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.
Your logic is flawless. Well almost.
I want maximize value of my time as well. Thougbh for me maximilizing value is playing games I enjoy.
I do enjoy older design mmoprg's better than current mainstream mmorpg's.
I played current type of mmorpg's for quite a while (Lotro for example) but I got tired of game constantly streamlining content at me. I value games beign not-obvious, not too conveniant, having step-learning curve (to an extent) and having slow-pace and things that many people call time-sinks. (to an certain extent and if they're "logical" from lore side of game)
So currently I enjoy games that have 'old games' qualities more and thus maximizing value of my play time.
I play single player games (as old mmorpg's got changed too much in many mechanics to mimic newer designs) that have many things you could call time-sinks, as I for example have to wait for quite a bit in strategic games. Effects take time, and if result was shown faster than it would mean less "time-sink" though I propably would be enjoying those game less.
One mistake you're always doing Axehilt is that you try to apply some universal things that all gamers enjoy.
I know you're convinced that you're right so I am not going to argue with you. I am just saying that there are people who don't agree with you.
People take pleasure from diffrent type of things, and not all people want to make as many possible decisions as frequent as it is humanely possible.
Some people prefer to take their time and have slower pace and don't think only about effeficency in their lesiure time.
Having to constantly make quick decsions in short amount of time in real life is enough for me. Not looking for exaclty same pattern in games in my lesire time.
Anyway if you think you have to respond go help yourself. If not that's also fine with me.
I am perfectly fine knowing that I won't convince you never propably.
Same thing would be in your case. I've read propably dozens or hundreads of your posts and in matter we're discussing right now (that came back as bummerang over and over) I just don't agree with you.
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.
You are talking about an artistic medium, aside from a few modernistic art school followers your talk of "efficiency" is a complete and utter anathema. But it's not unsurprising as you seem to be unable to grasp anything beyond the immediate "quick fix" or end point.
What genre was Tolkien trying to popularise again? Because he certainly wasn't writing to mainstream fantasy fiction, he was creating an anglicised version of nordic mythology. Which meant that all that detail was necessary and intentional. Perhaps you would prefer the comic book version?
As for the the "generation bashing" well I've yet to see a promising argument put forward to prove that the current generation of gamers are not more interested in instant gratification lobby style mmos. The market points to that being the case, your, erm, attempts at critiquing Tolkien have or you other "points" have not countered that at all. Regardless that is somewhat off the beaten track with regards to what was originally being debated.
Again I see you mention "time sinks" and again I see you confuse a set of mechanics that take time and provide content with a set of mechanics that only soak up time.
You say he would have had those fond memories in Skyrim. Except no he probably wouldn't. What if he experienced them on his SECOND trip from location A to B, or this third trip? In your utopian ideal of the world meaning fuck all, the second or third trip would never have happend as he would have teleported/fast travelled to location B.
You still haven't answered the original question btw.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I am employed and I still played MMO's. I say played because their isn't anything worth playing currently (quit Allods 3+ months ago) IMO. But when I did play, I had a job, a daughter, amongst other things. I know they take time, and I am in no hurry to cap out so I can sit in capital cities whining for more content like everyone else. That is what sets console gaming and MMORPG's apart. One is made for instant gratification, the other not so much, or to an extent...when they first started.
Now they have become nothing more than console style RPG's that HAPPEN to have massive multi-player. Funneled, heavily instanced, too much instant travel...and just cookie cutters of each other with no new innovation or creativity. Same crap, different wrapper.
As an old schooler myself...I'll tell ya, I went back to EQ1 about 4 months ago, even managed to get my account back up I haven't played in 7 years! Anyways, I had a lot of fun....for about a month. Yes, the nostalgia set in a bit...but the community was actually just as it was when I left. People were helpful and friendly, answered question, and even gave you some low level starting items. And despite the horrid graphics and dull combat system...just got me immersed so much more than that nostalgia.
But let's be serious though...would you pay $15 a month to play an Atari 2600 after having had a PS3 and/or XBox 360? Yeah, that's what I thought...well neither would I. Sure, EQ is still surprisingly fun for being 13 years old and 17 expansions deep, but again for the terrible graphics and super dull combat (Hit attack and stare until one or the other dies) at a monthly rate, you'd have to be wearing a foam helmet and a drool bib. Unless of course you haven't deviated from EQ since you started playing it. Which....when I think about it, may be why the community was still helpful and friendly hah.
And today's MMO's aren't worth a monthly fee either..because they lack SO much that set MMORPG's apart from other genre's. few I have found to be entertaining were F2P. But eventually you realize you either barely progress or can't unless you buy from them, Or spend well more than you would with a monthly fee to be able to keep up with everyone else (Not getting curb stomped all the time or left out of groups because your "gear" isn't high enough tier or whatever other BS). So..playing nothing buy Skyrim (A lot of what I wish MMO's had), PAYDAY: The Heist, and Stronghold Kingdoms. Waiting and hoping for something that will more than likely never return.
But would love to see a an MMO with today's combat, graphics and UI's with yesterday's communities, death penatly, open world...and with a bit more challenging...hopefully in an innovative way. Following one due out by an Indie company with a lot of passion...but that only takes you so far.
Why would anyone pay $15 for an ATARI 2600, oh, yeah, because it was a different market then. I've never again purchased a console since the Xbox. I never was much of a console players since the days of the 2600 and the NES, those many late night hours playing.
This is kinda funny, it's like saying you only listen to oldies or classic rock, because the the new music lacks the elements of ROCK!
I've learn to appretiate the games that have been released through the years, I have always been facinated with the direction the industry has gone. For me I love it, Old school or New it makes me happy regardless with all these negative feedbacks you folks give on these forums. One of my favorite games of all time just happens to be Masters of Magic, imo it was fucking brilliant, even til this day I can play it for hours.
One mistake you're always doing Axehilt is that you try to apply some universal things that all gamers enjoy.
I know you're convinced that you're right so I am not going to argue with you. I am just saying that there are people who don't agree with you.
Just as everything seeks the most efficient path, I seek to talk about what the most efficient MMORPG would be at entertaining most players (which is very similar to how Blizzard designs their games.)
Niche groups obviously exist, but it's less interesting to have a discussion where one person is fixated on a style of gameplay that 90% of the other posters (and 99.9% of normal gamers) think is a terrible idea.
Instead, I focus on what players have shown a clear preference for, based on their buying and continual-subscription habits. There are patterns in which types of games do well, and it's interesting to pick apart which patterns are the strongest and why. (And which patterns have synergy with others.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
One mistake you're always doing Axehilt is that you try to apply some universal things that all gamers enjoy.
I know you're convinced that you're right so I am not going to argue with you. I am just saying that there are people who don't agree with you.
Just as everything seeks the most efficient path, I seek to talk about what the most efficient MMORPG would be at entertaining most players (which is very similar to how Blizzard designs their games.)
Why, why not talk about what you find entertaining as opposed to trying to hide behind what you think the bulk of the market wants at any given time. Are you selling something, or conducting a market survey?
Niche groups obviously exist, but it's less interesting to have a discussion where one person is fixated on a style of gameplay that 90% of the other posters (and 99.9% of normal gamers) think is a terrible idea.
Yes a discussion mindlessly extolling the mantra of whatever product happens to be dominating the market at the time is fascinating. Oddly enough this poll (and most others on this site) are pointing to a preference to old school ideas. Companies are continuing to turn out old school and sandbox mmos. I guess that .01% counts to someone.
Instead, I focus on what players have shown a clear preference for, based on their buying and continual-subscription habits. There are patterns in which types of games do well, and it's interesting to pick apart which patterns are the strongest and why. (And which patterns have synergy with others.)
I'll raise your synergy with some blue sky thinking..
And here is me thinking you had an opinion on travel in mmos. I wonder then why you seemed to take offence at the suggestion of mmos as lobby games these days when that is clearly what the majority want.
You still haven't answered the question I asked btw.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I am employed and I still played MMO's. I say played because their isn't anything worth playing currently (quit Allods 3+ months ago) IMO. But when I did play, I had a job, a daughter, amongst other things. I know they take time, and I am in no hurry to cap out so I can sit in capital cities whining for more content like everyone else. That is what sets console gaming and MMORPG's apart. One is made for instant gratification, the other not so much, or to an extent...when they first started.
Now they have become nothing more than console style RPG's that HAPPEN to have massive multi-player. Funneled, heavily instanced, too much instant travel...and just cookie cutters of each other with no new innovation or creativity. Same crap, different wrapper.
As an old schooler myself...I'll tell ya, I went back to EQ1 about 4 months ago, even managed to get my account back up I haven't played in 7 years! Anyways, I had a lot of fun....for about a month. Yes, the nostalgia set in a bit...but the community was actually just as it was when I left. People were helpful and friendly, answered question, and even gave you some low level starting items. And despite the horrid graphics and dull combat system...just got me immersed so much more than that nostalgia.
