it is really simple, if you have instant travel, they why have the world at all. Take world away, and it becomes instances and lobbies. Why people dont see this I just do not know - especially when you can actually see the negative impact that instant travelling has had on well known mmorgs.
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
You're not a little confused. You are totally confused. Like all the rest of your developer friends.
You keep pushing this argument. But the fact is that you developers are dealing the cards, and you are stacking the deck. Considering todays technical qualities, and even yesterdays, there is not one Sandbox game out there of any quality at all outside of Eve, and most of us want an avatar and a world to run around in. There is nothing for us to compete against your swill. If we want to play at all, we have to play what you are pushing up our arses.
And that's why I and obviously many others have left the MMO scene. I'm enjoying Skyrim as a single player game (which would not make a good MMO as is), lamenting that there are no MMORPGs with social interactions out there to play, even among the MMOs where that's possible, and not planning on returning for the foreseeable future.
A sandbox MMO could be successful, but sandbox forum proponents aren't chasing the type of game mechanics which could make a sandbox successful.
Skyrim is a perfect example, since it has exactly the types of death penalty and travel I've described in this thread and others. Death is an instant reset. Travel is instant. They don't waste your time; they let you experience new content at all times.
I would agree with the sandbox proponents if they were chasing these well-designed mechanics.
Instead, they talk about harsh death penalty, long travel times, and all sorts of ways of letting players ruin other players' fun (full loot PVP). They fixate on the very mechanics which prevent sandbox success.
Uhm....travel isn't instant in Skyrim. You need to have visited the travel points before you can fast travel.....and even when you are dealing with an already discovered route...fast travel can be interrupted IF you encounter anything along the way.
You're not a little confused. You are totally confused. Like all the rest of your developer friends.
You keep pushing this argument. But the fact is that you developers are dealing the cards, and you are stacking the deck. Considering todays technical qualities, and even yesterdays, there is not one Sandbox game out there of any quality at all outside of Eve, and most of us want an avatar and a world to run around in. There is nothing for us to compete against your swill. If we want to play at all, we have to play what you are pushing up our arses.
And that's why I and obviously many others have left the MMO scene. I'm enjoying Skyrim as a single player game (which would not make a good MMO as is), lamenting that there are no MMORPGs with social interactions out there to play, even among the MMOs where that's possible, and not planning on returning for the foreseeable future.
A sandbox MMO could be successful, but sandbox forum proponents aren't chasing the type of game mechanics which could make a sandbox successful.
Skyrim is a perfect example, since it has exactly the types of death penalty and travel I've described in this thread and others. Death is an instant reset. Travel is instant. They don't waste your time; they let you experience new content at all times.
I would agree with the sandbox proponents if they were chasing these well-designed mechanics.
Instead, they talk about harsh death penalty, long travel times, and all sorts of ways of letting players ruin other players' fun (full loot PVP). They fixate on the very mechanics which prevent sandbox success.
Uhm....travel isn't instant in Skyrim. You need to have visited the travel points before you can fast travel.....and even when you are dealing with an already discovered route...fast travel can be interrupted IF you encounter anything along the way.
And whats more a lot of players are deliberately ignoring all fast travel routes in Skyrim, and are regularly remarking on how it enhances play through greater immersion. It really is a great example of how 'slow' travel enhances and compliments a game.
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
You're not a little confused. You are totally confused. Like all the rest of your developer friends.
You keep pushing this argument. But the fact is that you developers are dealing the cards, and you are stacking the deck. Considering todays technical qualities, and even yesterdays, there is not one Sandbox game out there of any quality at all outside of Eve, and most of us want an avatar and a world to run around in. There is nothing for us to compete against your swill. If we want to play at all, we have to play what you are pushing up our arses.
And that's why I and obviously many others have left the MMO scene. I'm enjoying Skyrim as a single player game (which would not make a good MMO as is), lamenting that there are no MMORPGs with social interactions out there to play, even among the MMOs where that's possible, and not planning on returning for the foreseeable future.
A sandbox MMO could be successful, but sandbox forum proponents aren't chasing the type of game mechanics which could make a sandbox successful.
Skyrim is a perfect example, since it has exactly the types of death penalty and travel I've described in this thread and others. Death is an instant reset. Travel is instant. They don't waste your time; they let you experience new content at all times.
I would agree with the sandbox proponents if they were chasing these well-designed mechanics.
Instead, they talk about harsh death penalty, long travel times, and all sorts of ways of letting players ruin other players' fun (full loot PVP). They fixate on the very mechanics which prevent sandbox success.
Uhm....travel isn't instant in Skyrim. You need to have visited the travel points before you can fast travel.....and even when you are dealing with an already discovered route...fast travel can be interrupted IF you encounter anything along the way.
Which is what Axehilt was saying before. Travel to a particular point is interesting the first time, not subsequent times. You can fast travel to major cities you haven't been to using the merchant/peddler cart guy outside town.
And I have never had any fast travel interrupted by anything (257 hours so far flipping between adept and master).
For all the other areas after you've seen it once, then fast travel is instant.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
In the beginning there were just as many sandbox as there were themepark, SWG, UO, AC. There were really only 2 big themepark Daoc and EQ. However EQ had more subs than any of those games.
Then CoH came along and garnered a few hundred thousand subs, then WoW and half a million in a year. It isn't a case of devs are only giving us themepark, the players actively chose themepark and so devs built more of them.
Venge
I wouldn't call CoX vs. WOW a sandbox vs. themepark case. CoX certainly had more freedom to its character customization, but there wasn't any world manipulation going on. So it was more sandbox-ish, but largely a themepark.
(For that matter, I don't feel Skyrim is a sandbox, despite hinting that I might earlier.)
But yeah the rest of your post is spot-on. Sandboxes started the genre, and it's clear themeparks were chosen by players. As games became more game-like and less world-like, they enjoyed greater success.
Simulation games have always been demanded less, since the beginning of the games industry. So this isn't really a surprising or new discovery.
Which leads to how you probably make a successful sandbox: make a game about world manipulation, but make a great game first, and let world simulation fall by the wayside. If you can make the world simulation better without harming gameplay, that's fine. But as soon as you sacrifice gameplay for better simulation, you take a step away from what most people want.
Or you could simply look at the timing of the release in certain games with the rate of penetration of high speed internet access and number of households that had a computer.
Here's a dirty little secret... ALOT of the increase in subscription/sales numbers for more modern MMO's over older ones has absolutely NOTHING to do with any attributes of the games themselves.
Kinda pointless to subscribe to an MMO, if you don't have access to the internet...isn't it.
Take a look at the timelines for access to high speed internet access, along with number of households where a computer was present....and compare them with subscription rates for newly released MMO's and I think you'll see some interesting trends.
In other words you prefer Frodo port directly to Mt. Doom instead of having to travel there?
LOTR takes place over 2 years.
The films do not take 2 years to watch.
You experience all of the interesting parts of the journey, and none of the tedious or boring ones.
That's good entertainment design. Experience the interesting stuff once then move on to the next content.
I don't know, I mean I did watch them sitting around crying/moaning and groaning, and eating that bread waffer thing....Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me...
Having to pick a route through dangerous terrain to get to a specific destination does take a bit more "thought and work" than clicking on a fucking teleport button. If you are really going to sit there and argue to the opposite then you are indeed being preposterous.
It may put a crimp in your day if you think an mmo only has the potential to be a shit version of a lobby pvp game and you have run out of your daily ritalin pills. But for a game trying to be a persistent, online world it works just fine.
Few argue that you should have to "walk" everywhere in a game world. Some "fast" travel is fine. But it should be clear that making it easy and nigh on instant, to get to pretty much everywhere in the game world kills off a great deal of potential for exploration, territory control and the genereal "feel" of being in an online world.
But to hell with potential, exploration and online worlds, what mmos should be is really piss poor versions of lobby pvp games that already exist in other genres.
IB4 a "but they are all only time sinks" rebuttal which fails to miss the point completely.
The first time you travel there, the problem (finding a safe path) is interesting. Subsequent times, it's less interesting. After the 5th time, it's way less interesting. You've solved that problem. You're ready for the next one.
You were probably better off immediately being at the next new location, traveling a new path with those same exact types of challenges.
And the travel time itself certainly isn't gameplay. It's just delay. You only need as much as is absolutely necessary to accomplish the design goal (which is setting the feel for the surrounding area and giving the player a chance to breath between combat) Because apart from those goals it's certainly not adding challenge to gameplay.
I don't think MMORPGs should only be lobby PVP games. I don't even PVP in MMORPGs. I think MMORPGs should be a wealth of content to explore and experience -- much like how Skyrim entertains players, despite its weak combat.
I don't think MMORPGs should be a constant re-run of repetitive experience, which is apparently what you think it should be.
I'll note that you are making 2 very important assumptions that NEED NOT be true...
1) You assume that every journey between 2 points need be exactly the same as long as the same route is used. This may be true in the sort of static, lifeless games that are currently prevelant....but it certainly does not need to be the case....especialy for a game that aimed to be a "virtual" world.
In a "realistic" world...things would/should happen all the time that effect travel routes. Political instability (brigands & highwaymen, hostile forces on campaign), natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, blizzards), dangerous wildlife migrations. There are many, many things that could make each and every journey between 2 points substantialy different from the previous one.
2) You are assuming combat is the only element that one can use to present an interesting gameplay challenge to players. Again, understandable if one is only looking at todays rather shallow MMO's as a model. However, there are MANY MANY other possibilities. If you take away the compass and the map/mini-map then simply NAVIGATING your way between 2 points can be a significant and interesting challenge...especialy if roads/paths between them don't exist. Next we have climatic effects.... How many people froze to death while traveling during blizzards in pre-modern America? Finding adequite food, shelter & water can be a challenge for extended travel. Then of course you have things like climbing cliffs or crossing fast flowing rivers....which can be every bit as dangerous and challenging as engaging some orc in a sword fight.
You seem to be falling into the same sort of trap in thinking that most of todays MMO Dev's are..... but it definately NEED NOT be the case. Try doing some real life wilderness travel without any of the modern conveinces...and see just how challenging it can be.
In other words you prefer Frodo port directly to Mt. Doom instead of having to travel there?
LOTR takes place over 2 years.
The films do not take 2 years to watch.
You experience all of the interesting parts of the journey, and none of the tedious or boring ones.
That's good entertainment design. Experience the interesting stuff once then move on to the next content.
I don't know, I mean I did watch them sitting around crying/moaning and groaning, and eating that bread waffer thing....Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me...
And really while the trip to Mt. Doom did make a good movie (sorry the stories were horribly long winded). It really was bad planning on Gandalf's part.
They had giant eagles. They could have hopped on them flown to Mt. Doom, dropped the ring before any of the Nazghul or Sauron knew what was happening and before the ring had a chance to get hold of someone.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I don't know, I mean I did watch them sitting around crying/moaning and groaning, and eating that bread waffer thing....Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me...
You're right.
Tolkien, while a solid author, was longwinded (as Venge points out) with certain inconsequential details. His writing, and the movies, would've been better had it omitted certain unimportant scenes.
However he still correctly omitted the overwhelming majority of the journey. The story would've been much worse if he hadn't.
"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 know, I mean I did watch them sitting around crying/moaning and groaning, and eating that bread waffer thing....Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me...
You're right.
Tolkien, while a solid author, was longwinded (as Venge points out) with certain inconsequential details. His writing, and the movies, would've been better had it omitted certain unimportant scenes.
However he still correctly omitted the overwhelming majority of the journey. The story would've been much worse if he hadn't.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. Yeah he's just like that James Joyce, what a long winded git, wish he'd just cut to the chase and get to the splosions and stuff....
I imagine a great deal of it seems inconsequential to the ritalin kids out there. It's like WWII for the Internet Generation all over again.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The issue really is what a person considers worthwhile 'between A and B' content. You seem to be a PvP fan so for you a chance at a PvP encounter would be worthwhile. Since I find PvP to be largely meaningless, I consider it as non-content for travel purposes. The game world would need interesting dynamic non-PvP content for me to consider the travel time from A to B to be worthwhile. Most games just do not provide that and thus make travel time meaningless.
If the points in between A and B are meaningless, then there is zero point in the game world existing. All you need is a queuing lobby between instances with a chat box. Which is pretty much the way mmos are going.
If the game world offers nothing then I agree, having to travel through it is pointless and indeed alot of games do make the game world pointless to a greater extent. But the game world can be dynamic and it can offer content to non pvp centric players even if part of that mechanism is pvp driven.
Look at EVE, a great deal of people within the game enjoy systems which are not directly (within the individual players scope) pvp related. Many love it for the economy for example, and yet that economy is driven (to a great extent) by the pvp and the fact that the game enviroment can be controlled etc. So while you feel the pvp is pointless, it is in fact driving a large part of the non pvp content, just as non pvp content indirectly drives pvp.
If you are only interested in pve combat and nothing else, not even the economy and the environment is not dynamic in a pve sense then it will be pointless. But then a raiding lobby mmo is no different to a pvp lobby mmo.
I'd like to make it clear i'm not extolling no fast travel at all btw.
It's a cause->effect thing. If the content between A and B is meaningless then there is no reason for long travel times. If the content is meaningful and fun then longer travel times make sense. The problem is that too often the cause->effect relation is incorrectly reversed. People assume that becasue there are long travel times than the inbetween content is meaningful. That is just not true for the majority of games.
EVE is a weird case for me. I love the concept of the game but hate the execution. When I started playing the game I was imaging building starbases and colonies in space and developing a sector to be an industrial juggernaut. Instead I found that the game was a slave to the PvP. I am a sandbox builder and not destroyer and I see EVE as having wasted so much potential on pointless conflict.
I actually did not mind the long travel times in EVE. I saw it as an economic cost which encouraged people to stay in their own sector of space and fully develop a community there. Traveling to other regions was a luxury rather than a necessity On the other hand travel in themepark games is a necessity and should be short unless you can fill the inbetween world with meaningful, fun and dynamic content.
I'll note that you are making 2 very important assumptions that NEED NOT be true...
1) You assume that every journey between 2 points need be exactly the same as long as the same route is used. This may be true in the sort of static, lifeless games that are currently prevelant....but it certainly does not need to be the case....especialy for a game that aimed to be a "virtual" world.
In a "realistic" world...things would/should happen all the time that effect travel routes. Political instability (brigands & highwaymen, hostile forces on campaign), natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, blizzards), dangerous wildlife migrations. There are many, many things that could make each and every journey between 2 points substantialy different from the previous one.
2) You are assuming combat is the only element that one can use to present an interesting gameplay challenge to players. Again, understandable if one is only looking at todays rather shallow MMO's as a model. However, there are MANY MANY other possibilities. If you take away the compass and the map/mini-map then simply NAVIGATING your way between 2 points can be a significant and interesting challenge...especialy if roads/paths between them don't exist. Next we have climatic effects.... How many people froze to death while traveling during blizzards in pre-modern America? Finding adequite food, shelter & water can be a challenge for extended travel. Then of course you have things like climbing cliffs or crossing fast flowing rivers....which can be every bit as dangerous and challenging as engaging some orc in a sword fight.
You seem to be falling into the same sort of trap in thinking that most of todays MMO Dev's are..... but it definately NEED NOT be the case. Try doing some real life wilderness travel without any of the modern conveinces...and see just how challenging it can be.
The assumptions are based on past and present games. When a 'new style freedom' game you describe is realeased we should reassess this discussion.
I don't know, I mean I did watch them sitting around crying/moaning and groaning, and eating that bread waffer thing....Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me...
You're right.
Tolkien, while a solid author, was longwinded (as Venge points out) with certain inconsequential details. His writing, and the movies, would've been better had it omitted certain unimportant scenes.
However he still correctly omitted the overwhelming majority of the journey. The story would've been much worse if he hadn't.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. Yeah he's just like that James Joyce, what a long winded git, wish he'd just cut to the chase and get to the splosions and stuff....
I imagine a great deal of it seems inconsequential to the ritalin kids out there. It's like WWII for the Internet Generation all over again.
Well it depends on what your purpose for the story is. In games and tolkiens it was entertainment. Joyce's wasn't, his was more of a critique, important maybe, and definately he impacted several other writers, entertaining not likely (except for his poetry possibly).
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It's a cause->effect thing. If the content between A and B is meaningless then there is no reason for long travel times. If the content is meaningful and fun then longer travel times make sense. The problem is that too often the cause->effect relation is incorrectly reversed. People assume that becasue there are long travel times than the inbetween content is meaningful. That is just not true for the majority of games.
EVE is a weird case for me. I love the concept of the game but hate the execution. When I started playing the game I was imaging building starbases and colonies in space and developing a sector to be an industrial juggernaut. Instead I found that the game was a slave to the PvP. I am a sandbox builder and not destroyer and I see EVE as having wasted so much potential on pointless conflict.
I actually did not mind the long travel times in EVE. I saw it as an economic cost which encouraged people to stay in their own sector of space and fully develop a community there. Traveling to other regions was a luxury rather than a necessity On the other hand travel in themepark games is a necessity and should be short unless you can fill the inbetween world with meaningful, fun and dynamic content.
Yeah I agree with most of that and in fairness it is pretty much what I have already said: in themepark games it doesn't matter, in open world, sandbox games it does. So long as the content, the dynamism and the playerbase is there.
I don't think there is that much difference in viewpoint here, but I am interested in the "builder, destoyer" idea with regards to pvp. People do build empires and cities and industries in EVE and in other pvp mmos (UO springs to mind) so I am not sure what you mean exactly. Is it just that you didn't want conflict or just combat conflict and see this only as being able to "destroy" and never to add an element?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Well it depends on what your purpose for the story is. In games and tolkiens it was entertainment. Joyce's wasn't, his was more of a critique, important maybe, and definately he impacted several other writers, entertaining not likely (except for his poetry possibly).
Venge
His purpose was to create a world with a clearly defined history and depth in the nordic saga mold. It was only really The Hobbit which was set out as a childrens book.
All great writing is a critique and all writing aims to entertain in one way or another, from sagas, through Joyce to the Simpsons. Joyce was no more a critic then Tolkien (if you consider the laters anti industry and war stance). What Joyce is lauded for is his word play and the way he twists and shapes the language. Oddly enough his most famous work is a reworking of a classical tale, much like Tokien was reworking the nordic sagas.
Bit off topic, but the point is sometimes the "long winded crap" is actually important. If the purpose of making people "slow travel" for the main part in a game is just as a time sink then it is pointless. If it is to add layers of depth to the world then it is incredibly important.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I don't know, I mean I did watch them sitting around crying/moaning and groaning, and eating that bread waffer thing....Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me...
You're right.
Tolkien, while a solid author, was longwinded (as Venge points out) with certain inconsequential details. His writing, and the movies, would've been better had it omitted certain unimportant scenes.
However he still correctly omitted the overwhelming majority of the journey. The story would've been much worse if he hadn't.
The reason LOTR is one one of the greatest fantasy stories of all time is because of the depth of the story and the world he portrayed, and the time he spends subtly describing this world. Can you imagine LOTR if he had written it in the style of the Hobbit. 'Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me' is something my son would say - and will he read books, god no sigh..
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 don't know, I mean I did watch them sitting around crying/moaning and groaning, and eating that bread waffer thing....Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me...
You're right.
Tolkien, while a solid author, was longwinded (as Venge points out) with certain inconsequential details. His writing, and the movies, would've been better had it omitted certain unimportant scenes.
However he still correctly omitted the overwhelming majority of the journey. The story would've been much worse if he hadn't.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. Yeah he's just like that James Joyce, what a long winded git, wish he'd just cut to the chase and get to the splosions and stuff....
I imagine a great deal of it seems inconsequential to the ritalin kids out there. It's like WWII for the Internet Generation all over again.
LOL. Awesome vid, thanks for sharing.
Some of the posts in this thread are beyond ridiculous. Ritalin kids, indeed.
Axehilt, your critique of Tolkien was probably one of the most entertaining posts I've read of yours. Judging by your tastes in games, LOTR is far, far from the type of book(s) I would recommend for you. It just doesn't deliver on the fun fun fun factor that you seem to require every moment while indulging in entertainment.
With respect to travel in mmorpgs. Some of my fondest memories have occurred unexpectedly while journeying from one place to another. In a great mmo, surprises and sidetracks should most certainly be a part of travelling. It adds another layer of depth to a game.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I don't think there is that much difference in viewpoint here, but I am interested in the "builder, destoyer" idea with regards to pvp. People do build empires and cities and industries in EVE and in other pvp mmos (UO springs to mind) so I am not sure what you mean exactly. Is it just that you didn't want conflict or just combat conflict and see this only as being able to "destroy" and never to add an element?
It essentially comes to this: I like building sandcastles and do not like it when someone comes and destroys a castle I spend a lot of time building and might not be finished with yet.
In RL, we have limited resources that we have to compete for. In video games and especially sandbox MMORPGs there are potentially unlimited resources. This means that if I want to build a massive castle I do not have to take sand from the kid next to me. We both can build our own castles and if we are so inclined we can cooperate and build an even better castle.
PvP games like to introduce artificial scarcity so people want to compete against each other. This means that if I am not as good in PvP as my neighbor, I will not get to build my castle since he will take all the sand for himself. I see this as limiting my freedom in the game for reasons that are meaningless to me.
It essentially comes to this: I like building sandcastles and do not like it when someone comes and destroys a castle I spend a lot of time building and might not be finished with yet.
In RL, we have limited resources that we have to compete for. In video games and especially sandbox MMORPGs there are potentially unlimited resources. This means that if I want to build a massive castle I do not have to take sand from the kid next to me. We both can build our own castles and if we are so inclined we can cooperate and build an even better castle.
PvP games like to introduce artificial scarcity so people want to compete against each other. This means that if I am not as good in PvP as my neighbor, I will not get to build my castle since he will take all the sand for himself. I see this as limiting my freedom in the game for reasons that are meaningless to me.
So you are more interested in a Minecraft style game then something that attempts to build a social community? As it seems to me that without competition and conflict you don't have anything like a social community at all, or at least not a collection of them. Or in fairness, something which is just a single minded community?
I'm not sure personally where the longevity is in a game where there is pretty much no competition and no limit on resources, especially when considering games with a community element.
But then that's highly subjective ofc and highly off topic so thanks for taking the time to respond
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It essentially comes to this: I like building sandcastles and do not like it when someone comes and destroys a castle I spend a lot of time building and might not be finished with yet.
In RL, we have limited resources that we have to compete for. In video games and especially sandbox MMORPGs there are potentially unlimited resources. This means that if I want to build a massive castle I do not have to take sand from the kid next to me. We both can build our own castles and if we are so inclined we can cooperate and build an even better castle.
PvP games like to introduce artificial scarcity so people want to compete against each other. This means that if I am not as good in PvP as my neighbor, I will not get to build my castle since he will take all the sand for himself. I see this as limiting my freedom in the game for reasons that are meaningless to me.
So you are more interested in a Minecraft style game then something that attempts to build a social community? As it seems to me that without competition and conflict you don't have anything like a social community at all, or at least not a collection of them. Or in fairness, something which is just a single minded community?
I'm not sure personally where the longevity is in a game where there is pretty much no competition and no limit on resources, especially when considering games with a community element.
But then that's highly subjective ofc and highly off topic so thanks for taking the time to respond
You can have lots of social community without competition or conflict. All you need is a common goal. In istaria there is no competition or conflict with other players however there are a lot of community projects from unlocking new playable races in the past, to digging excavating new dungeons (well one) to building community plots, lair and resource stations.
Just yesterday a good number of people online were putting in resources to build the a new logging area (table saw station...).
And while not a huge community, and it has gone through some changes. The game was 8 years old on Dec. 3.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You can have lots of social community without competition or conflict. All you need is a common goal. In istaria there is no competition or conflict with other players however there are a lot of community projects from unlocking new playable races in the past, to digging excavating new dungeons (well one) to building community plots, lair and resource stations.
Just yesterday a good number of people online were putting in resources to build the a new logging area (table saw station...).
And while not a huge community, and it has gone through some changes. The game was 8 years old on Dec. 3.
Venge
You can have a small social community with no competition of conflict no doubt. But a larger one? Moreover, whilst there is no doubt a demand (regardless of the size of that demand) for such a game, it is pretty clear that conflict and competition add elements which you simply cannot find without them. Meanwhile they do not actually remove the potential for building, they simply don't make it 100% certain that you will achieve it.
One clearly provides more options and potential but it is also clear that peoples preference for one or the other is completely subjective and there is no right or wrong.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I'll note that you are making 2 very important assumptions that NEED NOT be true...
1) You assume that every journey between 2 points need be exactly the same as long as the same route is used. This may be true in the sort of static, lifeless games that are currently prevelant....but it certainly does not need to be the case....especialy for a game that aimed to be a "virtual" world.
In a "realistic" world...things would/should happen all the time that effect travel routes. Political instability (brigands & highwaymen, hostile forces on campaign), natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, blizzards), dangerous wildlife migrations. There are many, many things that could make each and every journey between 2 points substantialy different from the previous one.
2) You are assuming combat is the only element that one can use to present an interesting gameplay challenge to players. Again, understandable if one is only looking at todays rather shallow MMO's as a model. However, there are MANY MANY other possibilities. If you take away the compass and the map/mini-map then simply NAVIGATING your way between 2 points can be a significant and interesting challenge...especialy if roads/paths between them don't exist. Next we have climatic effects.... How many people froze to death while traveling during blizzards in pre-modern America? Finding adequite food, shelter & water can be a challenge for extended travel. Then of course you have things like climbing cliffs or crossing fast flowing rivers....which can be every bit as dangerous and challenging as engaging some orc in a sword fight.
You seem to be falling into the same sort of trap in thinking that most of todays MMO Dev's are..... but it definately NEED NOT be the case. Try doing some real life wilderness travel without any of the modern conveinces...and see just how challenging it can be.
I never assume combat is the only form of gameplay. I use combat as a common example because players in forums understand it, so they can focus on the meaning of my post rather than fixating on some specific type of non-combat gameplay (which I would tangentally have to spend time explaining.) Gameplay is any situation where the player is making interesting decisions and not all decisions are equally interesting, but this is all tangental to the actual discussion at hand.
My point was made based on the reality of existing games, and how repeat travel is extremely unlikely to be compelling gameplay (meaning it's just timesink.)
Certainly you could try to make a system for dynamic travel events, and that would largely work - but it's probably more effort than simply letting players always visit new places (and fast-travel to already-visited ones.) By letting players always visit new places you get both benefits of travel (new gameplay and new sights) whereas with a dynamic travel event system you'd only be generating new gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You have got to be fucking kidding me. Yeah he's just like that James Joyce, what a long winded git, wish he'd just cut to the chase and get to the splosions and stuff....
I imagine a great deal of it seems inconsequential to the ritalin kids out there. It's like WWII for the Internet Generation all over again.
LOL. Awesome vid, thanks for sharing.
Some of the posts in this thread are beyond ridiculous. Ritalin kids, indeed.
Axehilt, your critique of Tolkien was probably one of the most entertaining posts I've read of yours. Judging by your tastes in games, LOTR is far, far from the type of book(s) I would recommend for you. It just doesn't deliver on the fun fun fun factor that you seem to require every moment while indulging in entertainment.
With respect to travel in mmorpgs. Some of my fondest memories have occurred unexpectedly while journeying from one place to another. In a great mmo, surprises and sidetracks should most certainly be a part of travelling. It adds another layer of depth to a game.
Humans in general have always sought to maximize the value of their time. A desire for efficiency is part of all living things, since we're products of evolution (which only rewards efficiency.)
This is not new, regardless of the generation-bashing comments of certain posters. Nor is it bad. In fact, gamers should want games to give them as much content as possible, and not hide behind timesinks in order to obscure the fact that little content exists.
Regarding Tolkien, we may owe a lot to the guy for popularizing a genre, but that shouldn't blind us to his shortcomings as an author. The best authors are the ones where every scene feels like an important revelation of the world it portrays. Where every word is intentional and feels necessary.
Your favorite memories of travel would probably almost all still occur in a Skyrim-style "first trip only" 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
it is really simple, if you have instant travel, they why have the world at all. Take world away, and it becomes instances and lobbies. Why people dont see this I just do not know - especially when you can actually see the negative impact that instant travelling has had on well known mmorgs.
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
Uhm....travel isn't instant in Skyrim. You need to have visited the travel points before you can fast travel.....and even when you are dealing with an already discovered route...fast travel can be interrupted IF you encounter anything along the way.
And whats more a lot of players are deliberately ignoring all fast travel routes in Skyrim, and are regularly remarking on how it enhances play through greater immersion. It really is a great example of how 'slow' travel enhances and compliments a game.
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
Which is what Axehilt was saying before. Travel to a particular point is interesting the first time, not subsequent times. You can fast travel to major cities you haven't been to using the merchant/peddler cart guy outside town.
And I have never had any fast travel interrupted by anything (257 hours so far flipping between adept and master).
For all the other areas after you've seen it once, then fast travel is instant.
Venge
Or you could simply look at the timing of the release in certain games with the rate of penetration of high speed internet access and number of households that had a computer.
Here's a dirty little secret... ALOT of the increase in subscription/sales numbers for more modern MMO's over older ones has absolutely NOTHING to do with any attributes of the games themselves.
Kinda pointless to subscribe to an MMO, if you don't have access to the internet...isn't it.
Take a look at the timelines for access to high speed internet access, along with number of households where a computer was present....and compare them with subscription rates for newly released MMO's and I think you'll see some interesting trends.
I would not mind more freedom long as you don't include ffapvp. I want a living world main point being world not isolated pockets of prison yards.
LOTR takes place over 2 years.
The films do not take 2 years to watch.
You experience all of the interesting parts of the journey, and none of the tedious or boring ones.
That's good entertainment design. Experience the interesting stuff once then move on to the next content.
"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 know, I mean I did watch them sitting around crying/moaning and groaning, and eating that bread waffer thing....Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me...
I'll note that you are making 2 very important assumptions that NEED NOT be true...
1) You assume that every journey between 2 points need be exactly the same as long as the same route is used. This may be true in the sort of static, lifeless games that are currently prevelant....but it certainly does not need to be the case....especialy for a game that aimed to be a "virtual" world.
In a "realistic" world...things would/should happen all the time that effect travel routes. Political instability (brigands & highwaymen, hostile forces on campaign), natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, blizzards), dangerous wildlife migrations. There are many, many things that could make each and every journey between 2 points substantialy different from the previous one.
2) You are assuming combat is the only element that one can use to present an interesting gameplay challenge to players. Again, understandable if one is only looking at todays rather shallow MMO's as a model. However, there are MANY MANY other possibilities. If you take away the compass and the map/mini-map then simply NAVIGATING your way between 2 points can be a significant and interesting challenge...especialy if roads/paths between them don't exist. Next we have climatic effects.... How many people froze to death while traveling during blizzards in pre-modern America? Finding adequite food, shelter & water can be a challenge for extended travel. Then of course you have things like climbing cliffs or crossing fast flowing rivers....which can be every bit as dangerous and challenging as engaging some orc in a sword fight.
You seem to be falling into the same sort of trap in thinking that most of todays MMO Dev's are..... but it definately NEED NOT be the case. Try doing some real life wilderness travel without any of the modern conveinces...and see just how challenging it can be.
And really while the trip to Mt. Doom did make a good movie (sorry the stories were horribly long winded). It really was bad planning on Gandalf's part.
They had giant eagles. They could have hopped on them flown to Mt. Doom, dropped the ring before any of the Nazghul or Sauron knew what was happening and before the ring had a chance to get hold of someone.
You're right.
Tolkien, while a solid author, was longwinded (as Venge points out) with certain inconsequential details. His writing, and the movies, would've been better had it omitted certain unimportant scenes.
However he still correctly omitted the overwhelming majority of the journey. The story would've been much worse if he hadn't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You have got to be fucking kidding me. Yeah he's just like that James Joyce, what a long winded git, wish he'd just cut to the chase and get to the splosions and stuff....
I imagine a great deal of it seems inconsequential to the ritalin kids out there. It's like WWII for the Internet Generation all over again.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It's a cause->effect thing. If the content between A and B is meaningless then there is no reason for long travel times. If the content is meaningful and fun then longer travel times make sense. The problem is that too often the cause->effect relation is incorrectly reversed. People assume that becasue there are long travel times than the inbetween content is meaningful. That is just not true for the majority of games.
EVE is a weird case for me. I love the concept of the game but hate the execution. When I started playing the game I was imaging building starbases and colonies in space and developing a sector to be an industrial juggernaut. Instead I found that the game was a slave to the PvP. I am a sandbox builder and not destroyer and I see EVE as having wasted so much potential on pointless conflict.
I actually did not mind the long travel times in EVE. I saw it as an economic cost which encouraged people to stay in their own sector of space and fully develop a community there. Traveling to other regions was a luxury rather than a necessity On the other hand travel in themepark games is a necessity and should be short unless you can fill the inbetween world with meaningful, fun and dynamic content.
The assumptions are based on past and present games. When a 'new style freedom' game you describe is realeased we should reassess this discussion.
Well it depends on what your purpose for the story is. In games and tolkiens it was entertainment. Joyce's wasn't, his was more of a critique, important maybe, and definately he impacted several other writers, entertaining not likely (except for his poetry possibly).
Venge
Yeah I agree with most of that and in fairness it is pretty much what I have already said: in themepark games it doesn't matter, in open world, sandbox games it does. So long as the content, the dynamism and the playerbase is there.
I don't think there is that much difference in viewpoint here, but I am interested in the "builder, destoyer" idea with regards to pvp. People do build empires and cities and industries in EVE and in other pvp mmos (UO springs to mind) so I am not sure what you mean exactly. Is it just that you didn't want conflict or just combat conflict and see this only as being able to "destroy" and never to add an element?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
His purpose was to create a world with a clearly defined history and depth in the nordic saga mold. It was only really The Hobbit which was set out as a childrens book.
All great writing is a critique and all writing aims to entertain in one way or another, from sagas, through Joyce to the Simpsons. Joyce was no more a critic then Tolkien (if you consider the laters anti industry and war stance). What Joyce is lauded for is his word play and the way he twists and shapes the language. Oddly enough his most famous work is a reworking of a classical tale, much like Tokien was reworking the nordic sagas.
Bit off topic, but the point is sometimes the "long winded crap" is actually important. If the purpose of making people "slow travel" for the main part in a game is just as a time sink then it is pointless. If it is to add layers of depth to the world then it is incredibly important.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The reason LOTR is one one of the greatest fantasy stories of all time is because of the depth of the story and the world he portrayed, and the time he spends subtly describing this world. Can you imagine LOTR if he had written it in the style of the Hobbit. 'Thats not too exciting...Sounds like filler/down time to me' is something my son would say - and will he read books, god no sigh..
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
LOL. Awesome vid, thanks for sharing.
Some of the posts in this thread are beyond ridiculous. Ritalin kids, indeed.
Axehilt, your critique of Tolkien was probably one of the most entertaining posts I've read of yours. Judging by your tastes in games, LOTR is far, far from the type of book(s) I would recommend for you. It just doesn't deliver on the fun fun fun factor that you seem to require every moment while indulging in entertainment.
With respect to travel in mmorpgs. Some of my fondest memories have occurred unexpectedly while journeying from one place to another. In a great mmo, surprises and sidetracks should most certainly be a part of travelling. It adds another layer of depth to a game.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
It essentially comes to this: I like building sandcastles and do not like it when someone comes and destroys a castle I spend a lot of time building and might not be finished with yet.
In RL, we have limited resources that we have to compete for. In video games and especially sandbox MMORPGs there are potentially unlimited resources. This means that if I want to build a massive castle I do not have to take sand from the kid next to me. We both can build our own castles and if we are so inclined we can cooperate and build an even better castle.
PvP games like to introduce artificial scarcity so people want to compete against each other. This means that if I am not as good in PvP as my neighbor, I will not get to build my castle since he will take all the sand for himself. I see this as limiting my freedom in the game for reasons that are meaningless to me.
So you are more interested in a Minecraft style game then something that attempts to build a social community? As it seems to me that without competition and conflict you don't have anything like a social community at all, or at least not a collection of them. Or in fairness, something which is just a single minded community?
I'm not sure personally where the longevity is in a game where there is pretty much no competition and no limit on resources, especially when considering games with a community element.
But then that's highly subjective ofc and highly off topic so thanks for taking the time to respond
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
You can have lots of social community without competition or conflict. All you need is a common goal. In istaria there is no competition or conflict with other players however there are a lot of community projects from unlocking new playable races in the past, to digging excavating new dungeons (well one) to building community plots, lair and resource stations.
Just yesterday a good number of people online were putting in resources to build the a new logging area (table saw station...).
And while not a huge community, and it has gone through some changes. The game was 8 years old on Dec. 3.
Venge
You can have a small social community with no competition of conflict no doubt. But a larger one? Moreover, whilst there is no doubt a demand (regardless of the size of that demand) for such a game, it is pretty clear that conflict and competition add elements which you simply cannot find without them. Meanwhile they do not actually remove the potential for building, they simply don't make it 100% certain that you will achieve it.
One clearly provides more options and potential but it is also clear that peoples preference for one or the other is completely subjective and there is no right or wrong.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I never assume combat is the only form of gameplay. I use combat as a common example because players in forums understand it, so they can focus on the meaning of my post rather than fixating on some specific type of non-combat gameplay (which I would tangentally have to spend time explaining.) Gameplay is any situation where the player is making interesting decisions and not all decisions are equally interesting, but this is all tangental to the actual discussion at hand.
My point was made based on the reality of existing games, and how repeat travel is extremely unlikely to be compelling gameplay (meaning it's just timesink.)
Certainly you could try to make a system for dynamic travel events, and that would largely work - but it's probably more effort than simply letting players always visit new places (and fast-travel to already-visited ones.) By letting players always visit new places you get both benefits of travel (new gameplay and new sights) whereas with a dynamic travel event system you'd only be generating new gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Humans in general have always sought to maximize the value of their time. A desire for efficiency is part of all living things, since we're products of evolution (which only rewards efficiency.)
This is not new, regardless of the generation-bashing comments of certain posters. Nor is it bad. In fact, gamers should want games to give them as much content as possible, and not hide behind timesinks in order to obscure the fact that little content exists.
Regarding Tolkien, we may owe a lot to the guy for popularizing a genre, but that shouldn't blind us to his shortcomings as an author. The best authors are the ones where every scene feels like an important revelation of the world it portrays. Where every word is intentional and feels necessary.
Your favorite memories of travel would probably almost all still occur in a Skyrim-style "first trip only" system.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver