like what we have. So an improved model is win/win. It’s not desirable or preferred over an improved open RPG (sandbox) but so long as too few people support/make those I’ll take what we have and play it.
The only thing I see against WAR is that people could do better, but thus far no one has – so that’s not even an issue.
I'm excited for this game because it does add a new layer to PvP. The constant faction-driven struggles that constitute battling over resources and cities that actually impact the game world around you interests me. Not to mention I've been a fan of the Warhammer TT since I was very young. The lore behind it is quite fun.
I also find that the ToK (Tome of Knowledge) will be a nice addition to the MMO scene since it records/tracks all of the data for your opponents and equipment that you have uncovered up to date. There's very few MMOs that come standard with a feature like that.
To the OP:
You say your a game designer...what games have you made? Anything important? no? ok then, stop putting that in our faces to further your stance as though you have a higher insight into gameing than any of us. Now, instead of helping the situation, which I fail to see, your merely exacerbating a fan base that has been hounded by people who wish to do nothing more than tear down their reason for being a fan.
As someone who has made a few games and actually tested one or two, I can assure you the mechanics of this game may be simuler, but the actual gameplay will differ due to the way its interpreted.
Now...Im sure your going to dodge actually responding to mine or misinterpret me some way shape or form that you find highly convienent, so Im just going to ask that you just stop trying to create flame wars for the fun of it, go troll some where else.
I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad, The dreams in which I'm dieing are the best I've ever had.
Because its WARHAMMER,
And I have been slugging out table-top battles for the last 15 years!
If its even 1/4 the enjoyment that I have gotten from the table-top, to me it will be worth it. To see some of those places that I have only read about or imagined (cities,towns, other named places). To actually be in them,seige them, destroy them!
By the gods! Let war comence, Let the blood flow!
The only thing really holding me back is the fact that EAMythic is now in charge of it. Not much confidence in that company anymore. But I might at least try it.