Skyrim is a single player game and isn't plagued by the same degree of repetition that is common to MMORPGs. Single player games are able to offer far higher varation/hour ratio compared to MMORPGs due to the signifacantely lower life expectancy.
While a single player game is usually not primarely intended to last more than 100 hours, a MMORPG is, which makes MMORPGs far more plagued by repetition than single player games. This is why, instant travel is far better (even though only to a certain extent) in single player games than it is in MMORPGs: single player games have the resources to provide a far more entertaining alternative.
Until MMORPGs are able to have a similar budget per ingame hour compared to high-profile single player games, they cannot be seen in the same light.
That's all true, except for the idea that they're somehow completely different. Just because MMORPGs are designed to last longer (and therefore inevitably involve more repetition) does not prevent them from being immersive with fast travel.
It's fair to point out you'll experience greater repetition. But what hasn't changed is the idea that the repetition should certainly be spent predominantly in the best-polished best-designed features. A game should strongly limit how often (and for how long) it sends players to the weaker-designed systems.
You're going to spend more overall time in a MMORPG, so we expect to spend more time in those weaker systems, but the proportion of engagement with Good Features vs. Bad Features should still remain the same (strongly weighted towards the former.)
To even get close to the same "proportion of engagement with Good Features vs. Bad Features", they need to at least have the same "development money" / "ingame hour" at their disposal. That isn't happening currently, and I don't think MMORPGs will have such gigantic budgets for a long time to come.
Chess is not a social or group centered game. If you already have BF3 and Chess why do you need more games with the same pvp?
Games get old. You're not still playing the first game you ever played, so I'm sure you already knew that.
(As an aside, Chess is pretty darn social.)
While 90% of my PVPing in the last few years has been group-based, I'm a little curious why you think the social or group side of things matters? A great, non-social, 1v1 PVP game is still fun. Are there no RTS or Fighting games you enjoy?
Again, all are able tons of fun without excessive AFKable activities. No 5-minute timeout for losing a piece in Chess. Instant queueing/server joining in any PVP to be found online. The only exception is a few MMORPGs, and only when they're world simulation-focused.
That's really the solitary part that holds back sandbox success. The first polished sandbox to embrace being a game first and foremost (and worry about simulation afterwards, if they can fit it in) is going to hit it pretty big. People love customizing and creating things, but the game has to be fun. And diluting the fun with a lot of inconveniences and time-wasting is the quickest way to make something feel bland and boring.
I do in fact still play my first great gaming love. Its called Tactics Arena Online and its a sort of battle chess type thing I guess. The dev disappeared and the distributor flash player studios isnt allowed to add new content and the game is 8 years old but they still make enough money to run the servers and lots of vets are still around. I also still play many many other games I played in my first year or two of gaming. So suck it smart ass.
How the hell is a 1v1 competitive chess game social? Social games are games that have game play focused on cooperation and socializing. Just because you can talk to your opponent in chess doesn't make it a social game. It can be social, still not a social game.
What part of MMO grind is not inconvenient and time wasting? If you ever played warring factions you wouldn't care about the long fleet travel times across the 73 galaxies and 100000 star systems. You have planning and econ management and plenty of things to do. Sure most browser based strategy games don't sim all the way to the lowest level, but that doesn't mean its not fun. I love ATITD and there are long long travel lags there and loads of mat grinding.
See you keep saying you don't like mmorpgs and then you keep refusing to admit it! Why don't we just redefine mmorpg to battlefield 3 and then you can be happy, and we can invent a new term for mmorpg and clarify its meaning at the start so we don't have anymore definition drama. MMORPG has hereby been renamed as "online persistent synchronus world where players interact with each other within the same gameworld all the time". Bam! Now go away while we dicuss pvp in OPSWWPIWEOWTSGATTs!
Like the majority of MMORPG players, I love a good PVE MMORPG.
But MMORPGs are notoriously bad for PVP. If the PVP quality justified the huge timesinks involved and rare PVP, then that'd be one thing (Planetside PVP often involved ~60 second timesinks, yet it justified itself by providing the most epic warfare in a PVP game.) But they don't -- they have even worse PVP than typical PVP games because non-skill factors make things casual, and often very one-sided. So you have the worst of all worlds.
However a good PVE MMORPG with polished combat and controls and no unnecessary timesinks? I'd be all over that. That was essentially why WOW exploded in popularity -- strip out the unnecessary timesinks and hassles; focus on gameplay.
Again your drawing a conclusion without any real data to substantiate it. WOW exploded in popularity, to know why you'd at least have to have access to some real market research....and even companies that have done real market research don't seem to have that solid a handle on it....as no one that has tried to emulate that popularity has even come close to date.
Bottom line, it's not always easy or obvious to understand why something which is popular became that way. At best, people have educated guesses.
Just as many if not more browser game players as WoW players play the sort of time sink infested pvp you seem to hate so much.
When you compare all diluted PVP with just WOW players, you're probably right.
But when you compare all diluted competitive gaming with all undiluted competitive gaming (all sports, RTS, FPS, MOBA, boardgames) you quickly realize that diluted PVP is a tiny drop in the ocean of competitive gaming.
It's reasonably popular due to how casual it is, but most players still seem to favor PVP which is about skillful competition (where non-skill elements are minimized or virtually nonexistant.)
The only reason more MMORPG PVP is diluted than undiluted is that all RPGs by definition are diluted by a non-skill element (player progression.) But most competitive gaming actually happens in "fair fight" style true competition where skill is by far the primary deciding force.
Actualy most sports do have breaks in the action (what you would call "timesinks") whether they be half-times or rounds or time-outs or simply setup time between play.
Most strategy games do too. Whether it's in chess or another board game where you are waiting for the other player to take thier turn or even in real time strategy games where it can take time to build up resources or manuver your forces into the best position for a strike.
These "timesinks" or lulls in the action play an important function in the game-play dynamic of these games. They also tend to make for a better game experience for most people.
Human beings just aren't setup either physicaly or psychologically for non-stop action....any more then they are setup for non-stop rewards. Breaks in the action tend to make for a more satisfying overall experience for most folks. It's just a question of fiding the right ratio of action to inaction. Remember the old saying....in all things in medias res.
Freedom can work, you just have to find a way to make freedom interesting. Perfect case in point, Minecraft. It's not an MMO, but you have free reign to do whatever you want whenever you want. This works because the game is unlike anything else out there. You can't put out another Ultima Online, people have seen and done it before... repeatedly.
Now Playing: Mission Against Terror, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Dark Souls, League of Legends, Minecraft, and the piano. =3
Chess is not a social or group centered game. If you already have BF3 and Chess why do you need more games with the same pvp?
Games get old. You're not still playing the first game you ever played, so I'm sure you already knew that.
(As an aside, Chess is pretty darn social.)
While 90% of my PVPing in the last few years has been group-based, I'm a little curious why you think the social or group side of things matters? A great, non-social, 1v1 PVP game is still fun. Are there no RTS or Fighting games you enjoy?
Again, all are able tons of fun without excessive AFKable activities. No 5-minute timeout for losing a piece in Chess. Instant queueing/server joining in any PVP to be found online. The only exception is a few MMORPGs, and only when they're world simulation-focused.
That's really the solitary part that holds back sandbox success. The first polished sandbox to embrace being a game first and foremost (and worry about simulation afterwards, if they can fit it in) is going to hit it pretty big. People love customizing and creating things, but the game has to be fun. And diluting the fun with a lot of inconveniences and time-wasting is the quickest way to make something feel bland and boring.
So in Chess, if you lose your Queen...is it an "inconveniance" that makes you stop playing and makes the game no longer fun?
If not, then why would you have a problem with death penalties in MMO's when they serve pretty much the same function?
Is it "time-wasting" that you need to take 10 moves to get your pawn from one side of the board to the other? If not, why would you complain about being made to travel between 2 locations in an MMO?
waht a suprise that the old school is way on top.. when will devs figure out we really dont want silly cookie cutter wow clones with just some extras added on..
However, "fun" isn't the only form of entertainment a MMORPG can provide. Feeling that something makes sense, that something looks beautiful or that you are a part of something, are all aspects of immersion; being immersed is entertaining.
This is why I prefer a system that isn't completely void of such a fundemental immersion technique as "forcing the player do a non-instant travel to get from place A to B, from time to time" in games where there is not always a much more entertaining alternative, such as MMORPGs.
Once you've repeated a dungeon/raid/daily quest X times, the entertainment value of immersion techniques is definitely not small in comparison to the minimal "fun" value those tasks have besides the reward.
Does Skyrim feel immersive, despite fast travel?
How often do you repeat content in Skyrim?
I don't mean to sound like I'm super fanboy about Skyrim (I'm not,) but it's clearly a game which wastes almost none of the player's time yet manages to be immersive and not repeat content. This would be equally true in a MMORPG designed the same way.
There are clearly other design goals which require slow travel, but they're definitely not immersion or a concern with repeat content. And my argument is that the design goals which require slow travel are -- for most players -- not fun enough to carry the disadvantages that it brings along. (Except in the case where slow travel is made to be chock-full of gameplay, unlike current MMORPGs.)
Skyrim,
Is very immersive, but the fast travel element is something that detracts rather then adds to that immersion. Note that even in Skyrim fast travel....game time still elapses while you travel (i.e. When you leave some location at dawn, you still arrive at your destination at dusk) it's just that the player doesn't experience that passage of time in real time.
Alot of elements combine to make an experiense immersive or non-immersive and a game can sacrifice some of them and still be rather immersive but there are tripping points.
I would prefer the old school style. I like games that are more challenging. These days MMOs are becoming increasingly easier. I am a fan of the hard times and the struggles. Although no travel hubs would be annoying, hopefully there'd be a magic class that can teleport players at high level.
It really depends what type of games people play. Both new style story and old school freedom are great. I like being able to do my own thing, not having be able to do certain stories (especially when i get stuck). But sometimes its a bad thing. I'll get bored not knowing what to do, and with a story I can be entertained thoroughly. The one thing I don't like about stories is everyone gets the same story, so you don't feel special or unique.
To even get close to the same "proportion of engagement with Good Features vs. Bad Features", they need to at least have the same "development money" / "ingame hour" at their disposal. That isn't happening currently, and I don't think MMORPGs will have such gigantic budgets for a long time to come.
What you're suggesting is that there is a greater need for developers to intentionally send players to their bad systems. That's nonsense.
In a singleplayer game Feature A is bad and Features B and C are good. The developer wisely sets things up so players naturally spend 95% of their gametime in Features B and C.
In an MMO, Feature Z is bad and Features X and Y are good. A wise developer will also set things up so that players naturally spend 95% of their time in X and Y.
The specific dev hour investment in X (MMO) vs. B (singleplayer) is irrelevant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
single player games and sandbox like mmorgs are different beasts, the aim of some mmorgs are to create a virtual world and fill it with content that will appeal to a wide range of people - and that is the seed for diversity. The aim of a sandbox mmorg is not to provide functionality x and y, because you are attuning the game to functionality, not creating a cohesive world. aiming for x and y and lets dump z because it has lower popularity even though it reduces the diveristy of the game is what has destroyed some games.
You have to understand some people want this, its to do with personality makeup, personal objectives, lifestyle. Single player games and reward based systems revolve game arounds the player, not the world and community. Perfect example, games that provide fishing. it does not match the action and reward model, but many people love it, its the same principle as slow travel. I dont want a world revolving arounds me with a constant stream of exciting things forced down my gullet, I want to enter a world that is an entity in its own right, and it is for me to integrate into it. not the other way around.
The virtual world is more inportant than the single player in the true mmorg, some dev houses cant get this because it is hard to quantify in comparison to the crude action = reward = adrenalin.
so my question, what about the fishing?
edit bugger just lost 100 million in damages in a battle lol
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
I do in fact still play my first great gaming love. Its called Tactics Arena Online and its a sort of battle chess type thing I guess.
How the hell is a 1v1 competitive chess game social? Social games are games that have game play focused on cooperation and socializing. Just because you can talk to your opponent in chess doesn't make it a social game. It can be social, still not a social game.
What part of MMO grind is not inconvenient and time wasting? If you ever played warring factions you wouldn't care about the long fleet travel times across the 73 galaxies and 100000 star systems. You have planning and econ management and plenty of things to do. Sure most browser based strategy games don't sim all the way to the lowest level, but that doesn't mean its not fun. I love ATITD and there are long long travel lags there and loads of mat grinding.
I didn't ask for "first great gaming love", I asked for the first game you've played.
In my experience, Chess predominantly happens sitting across a table from friends or family, so yeah it's pretty social.
Any part of MMO gameplay which involves plenty of interesting decisions isn't time-wasting. Players play games to play games. If they're actively playing (making decisions), the game is giving them what they want and therefore not wasting their time. A player of a web-based strategy game is actively playing (making decisions) during the entire session -- then you log out and come back later. Meanwhile a traveling EVE player is forced to semi-AFK the entire trip (making no decisions.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
the aim of some mmorgs are to create a virtual world and fill it with content that will appeal to a wide range of people - and that is the seed for diveristy.
The entire point of the conversation has been that blindly chasing world simulation makes shitty games that most people don't like. A niche likes them, as we all know, but the core of what makes them unpopular is a blind pursuit of world simulation at the cost of good gameplay (decision-making).
Travel just happens to be the specific example of a system where world simulation games toss fun out the window in favor of simulating a world better -- and pay the cost because most people just don't consider that gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
and most people dont like slow travel, but those same people want a huge world to explore and live in. Sometimes you have to comprimise. And again where is the quantifiaction of the immersion factor?
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
Theres actually a ton of things that probably the majority of players find boring in Mmorgs if you apply principle mentioned in this thread
Slow travel
Crafting
Fishing
Collecting
Roleplaying
Housing
Politics
Planning
Coaching
Mining
Gathering
Trading
Economics
trying out gear for looks.
Theorycrafting (suppressed by simplificatoin & generalisation)
another one: setting gate traps and waiting - eve
Hunting - Eve.
It just goes on and on.
look at each in isolation in a simplistic manner and you could say yes this feature is dull, and yet when you pull them all together you get a sum that is greater than the value of its parts.
So as most think the above is boring, using aforementioned logic they represent Feature Z in comparison to Features X and Y which are good. "A wise developer will also set things up so that players naturally spend 95% of their time in X and Y" but in old school parlance the wiser developer would say yes each individual feature z is only liked by 5% of the population, but hey pull them together and you get a game that feels rich and real, thats worth investibg time and effort in collectively. That however is expensive to develop. And thats what it comes down to, greed for profit.
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
and most people dont like slow travel, but those same people want a huge world to explore and live in. Sometimes you have to comprimise. And again where is the quantifiaction of the immersion factor?
Fishing is a great example. Developers of wimpy, shallow fishing systems never force you to do it! You're never forced to engage with their shallow feature, it's just a bonus optional thing.
One way WOW could kill itself would be to require maxed Fishing skill to advance to the next level cap increase.
Note that basically your entire list of features players find boring are optional in the most successful games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To even get close to the same "proportion of engagement with Good Features vs. Bad Features", they need to at least have the same "development money" / "ingame hour" at their disposal. That isn't happening currently, and I don't think MMORPGs will have such gigantic budgets for a long time to come.
What you're suggesting is that there is a greater need for developers to intentionally send players to their bad systems. That's nonsense.
In a singleplayer game Feature A is bad and Features B and C are good. The developer wisely sets things up so players naturally spend 95% of their gametime in Features B and C.
In an MMO, Feature Z is bad and Features X and Y are good. A wise developer will also set things up so that players naturally spend 95% of their time in X and Y.
The specific dev hour investment in X (MMO) vs. B (singleplayer) is irrelevant.
The problem is that feature X and Y are only good for a certain amount of time, after that the developers need to spend money on either creating a new feature W that is better than the current state of the old X and Y or introducing a significant variation to increase how good the current state of old X and Y is. Single players can afford this to a far larger extent than MMORPGs, in my opinion.
The problem is that feature X and Y are only good for a certain amount of time, after that the developers need to spend money on either creating a new feature W that is better than the current state of the old X and Y or introducing a significant variation to increase how good the current state of old X and Y is. Single players can afford this to a far larger extent than MMORPGs, in my opinion.
Sure, feature lifespan is a problem games have to cope with.
But in no way is that an argument for intentionally sending players (frequently) to your worst features.
If Feature A is awesome and Feature B sucks, and you decide to have players play a 50/50 split of those features, then feature A is going to last twice as long (compared with if Feature A was the entire game.) Sounds awesome, right? Except that 50% of your game sucks right out of the gate...
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem is that feature X and Y are only good for a certain amount of time, after that the developers need to spend money on either creating a new feature W that is better than the current state of the old X and Y or introducing a significant variation to increase how good the current state of old X and Y is. Single players can afford this to a far larger extent than MMORPGs, in my opinion.
Sure, feature lifespan is a problem games have to cope with.
But in no way is that an argument for intentionally sending players (frequently) to your worst features.
If Feature A is awesome and Feature B sucks, and you decide to have players play a 50/50 split of those features, then feature A is going to last twice as long (compared with if Feature A was the entire game.) Sounds awesome, right? Except that 50% of your game sucks right out of the gate...
The reasoning is that feature A becomes so bad after some time that B, which would normally be inferior, becomes a better option. This is why it isn't completely unthinkable that a 3 minutes travel to a 20 minute dungeon is not so bad; it makes sense and adds to a surplus in enjoyability in the long run, due to added immersion, compared to having instant travel and 23 minutes dungeon in a MMORPG.
The reasoning is that feature A becomes so bad after some time that B, which would normally be inferior, becomes a better option. This is why it isn't completely unthinkable that a 3 minutes travel to a 20 minute dungeon is not so bad; it makes sense and adds to a surplus in enjoyability in the long run, due to added immersion, compared to having instant travel and 23 minutes dungeon in a MMORPG.
Why are you fighting so hard to inject non-gameplay in games?
It's simple: decision-making is interaction is gameplay, and these are the things players want out of games. These are how entertainment is had. Travel is extremely light on gameplay.
If you like the idea of travel, then stop suggesting we infuse games with the crappy travel that currently exists, and suggest that we add new gameplay to travel instead.
If you like AFKing, then just AFK in town and stop trying to make it a mandatory part of gameplay.
If you hate gameplay, go read a book or watch a movie.
But don't waste your time suggesting that everyones' time should be wasted in gaming, because inevitably the most successful games (and the ones repeated and improved upon) will be the ones which are dense gameplay experiences.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The reasoning is that feature A becomes so bad after some time that B, which would normally be inferior, becomes a better option. This is why it isn't completely unthinkable that a 3 minutes travel to a 20 minute dungeon is not so bad; it makes sense and adds to a surplus in enjoyability in the long run, due to added immersion, compared to having instant travel and 23 minutes dungeon in a MMORPG.
Ironically gaming (in general) is designed to waste/kill time.
Bladestorme brings an interesting argument with the list of fishing, harvesting, crafting, exec, exec. Add to the list :
chatting,
flirting,
dueling,
Managing a Guild
Managing a guilds bank
The list could go on and on......I'm sure many of you like me find fishing boring, BUT I'm sure many of us could pick a few out of the list that we like doing. A good immerse well built mmo is not always about Up-time and hard core end game.
Example one: If I have a hard day at work, sometimes I would enjoy putting my feet up on the table barely reaching the w,a,d keys. Then running my character around checking auctions maybe a little harvesting, maybe chatting with my guild. ( try doing that in SWTOR )
Example two: I have an older senior citizen friend and his wife that likes to play WoW. I've seen him play, I think he is even dyslexic, he is not very good. HOWEVER is is totally into harvesting, fishing and such for trading on the auction. He knows more about the auction than you and I would ever know, he basically lives it. His wife is all about guild friends, even to the point where they may get together in real life ! ( try that with SWTOR )
With new style mmo's and with dungeon finders mmo's are taking away from the examples given. We now have fast mini games we call grouping.....It's like going to a jam packed mall by yourself and on occasion chatting with a sales person.
The reasoning is that feature A becomes so bad after some time that B, which would normally be inferior, becomes a better option. This is why it isn't completely unthinkable that a 3 minutes travel to a 20 minute dungeon is not so bad; it makes sense and adds to a surplus in enjoyability in the long run, due to added immersion, compared to having instant travel and 23 minutes dungeon in a MMORPG.
However, if option B is still inferior to watching TV or playing Solitaire than the game has a problem.
I will do a lot of things once just to see if I like the experience. However, if I do not like the experience I will not do that thing again unless I have no other option. With video games I always have the option of just playing another game. Just because an option in the game is now the best option for the game, it does not actually make it a good option.
The list could go on and on......I'm sure many of you like me find fishing boring, BUT I'm sure many of us could pick a few out of the list that we like doing.
Yes, Fishing's a shallow system and many would find it boring. Would you enjoy a game where fishing was absolutely required by a game and you couldn't avoid it?
I actually find fishing to be an amusing distraction sometimes. But there's a huge difference between optional shallow distractions and mandatory shallow gameplay.
Which relates directly to slow travel (a mandatory, yet shallow system.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
To even get close to the same "proportion of engagement with Good Features vs. Bad Features", they need to at least have the same "development money" / "ingame hour" at their disposal. That isn't happening currently, and I don't think MMORPGs will have such gigantic budgets for a long time to come.
I do in fact still play my first great gaming love. Its called Tactics Arena Online and its a sort of battle chess type thing I guess. The dev disappeared and the distributor flash player studios isnt allowed to add new content and the game is 8 years old but they still make enough money to run the servers and lots of vets are still around. I also still play many many other games I played in my first year or two of gaming. So suck it smart ass.
How the hell is a 1v1 competitive chess game social? Social games are games that have game play focused on cooperation and socializing. Just because you can talk to your opponent in chess doesn't make it a social game. It can be social, still not a social game.
What part of MMO grind is not inconvenient and time wasting? If you ever played warring factions you wouldn't care about the long fleet travel times across the 73 galaxies and 100000 star systems. You have planning and econ management and plenty of things to do. Sure most browser based strategy games don't sim all the way to the lowest level, but that doesn't mean its not fun. I love ATITD and there are long long travel lags there and loads of mat grinding.
Again your drawing a conclusion without any real data to substantiate it. WOW exploded in popularity, to know why you'd at least have to have access to some real market research....and even companies that have done real market research don't seem to have that solid a handle on it....as no one that has tried to emulate that popularity has even come close to date.
Bottom line, it's not always easy or obvious to understand why something which is popular became that way. At best, people have educated guesses.
Actualy most sports do have breaks in the action (what you would call "timesinks") whether they be half-times or rounds or time-outs or simply setup time between play.
Most strategy games do too. Whether it's in chess or another board game where you are waiting for the other player to take thier turn or even in real time strategy games where it can take time to build up resources or manuver your forces into the best position for a strike.
These "timesinks" or lulls in the action play an important function in the game-play dynamic of these games. They also tend to make for a better game experience for most people.
Human beings just aren't setup either physicaly or psychologically for non-stop action....any more then they are setup for non-stop rewards. Breaks in the action tend to make for a more satisfying overall experience for most folks. It's just a question of fiding the right ratio of action to inaction. Remember the old saying....in all things in medias res.
Freedom can work, you just have to find a way to make freedom interesting. Perfect case in point, Minecraft. It's not an MMO, but you have free reign to do whatever you want whenever you want. This works because the game is unlike anything else out there. You can't put out another Ultima Online, people have seen and done it before... repeatedly.
Now Playing: Mission Against Terror, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Dark Souls, League of Legends, Minecraft, and the piano. =3
Visit my fail Youtube channel(don't leave me nasty messages!): http://www.youtube.com/user/Mirii471
So in Chess, if you lose your Queen...is it an "inconveniance" that makes you stop playing and makes the game no longer fun?
If not, then why would you have a problem with death penalties in MMO's when they serve pretty much the same function?
Is it "time-wasting" that you need to take 10 moves to get your pawn from one side of the board to the other? If not, why would you complain about being made to travel between 2 locations in an MMO?
waht a suprise that the old school is way on top.. when will devs figure out we really dont want silly cookie cutter wow clones with just some extras added on..
Skyrim,
Is very immersive, but the fast travel element is something that detracts rather then adds to that immersion. Note that even in Skyrim fast travel....game time still elapses while you travel (i.e. When you leave some location at dawn, you still arrive at your destination at dusk) it's just that the player doesn't experience that passage of time in real time.
Alot of elements combine to make an experiense immersive or non-immersive and a game can sacrifice some of them and still be rather immersive but there are tripping points.
I would prefer the old school style. I like games that are more challenging. These days MMOs are becoming increasingly easier. I am a fan of the hard times and the struggles. Although no travel hubs would be annoying, hopefully there'd be a magic class that can teleport players at high level.
It really depends what type of games people play. Both new style story and old school freedom are great. I like being able to do my own thing, not having be able to do certain stories (especially when i get stuck). But sometimes its a bad thing. I'll get bored not knowing what to do, and with a story I can be entertained thoroughly. The one thing I don't like about stories is everyone gets the same story, so you don't feel special or unique.
What you're suggesting is that there is a greater need for developers to intentionally send players to their bad systems. That's nonsense.
In a singleplayer game Feature A is bad and Features B and C are good. The developer wisely sets things up so players naturally spend 95% of their gametime in Features B and C.
In an MMO, Feature Z is bad and Features X and Y are good. A wise developer will also set things up so that players naturally spend 95% of their time in X and Y.
The specific dev hour investment in X (MMO) vs. B (singleplayer) is irrelevant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
single player games and sandbox like mmorgs are different beasts, the aim of some mmorgs are to create a virtual world and fill it with content that will appeal to a wide range of people - and that is the seed for diversity. The aim of a sandbox mmorg is not to provide functionality x and y, because you are attuning the game to functionality, not creating a cohesive world. aiming for x and y and lets dump z because it has lower popularity even though it reduces the diveristy of the game is what has destroyed some games.
You have to understand some people want this, its to do with personality makeup, personal objectives, lifestyle. Single player games and reward based systems revolve game arounds the player, not the world and community. Perfect example, games that provide fishing. it does not match the action and reward model, but many people love it, its the same principle as slow travel. I dont want a world revolving arounds me with a constant stream of exciting things forced down my gullet, I want to enter a world that is an entity in its own right, and it is for me to integrate into it. not the other way around.
The virtual world is more inportant than the single player in the true mmorg, some dev houses cant get this because it is hard to quantify in comparison to the crude action = reward = adrenalin.
so my question, what about the fishing?
edit bugger just lost 100 million in damages in a battle lol
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
I didn't ask for "first great gaming love", I asked for the first game you've played.
In my experience, Chess predominantly happens sitting across a table from friends or family, so yeah it's pretty social.
Any part of MMO gameplay which involves plenty of interesting decisions isn't time-wasting. Players play games to play games. If they're actively playing (making decisions), the game is giving them what they want and therefore not wasting their time. A player of a web-based strategy game is actively playing (making decisions) during the entire session -- then you log out and come back later. Meanwhile a traveling EVE player is forced to semi-AFK the entire trip (making no decisions.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The entire point of the conversation has been that blindly chasing world simulation makes shitty games that most people don't like. A niche likes them, as we all know, but the core of what makes them unpopular is a blind pursuit of world simulation at the cost of good gameplay (decision-making).
Travel just happens to be the specific example of a system where world simulation games toss fun out the window in favor of simulating a world better -- and pay the cost because most people just don't consider that gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
so what about fishing? its a great example.
and most people dont like slow travel, but those same people want a huge world to explore and live in. Sometimes you have to comprimise. And again where is the quantifiaction of the immersion factor?
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
Theres actually a ton of things that probably the majority of players find boring in Mmorgs if you apply principle mentioned in this thread
Slow travel
Crafting
Fishing
Collecting
Roleplaying
Housing
Politics
Planning
Coaching
Mining
Gathering
Trading
Economics
trying out gear for looks.
Theorycrafting (suppressed by simplificatoin & generalisation)
another one: setting gate traps and waiting - eve
Hunting - Eve.
It just goes on and on.
look at each in isolation in a simplistic manner and you could say yes this feature is dull, and yet when you pull them all together you get a sum that is greater than the value of its parts.
So as most think the above is boring, using aforementioned logic they represent Feature Z in comparison to Features X and Y which are good. "A wise developer will also set things up so that players naturally spend 95% of their time in X and Y" but in old school parlance the wiser developer would say yes each individual feature z is only liked by 5% of the population, but hey pull them together and you get a game that feels rich and real, thats worth investibg time and effort in collectively. That however is expensive to develop. And thats what it comes down to, greed for profit.
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
Fishing is a great example. Developers of wimpy, shallow fishing systems never force you to do it! You're never forced to engage with their shallow feature, it's just a bonus optional thing.
One way WOW could kill itself would be to require maxed Fishing skill to advance to the next level cap increase.
Note that basically your entire list of features players find boring are optional in the most successful games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem is that feature X and Y are only good for a certain amount of time, after that the developers need to spend money on either creating a new feature W that is better than the current state of the old X and Y or introducing a significant variation to increase how good the current state of old X and Y is. Single players can afford this to a far larger extent than MMORPGs, in my opinion.
Sure, feature lifespan is a problem games have to cope with.
But in no way is that an argument for intentionally sending players (frequently) to your worst features.
If Feature A is awesome and Feature B sucks, and you decide to have players play a 50/50 split of those features, then feature A is going to last twice as long (compared with if Feature A was the entire game.) Sounds awesome, right? Except that 50% of your game sucks right out of the gate...
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The reasoning is that feature A becomes so bad after some time that B, which would normally be inferior, becomes a better option. This is why it isn't completely unthinkable that a 3 minutes travel to a 20 minute dungeon is not so bad; it makes sense and adds to a surplus in enjoyability in the long run, due to added immersion, compared to having instant travel and 23 minutes dungeon in a MMORPG.
Why are you fighting so hard to inject non-gameplay in games?
It's simple: decision-making is interaction is gameplay, and these are the things players want out of games. These are how entertainment is had. Travel is extremely light on gameplay.
If you like the idea of travel, then stop suggesting we infuse games with the crappy travel that currently exists, and suggest that we add new gameplay to travel instead.
If you like AFKing, then just AFK in town and stop trying to make it a mandatory part of gameplay.
If you hate gameplay, go read a book or watch a movie.
But don't waste your time suggesting that everyones' time should be wasted in gaming, because inevitably the most successful games (and the ones repeated and improved upon) will be the ones which are dense gameplay experiences.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Ironically gaming (in general) is designed to waste/kill time.
Bladestorme brings an interesting argument with the list of fishing, harvesting, crafting, exec, exec. Add to the list :
chatting,
flirting,
dueling,
Managing a Guild
Managing a guilds bank
The list could go on and on......I'm sure many of you like me find fishing boring, BUT I'm sure many of us could pick a few out of the list that we like doing. A good immerse well built mmo is not always about Up-time and hard core end game.
Example one: If I have a hard day at work, sometimes I would enjoy putting my feet up on the table barely reaching the w,a,d keys. Then running my character around checking auctions maybe a little harvesting, maybe chatting with my guild. ( try doing that in SWTOR )
Example two: I have an older senior citizen friend and his wife that likes to play WoW. I've seen him play, I think he is even dyslexic, he is not very good. HOWEVER is is totally into harvesting, fishing and such for trading on the auction. He knows more about the auction than you and I would ever know, he basically lives it. His wife is all about guild friends, even to the point where they may get together in real life ! ( try that with SWTOR )
With new style mmo's and with dungeon finders mmo's are taking away from the examples given. We now have fast mini games we call grouping.....It's like going to a jam packed mall by yourself and on occasion chatting with a sales person.
However, if option B is still inferior to watching TV or playing Solitaire than the game has a problem.
I will do a lot of things once just to see if I like the experience. However, if I do not like the experience I will not do that thing again unless I have no other option. With video games I always have the option of just playing another game. Just because an option in the game is now the best option for the game, it does not actually make it a good option.
Yes, Fishing's a shallow system and many would find it boring. Would you enjoy a game where fishing was absolutely required by a game and you couldn't avoid it?
I actually find fishing to be an amusing distraction sometimes. But there's a huge difference between optional shallow distractions and mandatory shallow gameplay.
Which relates directly to slow travel (a mandatory, yet shallow system.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver