If it is PvE gameplay, specially dungeon/raid related, I would prefer the peace of doing nothing compared to having to do something that is the same as I have done numerous times already.
The only justification for repetitive PvE gameplay is the reward, but that isn't a part of the gameplay itself, but rather a way to force you through the gameplay.
As I see it, what makes repeating gameplay you've already done numerous times "fun" is that you hopefully get something for enduring it. However, I would rather have the time I was forced to endure to reap my reward be composed of traveling + repetitive PvE task than repetitive PvE task alone; reason being that traveling and meanwhile beholding the virtual world surroundings normally adds to immersion.
Er, that's very sad. You only experience joy from a fractional part of gaming (reward) while the rest of us enjoy the entire experience (gameplay + reward.)
I suppose from such a sad perspective, you would indeed make that choice. But you probably have recognized that most of the rest of us actually enjoy playing games for fun (and not necessarily reward), so you could understand why I felt it'd be a foregone conclusion that you'd choose repeat gameplay over no gameplay at all.
Are you really trying to argue that the majority of people genuinly love repeating the exact same gameplay, without any significant variation whatsoever, over and over again?
To really know for sure, one would have to find a reliable psychological study in the subject, which I don't have and I doubt you have either.
In my experience, people get bored from repeating their actions unless there is a significant difference connected to those actions.
For instance, PvP battles are subject to many different variables due to the complexity attached to having to fight against human opponents. Common areas in which PvP battles may vary a lot are for example: gear, class-composition and player-trajectories.
On the other hand, doing a daily quest which requires you to deliver goods to static npcs at static locations, has little if any variation. The first few times it may be enjoyable, per se, but after a few rounds it only becomes a burden which you only do to gain rewards.
In a similar fashion, static dungeon/raid experiences are only genuinely fun for X amount of times, after that it becomes a chore which you do to gain rewards or sometimes to help someone else out.
If we look at single-player games, such as rpgs and adventure ones, a common way to create significant variation is by introducing new locations, new story and new encounters.
Are you really trying to argue that the majority of people genuinly love repeating the exact same gameplay, without any significant variation whatsoever, over and over again?
To really know for sure, one would have to find a reliable psychological study in the subject, which I don't have and I doubt you have either.
In my experience, people get bored from repeating their actions unless there is a significant difference connected to those actions.
For instance, PvP battles are subject to many different variables due to the complexity attached to having to fight against human opponents. Common areas in which PvP battles may vary a lot are for example: gear, class-composition and player-trajectories.
On the other hand, doing a daily quest which requires you to deliver goods to static npcs at static locations, has little if any variation. The first few times it may be enjoyable, per se, but after a few rounds it only becomes a burden which you only do to gain rewards.
In a similar fashion, static dungeon/raid experiences are only genuinely fun for X amount of times, after that it becomes a chore which you do to gain rewards or sometimes to help someone else out.
If we look at single-player games, such as rpgs and adventure ones, a common way to create significant variation is by introducing new locations, new story and new encounters.
I don't have a psychological study, only a book written by a renowned designer (and one of the best books on general game design): A Theory of Fun by Raph Koster.
Where he basically describes the basis of fun being pattern recognition. But recognizing a pattern by definition requires repetition -- so yes, I absolutely know that players find repetition fun. Repetition is absolutely required for something to be fun!
Excessive repetition becomes less and less interesting, but typically provides a non-zero level of fun for the majority of players until they feel they've totally mastered a game's patterns. It all depends on how solvable the game mechanics are (for example, it's very easy to completely solve Tic Tac Toe and tie every game, yet it's harder to finish those Daily Quests in the absolute minimum amount of time each day. The trace gameplay, even after a lot of repetition, is why players clearly have more fun doing something than nothing.
I mean you have to admit that when given a choice, the overwhelming majority of players would choose to replay a dungeon than have an AFKable timesink for the same 20 minutes (except done in a way where actually going AFK resets the timer.) Neither situation is all that appealing, but players play games to play them -- not to be played.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Are you really trying to argue that the majority of people genuinly love repeating the exact same gameplay, without any significant variation whatsoever, over and over again?
To really know for sure, one would have to find a reliable psychological study in the subject, which I don't have and I doubt you have either.
In my experience, people get bored from repeating their actions unless there is a significant difference connected to those actions.
For instance, PvP battles are subject to many different variables due to the complexity attached to having to fight against human opponents. Common areas in which PvP battles may vary a lot are for example: gear, class-composition and player-trajectories.
On the other hand, doing a daily quest which requires you to deliver goods to static npcs at static locations, has little if any variation. The first few times it may be enjoyable, per se, but after a few rounds it only becomes a burden which you only do to gain rewards.
In a similar fashion, static dungeon/raid experiences are only genuinely fun for X amount of times, after that it becomes a chore which you do to gain rewards or sometimes to help someone else out.
If we look at single-player games, such as rpgs and adventure ones, a common way to create significant variation is by introducing new locations, new story and new encounters.
I don't have a psychological study, only a book written by a renowned designer (and one of the best books on general game design): A Theory of Fun by Raph Koster.
Where he basically describes the basis of fun being pattern recognition. But recognizing a pattern by definition requires repetition -- so yes, I absolutely know that players find repetition fun. Repetition is absolutely required for something to be fun!
Excessive repetition becomes less and less interesting, but typically provides a non-zero level of fun for the majority of players until they feel they've totally mastered a game's patterns. It all depends on how solvable the game mechanics are (for example, it's very easy to completely solve Tic Tac Toe and tie every game, yet it's harder to finish those Daily Quests in the absolute minimum amount of time each day. The trace gameplay, even after a lot of repetition, is why players clearly have more fun doing something than nothing.
I mean you have to admit that when given a choice, the overwhelming majority of players would choose to replay a dungeon than have an AFKable timesink for the same 20 minutes (except done in a way where actually going AFK resets the timer.) Neither situation is all that appealing, but players play games to play them -- not to be played.
Have you ever played Elite or Starport GE INFaVilla? People run trade routes over and over, the same routes and optimize money for time. Buy low/Sell high. And thats only one example of a type of game. Games involve playing over and over until you have the optimal strategy. Once you know you will win no matter what you may quit. This is why often the smartest players get over a given game much faster, because they "beat it". And yes you can "beat" a persistant world, even if you include random factors, unless the randomness is incredibly high. This is why emergent gameplay is such a high ideal, because its much more difficult to "beat".
well we have different experiences RE % of problematic instances, so lets go with your 98% instance of all runs are full of happy campers in wow and leave it at that.
Re Slow travel that this discussion sprouted from, within the context of a mmorg slow travel is enjoyable for many, as it not in isolation, and forms part of the immersion factor that is integral to successful virtual worlds - not action games, virtual worlds. It depends on your perspective, if you want constant action then slow travel does becomes a hindrence - you are really loooking for an action orientated style of game. Fast instances and queues are not immersive, and immersion is very important for mmorgs and this has to be balanced and should be considered in any evaluation. You could argue Immersion is a product of mmorg synergies. If you dont get the balance right, 1 negative effect is that you get sterile virtual worlds and poor immersion which we can see today.
edit There was a surnmary of mmorg players a few years ago as part of a study which discusses many of the less action orientated activites within mmorgs and how humans dont just get rewards from elements of achievment. http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_intro.html good read. look at Avatar and Identity in particular.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Re Slow travel that this discussion sprouted from, within the context of a mmorg slow travel is enjoyable for many, as it not in isolation, and forms part of the immersion factor that is integral to successful virtual worlds - not action games, virtual worlds. It depends on your perspective, if you want constant action then slow travel does becomes a hindrence - you are really loooking for an action orientated style of game. Fast instances and queues are not immersive, and immersion is very important for mmorgs and this has to be balanced and should be considered in any evaluation. You could argue Immersion is a product of mmorg synergies. If you dont get the balance right, 1 negative effect is that you get sterile virtual worlds and poor immersion which we can see today.
The immersion impact of slow travel is propotional to how immersive the virtual world is that you travel through. If the world is immersive then travel will be an immersive experience and add to the gameplay. If the world is sterile then the travel will result in a sterile experience and subtract from gameplay.
Re Slow travel that this discussion sprouted from, within the context of a mmorg slow travel is enjoyable for many, as it not in isolation, and forms part of the immersion factor that is integral to successful virtual worlds - not action games, virtual worlds. It depends on your perspective, if you want constant action then slow travel does becomes a hindrence - you are really loooking for an action orientated style of game. Fast instances and queues are not immersive, and immersion is very important for mmorgs and this has to be balanced and should be considered in any evaluation. You could argue Immersion is a product of mmorg synergies. If you dont get the balance right, 1 negative effect is that you get sterile virtual worlds and poor immersion which we can see today.
The immersion impact of slow travel is propotional to how immersive the virtual world is that you travel through. If the world is immersive then travel will be an immersive experience and add to the gameplay. If the world is sterile then the travel will result in a sterile experience and subtract from gameplay.
Agreed, I think they compliment each other.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Re Slow travel that this discussion sprouted from, within the context of a mmorg slow travel is enjoyable for many, as it not in isolation, and forms part of the immersion factor that is integral to successful virtual worlds - not action games, virtual worlds. It depends on your perspective, if you want constant action then slow travel does becomes a hindrence - you are really loooking for an action orientated style of game. Fast instances and queues are not immersive, and immersion is very important for mmorgs and this has to be balanced and should be considered in any evaluation. You could argue Immersion is a product of mmorg synergies.
Do you feel Skyrim isn't immersive? Because it has exactly the type of fast travel that makes the most sense -- which is to say you slow travel a god damn lot, but you only slow travel to someplace new -- and remains one of the most immersive games of all time (because the other aspects of immersion are so much more important than whether you waste a lot of time traveling.)
This isn't about all action all the time; there are degrees of intentional slow pacing that designers -- like movie directors -- use in order to establish a desired feel to gameplay. But a 10-minute EVE AFK-travel sequence is like the movie director who decides to put five 10-minute intermissions throughout their 1.5 hour film: well beyond an intentional pacing mechanism, it disintegrates the capability of the film to entertain.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't have a psychological study, only a book written by a renowned designer (and one of the best books on general game design): A Theory of Fun by Raph Koster.
Where he basically describes the basis of fun being pattern recognition. But recognizing a pattern by definition requires repetition -- so yes, I absolutely know that players find repetition fun. Repetition is absolutely required for something to be fun!
Excessive repetition becomes less and less interesting, but typically provides a non-zero level of fun for the majority of players until they feel they've totally mastered a game's patterns. It all depends on how solvable the game mechanics are (for example, it's very easy to completely solve Tic Tac Toe and tie every game, yet it's harder to finish those Daily Quests in the absolute minimum amount of time each day. The trace gameplay, even after a lot of repetition, is why players clearly have more fun doing something than nothing.
I mean you have to admit that when given a choice, the overwhelming majority of players would choose to replay a dungeon than have an AFKable timesink for the same 20 minutes (except done in a way where actually going AFK resets the timer.) Neither situation is all that appealing, but players play games to play them -- not to be played.
Pattern recognition requires similarity yes, but the variation may still be significant.
For instance the number series 1, 3, 5, 7 has same pattern as 19, 21, 23, 25 but there is still a significant variation in how that pattern is presented.
Also 1, 3, 5, 7 has a similar but not exactly the same pattern as 19, 22, 25, 28.
I reckognize that attempting to do a task as efficient as possible is "fun" for people, but only to a certain extent. I doubt the majority of people would use a form of clock to time how efficiently they are doing this and that. I doubt also the majority of people would start doing extensive calculations and investigate the damage formula to figure out the most efficient gear and skill rotations against different targets, unless they are handed to them on a silver platter.
I reckognize that attempting to do a task as efficient as possible is "fun" for people, but only to a certain extent. I doubt the majority of people would use a form of clock to time how efficiently they are doing this and that. I doubt also the majority of people would start doing extensive calculations and investigate the damage formula to figure out the most efficient gear and skill rotations against different targets, unless they are handed to them on a silver platter.
Virtually nobody is going to use a clock to time their efficiency (although if the game provides a leaderboard, a fair chunk of players -- though not the majority -- are going to compete.)
The point is that in all but the most easily-solved game patterns, there's usually quite a bit of fun to be had repeating things for a while. And even on the very far end up the spectrum (having repeated the system a lot) there is usually more fun to be had than a complete void of gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm not sure the problem with new style games with fast travel is really much of a problem. Radically fast is, yes. Allowing players to achieve level ten in two hours only to get a mount as you make it to your main city is a good example of ridiculous.
No community anymore :
1) Fast leveling,
2) Dungeon finders,
3) Long chain quest
Face it the " evil 3 " had wiped out the community. This is the BOTTOM LINE !
Really think about it....When did guilds and friends list and social interacting begin to deteriorate in mmo's ?....When World of Warcraft introduced dungeon finders !
Really think about it....When was the last time making friends in game deteriorate in mmo's...When World of Warcraft introduced fast leveling. Take a day off and your new friend is 12 levels ahead of you.
World of Warcraft is imploding very slowly. Closed minded developers of other mmo's are following the path. Yet, there mmos are falling apart in less than 30 days !...Why so fast ?...Because their not World of Warcraft. Why do most get sick of Rift ?....Fast leveling, Dungeon finders, Long chain quest.
SWTOR is popular, yet, it's not even released yet !!....It's StarWars....PEOPLE ARE NOT FLOCKING TO THIS GAME BECAUSE OF THE VOICE ACTING...It's StarWars...many will stay for the long hall because...it's StarWars...Many will not because it has Fast leveling, long chain quest...This spells solo !
Specifiy MMORPG PvE decisions that are fresh, non-repetitive and that are always available to replace the time "lost" in the travel timesink. Because unless there are meaningful (repetitive decisions are always meaningless and just timesinks) decisions to substitute the time "lost", then why trade one timesink for another timesink?
Repetitive gameplay is as bad as no gameplay: practically just another timesink.
Repeating a certain form of gameplay over and over again is waste of time, is it not? There needs to be significant variation to be at least somewhat entertaining.
So let's say you were locked in a room for a month with food and a special computer terminal, and this terminal could either (your choice) do absolutely nothing or let you play a game you've played before.
What do you feel will be more entertaining? No gameplay, or repeat gameplay?
Again, you are assuming that repeat travel = no entertainment value, while repeat combat = low entertainment value.....
Those are not neccesarly fair assumptions.....and I would hazard to guess, though I don't have any data to back it up, that most PEOPLE (though not neccesarly most MMO gamers) would prefer the virtual traveling where nothing happaned if there was at least some nice scenery to see along the way.....then pressing a sequence of the 1,2 & 3 keys over and over again in a repeat sequence to defeat the same boss in the same perdictable fashion in some Raid.
Again, you are assuming that repeat travel = no entertainment value, while repeat combat = low entertainment value.....
Those are not neccesarly fair assumptions.....and I would hazard to guess, though I don't have any data to back it up, that most PEOPLE (though not neccesarly most MMO gamers) would prefer the virtual traveling where nothing happaned if there was at least some nice scenery to see along the way.....then pressing a sequence of the 1,2 & 3 keys over and over again in a repeat sequence to defeat the same boss in the same perdictable fashion in some Raid.
If repeat travel has gameplay, it has entertainment value.
The issue is that the actual examples of travel in games predominantly are (a) no gameplay or (b) very very little gameplay (like dodging a tough mob or finding a path up a mountain.)
It's the lack of interesting decisions (which is a result of travel not being a design focus) which causes repeat travel to be a game design sin. Driving players to a feature which isn't very polished and doesn't have much gameplay to it is just a bad idea. Polishing the hell out of a feature and afterwards driving players to it is a good idea. But since we have no actual examples of games with good travel (except perhaps very odd games like Puzzle Pirates,) it's safe to say that travel is very undesirable compared to combat*.
(*or whatever the primary gameplay system is, it doesn't actually have to be combat. Combat in MMORPGs just typically happens to be the system the designers put the most effort into, in terms of offering interesting decisions.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Again, you are assuming that repeat travel = no entertainment value, while repeat combat = low entertainment value.....
Those are not neccesarly fair assumptions.....and I would hazard to guess, though I don't have any data to back it up, that most PEOPLE (though not neccesarly most MMO gamers) would prefer the virtual traveling where nothing happaned if there was at least some nice scenery to see along the way.....then pressing a sequence of the 1,2 & 3 keys over and over again in a repeat sequence to defeat the same boss in the same perdictable fashion in some Raid.
I would hazard a guess that most people would prefer to do neither and actually do something interesting and stimulating. Personally I would ratehr go watch TV or play with my cats. You can't just set the problem up as a false dichtonomy and get meaningfull results.
Give me meaningfull gameplay in a MMORPG and then we can forget discussion on whetehr I would rather drink cat or dog urine.
Again, you are assuming that repeat travel = no entertainment value, while repeat combat = low entertainment value.....
Those are not neccesarly fair assumptions.....and I would hazard to guess, though I don't have any data to back it up, that most PEOPLE (though not neccesarly most MMO gamers) would prefer the virtual traveling where nothing happaned if there was at least some nice scenery to see along the way.....then pressing a sequence of the 1,2 & 3 keys over and over again in a repeat sequence to defeat the same boss in the same perdictable fashion in some Raid.
If repeat travel has gameplay, it has entertainment value.
The issue is that the actual examples of travel in games predominantly are (a) no gameplay or (b) very very little gameplay (like dodging a tough mob or finding a path up a mountain.)
It's the lack of interesting decisions (which is a result of travel not being a design focus) which causes repeat travel to be a game design sin. Driving players to a feature which isn't very polished and doesn't have much gameplay to it is just a bad idea. Polishing the hell out of a feature and afterwards driving players to it is a good idea. But since we have no actual examples of games with good travel (except perhaps very odd games like Puzzle Pirates,) it's safe to say that travel is very undesirable compared to combat*.
(*or whatever the primary gameplay system is, it doesn't actually have to be combat. Combat in MMORPGs just typically happens to be the system the designers put the most effort into, in terms of offering interesting decisions.)
1) "Gameplay" isn't the only form of entertainment that exists within games, at least not Multi-Player Games. There are plenty of people that enjoy simply sitting in a pub/tavern socializing with other players for part of thier play time.... no actual "gameplay decisions" involved in such activity (in fact, social sites/services are generaly more popular then games overall).
There is no real "game-play" involved in the reading of most books in Skyrim for example.... but they've invested alot of effort in creating that body of work and many people spend considerable amount of time reading them..... the same holds true for cinematics and cut-scenes that are popular in many modern games. Heck, even with WOW....one of the things I've heard repeatedly commented on were that the Griffon rides were better then the instant teleports in other games because they gave the player the feeling of actualy traveling between locations and allowed them to see interesting bits of scenery on the way. That's one thing that helps create a sense of immersion for the player that has been talked about by other posters here.
2) The idea that there are no games out there where travel plays an important role in gameplay is simply FALSE. There may be no games that YOU personaly enjoy or find interesting...but that certainly doesn't mean there are no games at all. EVE is an example of one, WWII Online Another, Planetside another..... Mount & Blade would be an example of an offline game.
Pretty much any PvP based game with a large map....travel becomes an important consideration...... because the TIME it takes for reinforcements to reach the combat zone becomes an important factor in play...and in determining the outcome of gameplay.... it's also the case that getting from Point A to Point B in those games is NOT simply just a forgone conclusion that involves no gameplay elements..... hostile forces can and will often seek to interdict such travel.... this may involve infiltration and ambushes......harrassment sniping......straffing by air.....encirclements, vertical envelopment, etc. The travel is an important factor in the gameplay dynamic.
Same holds true for alot of different types of games......whether they are resource building.... and travel time/effort is just another resource to attempt to manage/factor...... or more social oriented games where you are encountering OTHER PLAYERS traveling that may or may not provide some opportunity to interact with them. Travel can even help function as a sense of downtime to help control pacing in a game.
I think you are just used to a specific type of game. I think you are just used to a specific type of game with a specific style of gameplay where Dev's have not placed much thought or effort into the role travel can play....and don't use it as a gameplay element.
Again, you are assuming that repeat travel = no entertainment value, while repeat combat = low entertainment value.....
Those are not neccesarly fair assumptions.....and I would hazard to guess, though I don't have any data to back it up, that most PEOPLE (though not neccesarly most MMO gamers) would prefer the virtual traveling where nothing happaned if there was at least some nice scenery to see along the way.....then pressing a sequence of the 1,2 & 3 keys over and over again in a repeat sequence to defeat the same boss in the same perdictable fashion in some Raid.
I would hazard a guess that most people would prefer to do neither and actually do something interesting and stimulating. Personally I would ratehr go watch TV or play with my cats. You can't just set the problem up as a false dichtonomy and get meaningfull results.
Give me meaningfull gameplay in a MMORPG and then we can forget discussion on whetehr I would rather drink cat or dog urine.
Very well put....and I agree. Most people simply seek to do something fun with thier time....what that "fun" thing is will vary from person to person and upon that persons mood.
To use a real world analogy that fits well into this discussion. Many people dislike walking....to them it's simply some burdensome thing they have to do in order to get from one place they want to be to another place they want to be. They may even begrudge the 20 yd walk from a parking lot to the store they want to go to.
Me, I enjoy walking. I like hiking, I like taking walks around the neighborhood....when I'm on vacation and visiting someplace, I'll often choose to walk between destinations rather then take a cab or other local transportation. The walk isn't a burden because I enjoy it...and I even appreciate the excersize that affords.
So is walking a "timesink" or it "entertainment"....the answer will vary depending upon the preferences of the individual that you ask.
Re Slow travel that this discussion sprouted from, within the context of a mmorg slow travel is enjoyable for many, as it not in isolation, and forms part of the immersion factor that is integral to successful virtual worlds - not action games, virtual worlds. It depends on your perspective, if you want constant action then slow travel does becomes a hindrence - you are really loooking for an action orientated style of game. Fast instances and queues are not immersive, and immersion is very important for mmorgs and this has to be balanced and should be considered in any evaluation. You could argue Immersion is a product of mmorg synergies.
Do you feel Skyrim isn't immersive? Because it has exactly the type of fast travel that makes the most sense -- which is to say you slow travel a god damn lot, but you only slow travel to someplace new -- and remains one of the most immersive games of all time (because the other aspects of immersion are so much more important than whether you waste a lot of time traveling.)
This isn't about all action all the time; there are degrees of intentional slow pacing that designers -- like movie directors -- use in order to establish a desired feel to gameplay. But a 10-minute EVE AFK-travel sequence is like the movie director who decides to put five 10-minute intermissions throughout their 1.5 hour film: well beyond an intentional pacing mechanism, it disintegrates the capability of the film to entertain.
skyrim is an awsome immersive single player game, i love it. Yup I would also hate a 10 minute interval in a film. Nothing to do with old school/sandboxy mmorgs, but hey I agree with you, lets leave it there :P
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Reold school mmorgs, I would argue that what people refer to when they speak about them is immersion. It is interesting when you chat to teenagers today about gaming, to them it is about high octane high graphics, fast game play and Constant rewards, constant adrenaline spikes. They seem to genuinly struggle with anything that requires the player to use their imagination or dont constantly provide that next high/entertaiment reward. same applies to books, they just dont get it. Watch kids when they play games like Call of Duty or Battlegrounds - do they look content or happy, do they even look if thay are enjoying the game? or are they getting restless because they have not had an adrenalin hit from a kill or reward.
That is maybe the difference with old-school players and the modern player, old school have learned to empathise with their character and emotionally invest in a game, they have had to use their imagination more, and they are used to being actively involved in the development of their own gaming experience.
The old school players is looking for a new world to let their imagination run free once more. The new school players wants that new set of rewarding highs, so obvious answer is have 2 types of game so everyone is happy.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
1) "Gameplay" isn't the only form of entertainment that exists within games, at least not Multi-Player Games. There are plenty of people that enjoy simply sitting in a pub/tavern socializing with other players for part of thier play time.... no actual "gameplay decisions" involved in such activity (in fact, social sites/services are generaly more popular then games overall).
There is no real "game-play" involved in the reading of most books in Skyrim for example.... but they've invested alot of effort in creating that body of work and many people spend considerable amount of time reading them..... the same holds true for cinematics and cut-scenes that are popular in many modern games. Heck, even with WOW....one of the things I've heard repeatedly commented on were that the Griffon rides were better then the instant teleports in other games because they gave the player the feeling of actualy traveling between locations and allowed them to see interesting bits of scenery on the way. That's one thing that helps create a sense of immersion for the player that has been talked about by other posters here.
2) The idea that there are no games out there where travel plays an important role in gameplay is simply FALSE. There may be no games that YOU personaly enjoy or find interesting...but that certainly doesn't mean there are no games at all. EVE is an example of one, WWII Online Another, Planetside another..... Mount & Blade would be an example of an offline game.
Pretty much any PvP based game with a large map....travel becomes an important consideration...... because the TIME it takes for reinforcements to reach the combat zone becomes an important factor in play...and in determining the outcome of gameplay.... it's also the case that getting from Point A to Point B in those games is NOT simply just a forgone conclusion that involves no gameplay elements..... hostile forces can and will often seek to interdict such travel.... this may involve infiltration and ambushes......harrassment sniping......straffing by air.....encirclements, vertical envelopment, etc. The travel is an important factor in the gameplay dynamic.
Same holds true for alot of different types of games......whether they are resource building.... and travel time/effort is just another resource to attempt to manage/factor...... or more social oriented games where you are encountering OTHER PLAYERS traveling that may or may not provide some opportunity to interact with them. Travel can even help function as a sense of downtime to help control pacing in a game.
I think you are just used to a specific type of game. I think you are just used to a specific type of game with a specific style of gameplay where Dev's have not placed much thought or effort into the role travel can play....and don't use it as a gameplay element.
1. It's true there are more things to enjoy in a game than gameplay. However for most players, gameplay is paramount. Socialization is high on the list usually (and sometimes above gameplay), and having an immersive or beautiful world is great too.
However you can get all those things without forcing repeat travel. Skyrim gives me all of the immersion/beauty of exploring a world without forcing me to repeat explore anything!
2. I've never said travel wasn't important in EVE, only that it isn't fun. When a game values its players' time, it sends players to the best features frequently and the worst features infrequently. But EVE makes travel an important and frequent requirement without making it fun.
The issue is that from a player's perspective the progressively higher cost of AFKing longer had better buy them progressively more interesting gameplay. In Planetside, the payoff was that you'd frequently end travel at some of the most epic combat you can consistently find in a game. But with EVE, you frequently arrive at a destination which involves (a) more AFKing (mining) or (b) just an auction house and quest giver (station) or very rarely (c) lopsided PVP or even more rarely (d) a good standup PVP fight (giving EVE the benefit of the doubt on this one; I never experienced it) or (e) dull PVE. From the perspective of most players, these are not destinations which feel like worthwhile purchases considering the excessive cost (in time and dullness.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1) "Gameplay" isn't the only form of entertainment that exists within games, at least not Multi-Player Games. There are plenty of people that enjoy simply sitting in a pub/tavern socializing with other players for part of thier play time.... no actual "gameplay decisions" involved in such activity (in fact, social sites/services are generaly more popular then games overall).
There is no real "game-play" involved in the reading of most books in Skyrim for example.... but they've invested alot of effort in creating that body of work and many people spend considerable amount of time reading them..... the same holds true for cinematics and cut-scenes that are popular in many modern games. Heck, even with WOW....one of the things I've heard repeatedly commented on were that the Griffon rides were better then the instant teleports in other games because they gave the player the feeling of actualy traveling between locations and allowed them to see interesting bits of scenery on the way. That's one thing that helps create a sense of immersion for the player that has been talked about by other posters here.
2) The idea that there are no games out there where travel plays an important role in gameplay is simply FALSE. There may be no games that YOU personaly enjoy or find interesting...but that certainly doesn't mean there are no games at all. EVE is an example of one, WWII Online Another, Planetside another..... Mount & Blade would be an example of an offline game.
Pretty much any PvP based game with a large map....travel becomes an important consideration...... because the TIME it takes for reinforcements to reach the combat zone becomes an important factor in play...and in determining the outcome of gameplay.... it's also the case that getting from Point A to Point B in those games is NOT simply just a forgone conclusion that involves no gameplay elements..... hostile forces can and will often seek to interdict such travel.... this may involve infiltration and ambushes......harrassment sniping......straffing by air.....encirclements, vertical envelopment, etc. The travel is an important factor in the gameplay dynamic.
Same holds true for alot of different types of games......whether they are resource building.... and travel time/effort is just another resource to attempt to manage/factor...... or more social oriented games where you are encountering OTHER PLAYERS traveling that may or may not provide some opportunity to interact with them. Travel can even help function as a sense of downtime to help control pacing in a game.
I think you are just used to a specific type of game. I think you are just used to a specific type of game with a specific style of gameplay where Dev's have not placed much thought or effort into the role travel can play....and don't use it as a gameplay element.
1. It's true there are more things to enjoy in a game than gameplay. However for most players, gameplay is paramount. Socialization is high on the list usually (and sometimes above gameplay), and having an immersive or beautiful world is great too.
However you can get all those things without forcing repeat travel. Skyrim gives me all of the immersion/beauty of exploring a world without forcing me to repeat explore anything!
2. I've never said travel wasn't important in EVE, only that it isn't fun. When a game values its players' time, it sends players to the best features frequently and the worst features infrequently. But EVE makes travel an important and frequent requirement without making it fun.
The issue is that from a player's perspective the progressively higher cost of AFKing longer had better buy them progressively more interesting gameplay. In Planetside, the payoff was that you'd frequently end travel at some of the most epic combat you can consistently find in a game. But with EVE, you frequently arrive at a destination which involves (a) more AFKing (mining) or (b) just an auction house and quest giver (station) or very rarely (c) lopsided PVP or even more rarely (d) a good standup PVP fight (giving EVE the benefit of the doubt on this one; I never experienced it) or (e) dull PVE. From the perspective of most players, these are not destinations which feel like worthwhile purchases considering the excessive cost (in time and dullness.)
So you are saying you don't like large scale PVP. Because it necessitates having travel times. Look at any test based browser strategy game. Travel time varies buts its almost always a few hours or more.
In Warring Factions I once constructed a warpnet over 2 weeks, slower but I messed with the research system to get good warpnet ships, sent my fleet 100mkm above the plane of the galaxy and slammed the enemy homeworld with no warning. It was pretty cool to pwn a homeworld by myself but it required that long travel time.
So you are saying you don't like large scale PVP. Because it necessitates having travel times. Look at any test based browser strategy game. Travel time varies buts its almost always a few hours or more.
In Warring Factions I once constructed a warpnet over 2 weeks, slower but I messed with the research system to get good warpnet ships, sent my fleet 100mkm above the plane of the galaxy and slammed the enemy homeworld with no warning. It was pretty cool to pwn a homeworld by myself but it required that long travel time.
Large scale PVP is amazing. Maybe that's somethign EVE and Darkfall should consider offering on a non-rare basis.
Because with BF3 and Planetside, being able to login and consistently find awesome, epic, huge PVP battles is amazing!
So basically if large-scale PVP is what a player is after, there's no justification to hide that PVP behind timesinks and make it rare (as it is in DF/EVE). The only players who actually want that are the ones pushing for world simulation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So you are saying you don't like large scale PVP. Because it necessitates having travel times. Look at any test based browser strategy game. Travel time varies buts its almost always a few hours or more.
In Warring Factions I once constructed a warpnet over 2 weeks, slower but I messed with the research system to get good warpnet ships, sent my fleet 100mkm above the plane of the galaxy and slammed the enemy homeworld with no warning. It was pretty cool to pwn a homeworld by myself but it required that long travel time.
Large scale PVP is amazing. Maybe that's somethign EVE and Darkfall should consider offering on a non-rare basis.
Because with BF3 and Planetside, being able to login and consistently find awesome, epic, huge PVP battles is amazing!
Except that BF3 isn't an RPG. Why do you insist on comparing games with such wildly different goals? BF3 is a twitch FPS.
Comments
Are you really trying to argue that the majority of people genuinly love repeating the exact same gameplay, without any significant variation whatsoever, over and over again?
To really know for sure, one would have to find a reliable psychological study in the subject, which I don't have and I doubt you have either.
In my experience, people get bored from repeating their actions unless there is a significant difference connected to those actions.
For instance, PvP battles are subject to many different variables due to the complexity attached to having to fight against human opponents. Common areas in which PvP battles may vary a lot are for example: gear, class-composition and player-trajectories.
On the other hand, doing a daily quest which requires you to deliver goods to static npcs at static locations, has little if any variation. The first few times it may be enjoyable, per se, but after a few rounds it only becomes a burden which you only do to gain rewards.
In a similar fashion, static dungeon/raid experiences are only genuinely fun for X amount of times, after that it becomes a chore which you do to gain rewards or sometimes to help someone else out.
If we look at single-player games, such as rpgs and adventure ones, a common way to create significant variation is by introducing new locations, new story and new encounters.
Did I actually read that WoW was old school? Next thing I am gonna read is how it was a sandbox too I guess.
WoW took newer features of EQ that were making EQ horrible and not old school anymore and amplified them.
I don't have a psychological study, only a book written by a renowned designer (and one of the best books on general game design): A Theory of Fun by Raph Koster.
Where he basically describes the basis of fun being pattern recognition. But recognizing a pattern by definition requires repetition -- so yes, I absolutely know that players find repetition fun. Repetition is absolutely required for something to be fun!
Excessive repetition becomes less and less interesting, but typically provides a non-zero level of fun for the majority of players until they feel they've totally mastered a game's patterns. It all depends on how solvable the game mechanics are (for example, it's very easy to completely solve Tic Tac Toe and tie every game, yet it's harder to finish those Daily Quests in the absolute minimum amount of time each day. The trace gameplay, even after a lot of repetition, is why players clearly have more fun doing something than nothing.
I mean you have to admit that when given a choice, the overwhelming majority of players would choose to replay a dungeon than have an AFKable timesink for the same 20 minutes (except done in a way where actually going AFK resets the timer.) Neither situation is all that appealing, but players play games to play them -- not to be played.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Have you ever played Elite or Starport GE INFaVilla? People run trade routes over and over, the same routes and optimize money for time. Buy low/Sell high. And thats only one example of a type of game. Games involve playing over and over until you have the optimal strategy. Once you know you will win no matter what you may quit. This is why often the smartest players get over a given game much faster, because they "beat it". And yes you can "beat" a persistant world, even if you include random factors, unless the randomness is incredibly high. This is why emergent gameplay is such a high ideal, because its much more difficult to "beat".
well we have different experiences RE % of problematic instances, so lets go with your 98% instance of all runs are full of happy campers in wow and leave it at that.
Re Slow travel that this discussion sprouted from, within the context of a mmorg slow travel is enjoyable for many, as it not in isolation, and forms part of the immersion factor that is integral to successful virtual worlds - not action games, virtual worlds. It depends on your perspective, if you want constant action then slow travel does becomes a hindrence - you are really loooking for an action orientated style of game. Fast instances and queues are not immersive, and immersion is very important for mmorgs and this has to be balanced and should be considered in any evaluation. You could argue Immersion is a product of mmorg synergies. If you dont get the balance right, 1 negative effect is that you get sterile virtual worlds and poor immersion which we can see today.
edit There was a surnmary of mmorg players a few years ago as part of a study which discusses many of the less action orientated activites within mmorgs and how humans dont just get rewards from elements of achievment. http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_intro.html good read. look at Avatar and Identity in particular.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
The immersion impact of slow travel is propotional to how immersive the virtual world is that you travel through. If the world is immersive then travel will be an immersive experience and add to the gameplay. If the world is sterile then the travel will result in a sterile experience and subtract from gameplay.
Agreed, I think they compliment each other.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Do you feel Skyrim isn't immersive? Because it has exactly the type of fast travel that makes the most sense -- which is to say you slow travel a god damn lot, but you only slow travel to someplace new -- and remains one of the most immersive games of all time (because the other aspects of immersion are so much more important than whether you waste a lot of time traveling.)
This isn't about all action all the time; there are degrees of intentional slow pacing that designers -- like movie directors -- use in order to establish a desired feel to gameplay. But a 10-minute EVE AFK-travel sequence is like the movie director who decides to put five 10-minute intermissions throughout their 1.5 hour film: well beyond an intentional pacing mechanism, it disintegrates the capability of the film to entertain.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pattern recognition requires similarity yes, but the variation may still be significant.
For instance the number series 1, 3, 5, 7 has same pattern as 19, 21, 23, 25 but there is still a significant variation in how that pattern is presented.
Also 1, 3, 5, 7 has a similar but not exactly the same pattern as 19, 22, 25, 28.
I reckognize that attempting to do a task as efficient as possible is "fun" for people, but only to a certain extent. I doubt the majority of people would use a form of clock to time how efficiently they are doing this and that. I doubt also the majority of people would start doing extensive calculations and investigate the damage formula to figure out the most efficient gear and skill rotations against different targets, unless they are handed to them on a silver platter.
Virtually nobody is going to use a clock to time their efficiency (although if the game provides a leaderboard, a fair chunk of players -- though not the majority -- are going to compete.)
The point is that in all but the most easily-solved game patterns, there's usually quite a bit of fun to be had repeating things for a while. And even on the very far end up the spectrum (having repeated the system a lot) there is usually more fun to be had than a complete void of gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm not sure the problem with new style games with fast travel is really much of a problem. Radically fast is, yes. Allowing players to achieve level ten in two hours only to get a mount as you make it to your main city is a good example of ridiculous.
No community anymore :
1) Fast leveling,
2) Dungeon finders,
3) Long chain quest
Face it the " evil 3 " had wiped out the community. This is the BOTTOM LINE !
Really think about it....When did guilds and friends list and social interacting begin to deteriorate in mmo's ?....When World of Warcraft introduced dungeon finders !
Really think about it....When was the last time making friends in game deteriorate in mmo's...When World of Warcraft introduced fast leveling. Take a day off and your new friend is 12 levels ahead of you.
World of Warcraft is imploding very slowly. Closed minded developers of other mmo's are following the path. Yet, there mmos are falling apart in less than 30 days !...Why so fast ?...Because their not World of Warcraft. Why do most get sick of Rift ?....Fast leveling, Dungeon finders, Long chain quest.
SWTOR is popular, yet, it's not even released yet !!....It's StarWars....PEOPLE ARE NOT FLOCKING TO THIS GAME BECAUSE OF THE VOICE ACTING...It's StarWars...many will stay for the long hall because...it's StarWars...Many will not because it has Fast leveling, long chain quest...This spells solo !
Old school gameplay with next gen graphics, and of course a very indepth lore
Again, you are assuming that repeat travel = no entertainment value, while repeat combat = low entertainment value.....
Those are not neccesarly fair assumptions.....and I would hazard to guess, though I don't have any data to back it up, that most PEOPLE (though not neccesarly most MMO gamers) would prefer the virtual traveling where nothing happaned if there was at least some nice scenery to see along the way.....then pressing a sequence of the 1,2 & 3 keys over and over again in a repeat sequence to defeat the same boss in the same perdictable fashion in some Raid.
If repeat travel has gameplay, it has entertainment value.
The issue is that the actual examples of travel in games predominantly are (a) no gameplay or (b) very very little gameplay (like dodging a tough mob or finding a path up a mountain.)
It's the lack of interesting decisions (which is a result of travel not being a design focus) which causes repeat travel to be a game design sin. Driving players to a feature which isn't very polished and doesn't have much gameplay to it is just a bad idea. Polishing the hell out of a feature and afterwards driving players to it is a good idea. But since we have no actual examples of games with good travel (except perhaps very odd games like Puzzle Pirates,) it's safe to say that travel is very undesirable compared to combat*.
(*or whatever the primary gameplay system is, it doesn't actually have to be combat. Combat in MMORPGs just typically happens to be the system the designers put the most effort into, in terms of offering interesting decisions.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I would hazard a guess that most people would prefer to do neither and actually do something interesting and stimulating. Personally I would ratehr go watch TV or play with my cats. You can't just set the problem up as a false dichtonomy and get meaningfull results.
Give me meaningfull gameplay in a MMORPG and then we can forget discussion on whetehr I would rather drink cat or dog urine.
1) "Gameplay" isn't the only form of entertainment that exists within games, at least not Multi-Player Games. There are plenty of people that enjoy simply sitting in a pub/tavern socializing with other players for part of thier play time.... no actual "gameplay decisions" involved in such activity (in fact, social sites/services are generaly more popular then games overall).
There is no real "game-play" involved in the reading of most books in Skyrim for example.... but they've invested alot of effort in creating that body of work and many people spend considerable amount of time reading them..... the same holds true for cinematics and cut-scenes that are popular in many modern games. Heck, even with WOW....one of the things I've heard repeatedly commented on were that the Griffon rides were better then the instant teleports in other games because they gave the player the feeling of actualy traveling between locations and allowed them to see interesting bits of scenery on the way. That's one thing that helps create a sense of immersion for the player that has been talked about by other posters here.
2) The idea that there are no games out there where travel plays an important role in gameplay is simply FALSE. There may be no games that YOU personaly enjoy or find interesting...but that certainly doesn't mean there are no games at all. EVE is an example of one, WWII Online Another, Planetside another..... Mount & Blade would be an example of an offline game.
Pretty much any PvP based game with a large map....travel becomes an important consideration...... because the TIME it takes for reinforcements to reach the combat zone becomes an important factor in play...and in determining the outcome of gameplay.... it's also the case that getting from Point A to Point B in those games is NOT simply just a forgone conclusion that involves no gameplay elements..... hostile forces can and will often seek to interdict such travel.... this may involve infiltration and ambushes......harrassment sniping......straffing by air.....encirclements, vertical envelopment, etc. The travel is an important factor in the gameplay dynamic.
Same holds true for alot of different types of games......whether they are resource building.... and travel time/effort is just another resource to attempt to manage/factor...... or more social oriented games where you are encountering OTHER PLAYERS traveling that may or may not provide some opportunity to interact with them. Travel can even help function as a sense of downtime to help control pacing in a game.
I think you are just used to a specific type of game. I think you are just used to a specific type of game with a specific style of gameplay where Dev's have not placed much thought or effort into the role travel can play....and don't use it as a gameplay element.
Very well put....and I agree. Most people simply seek to do something fun with thier time....what that "fun" thing is will vary from person to person and upon that persons mood.
To use a real world analogy that fits well into this discussion. Many people dislike walking....to them it's simply some burdensome thing they have to do in order to get from one place they want to be to another place they want to be. They may even begrudge the 20 yd walk from a parking lot to the store they want to go to.
Me, I enjoy walking. I like hiking, I like taking walks around the neighborhood....when I'm on vacation and visiting someplace, I'll often choose to walk between destinations rather then take a cab or other local transportation. The walk isn't a burden because I enjoy it...and I even appreciate the excersize that affords.
So is walking a "timesink" or it "entertainment"....the answer will vary depending upon the preferences of the individual that you ask.
skyrim is an awsome immersive single player game, i love it. Yup I would also hate a 10 minute interval in a film. Nothing to do with old school/sandboxy mmorgs, but hey I agree with you, lets leave it there :P
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Reold school mmorgs, I would argue that what people refer to when they speak about them is immersion. It is interesting when you chat to teenagers today about gaming, to them it is about high octane high graphics, fast game play and Constant rewards, constant adrenaline spikes. They seem to genuinly struggle with anything that requires the player to use their imagination or dont constantly provide that next high/entertaiment reward. same applies to books, they just dont get it. Watch kids when they play games like Call of Duty or Battlegrounds - do they look content or happy, do they even look if thay are enjoying the game? or are they getting restless because they have not had an adrenalin hit from a kill or reward.
That is maybe the difference with old-school players and the modern player, old school have learned to empathise with their character and emotionally invest in a game, they have had to use their imagination more, and they are used to being actively involved in the development of their own gaming experience.
The old school players is looking for a new world to let their imagination run free once more. The new school players wants that new set of rewarding highs, so obvious answer is have 2 types of game so everyone is happy.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
1. It's true there are more things to enjoy in a game than gameplay. However for most players, gameplay is paramount. Socialization is high on the list usually (and sometimes above gameplay), and having an immersive or beautiful world is great too.
However you can get all those things without forcing repeat travel. Skyrim gives me all of the immersion/beauty of exploring a world without forcing me to repeat explore anything!
2. I've never said travel wasn't important in EVE, only that it isn't fun. When a game values its players' time, it sends players to the best features frequently and the worst features infrequently. But EVE makes travel an important and frequent requirement without making it fun.
The issue is that from a player's perspective the progressively higher cost of AFKing longer had better buy them progressively more interesting gameplay. In Planetside, the payoff was that you'd frequently end travel at some of the most epic combat you can consistently find in a game. But with EVE, you frequently arrive at a destination which involves (a) more AFKing (mining) or (b) just an auction house and quest giver (station) or very rarely (c) lopsided PVP or even more rarely (d) a good standup PVP fight (giving EVE the benefit of the doubt on this one; I never experienced it) or (e) dull PVE. From the perspective of most players, these are not destinations which feel like worthwhile purchases considering the excessive cost (in time and dullness.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So you are saying you don't like large scale PVP. Because it necessitates having travel times. Look at any test based browser strategy game. Travel time varies buts its almost always a few hours or more.
In Warring Factions I once constructed a warpnet over 2 weeks, slower but I messed with the research system to get good warpnet ships, sent my fleet 100mkm above the plane of the galaxy and slammed the enemy homeworld with no warning. It was pretty cool to pwn a homeworld by myself but it required that long travel time.
Large scale PVP is amazing. Maybe that's somethign EVE and Darkfall should consider offering on a non-rare basis.
Because with BF3 and Planetside, being able to login and consistently find awesome, epic, huge PVP battles is amazing!
So basically if large-scale PVP is what a player is after, there's no justification to hide that PVP behind timesinks and make it rare (as it is in DF/EVE). The only players who actually want that are the ones pushing for world simulation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Except that BF3 isn't an RPG. Why do you insist on comparing games with such wildly different goals? BF3 is a twitch FPS.