But let's be serious though...would you pay $15 a month to play an Atari 2600 after having had a PS3 and/or XBox 360? Yeah, that's what I thought...well neither would I. Sure, EQ is still surprisingly fun for being 13 years old and 17 expansions deep, but again for the terrible graphics and super dull combat (Hit attack and stare until one or the other dies) at a monthly rate, you'd have to be wearing a foam helmet and a drool bib. Unless of course you haven't deviated from EQ since you started playing it. Which....when I think about it, may be why the community was still helpful and friendly hah.
And today's MMO's aren't worth a monthly fee either..because they lack SO much that set MMORPG's apart from other genre's. few I have found to be entertaining were F2P. But eventually you realize you either barely progress or can't unless you buy from them, Or spend well more than you would with a monthly fee to be able to keep up with everyone else (Not getting curb stomped all the time or left out of groups because your "gear" isn't high enough tier or whatever other BS). So..playing nothing buy Skyrim (A lot of what I wish MMO's had), PAYDAY: The Heist, and Stronghold Kingdoms. Waiting and hoping for something that will more than likely never return.
But would love to see a an MMO with today's combat, graphics and UI's with yesterday's communities, death penatly, open world...and with a bit more challenging...hopefully in an innovative way. Following one due out by an Indie company with a lot of passion...but that only takes you so far.
Why would anyone pay $15 for an ATARI 2600, oh, yeah, because it was a different market then. I've never again purchased a console since the Xbox. I never was much of a console players since the days of the 2600 and the NES, those many late night hours playing.
This is kinda funny, it's like saying you only listen to oldies or classic rock, because the the new music lacks the elements of ROCK!
I've learn to appretiate the games that have been released through the years, I have always been facinated with the direction the industry has gone. For me I love it, Old school or New it makes me happy regardless with all these negative feedbacks you folks give on these forums. One of my favorite games of all time just happens to be Masters of Magic, imo it was fucking brilliant, even til this day I can play it for hours.
You have yet again completely missed the point and just strive to be an argumentative twit. I was simply getting at would you play and pay for something old, even if you liked it at one point, if there have been huge advances with better game mechanics/graphics available to play that you would spend the same amount for. I just used console gaming as the format figuring you'd know it well enough to understand what I was getting at...but apparently not.
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.
What genre was Tolkien trying to popularise again? Because he certainly wasn't writing to mainstream fantasy fiction, he was creating an anglicised version of nordic mythology. Which meant that all that detail was necessary and intentional. Perhaps you would prefer the comic book version?
Again I see you mention "time sinks" and again I see you confuse a set of mechanics that take time and provide content with a set of mechanics that only soak up time.
You say he would have had those fond memories in Skyrim. Except no he probably wouldn't. What if he experienced them on his SECOND trip from location A to B, or this third trip? In your utopian ideal of the world meaning fuck all, the second or third trip would never have happend as he would have teleported/fast travelled to location B.
You still haven't answered the original question btw.
I would prefer a Tolkien story which kept only to scenes which strongly told the story he was meaning to tell, and reduced redundancies or parts of the story which weren't very meaningful. Many authors I've read since Tolkien have been much more efficient at every paragraph feeling meaningful and intentional, whereas Tolkien clearly rambled.
My usage of timesink was pretty straightforward there and used the common definition of "timesink" (when players say something's a timesink they mean it takes excessive time without very much gameplay; sometimes with no gameplay.) I assume you're not trying to say players prefer games which obscure a lack of content with timesinks...they clearly prefer gameplay-rich, timesink-lite games.
Some of his experiences would've occurred on those 2nd and 3rd trips. But fewer than occurred on the first trip. Player enjoyment of repetition tends to decay rather rapidly, with the first trip being the best. I'm not exactly clear why you'd push for regurgitated repeat (repeat travel) rather than completely new journies (instant travel to places you've been, but gameplay is always sending you somewhere new.) In ten new trips vs. ten retraces, I assure you you're going to experience a higher frequency of interesting things happening.
No clue what question you're referring to.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am employed and I still played MMO's. I say played because their isn't anything worth playing currently (quit Allods 3+ months ago) IMO. But when I did play, I had a job, a daughter, amongst other things. I know they take time, and I am in no hurry to cap out so I can sit in capital cities whining for more content like everyone else. That is what sets console gaming and MMORPG's apart. One is made for instant gratification, the other not so much, or to an extent...when they first started.
Now they have become nothing more than console style RPG's that HAPPEN to have massive multi-player. Funneled, heavily instanced, too much instant travel...and just cookie cutters of each other with no new innovation or creativity. Same crap, different wrapper.
As an old schooler myself...I'll tell ya, I went back to EQ1 about 4 months ago, even managed to get my account back up I haven't played in 7 years! Anyways, I had a lot of fun....for about a month. Yes, the nostalgia set in a bit...but the community was actually just as it was when I left. People were helpful and friendly, answered question, and even gave you some low level starting items. And despite the horrid graphics and dull combat system...just got me immersed so much more than that nostalgia.
But let's be serious though...would you pay $15 a month to play an Atari 2600 after having had a PS3 and/or XBox 360? Yeah, that's what I thought...well neither would I. Sure, EQ is still surprisingly fun for being 13 years old and 17 expansions deep, but again for the terrible graphics and super dull combat (Hit attack and stare until one or the other dies) at a monthly rate, you'd have to be wearing a foam helmet and a drool bib. Unless of course you haven't deviated from EQ since you started playing it. Which....when I think about it, may be why the community was still helpful and friendly hah.
And today's MMO's aren't worth a monthly fee either..because they lack SO much that set MMORPG's apart from other genre's. few I have found to be entertaining were F2P. But eventually you realize you either barely progress or can't unless you buy from them, Or spend well more than you would with a monthly fee to be able to keep up with everyone else (Not getting curb stomped all the time or left out of groups because your "gear" isn't high enough tier or whatever other BS). So..playing nothing buy Skyrim (A lot of what I wish MMO's had), PAYDAY: The Heist, and Stronghold Kingdoms. Waiting and hoping for something that will more than likely never return.
But would love to see a an MMO with today's combat, graphics and UI's with yesterday's communities, death penatly, open world...and with a bit more challenging...hopefully in an innovative way. Following one due out by an Indie company with a lot of passion...but that only takes you so far.
Why would anyone pay $15 for an ATARI 2600, oh, yeah, because it was a different market then. I've never again purchased a console since the Xbox. I never was much of a console players since the days of the 2600 and the NES, those many late night hours playing.
This is kinda funny, it's like saying you only listen to oldies or classic rock, because the the new music lacks the elements of ROCK!
I've learn to appretiate the games that have been released through the years, I have always been facinated with the direction the industry has gone. For me I love it, Old school or New it makes me happy regardless with all these negative feedbacks you folks give on these forums. One of my favorite games of all time just happens to be Masters of Magic, imo it was fucking brilliant, even til this day I can play it for hours.
You have yet again completely missed the point and just strive to be an argumentative twit. I was simply getting at would you play and pay for something old, even if you liked it at one point, if there have been huge advances with better game mechanics/graphics available to play that you would spend the same amount for. I just used console gaming as the format figuring you'd know it well enough to understand what I was getting at...but apparently not.
Sorry I was distracted, see I was busy enjoying this old game and downloading a new one. Can't you see the smile on my face?
Seriously is that best you can do? I have received some pretty good insults on these boards and have given folks props for them. This is about 2 out of 10, hey, at at keast got a pair.
Please stop the sobbering and pick up the empty tissue box, it's silly to think a grown man has to cry over a video game. There are so many of them now pick one and have fun!
Just as everything seeks the most efficient path, I seek to talk about what the most efficient MMORPG would be at entertaining most players (which is very similar to how Blizzard designs their games.)
Why, why not talk about what you find entertaining as opposed to trying to hide behind what you think the bulk of the market wants at any given time. Are you selling something, or conducting a market survey?
Niche groups obviously exist, but it's less interesting to have a discussion where one person is fixated on a style of gameplay that 90% of the other posters (and 99.9% of normal gamers) think is a terrible idea.
Yes a discussion mindlessly extolling the mantra of whatever product happens to be dominating the market at the time is fascinating. Oddly enough this poll (and most others on this site) are pointing to a preference to old school ideas. Companies are continuing to turn out old school and sandbox mmos. I guess that .01% counts to someone.
Instead, I focus on what players have shown a clear preference for, based on their buying and continual-subscription habits. There are patterns in which types of games do well, and it's interesting to pick apart which patterns are the strongest and why. (And which patterns have synergy with others.)
I'll raise your synergy with some blue sky thinking..
And here is me thinking you had an opinion on travel in mmos. I wonder then why you seemed to take offence at the suggestion of mmos as lobby games these days when that is clearly what the majority want.
You still haven't answered the question I asked btw.
A. Because it's my job to observe how people have fun and provide them with a fun game.
B. My posts criticize the dominant game from time to time and point out alternative viable styles of games when such things are suggested (such as admitting sandbox MMORPGs would have potential if they focused more on gameplay and less on world simulation.)
C. Apparently I need to use smaller words for you. My bad, dog.
D. I didn't take offense at your suggestion of MMOs as lobby games. I pointed out your wrongness at assuming I played MMORPGs as PVP lobby games, when I don't even PVP in them.
Besides, if Skyrim was an MMO it wouldn't magically be a "lobby game" just because it has fast travel to anywhere you've explored. So if I seem to take offense, it's because it honestly makes no sense to assume we're talking about lobby games.
I actually prefer PVE Lobby games, but literally nothing I've said in this thread prevents a game from being a world in exactly the same way Skyrim still takes place all in the persistent world. My entire point is that travel is almost always a big empty waste of time in MMORPGs, and bit empty wastes of time deserve to be removed because they're meaningless timesinks.
E. Still no clue what question you're going on about.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Just as everything seeks the most efficient path, I seek to talk about what the most efficient MMORPG would be at entertaining most players (which is very similar to how Blizzard designs their games.)
Why, why not talk about what you find entertaining as opposed to trying to hide behind what you think the bulk of the market wants at any given time. Are you selling something, or conducting a market survey?
Niche groups obviously exist, but it's less interesting to have a discussion where one person is fixated on a style of gameplay that 90% of the other posters (and 99.9% of normal gamers) think is a terrible idea.
Yes a discussion mindlessly extolling the mantra of whatever product happens to be dominating the market at the time is fascinating. Oddly enough this poll (and most others on this site) are pointing to a preference to old school ideas. Companies are continuing to turn out old school and sandbox mmos. I guess that .01% counts to someone.
Instead, I focus on what players have shown a clear preference for, based on their buying and continual-subscription habits. There are patterns in which types of games do well, and it's interesting to pick apart which patterns are the strongest and why. (And which patterns have synergy with others.)
I'll raise your synergy with some blue sky thinking..
And here is me thinking you had an opinion on travel in mmos. I wonder then why you seemed to take offence at the suggestion of mmos as lobby games these days when that is clearly what the majority want.
You still haven't answered the question I asked btw.
A. Because it's my job to observe how people have fun and provide them with a fun game.
That's your job on this forum is it? Odd, I don't quite see how you spending your time banging on about the merits of instancing and the like is providing anyone here with a fun game. If you want to observe how people have fun, you don't spend your time trying to tell them why their fun is not as important as the fun other people are having.
B. My posts criticize the dominant game from time to time and point out alternative viable styles of games when such things are suggested (such as admitting sandbox MMORPGs would have potential if they focused more on gameplay and less on world simulation.)
What is interesting is that even now you can't see how world simulation is content. #Unbelievable.
C. Apparently I need to use smaller words for you. My bad, dog.
I was mocking the use of middle management jargon, which like most middle management jargon is used to disguise a lack of actual point. So there is no need to use shorter words. Simply use ones that have a point.
D. I didn't take offense at your suggestion of MMOs as lobby games. I pointed out your wrongness at assuming I played MMORPGs as PVP lobby games, when I don't even PVP in them.
Besides, if Skyrim was an MMO it wouldn't magically be a "lobby game" just because it has fast travel to anywhere you've explored. So if I seem to take offense, it's because it honestly makes no sense to assume we're talking about lobby games.
I actually prefer PVE Lobby games, but literally nothing I've said in this thread prevents a game from being a world in exactly the same way Skyrim still takes place all in the persistent world. My entire point is that travel is almost always a big empty waste of time in MMORPGs, and bit empty wastes of time deserve to be removed because they're meaningless timesinks.
Pretty much every mechanic you ever argue for (which let's face it have to be the most popular otherwise they don't count right?) sets a game up to be a lobby game and remove world simulation. That's great, you like that or should I say you like that lot's of other people seem to like that..lulz. But to fail to grasp the merits of other systems even if you don't prefer them, that is rather ridiculous.
E. Still no clue what question you're going on about.
I've repeated it twice now, perhaps third time is the charm.
A simple question:
Does having instant travel to pretty much everywhere within a game world diminish the potential within said game world, are other mechanics impacted upon?
You really do not seem to grasp the fact that world simulation can provide content and that travel through said world is more than just a time sink. You can't even seem to grasp the fact that people can encounter others and join up or otherwise game with them on (and I know you will be amazed), the second or even the third trip through an area. And no, you are not immediately less likey to have something happen on the second trip in a dynamic world.
I can understand that not everyone wants world simulation, I can understand the merits of porting from A to B if the world in between is totally static and there are no mechanics in place to drive dynamic events and the like. You though seem unable to understand that with the right mechanics, a dynamic world IS content to many players and it is far from a fucking time sink.
I'm still laughing at your latest Tolkien critique btw so thanks for the entertainment. Perhaps you are providing people with a fun game here after all.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
One mistake you're always doing Axehilt is that you try to apply some universal things that all gamers enjoy.
I know you're convinced that you're right so I am not going to argue with you. I am just saying that there are people who don't agree with you.
Just as everything seeks the most efficient path, I seek to talk about what the most efficient MMORPG would be at entertaining most players (which is very similar to how Blizzard designs their games.)
Niche groups obviously exist, but it's less interesting to have a discussion where one person is fixated on a style of gameplay that 90% of the other posters (and 99.9% of normal gamers) think is a terrible idea.
Instead, I focus on what players have shown a clear preference for, based on their buying and continual-subscription habits. There are patterns in which types of games do well, and it's interesting to pick apart which patterns are the strongest and why. (And which patterns have synergy with others.)
1) Is walking a "timesink" ? It is if your goal is simply to get from A to B. Strangely a decent amount of the population does it as a form of entertainment (e.g. "Hiking") for them clearly it's not as they actualy enjoy it. That's really one of the keys to this discussion. Anything is a "timesink" if it occupies time and is an annoyance or inconvenience to a person. However people are different and one persons "annoyance" is another persons "enrichment". You seem to take your personal annoyances and inconveniences in gaming and project them outwardly as Universal..... however that's clearly not the case, as we can see even with this small sample here that people do, indeed have different preferences to you.
2) Another concept you seem to be overlooking is the idea of why "rewards" are rewarding. Things that are adversities, annoyances or inconveniences actualy serve a purpose. If you were constantly presented with a series of pleasurable experiences without break they would quickly cease to be "pleasurable" as you'd have nothing to contrast them against and you'd become aclimitized to the reward so it would cease to be rewarding. It's why addicts (we're not talking drugs here but anything that a person can become addicted to) constantly need stronger, more intense and more frequent exposure to whatever they are addicted to. Notice this trend with games too, as they are constantly trying to decrease the effort to achieve and increase the frequency of "rewards" to players..... and in so doing they are only shooting themselves in the foot, as they will need to continue that cycle add infinitem.
One of the other concepts that leads people to derive real satisfaction is the concept of achievement through overcoming an adversity. The sense of achievement in finnishing a marathon for example doesn't come because running the distance is easy, efficient or painless....it comes because of the adverisity of the trial.... the more grueling the trial, the greater sense of satisfaction the individual is likely to experience in overcoming it. This is a well established principle in human psychology. Also the greater the penalty for failing to achieve something, the greater the sense of satisfaction derived from success in avoidance of that penalty. This is why games which remove the penalty for failure (death) are actualy working against thier own (and thier players) interests even though they don't understand that they are. If failure (death) has little sting... then success (survival) provides little satisfaction or sense of achievement.
3) You also rely on a rather common arguement here on these forums. You seek to marginalize preferences that run contrary to your own by attributing them to only a small minority of the audience. They are "niche" therefore don't need to be catered toward. The problem with that is that you lack any real data to substantiate such claims. Even the Publishers generaly have very poor data to try to predict preferences. Most simply rely on "common wisdom" in the industry.
On the surface, the release of recent titles and thier popularity in sales/subscriptions might seem to support your case (and the common wisdom), unfortunately that ignores a rather well established scientific principle.... correlation does not equal causation. That something is popular, does not actualy serve to inform one as to WHY that thing is popular. Using the same assumptions we might surmise that because McDonalds is more popular then the Ritz Carelton, that people enjoy the taste of McDonalds food more...... one can surely see how such an assumption is flawed?
It's undoubted that most of the recent AAA MMO's that have been released in recent years generaly draw larger sales/subscription numbers then the older, "old school" games did but does that tell us WHY such is the case? At the very least in order to get some substantive data we should try to isolate the "Old School"/"New School" quality of such games from other factors. So where is our AAA "Old School" MMO that was released recently to compare against? The only "Old School" style MMO that I've seen released recently are limited budget indie productions. Even EVE was not released as a AAA production....yet it's some numbers stack up well against many of todays AAA "New School" games....an anomoly that should not exist if the "Old School" factor was inhereintly a detriment to games popularity. So if we can't isolate the "Old School/ New School" factor in AAA releases because almost all "Old School" games released recently are small budget indies..... what happens if we try to isolate that factor by comparing small budget indies with small budget indies...to try to establish a closer control group. If your hypothesis bears out.... "New School" small budget indies should do substantialy better then "Old School" small budget indies. Does the data bear that out? I would suggest if anything it shows the reverse. Although again, there are ALOT of different factors involved in any particular MMO. That's the problem when we try to make predictions about some factor without having a means to isolate that factor from other influences.
Even if for the sake of arguement we accepted that "New School" were more popular then "Old School" that isn't neccesarly a good arguement for a new game coming out to seek to adopt "New School" design. The secret to a successfull product is NOT to produce a product targeted at the largest market segment..... it's to produce a product for a market that is currently UNDERSERVED and do so at a cost that is substantialy less then ones sales potential. Even if Pizza if 10 times more popular then Sushi.... If there are 50 Pizza joints in a town and 1 Sushi place... a new enterprise has greater chance of success by serving Sushi rather then Pizza.
That's why I really don't have a problem with "New School" style designs being produced by publishers.....but I do have a rather large problem with the assumption that a design MUST BE "New School" in order to be a success. That neither accounts for much understanding of WHY titles succeed or fail...nor accounts for the diversity in the audience for such games.
A. Because it's my job to observe how people have fun and provide them with a fun game.
That's your job on this forum is it?
Axe: No, it's my job.
B. My posts criticize the dominant game from time to time and point out alternative viable styles of games when such things are suggested (such as admitting sandbox MMORPGs would have potential if they focused more on gameplay and less on world simulation.)
What is interesting is that even now you can't see how world simulation is content. #Unbelievable.
Axe: Prove me wrong by pointing out the world simulation games which are as successful as gameplay-centric games. The entire history of the games industry is Games being more successful than Simulations. Nothing new.
C. Apparently I need to use smaller words for you. My bad, dog.
I was mocking the use of middle management jargon, which like most middle management jargon is used to disguise a lack of actual point. So there is no need to use shorter words. Simply use ones that have a point.
Axe: The point was fucking synergy. What's a smaller word I can use for you to understand that synergistic features make better games? "Werks gud; werks better together"?
D. I didn't take offense at your suggestion of MMOs as lobby games. I pointed out your wrongness at assuming I played MMORPGs as PVP lobby games, when I don't even PVP in them.
Besides, if Skyrim was an MMO it wouldn't magically be a "lobby game" just because it has fast travel to anywhere you've explored. So if I seem to take offense, it's because it honestly makes no sense to assume we're talking about lobby games.
I actually prefer PVE Lobby games, but literally nothing I've said in this thread prevents a game from being a world in exactly the same way Skyrim still takes place all in the persistent world. My entire point is that travel is almost always a big empty waste of time in MMORPGs, and bit empty wastes of time deserve to be removed because they're meaningless timesinks.
Pretty much every mechanic you ever argue for (which let's face it have to be the most popular otherwise they don't count right?) sets a game up to be a lobby game and remove world simulation. That's great, you like that or should I say you like that lot's of other people seem to like that..lulz. But to fail to grasp the merits of other systems even if you don't prefer them, that is rather ridiculous.
Axe: Yes, I like it. And since the dawn of the games industry the overwhelming majority has liked it. Games are what most people want for entertainment; not simulations.
Simply stating the obvious (games are more popular than sims) doesn't mean I don't grasp the merits of other systems. I know their merits, but for most players the disadvantages of those systems outweigh the merits.
E. Still no clue what question you're going on about.
I've repeated it twice now, perhaps third time is the charm.
A simple question:
Does having instant travel to pretty much everywhere within a game world diminish the potential within said game world, are other mechanics impacted upon?
Axe: Ah, so you simply failed to read my answer. Got it.
Let me requote: "Instant travel to "anywhere" is bad and never what was requested. Instant travel to anywhere I've been before is what's important (with the caveat that the "first trip" travel should either include interesting gameplay or be eliminated.) Players want content, and traveling somewhere the first time (assuming a reasonable density of interesting things happening during the trip) is exactly what players want."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My point is in no way, shape, or form in agreement with any of your posts in this thread. You just seem to fail to grasp what the game world can offer in a mmo and how instant travel would balls it up.
Instant travel anywhere you have been once before.. oh dear. I did wonder why you had failed to answer the simple question I asked but after that chestnut it is no great surprise. In a static world themepark or any of the loby game mmos then yes, that makes sense. But that is not what I am talking about now is it.
It's quite simple really, having instant travel removes potential mechanics, it removes possibilities, it removes the point of the game world.
It is also quite simple that the "second trip" is only boring if the content you pass through is static. If it is dynamic (which it can indeed be) then it is not boring.
Perhaps you could answer the question now: Does having instant travel to pretty much everywhere within a game world diminish the potential within said game world, are other mechanics impacted upon?
My point was that time wasting without gameplay is a timesink. Your point was that time wasting without gameplay is a timesink. So yeah, we said the same thing.
And your quote "If the game world offered nothing over and above getting from A to B then you would have a point." is extremely close to what actually happens for most players, in games with excessive travel.
Let me spell it out, because it's very simple:
Players value gameplay.
Players hate non-gameplay (timesinks).
Interesting decisions are gameplay.
Most travel doesn't involve interesting decisions.
When it does, it's rare and typically involves fewer or shallower decisions than other game systems -- in other words, it's light on gameplay.
No matter what way you try to twist it, these are the underlying reasons games with excessive travel do worse: because they're not doing a very good job entertaining players.
To reiterate: we're talking about actual games you can see and play.
A theoretical game which has dynamic action gameplay and dynamic sights each time you repeat travel could theoretically solve these problems. But I think solving this tricky problem would be too time-consuming to be worthwhile -- game A would solve these issues and have a little dynamic content to explore; meanwhile game B is like Skyrim (fast travel to where you've previously visited, but there are literally hundreds of different trips to go on; tons of content.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A. Because it's my job to observe how people have fun and provide them with a fun game.
That's your job on this forum is it?
Axe: No, it's my job.
Unless your job is commenting on these forums then it's pretty irrelevant. I can't image you are collecting a pay cheque to argue the toss on here about travel.
B. My posts criticize the dominant game from time to time and point out alternative viable styles of games when such things are suggested (such as admitting sandbox MMORPGs would have potential if they focused more on gameplay and less on world simulation.)
What is interesting is that even now you can't see how world simulation is content. #Unbelievable.
Axe: Prove me wrong by pointing out the world simulation games which are as successful as gameplay-centric games. The entire history of the games industry is Games being more successful than Simulations. Nothing new.
World simulation does provide gameplay. How can you still be missing that? You still see it as only offering A to B. EVE and UO have done quite well. Btw more people have played the solitaire game that comes with windows then have played mmos. I guess we should scrap mmos because they are not as popular as other genres right? After all only popularity matters.
C. Apparently I need to use smaller words for you. My bad, dog.
I was mocking the use of middle management jargon, which like most middle management jargon is used to disguise a lack of actual point. So there is no need to use shorter words. Simply use ones that have a point.
Axe: The point was fucking synergy. What's a smaller word I can use for you to understand that synergistic features make better games? "Werks gud; werks better together"?
Buying patterns and synergy have fuck all to do with the merits of what world content can provide. That's the point. More people buy Big Macs than fillet steak, I guess that means that fillet steak has no merit. I am pointing out what the game world can provide, pointing out player numbers and buying patterns impacts upon that in no way whatsoever. If I happened to be saying world simulation was more popular than other game types you would have a solid case. I'm not saying that though am I
D. I didn't take offense at your suggestion of MMOs as lobby games. I pointed out your wrongness at assuming I played MMORPGs as PVP lobby games, when I don't even PVP in them.
Besides, if Skyrim was an MMO it wouldn't magically be a "lobby game" just because it has fast travel to anywhere you've explored. So if I seem to take offense, it's because it honestly makes no sense to assume we're talking about lobby games.
I actually prefer PVE Lobby games, but literally nothing I've said in this thread prevents a game from being a world in exactly the same way Skyrim still takes place all in the persistent world. My entire point is that travel is almost always a big empty waste of time in MMORPGs, and bit empty wastes of time deserve to be removed because they're meaningless timesinks.
Pretty much every mechanic you ever argue for (which let's face it have to be the most popular otherwise they don't count right?) sets a game up to be a lobby game and remove world simulation. That's great, you like that or should I say you like that lot's of other people seem to like that..lulz. But to fail to grasp the merits of other systems even if you don't prefer them, that is rather ridiculous.
Axe: Yes, I like it. And since the dawn of the games industry the overwhelming majority has liked it. Games are what most people want for entertainment; not simulations.
Simply stating the obvious (games are more popular than sims) doesn't mean I don't grasp the merits of other systems. I know their merits, but for most players the disadvantages of those systems outweigh the merits.
That would be great if you happened to demonstrate that in one of your posts. Thus far you haven't, all you have managed to do is to say that the game world is only good for looking at once and then it becomes a time sink.
E. Still no clue what question you're going on about.
I've repeated it twice now, perhaps third time is the charm.
A simple question:
Does having instant travel to pretty much everywhere within a game world diminish the potential within said game world, are other mechanics impacted upon?
Axe: Ah, so you simply failed to read my answer. Got it.
Let me requote: "Instant travel to "anywhere" is bad and never what was requested. Instant travel to anywhere I've been before is what's important (with the caveat that the "first trip" travel should either include interesting gameplay or be eliminated.) Players want content, and traveling somewhere the first time (assuming a reasonable density of interesting things happening during the trip) is exactly what players want."
I didn't miss that part, take a look at it again, it doesn't actually answer the question at all does it. That's probably why I asked the question again after reading it....
The whole "after one trip teleportz plox" is retarded unless you are specifically talking about a non dynamic game world. I'm not and thus it is. Perhaps you could actually answer the question now?
I really couldn't give two shits what other people happen to like, I am not arguing the merits of certain mechanics based upon popularity. I am putting the case forward for mechanics based on what they can bring to a game, not on what I think Bob from Derpsville wants to play on a Sunday afternoon.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I am employed and I still played MMO's. I say played because their isn't anything worth playing currently (quit Allods 3+ months ago) IMO. But when I did play, I had a job, a daughter, amongst other things. I know they take time, and I am in no hurry to cap out so I can sit in capital cities whining for more content like everyone else. That is what sets console gaming and MMORPG's apart. One is made for instant gratification, the other not so much, or to an extent...when they first started.
Now they have become nothing more than console style RPG's that HAPPEN to have massive multi-player. Funneled, heavily instanced, too much instant travel...and just cookie cutters of each other with no new innovation or creativity. Same crap, different wrapper.
As an old schooler myself...I'll tell ya, I went back to EQ1 about 4 months ago, even managed to get my account back up I haven't played in 7 years! Anyways, I had a lot of fun....for about a month. Yes, the nostalgia set in a bit...but the community was actually just as it was when I left. People were helpful and friendly, answered question, and even gave you some low level starting items. And despite the horrid graphics and dull combat system...just got me immersed so much more than that nostalgia.
But let's be serious though...would you pay $15 a month to play an Atari 2600 after having had a PS3 and/or XBox 360? Yeah, that's what I thought...well neither would I. Sure, EQ is still surprisingly fun for being 13 years old and 17 expansions deep, but again for the terrible graphics and super dull combat (Hit attack and stare until one or the other dies) at a monthly rate, you'd have to be wearing a foam helmet and a drool bib. Unless of course you haven't deviated from EQ since you started playing it. Which....when I think about it, may be why the community was still helpful and friendly hah.
And today's MMO's aren't worth a monthly fee either..because they lack SO much that set MMORPG's apart from other genre's. few I have found to be entertaining were F2P. But eventually you realize you either barely progress or can't unless you buy from them, Or spend well more than you would with a monthly fee to be able to keep up with everyone else (Not getting curb stomped all the time or left out of groups because your "gear" isn't high enough tier or whatever other BS). So..playing nothing buy Skyrim (A lot of what I wish MMO's had), PAYDAY: The Heist, and Stronghold Kingdoms. Waiting and hoping for something that will more than likely never return.
But would love to see a an MMO with today's combat, graphics and UI's with yesterday's communities, death penatly, open world...and with a bit more challenging...hopefully in an innovative way. Following one due out by an Indie company with a lot of passion...but that only takes you so far.
Why would anyone pay $15 for an ATARI 2600, oh, yeah, because it was a different market then. I've never again purchased a console since the Xbox. I never was much of a console players since the days of the 2600 and the NES, those many late night hours playing.
This is kinda funny, it's like saying you only listen to oldies or classic rock, because the the new music lacks the elements of ROCK!
I've learn to appretiate the games that have been released through the years, I have always been facinated with the direction the industry has gone. For me I love it, Old school or New it makes me happy regardless with all these negative feedbacks you folks give on these forums. One of my favorite games of all time just happens to be Masters of Magic, imo it was fucking brilliant, even til this day I can play it for hours.
You have yet again completely missed the point and just strive to be an argumentative twit. I was simply getting at would you play and pay for something old, even if you liked it at one point, if there have been huge advances with better game mechanics/graphics available to play that you would spend the same amount for. I just used console gaming as the format figuring you'd know it well enough to understand what I was getting at...but apparently not.
Sorry I was distracted, see I was busy enjoying this old game and downloading a new one. Can't you see the smile on my face?
Seriously is that best you can do? I have received some pretty good insults on these boards and have given folks props for them. This is about 2 out of 10, hey, at at keast got a pair.
Please stop the sobbering and pick up the empty tissue box, it's silly to think a grown man has to cry over a video game. There are so many of them now pick one and have fun!
Unlike you, I don't need to compare c*$#s to show how cool and web-tough I am. As well as not being a child. You just sound angry and like an adolescent. Especially apparent since you conveniently skipped the rest of my post and focused on my one sign of irritation with the brick wall that is your skull comment.
I play plenty of old games, just not MMORPG's that make you pay a monthly for them. Again, you miss the point, or don't care what the point is as long as your getting under someone's skin. Not responding again to you, waste of time and energy.
The only reason I voted "Just let me see the poll" instead of old school is because I won't play an MMO that forces me into social situations too often. And old school MMOs are notorious for doing so.
Should any developer ever come up with a good old school style MMO that includes a real path for the loner, I'll play it happily.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Axe: Prove me wrong by pointing out the world simulation games which are as successful as gameplay-centric games. The entire history of the games industry is Games being more successful than Simulations. Nothing new.
Eve is one example. arguable one of the most successful mmorgs ever based on longevity, complexity and loyalty of customer base. I as a player could not give a rats arse about huge profits, I as a player want rich gaming diversity and quality games. It can be done, it just needs gifted and dedicated development teams that values integrity and vision over massive profits.
Axe: Ah, so you simply failed to read my answer. Got it.
Let me requote: "Instant travel to "anywhere" is bad and never what was requested. Instant travel to anywhere I've been before is what's important (with the caveat that the "first trip" travel should either include interesting gameplay or be eliminated.) Players want content, and traveling somewhere the first time (assuming a reasonable density of interesting things happening during the trip) is exactly what players want."
You are basing this on lobby style games where the end point is all that matters. Travel to many is content within a mmorg context, in that it helps me immerse in the world I play in. Immersion is important, immersion is more imortant still in virtual worlds where people invest time and emotion into their character and world. I wil give an example, you are flying to instant x, while flying you get time to prepare for the instance you are travelling to, you have time to do other in-game activities, you have time to think and enjoy the game. To use the book analogy, you dont skip to the best bit in the last chapter, then repeat that last chaptor over and over do you? same with films, you dont skip to scene 4 and 12 because they are the best bits,
Take the arguement of instant travel to its logical conclusion and you have wow - virtual world is dead, players circle cities like mad polar bears trapped in zoos waiting for their next instance. You really would be as well switching the virtual world off.
Synergy. good games have synergy - the virtual world. Cherry picking the good bits, e.g instant travel to instances is basically breaking the synergy of the product, Utter madness from my point of view (I am also a systems developer)
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
Somebody cried that DDO and GW1 were not MMORPGs - I don't care - I had tons of fun playing them. I don't care about anyone's ideal MMO and how some features "shouldn't be in an MMO". Fuck all that. I happen to like some games that just happen to be MMOs. I don't care about MMOs in general.
I as a player I don't give two shits about anything else other than if the game is fun or not. I don't care if the game is an MMO or not, FPS or not, RTS or not, RPG or not, multiplayer or single player, simulation or arcade, racing, sports, fighting... I play all the games if they are fun. And these newer MMOs are more fun than the old-school MMOs.
This doesn't make me part of instant gratification, WoW or console-generation. When some games have these tedious and timeconsuming aspects, I can just look it over and say "Not worth my time" and move on to another game that is worth my time. I have not touched WoW since its beta. I have not touched Aion, Rift or LotRo either. And finally, I own a console, yes, but I play a lot more on my PC. ...instant gratification, my ass. These are all invented stereotypes in which nobody really fits.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Good god, bunnyhopper, you got Axehilt angry! I thought I'd never see the day. I'm siding with him by the way.
Indeed.
If you think that a game world can never be dynamic and that travel through it can provide no content other than being a time sink then fair play to you, i'm glad you agree with him (it's about time someone did I guess!). I don't happen to subscribe to that sentiment, although I have at no point argued that everyone has to want the same thing from a game.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
A. Because it's my job to observe how people have fun and provide them with a fun game.
That's your job on this forum is it?
Axe: No, it's my job.
Unless your job is commenting on these forums then it's pretty irrelevant. I can't image you are collecting a pay cheque to argue the toss on here about travel.
Axe: Hey, you're the one who asked why I discuss what people generally find entertaining; I'm just responding :P
World simulation does provide gameplay. How can you still be missing that? You still see it as only offering A to B. EVE and UO have done quite well. Btw more people have played the solitaire game that comes with windows then have played mmos. I guess we should scrap mmos because they are not as popular as other genres right? After all only popularity matters.
Axe: I don't know where you got the idea that I think world simulations have zero gameplay. They have gameplay, it's just worse than games which are purely gameplay-centric (and this is exactly why they entertain worse: gameplay concessions for the sake of simulation.
The discussion is about MMOs, so clearly we're not designing solitaire. Although Poker & Sword was a rather fun little iphone game and I wouldn't mind a Puzzle Pirates-style MMO version of Poker & Sword honestly.
Buying patterns and synergy have fuck all to do with the merits of what world content can provide. That's the point. More people buy Big Macs than fillet steak, I guess that means that fillet steak has no merit. I am pointing out what the game world can provide, pointing out player numbers and buying patterns impacts upon that in no way whatsoever. If I happened to be saying world simulation was more popular than other game types you would have a solid case. I'm not saying that though am I
Axe: Gameplay patterns, guy. Feature A synergizes with Feature B, which makes the game more than the sum of it's parts. Feature synergy matters.
That would be great if you happened to demonstrate that in one of your posts. Thus far you haven't, all you have managed to do is to say that the game world is only good for looking at once and then it becomes a time sink.
Axe: The actual repeat travel in actual games is boring. Until a game is made otherwise or strong ideas are presented which make fun repeat travel sound feasible, I'm going to keep pointing out that repeat travel sucks.
I didn't miss that part, take a look at it again, it doesn't actually answer the question at all does it. That's probably why I asked the question again after reading it....
Axe: "Potential" isn't necessarily reduced by removing travel. Plenty of non-MMORPGs do fine without even having the concept of travel.
It's important that the specific suggestion I'm making in reducing repeat travel will increase how long players spend in the more desirable, deeper game systems. So the overall enjoyment is increased because players spend less time engaging in a low-potential game system and more time engaging in high-potential systems.
The whole "after one trip teleportz plox" is retarded unless you are specifically talking about a non dynamic game world. I'm not and thus it is. Perhaps you could actually answer the question now?
Axe: That's the point though: no existing MMORPG is dynamic enough, and so it's not retarded. No existing MMORPG's repeat travel is as enjoyable as the parts of the game that developers have spent the majority of their time designing and polishing (usually combat.)
So even though some MMORPGs have dynamic worlds, it doesn't matter. We're not looking for whether repeat travel provides any fun at all. It needs to provide more fun than the cornerstone features of a game to be worth the extra time.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Axe: Prove me wrong by pointing out the world simulation games which are as successful as gameplay-centric games. The entire history of the games industry is Games being more successful than Simulations. Nothing new.
Eve is one example. arguable one of the most successful mmorgs ever based on longevity, complexity and loyalty of customer base. I as a player could not give a rats arse about huge profits, I as a player want rich gaming diversity and quality games. It can be done, it just needs gifted and dedicated development teams that values integrity and vision over massive profits.
You are basing this on lobby style games where the end point is all that matters. Travel to many is content within a mmorg context, in that it helps me immerse in the world I play in. Immersion is important, immersion is more imortant still in virtual worlds where people invest time and emotion into their character and world. I wil give an example, you are flying to instant x, while flying you get time to prepare for the instance you are travelling to, you have time to do other in-game activities, you have time to think and enjoy the game. To use the book analogy, you dont skip to the best bit in the last chapter, then repeat that last chaptor over and over do you? same with films, you dont skip to scene 4 and 12 because they are the best bits,
Take the arguement of instant travel to its logical conclusion and you have wow - virtual world is dead, players circle cities like mad polar bears trapped in zoos waiting for their next instance. You really would be as well switching the virtual world off.
Synergy. good games have synergy - the virtual world. Cherry picking the good bits, e.g instant travel to instances is basically breaking the synergy of the product, Utter madness from my point of view (I am also a systems developer)
EVE is exactly the niche-sized simulation one would expect though. It's a fraction of the size of WOW; the same fractional audience that I've seen in any genre when you have simulations vs. games.
RTS games? Huge. Detailed war simulations? Fractional.
Action war vehicle games (BF3)? Huge. Detailed war simulations (Jane's simulators)? Fractional.
The niche playerbases can still be enough to support a successful business (...sometimes (Microsoft Flight Simulator)) but they're always less successful than an equally well-made game of the same genre.
I guess Skyrim is a lobby-based game? (Granted I'm not really basing the idea on Skyrim -- these ideas far predate Skyrim -- it just happens to be a perfect recent example of great travel design paying off.) Are you suggesting Skyrim doesn't feel like a world?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Good god, bunnyhopper, you got Axehilt angry! I thought I'd never see the day. I'm siding with him by the way.
Eh, only got upset a little over the synergy comment. It's like talking to a little kid -- say something they don't understand and they come back with some sarcastic nonsense.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Axe: Prove me wrong by pointing out the world simulation games which are as successful as gameplay-centric games. The entire history of the games industry is Games being more successful than Simulations. Nothing new.
Eve is one example. arguable one of the most successful mmorgs ever based on longevity, complexity and loyalty of customer base. I as a player could not give a rats arse about huge profits, I as a player want rich gaming diversity and quality games. It can be done, it just needs gifted and dedicated development teams that values integrity and vision over massive profits.
You are basing this on lobby style games where the end point is all that matters. Travel to many is content within a mmorg context, in that it helps me immerse in the world I play in. Immersion is important, immersion is more imortant still in virtual worlds where people invest time and emotion into their character and world. I wil give an example, you are flying to instant x, while flying you get time to prepare for the instance you are travelling to, you have time to do other in-game activities, you have time to think and enjoy the game. To use the book analogy, you dont skip to the best bit in the last chapter, then repeat that last chaptor over and over do you? same with films, you dont skip to scene 4 and 12 because they are the best bits,
Take the arguement of instant travel to its logical conclusion and you have wow - virtual world is dead, players circle cities like mad polar bears trapped in zoos waiting for their next instance. You really would be as well switching the virtual world off.
Synergy. good games have synergy - the virtual world. Cherry picking the good bits, e.g instant travel to instances is basically breaking the synergy of the product, Utter madness from my point of view (I am also a systems developer)
EVE is exactly the niche-sized simulation one would expect though. It's a fraction of the size of WOW; the same fractional audience that I've seen in any genre when you have simulations vs. games.
RTS games? Huge. Detailed war simulations? Fractional.
Action war vehicle games (BF3)? Huge. Detailed war simulations (Jane's simulators)? Fractional.
The niche playerbases can still be enough to support a successful business (...sometimes (Microsoft Flight Simulator)) but they're always less successful than an equally well-made game of the same genre.
I guess Skyrim is a lobby-based game? (Granted I'm not really basing the idea on Skyrim -- these ideas far predate Skyrim -- it just happens to be a perfect recent example of great travel design paying off.) Are you suggesting Skyrim doesn't feel like a world?
Eve proves the model works, remember they said the same thing about mmorgs before wow took themeparks to the next level. Whats missing is that spark, that insight to cross the boundry to make virtual worlds appeal to a larger stable audience. All game types start of as niche at some point until a dev house makes the leap. Simply put, if an outstanding, brilliant and enjoyable sandbox type game was built then you know it would be successfull, it would be a revelation to many a player im sure. Unfortunately western corporate culture is risk adverse and too focused on profit and numbers as the whole measure of success, and that is an innovation dampener ultimately.
Skyrim, is a single player game, a great one, but not really appropriate to compare to multi player games. I would add however that many players actually avoid using the instant travel as they recognise that the game is a lot more immersive without - its even discussed in this forum.
edit, somebody mentioned the scientific principle earlier that correlation does not equal causation, amen to that.
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
Eve proves the model works, remember they said the same thing about mmorgs before wow took themeparks to the next level. Whats missing is that spark, that insight to cross the boundry to make virtual worlds appeal to a larger stable audience. All game types start of as niche at some point until a dev house makes the leap. Simply put, if an outstanding, brilliant and enjoyable sandbox type game was built then you know it would be successfull, it would be a revelation to many a player im sure. Unfortunately western corporate culture is risk adverse and too focused on profit and numbers as the whole measure of success, and that is an innovation dampener ultimately.
Skyrim, is a single player game, a great one, but not really appropriate to compare to multi player games. I would add however that many players actually avoid using the instant travel as they recognise that the game is a lot more immersive without - its even discussed in this forum.
edit, somebody mentioned the scientific principle earlier that correlation does not equal causation, amen to that.
Simulations work. They just don't work as well. Nobody disputes this.
MMORPGs started out very sim-like, and that was the biggest stumbling block preventing their widespread success. So it's a little understandable for early critics to point out that those specific games weren't very appealing (because they weren't) but where a critic might be wrong is assuming it could never work if it was made more game-like and less sim-like.
If a sandbox game was build as a game first and simulation second, it would do well.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Your logic is flawless. Well almost.
I want maximize value of my time as well. Thougbh for me maximilizing value is playing games I enjoy.
I do enjoy older design mmoprg's better than current mainstream mmorpg's.
I played current type of mmorpg's for quite a while (Lotro for example) but I got tired of game constantly streamlining content at me. I value games beign not-obvious, not too conveniant, having step-learning curve (to an extent) and having slow-pace and things that many people call time-sinks. (to an certain extent and if they're "logical" from lore side of game)
So currently I enjoy games that have 'old games' qualities more and thus maximizing value of my play time.
I play single player games (as old mmorpg's got changed too much in many mechanics to mimic newer designs) that have many things you could call time-sinks, as I for example have to wait for quite a bit in strategic games. Effects take time, and if result was shown faster than it would mean less "time-sink" though I propably would be enjoying those game less.
One mistake you're always doing Axehilt is that you try to apply some universal things that all gamers enjoy.
I know you're convinced that you're right so I am not going to argue with you. I am just saying that there are people who don't agree with you.
People take pleasure from diffrent type of things, and not all people want to make as many possible decisions as frequent as it is humanely possible.
Some people prefer to take their time and have slower pace and don't think only about effeficency in their lesiure time.
Having to constantly make quick decsions in short amount of time in real life is enough for me. Not looking for exaclty same pattern in games in my lesire time.
Anyway if you think you have to respond go help yourself. If not that's also fine with me.
I am perfectly fine knowing that I won't convince you never propably.
Same thing would be in your case. I've read propably dozens or hundreads of your posts and in matter we're discussing right now (that came back as bummerang over and over) I just don't agree with you.
Going to sleep now. Good night , 1: 30 am here.
You are talking about an artistic medium, aside from a few modernistic art school followers your talk of "efficiency" is a complete and utter anathema. But it's not unsurprising as you seem to be unable to grasp anything beyond the immediate "quick fix" or end point.
What genre was Tolkien trying to popularise again? Because he certainly wasn't writing to mainstream fantasy fiction, he was creating an anglicised version of nordic mythology. Which meant that all that detail was necessary and intentional. Perhaps you would prefer the comic book version?
As for the the "generation bashing" well I've yet to see a promising argument put forward to prove that the current generation of gamers are not more interested in instant gratification lobby style mmos. The market points to that being the case, your, erm, attempts at critiquing Tolkien have or you other "points" have not countered that at all. Regardless that is somewhat off the beaten track with regards to what was originally being debated.
Again I see you mention "time sinks" and again I see you confuse a set of mechanics that take time and provide content with a set of mechanics that only soak up time.
You say he would have had those fond memories in Skyrim. Except no he probably wouldn't. What if he experienced them on his SECOND trip from location A to B, or this third trip? In your utopian ideal of the world meaning fuck all, the second or third trip would never have happend as he would have teleported/fast travelled to location B.
You still haven't answered the original question btw.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Why would anyone pay $15 for an ATARI 2600, oh, yeah, because it was a different market then. I've never again purchased a console since the Xbox. I never was much of a console players since the days of the 2600 and the NES, those many late night hours playing.
This is kinda funny, it's like saying you only listen to oldies or classic rock, because the the new music lacks the elements of ROCK!
I've learn to appretiate the games that have been released through the years, I have always been facinated with the direction the industry has gone. For me I love it, Old school or New it makes me happy regardless with all these negative feedbacks you folks give on these forums. One of my favorite games of all time just happens to be Masters of Magic, imo it was fucking brilliant, even til this day I can play it for hours.
Just as everything seeks the most efficient path, I seek to talk about what the most efficient MMORPG would be at entertaining most players (which is very similar to how Blizzard designs their games.)
Niche groups obviously exist, but it's less interesting to have a discussion where one person is fixated on a style of gameplay that 90% of the other posters (and 99.9% of normal gamers) think is a terrible idea.
Instead, I focus on what players have shown a clear preference for, based on their buying and continual-subscription habits. There are patterns in which types of games do well, and it's interesting to pick apart which patterns are the strongest and why. (And which patterns have synergy with others.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And here is me thinking you had an opinion on travel in mmos. I wonder then why you seemed to take offence at the suggestion of mmos as lobby games these days when that is clearly what the majority want.
You still haven't answered the question I asked btw.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
You have yet again completely missed the point and just strive to be an argumentative twit. I was simply getting at would you play and pay for something old, even if you liked it at one point, if there have been huge advances with better game mechanics/graphics available to play that you would spend the same amount for. I just used console gaming as the format figuring you'd know it well enough to understand what I was getting at...but apparently not.
I would prefer a Tolkien story which kept only to scenes which strongly told the story he was meaning to tell, and reduced redundancies or parts of the story which weren't very meaningful. Many authors I've read since Tolkien have been much more efficient at every paragraph feeling meaningful and intentional, whereas Tolkien clearly rambled.
My usage of timesink was pretty straightforward there and used the common definition of "timesink" (when players say something's a timesink they mean it takes excessive time without very much gameplay; sometimes with no gameplay.) I assume you're not trying to say players prefer games which obscure a lack of content with timesinks...they clearly prefer gameplay-rich, timesink-lite games.
Some of his experiences would've occurred on those 2nd and 3rd trips. But fewer than occurred on the first trip. Player enjoyment of repetition tends to decay rather rapidly, with the first trip being the best. I'm not exactly clear why you'd push for regurgitated repeat (repeat travel) rather than completely new journies (instant travel to places you've been, but gameplay is always sending you somewhere new.) In ten new trips vs. ten retraces, I assure you you're going to experience a higher frequency of interesting things happening.
No clue what question you're referring to.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sorry I was distracted, see I was busy enjoying this old game and downloading a new one. Can't you see the smile on my face?
Seriously is that best you can do? I have received some pretty good insults on these boards and have given folks props for them. This is about 2 out of 10, hey, at at keast got a pair.
Please stop the sobbering and pick up the empty tissue box, it's silly to think a grown man has to cry over a video game. There are so many of them now pick one and have fun!
A. Because it's my job to observe how people have fun and provide them with a fun game.
B. My posts criticize the dominant game from time to time and point out alternative viable styles of games when such things are suggested (such as admitting sandbox MMORPGs would have potential if they focused more on gameplay and less on world simulation.)
C. Apparently I need to use smaller words for you. My bad, dog.
D. I didn't take offense at your suggestion of MMOs as lobby games. I pointed out your wrongness at assuming I played MMORPGs as PVP lobby games, when I don't even PVP in them.
Besides, if Skyrim was an MMO it wouldn't magically be a "lobby game" just because it has fast travel to anywhere you've explored. So if I seem to take offense, it's because it honestly makes no sense to assume we're talking about lobby games.
I actually prefer PVE Lobby games, but literally nothing I've said in this thread prevents a game from being a world in exactly the same way Skyrim still takes place all in the persistent world. My entire point is that travel is almost always a big empty waste of time in MMORPGs, and bit empty wastes of time deserve to be removed because they're meaningless timesinks.
E. Still no clue what question you're going on about.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You really do not seem to grasp the fact that world simulation can provide content and that travel through said world is more than just a time sink. You can't even seem to grasp the fact that people can encounter others and join up or otherwise game with them on (and I know you will be amazed), the second or even the third trip through an area. And no, you are not immediately less likey to have something happen on the second trip in a dynamic world.
I can understand that not everyone wants world simulation, I can understand the merits of porting from A to B if the world in between is totally static and there are no mechanics in place to drive dynamic events and the like. You though seem unable to understand that with the right mechanics, a dynamic world IS content to many players and it is far from a fucking time sink.
I'm still laughing at your latest Tolkien critique btw so thanks for the entertainment. Perhaps you are providing people with a fun game here after all.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
1) Is walking a "timesink" ? It is if your goal is simply to get from A to B. Strangely a decent amount of the population does it as a form of entertainment (e.g. "Hiking") for them clearly it's not as they actualy enjoy it. That's really one of the keys to this discussion. Anything is a "timesink" if it occupies time and is an annoyance or inconvenience to a person. However people are different and one persons "annoyance" is another persons "enrichment". You seem to take your personal annoyances and inconveniences in gaming and project them outwardly as Universal..... however that's clearly not the case, as we can see even with this small sample here that people do, indeed have different preferences to you.
2) Another concept you seem to be overlooking is the idea of why "rewards" are rewarding. Things that are adversities, annoyances or inconveniences actualy serve a purpose. If you were constantly presented with a series of pleasurable experiences without break they would quickly cease to be "pleasurable" as you'd have nothing to contrast them against and you'd become aclimitized to the reward so it would cease to be rewarding. It's why addicts (we're not talking drugs here but anything that a person can become addicted to) constantly need stronger, more intense and more frequent exposure to whatever they are addicted to. Notice this trend with games too, as they are constantly trying to decrease the effort to achieve and increase the frequency of "rewards" to players..... and in so doing they are only shooting themselves in the foot, as they will need to continue that cycle add infinitem.
One of the other concepts that leads people to derive real satisfaction is the concept of achievement through overcoming an adversity. The sense of achievement in finnishing a marathon for example doesn't come because running the distance is easy, efficient or painless....it comes because of the adverisity of the trial.... the more grueling the trial, the greater sense of satisfaction the individual is likely to experience in overcoming it. This is a well established principle in human psychology. Also the greater the penalty for failing to achieve something, the greater the sense of satisfaction derived from success in avoidance of that penalty. This is why games which remove the penalty for failure (death) are actualy working against thier own (and thier players) interests even though they don't understand that they are. If failure (death) has little sting... then success (survival) provides little satisfaction or sense of achievement.
3) You also rely on a rather common arguement here on these forums. You seek to marginalize preferences that run contrary to your own by attributing them to only a small minority of the audience. They are "niche" therefore don't need to be catered toward. The problem with that is that you lack any real data to substantiate such claims. Even the Publishers generaly have very poor data to try to predict preferences. Most simply rely on "common wisdom" in the industry.
On the surface, the release of recent titles and thier popularity in sales/subscriptions might seem to support your case (and the common wisdom), unfortunately that ignores a rather well established scientific principle.... correlation does not equal causation. That something is popular, does not actualy serve to inform one as to WHY that thing is popular. Using the same assumptions we might surmise that because McDonalds is more popular then the Ritz Carelton, that people enjoy the taste of McDonalds food more...... one can surely see how such an assumption is flawed?
It's undoubted that most of the recent AAA MMO's that have been released in recent years generaly draw larger sales/subscription numbers then the older, "old school" games did but does that tell us WHY such is the case? At the very least in order to get some substantive data we should try to isolate the "Old School"/"New School" quality of such games from other factors. So where is our AAA "Old School" MMO that was released recently to compare against? The only "Old School" style MMO that I've seen released recently are limited budget indie productions. Even EVE was not released as a AAA production....yet it's some numbers stack up well against many of todays AAA "New School" games....an anomoly that should not exist if the "Old School" factor was inhereintly a detriment to games popularity. So if we can't isolate the "Old School/ New School" factor in AAA releases because almost all "Old School" games released recently are small budget indies..... what happens if we try to isolate that factor by comparing small budget indies with small budget indies...to try to establish a closer control group. If your hypothesis bears out.... "New School" small budget indies should do substantialy better then "Old School" small budget indies. Does the data bear that out? I would suggest if anything it shows the reverse. Although again, there are ALOT of different factors involved in any particular MMO. That's the problem when we try to make predictions about some factor without having a means to isolate that factor from other influences.
Even if for the sake of arguement we accepted that "New School" were more popular then "Old School" that isn't neccesarly a good arguement for a new game coming out to seek to adopt "New School" design. The secret to a successfull product is NOT to produce a product targeted at the largest market segment..... it's to produce a product for a market that is currently UNDERSERVED and do so at a cost that is substantialy less then ones sales potential. Even if Pizza if 10 times more popular then Sushi.... If there are 50 Pizza joints in a town and 1 Sushi place... a new enterprise has greater chance of success by serving Sushi rather then Pizza.
That's why I really don't have a problem with "New School" style designs being produced by publishers.....but I do have a rather large problem with the assumption that a design MUST BE "New School" in order to be a success. That neither accounts for much understanding of WHY titles succeed or fail...nor accounts for the diversity in the audience for such games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My point was that time wasting without gameplay is a timesink. Your point was that time wasting without gameplay is a timesink. So yeah, we said the same thing.
And your quote "If the game world offered nothing over and above getting from A to B then you would have a point." is extremely close to what actually happens for most players, in games with excessive travel.
Let me spell it out, because it's very simple:
Players value gameplay.
Players hate non-gameplay (timesinks).
Interesting decisions are gameplay.
Most travel doesn't involve interesting decisions.
When it does, it's rare and typically involves fewer or shallower decisions than other game systems -- in other words, it's light on gameplay.
No matter what way you try to twist it, these are the underlying reasons games with excessive travel do worse: because they're not doing a very good job entertaining players.
To reiterate: we're talking about actual games you can see and play.
A theoretical game which has dynamic action gameplay and dynamic sights each time you repeat travel could theoretically solve these problems. But I think solving this tricky problem would be too time-consuming to be worthwhile -- game A would solve these issues and have a little dynamic content to explore; meanwhile game B is like Skyrim (fast travel to where you've previously visited, but there are literally hundreds of different trips to go on; tons of 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 really couldn't give two shits what other people happen to like, I am not arguing the merits of certain mechanics based upon popularity. I am putting the case forward for mechanics based on what they can bring to a game, not on what I think Bob from Derpsville wants to play on a Sunday afternoon.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Unlike you, I don't need to compare c*$#s to show how cool and web-tough I am. As well as not being a child. You just sound angry and like an adolescent. Especially apparent since you conveniently skipped the rest of my post and focused on my one sign of irritation with the brick wall that is your skull comment.
I play plenty of old games, just not MMORPG's that make you pay a monthly for them. Again, you miss the point, or don't care what the point is as long as your getting under someone's skin. Not responding again to you, waste of time and energy.
Good god, bunnyhopper, you got Axehilt angry! I thought I'd never see the day. I'm siding with him by the way.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The only reason I voted "Just let me see the poll" instead of old school is because I won't play an MMO that forces me into social situations too often. And old school MMOs are notorious for doing so.
Should any developer ever come up with a good old school style MMO that includes a real path for the loner, I'll play it happily.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
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
Somebody cried that DDO and GW1 were not MMORPGs - I don't care - I had tons of fun playing them. I don't care about anyone's ideal MMO and how some features "shouldn't be in an MMO". Fuck all that. I happen to like some games that just happen to be MMOs. I don't care about MMOs in general.
I as a player I don't give two shits about anything else other than if the game is fun or not. I don't care if the game is an MMO or not, FPS or not, RTS or not, RPG or not, multiplayer or single player, simulation or arcade, racing, sports, fighting... I play all the games if they are fun. And these newer MMOs are more fun than the old-school MMOs.
This doesn't make me part of instant gratification, WoW or console-generation. When some games have these tedious and timeconsuming aspects, I can just look it over and say "Not worth my time" and move on to another game that is worth my time. I have not touched WoW since its beta. I have not touched Aion, Rift or LotRo either. And finally, I own a console, yes, but I play a lot more on my PC. ...instant gratification, my ass. These are all invented stereotypes in which nobody really fits.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Indeed.
If you think that a game world can never be dynamic and that travel through it can provide no content other than being a time sink then fair play to you, i'm glad you agree with him (it's about time someone did I guess!). I don't happen to subscribe to that sentiment, although I have at no point argued that everyone has to want the same thing from a game.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
EVE is exactly the niche-sized simulation one would expect though. It's a fraction of the size of WOW; the same fractional audience that I've seen in any genre when you have simulations vs. games.
RTS games? Huge. Detailed war simulations? Fractional.
Action war vehicle games (BF3)? Huge. Detailed war simulations (Jane's simulators)? Fractional.
The niche playerbases can still be enough to support a successful business (...sometimes (Microsoft Flight Simulator)) but they're always less successful than an equally well-made game of the same genre.
I guess Skyrim is a lobby-based game? (Granted I'm not really basing the idea on Skyrim -- these ideas far predate Skyrim -- it just happens to be a perfect recent example of great travel design paying off.) Are you suggesting Skyrim doesn't feel like a world?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Eh, only got upset a little over the synergy comment. It's like talking to a little kid -- say something they don't understand and they come back with some sarcastic nonsense.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Eve proves the model works, remember they said the same thing about mmorgs before wow took themeparks to the next level. Whats missing is that spark, that insight to cross the boundry to make virtual worlds appeal to a larger stable audience. All game types start of as niche at some point until a dev house makes the leap. Simply put, if an outstanding, brilliant and enjoyable sandbox type game was built then you know it would be successfull, it would be a revelation to many a player im sure. Unfortunately western corporate culture is risk adverse and too focused on profit and numbers as the whole measure of success, and that is an innovation dampener ultimately.
Skyrim, is a single player game, a great one, but not really appropriate to compare to multi player games. I would add however that many players actually avoid using the instant travel as they recognise that the game is a lot more immersive without - its even discussed in this forum.
edit, somebody mentioned the scientific principle earlier that correlation does not equal causation, amen to that.
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
Simulations work. They just don't work as well. Nobody disputes this.
MMORPGs started out very sim-like, and that was the biggest stumbling block preventing their widespread success. So it's a little understandable for early critics to point out that those specific games weren't very appealing (because they weren't) but where a critic might be wrong is assuming it could never work if it was made more game-like and less sim-like.
If a sandbox game was build as a game first and simulation second, it would do well.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver