I disagree, look at where archeage is headed, thats an example of innovation (potentially) that could well cross the line. Trying to categorise and deal in absolutes is the realm of the manager and average joe architect who is unwilling or unable to think outside the box as it were.
edit i should add, I agree in that any game should be designed as a game first, the rest is detail.
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
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.
Probably from the fact that you seem to refute every case I make about the game world offering something other than a time sink. The world drives and creates gameplay, more gameplay than you will find without said world.
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.
The point was popuarity means nothing, the mechanics either have/can do things or they cannot. Whether people like that is besides the point in this debate, I am not intending to make or fund a game, nor do I care what other players happen to like. The case is that a set of mechanics can offer more depth and scope than a game without said mechanics.
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.
Ironic that comment, given the game world and the travel through it is all about synergy between systems and mechanism generation. Where the hell is the synergy in fast travel? Go to point B and kill stuff. Some complex intertwining going on there.
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.
It's boring in a non dynamic or single player game. It is not boring in dynamic games. You might argue that doesn't occur very often. Well that would be a problem with bad implementation and not with the mechanic in and of itself and what it can generate.
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.
I thought you said we were talking about mmorpgs a minute ago? Mmorpgs can do fine without a dynamic game world and travel through it, but that does not mean potential is removed by not having that. Because it clearly is removed.
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.
Territory control, meta roles, resource domination, trade routes, localised market places. Rest points and stop offs. The deeper and higher potential systems are made by the game world and the players within it. Sorry are you saying raids and instanced pvp are "higher and deeper" systems. Becuase that is the kind of shit you get in games where you just jump from point A to B.
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.)
UO and EVE.
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.
The game world and the need to travel through it PROVIDE cornerstone features of a game.
An in depth, dynamic game world which you cannot simply "skip over" all the time provides a wealth of gameplay mechanics and opportunities. It is far more than a time sink. That many games do not do it well or that many players are more interested in games with less depth in no way refutes that point.
A to B is great, A to B with the middle ground generating gameplay mechanics is greater. If you can always skip that middle ground then you lose those systems. I fail to see how anyone could possibly refute that claim.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
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.
Probably from the fact that you seem to refute every case I make about the game world offering something other than a time sink. The world drives and creates gameplay, more gameplay than you will find without said world.
It's simple.
Travel is a weak system. In practice, it often has no gameplay at all.
Several non-travel systems are very strong systems with lots of interesting gameplay.
Since you can do one or the other, any game which forces players to travel a lot without being completely different from the types of games we've currently seen (ie making travel as fun as normal gameplay) is automatically going to be less fun to most players.
The point was popuarity means nothing, the mechanics either have/can do things or they cannot. Whether people like that is besides the point in this debate, I am not intending to make or fund a game, nor do I care what other players happen to like. The case is that a set of mechanics can offer more depth and scope than a game without said mechanics.
Popularity means nothing to you. So when I point out the popularity of certain types of game systems you should say "Yes, Axe, you're right but I don't care."
And the popularity of game systems is pretty damn relevant to this thread.
Ironic that comment, given the game world and the travel through it is all about synergy between systems and mechanism generation. Where the hell is the synergy in fast travel? Go to point B and kill stuff. Some complex intertwining going on there.
I'm suggesting there's barely any synergy in any travel. Travel's primary purpose is to provide vistas and prevent everything from happening at once. That's it's purpose, and travel in excess of this
It's boring in a non dynamic or single player game. It is not boring in dynamic games. You might argue that doesn't occur very often. Well that would be a problem with bad implementation and not with the mechanic in and of itself and what it can generate.
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....
I thought you said we were talking about mmorpgs a minute ago? Mmorpgs can do fine without a dynamic game world and travel through it, but that does not mean potential is removed by not having that. Because it clearly is removed.
Everything has a measure of potential. Everything has an opportunity cost.
But when Company A is awesome and Company B is going bankrupt, you don't lament the lost potential when you invest in Company A.
You missed out on bad potential by pursuing great potential. But clearly it was the right decision.
Territory control, meta roles, resource domination, trade routes, localised market places. Rest points and stop offs. The deeper and higher potential systems are made by the game world and the players within it. Sorry are you saying raids and instanced pvp are "higher and deeper" systems. Becuase that is the kind of shit you get in games where you just jump from point A to B.
Except the majority of players believe the opposite, partially because the features you list are plagued with problems which prevent them from being enjoyable or deep to most players.
UO and EVE.
If EVE travel was anything less than 95% AFKable non-gameplay for you, you played a completely different game than I did.
The game world and the need to travel through it PROVIDE cornerstone features of a game.
Sure, but that's not the case in current games. The closest we have are things like Puzzle Pirates (but even then it's hard to call sailing/rigging "travel" since they're separate game systems which feed into travel.)
A to B is great, A to B with the middle ground generating gameplay mechanics is greater. If you can always skip that middle ground then you lose those systems. I fail to see how anyone could possibly refute that claim.
Um. I have never suggested skipping A to B.
I have stated A->B->C->D->E (with gameplay in between each) is very clearly superior to A->B, A->B, A->B unless a game expends extraordinary effort designing something which doesn't currently exist in MMORPGs. (And then pointed out that creating A-B-C-D-E is actually cheaper than developing an entirely new system to make A->B, A->B enjoyable...which means those dev hours get applied towards making some other system more enjoyable instead.)
Fast travel gets us the former journey.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A to B is great, A to B with the middle ground generating gameplay mechanics is greater. If you can always skip that middle ground then you lose those systems. I fail to see how anyone could possibly refute that claim.
Um. I have never suggested skipping A to B.
I have stated A->B->C->D->E (with gameplay in between each) is very clearly superior to A->B, A->B, A->B unless a game expends extraordinary effort designing something which doesn't currently exist in MMORPGs. (And then pointed out that creating A-B-C-D-E is actually cheaper than developing an entirely new system to make A->B, A->B enjoyable...which means those dev hours get applied towards making some other system more enjoyable instead.)
Fast travel gets us the former journey.
What, throughout the entire thread you have be extolling the virtues of skipping from A to B after you have seen the world once. That seems a lot like skipping from A to B to me.
You have a point that it is cheaper and easier to simply slam combat/raid type content in a game and then have the game world non dynamic or non gameplay mechanic driving. Of course that is the case, but at no point have I argued that it was easier to do that, nor does it invalidate the qualities and potential game play it can bring. The qualities I have been pointing out all through this thread.
As for it not existing currently in mmos that seems incorrect to me. EVE generates gameplay mechanics through it's game world and the travel you do through it. You cannot simply instantly appear at any location you have ever been before. If you could the economy would be nothing like it is today, nor would the territorial conflict or the pvp. It may not be your cup of tea but then that is ot the point. Again, even if no game had done it effectively, it would not be a good argument to put against the merits of a dynamic game world, it would simply server to show that developers go for the quick fix option.
You seem almost in agreement with me now to be honest, travels through a game world can generate game play and are more than just time sinks. Fast travel everywhere would kill that. Your resistance to that now seems to focus on the fact that it is not easy to do. That's a fair comment and I agree with you on that point, but it is not something I have been arguing against at any time. I have also never stated that traveling for the sake of it, through a game world that offers no dynamic gameplay mechanics is a good thing.
I have to wonder why it took so much back and forth for it to boil down to saying in essence that "it's not easy".
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
What, throughout the entire thread you have be extolling the virtues of skipping from A to B after you have seen the world once. That seems a lot like skipping from A to B to me.
You have a point that it is cheaper and easier to simply slam combat/raid type content in a game and then have the game world non dynamic or non gameplay mechanic driving. Of course that is the case, but at no point have I argued that it was easier to do that, nor does it invalidate the qualities and potential game play it can bring. The qualities I have been pointing out all through this thread.
As for it not existing currently in mmos that seems incorrect to me. EVE generates gameplay mechanics through it's game world and the travel you do through it. You cannot simply instantly appear at any location you have ever been before. If you could the economy would be nothing like it is today, nor would the territorial conflict or the pvp. It may not be your cup of tea but then that is ot the point. Again, even if no game had done it effectively, it would not be a good argument to put against the merits of a dynamic game world, it would simply server to show that developers go for the quick fix option.
You seem almost in agreement with me now to be honest, travels through a game world can generate game play and are more than just time sinks. Fast travel everywhere would kill that. Your resistance to that now seems to focus on the fact that it is not easy to do. That's a fair comment and I agree with you on that point, but it is not something I have been arguing against at any time. I have also never stated that traveling for the sake of it, through a game world that offers no dynamic gameplay mechanics is a good thing.
I have to wonder why it took so much back and forth for it to boil down to saying in essence that "it's not easy".
Um. A-B-C-D-E *is* skipping A-B. Note that A-B never repeats itself. That's because you're only doing new travel. You're never repeating travel.
A-B is skipped subsequent trips. But you still get that fun exploration the first time (and other times if you really want, but it's optional at that point.)
Whether something is hard to implement may invalidate the potential gameplay something can bring, because the more costly feature A is, the less likely you can implement feature B (or in this case, the more costly A is, the less content you have time/money to create.)
EVE is a textbook case of travel being overwhelmingly boring. Or do you think players eagerly want 95% of their travel to be completely AFKable? Do you think they'd consider that "dynamic gameplay" just because 5% of the time something dynamic happens?
When I've described travel as "non-gameplay", AFK travel in EVE has been exactly what I've pictured in my mind.
I've never changed my tune, so if you perceive me as being almost in agreement with you it's because you stopped being argumentative and read my posts.
"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.
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.
LOL...
So the biggest stumbling block to "widespread" success for early MMO's was that they were too "sim-like" ?
I guess the fact that when games like UO or EQ first came out only a fraction of population even had access to a computer, let alone internet access, let alone fast and reliable internet access when compared to today had nothing to do with it at all?
Simulations don't make popular games? I guess that's why the Sim series of games was so short lived....had so few titles...won such little critical aclaim....and had such marginal sales?
Eve has a "marginal" user base? So that's why it's rated within the top 5 highest subscription games in the West....ahead of about 90% of the "New School" MMO's that have been released in recent years....including ones based off popular IP's and much higher production budgets? And it's a sci-fi game where you play a spaceship? If that's "marginal"...excuse me but where do I sign up to invest?
What, throughout the entire thread you have be extolling the virtues of skipping from A to B after you have seen the world once. That seems a lot like skipping from A to B to me.
You have a point that it is cheaper and easier to simply slam combat/raid type content in a game and then have the game world non dynamic or non gameplay mechanic driving. Of course that is the case, but at no point have I argued that it was easier to do that, nor does it invalidate the qualities and potential game play it can bring. The qualities I have been pointing out all through this thread.
As for it not existing currently in mmos that seems incorrect to me. EVE generates gameplay mechanics through it's game world and the travel you do through it. You cannot simply instantly appear at any location you have ever been before. If you could the economy would be nothing like it is today, nor would the territorial conflict or the pvp. It may not be your cup of tea but then that is ot the point. Again, even if no game had done it effectively, it would not be a good argument to put against the merits of a dynamic game world, it would simply server to show that developers go for the quick fix option.
You seem almost in agreement with me now to be honest, travels through a game world can generate game play and are more than just time sinks. Fast travel everywhere would kill that. Your resistance to that now seems to focus on the fact that it is not easy to do. That's a fair comment and I agree with you on that point, but it is not something I have been arguing against at any time. I have also never stated that traveling for the sake of it, through a game world that offers no dynamic gameplay mechanics is a good thing.
I have to wonder why it took so much back and forth for it to boil down to saying in essence that "it's not easy".
Um. A-B-C-D-E *is* skipping A-B. Note that A-B never repeats itself. That's because you're only doing new travel. You're never repeating travel.
A-B is skipped subsequent trips. But you still get that fun exploration the first time (and other times if you really want, but it's optional at that point.)
Whether something is hard to implement may invalidate the potential gameplay something can bring, because the more costly feature A is, the less likely you can implement feature B (or in this case, the more costly A is, the less content you have time/money to create.)
Because todays Themepark MMO's have done such an excellent job of creating unique, interesting, non-repeated content at a rate that matches most users demands?
I think I'd like to have some of the meds that you are on please....it sounds very pleasant.
You do realize part of the benefit of dynamic systems is exactly that you are making more efficient use of resources. You don't have to handcraft entire new areas of the gameworld from scratch....but can reuse existing areas by changing some of the parameters of them (like what is currently inhabiting them ... or the current weather or thier state of repair, etc). It's an upfront investment of resources to build the system....but once you've got it built...it actualy saves far more on resources in the long run.... just like good scripting or world building tools.
Heck, with PvP based games....you aren't even really relying so much on the Developers to provide alot of the dynamic content...it's done by the players themselves..... They are the antagonists that the players might encounter in thier travels. They are the brigands, the traveling bards, the army patrols, the merchants that a player might encounter while traveling through an area one time...and not there the next. In those cases you actualy expending ZERO resources as a Dev to create dynamic effects for your players....because the other players are doing it for you.
Fill players' time with quality, meaningful gameplay? They'll stay.
Freedom to choose solo vs. grouping? They'll stay.
Freedom to choose easy vs. hard, and rewarded accordingly? They'll stay.
(Inconveniences are terrrible for gameplay. Challenge is great for gameplay. The point of new MMORPGs is to strip out the inconveniences while leaving the challenge.)
Also were there any early MMORPGs which actually had deep rich dungeons? The dungeons in modern MMORPGs give me bosses so rich that they're minigames unto themselves. The dungeons in old MMORPGs (AC and AO and DAOC) were just mazy corridors with elite mobs. Not even close to what I'd call rich.
Poll says different!
Sorry late on into this thread and still reading. but saw the overwhelming results so far and then read this post lol.
Fill players' time with quality, meaningful gameplay? They'll stay.
Freedom to choose solo vs. grouping? They'll stay.
Freedom to choose easy vs. hard, and rewarded accordingly? They'll stay.
(Inconveniences are terrrible for gameplay. Challenge is great for gameplay. The point of new MMORPGs is to strip out the inconveniences while leaving the challenge.)
Also were there any early MMORPGs which actually had deep rich dungeons? The dungeons in modern MMORPGs give me bosses so rich that they're minigames unto themselves. The dungeons in old MMORPGs (AC and AO and DAOC) were just mazy corridors with elite mobs. Not even close to what I'd call rich.
Poll says different!
Sorry late on into this thread and still reading. but saw the overwhelming results so far and then read this post lol.
297 votes in total on website which is known as a refugee camp for old school gamers and 60% want old school while 13% just want to see the results.. Not even surprised. That is minority of the minority of gamers worldwide this website represents.
How many servers SWTOR will launch with on release?
ShredderSE - Umm how many do they need? Maybe 6. US, EU, Asian, France, German and Russian. Subs will be so low there is no need for more Snoocky-How many servers? The first 3 months a lot...after that 2 i guess, one for PVE and 1 for PVP...
Thorbrand - SWTOR doesn't have longevity at all. Might be one of the shortest lived MMOs.
Fill players' time with quality, meaningful gameplay? They'll stay.
Freedom to choose solo vs. grouping? They'll stay.
Freedom to choose easy vs. hard, and rewarded accordingly? They'll stay.
(Inconveniences are terrrible for gameplay. Challenge is great for gameplay. The point of new MMORPGs is to strip out the inconveniences while leaving the challenge.)
Also were there any early MMORPGs which actually had deep rich dungeons? The dungeons in modern MMORPGs give me bosses so rich that they're minigames unto themselves. The dungeons in old MMORPGs (AC and AO and DAOC) were just mazy corridors with elite mobs. Not even close to what I'd call rich.
Poll says different!
Sorry late on into this thread and still reading. but saw the overwhelming results so far and then read this post lol.
297 votes in total on website which is known as a refugee camp for old school gamers and 60% want old school while 13% just want to see the results.. Not even surprised. That is minority of the minority of gamers worldwide this website represents.
which is exactly why coming onto a site like this and making that kind of comment gives me a little tickle!
Not arguing with you friend just what the black and white was already telling us.
I admit i am a minority, is that a bad thing? of course not. it's just simply different. fact is this site is known through the mmo community as a major player....am i wrong? and if the majority of people here are voting for the "old school" then surely there are enough players there to cater for?
I am in no way saying there are more than the modern mmo player, just that surely there are enough.
Um. A-B-C-D-E *is* skipping A-B. Note that A-B never repeats itself. That's because you're only doing new travel. You're never repeating travel.
A-B is skipped subsequent trips. But you still get that fun exploration the first time (and other times if you really want, but it's optional at that point.)
Whether something is hard to implement may invalidate the potential gameplay something can bring, because the more costly feature A is, the less likely you can implement feature B (or in this case, the more costly A is, the less content you have time/money to create.)
EVE is a textbook case of travel being overwhelmingly boring. Or do you think players eagerly want 95% of their travel to be completely AFKable? Do you think they'd consider that "dynamic gameplay" just because 5% of the time something dynamic happens?
When I've described travel as "non-gameplay", AFK travel in EVE has been exactly what I've pictured in my mind.
I've never changed my tune, so if you perceive me as being almost in agreement with you it's because you stopped being argumentative and read my posts.
Oh sweet Jesus..
Skipping subsequent trips is still fucking skipping. You are advocating skipping. I know full well you are talking about subsequent trips, but doing that in a dynamic game world game is a done goofed idea for the most part. You are advocating skipping (just in case you missed the point yet again).
What kind of argument is "oh well if you make the game world better they will just make everything else worse". That has to be the biggest pile of crap argument I have seen on these forums (yes even including some of the other gems you come out with). Trying to argue against the merits of mechanics because a developer may, MAY be lazy and neglect something else is fucking hilariously bad. Even by your standards.
You think EVE is boring, that is subjective. That the game world and the need to travel through it adds massively to the overall dynamics of the game is a fact. It's about the synergy of the systems don't you know...
So now you are trying to change the subject to AFK travel? Cool.
I've read your posts all the way through (including the hilarious ones calling Tolkien "inefficient"), which is why the massive flaws in your cases are as clear as day.
Game world can add gameplay mechanics. Game world and travel through it can be dynamic. The ability to instant travel through a game with gameplay mechanics which are expressly created by the game world invalidates those mechanics. Those points should be so obvious that even a squashed hedgehog could understand them.
It amazes me that you are belligerently trying to argue that a dynamic game world and travel through it cannot add gameplay mechanics and be more than a time sink. That you cannot see that "skipping travel on your second go" to every location you have ever been, waters down and removes those game play mechanics is beyond belief.
IB4 "But Skyrim!!!!" a single player game with no player economy, no player territory control and no player socialization and no point in this discussion. Sounds like your kind of "mmo" though.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
which is exactly why coming onto a site like this and making that kind of comment gives me a little tickle!
Not arguing with you friend just what the black and white was already telling us.
I admit i am a minority, is that a bad thing? of course not. it's just simply different. fact is this site is known through the mmo community as a major player....am i wrong? and if the majority of people here are voting for the "old school" then surely there are enough players there to cater for?
I am in no way saying there are more than the modern mmo player, just that surely there are enough.
Who said it is a bad thing? but i would never use this website or forums as some kind of proof for just anything considering the minority of players who visit forums on regular basis compared to amount of players all over the world. if you think 60% out of 297 those who voted are enough to support an old school freedom MMO well..who am i to deny it to you
But like i have said many many times the old school MMOS have been coming and going for quite some time now and no the production of such games is not completely halted. But sadly they either end up getting closed like Spellborn or see very tough times like Fallen Earth. So that kinda puts a question mark on 'if there are surely enough players there to cater for'.
How many servers SWTOR will launch with on release?
ShredderSE - Umm how many do they need? Maybe 6. US, EU, Asian, France, German and Russian. Subs will be so low there is no need for more Snoocky-How many servers? The first 3 months a lot...after that 2 i guess, one for PVE and 1 for PVP...
Thorbrand - SWTOR doesn't have longevity at all. Might be one of the shortest lived MMOs.
which is exactly why coming onto a site like this and making that kind of comment gives me a little tickle!
Not arguing with you friend just what the black and white was already telling us.
I admit i am a minority, is that a bad thing? of course not. it's just simply different. fact is this site is known through the mmo community as a major player....am i wrong? and if the majority of people here are voting for the "old school" then surely there are enough players there to cater for?
I am in no way saying there are more than the modern mmo player, just that surely there are enough.
Who said it is a bad thing? but i would never use this website or forums as some kind of proof for just anything considering the minority of players who visit forums on regular basis compared to amount of players all over the world. if you think 60% out of 297 those who voted are enough to support an old school freedom MMO well..who am i to deny it to you
But like i have said many many times the old school MMOS have been coming and going for quite some time now and no the production of such games is not completely halted. But sadly they either end up getting closed like Spellborn or see very tough times like Fallen Earth. So that kinda puts a question mark on 'if there are surely enough players there to cater for'.
Why cut out the parts of my post that answer what you are writing? you do realise that others following the thread have probably read the part in that same post where i said that in no way am i saying that there are more old scholers than modern players, and all i am saying is that if there are obviously enough asking for it to warrant a decent profitable game if made correctly.
And do you really believe that old school players only visit this site? of course they dont and of course there is a large number of each side that not only didnt vote, but have not ever visited this site. and as has been proven by many smaller dev teams countless times.....you simply dont need millions to keep a game running.
and i see your last point...but even you can see that these old school games are e=still running even to this day?
EQ, Vanguard, uo to name a few. Even fallen earth is still making cash. and add to that the few players that call for an old style SWG ( i say few in jest by the way, as you know there are hundreds of thousands of them always arguing about thier beloved game ).
So yes going from the evidence, i would say there are plenty for good old school style game to cater for.
but of course i may be wrong. just simply my opinion on it
Skipping subsequent trips is still fucking skipping. You are advocating skipping. I know full well you are talking about subsequent trips, but doing that in a dynamic game world game is a done goofed idea for the most part. You are advocating skipping (just in case you missed the point yet again).
What kind of argument is "oh well if you make the game world better they will just make everything else worse". That has to be the biggest pile of crap argument I have seen on these forums (yes even including some of the other gems you come out with). Trying to argue against the merits of mechanics because a developer may, MAY be lazy and neglect something else is fucking hilariously bad. Even by your standards.
You think EVE is boring, that is subjective. That the game world and the need to travel through it adds massively to the overall dynamics of the game is a fact. It's about the synergy of the systems don't you know...
So now you are trying to change the subject to AFK travel? Cool.
I've read your posts all the way through (including the hilarious ones calling Tolkien "inefficient"), which is why the massive flaws in your cases are as clear as day.
Game world can add gameplay mechanics. Game world and travel through it can be dynamic. The ability to instant travel through a game with gameplay mechanics which are expressly created by the game world invalidates those mechanics. Those points should be so obvious that even a squashed hedgehog could understand them.
It amazes me that you are belligerently trying to argue that a dynamic game world and travel through it cannot add gameplay mechanics and be more than a time sink. That you cannot see that "skipping travel on your second go" to every location you have ever been, waters down and removes those game play mechanics is beyond belief.
IB4 "But Skyrim!!!!" a single player game with no player economy, no player territory control and no player socialization and no point in this discussion. Sounds like your kind of "mmo" though.
I never said it wasn't skipping. It's fast traveling to places you've already explored. Skipping the weak (or non-existant) gameplay of repeat travel is entirely the point.
My argument regarding implementation is the simple fact of game development. You have a limited resource, dev hours, and spending it on inefficient gains will result in an overall worse product than spending those hours efficiently.
Since the discussion is gameplay and travel, and since you brought up EVE, then bringing up AFKable travel is kinda a foregone conclusion. Decisions are gameplay. AFKing is the opposite of decision-making. Hence, EVE travel is predominantly non-gameplay (and therefore "timesink" by your own definition.)
Synergy only helps so much. If a feature is trash or non-interactive, it still sucks even with synergy.
Again, I've never disputed that the game world can have gameplay. I've pointed out that by skipping travel you get to the other features faster. And if travel is non-gameplay like in EVE, this results in players spending less time doing nothing and more time engaging in actual gameplay. This is more fun to most players.
Do you think the average player has more fun (a) AFK-traveling in EVE or (b) fighting an interesting boss? Because the issue here isn't whether travel can provide some fun, but whether it can provide equal or greater fun than all the other stuff in a game.
Again if all you want to do is admit you have fun in an entirely different way from the majority of players, that's fine and there's no disputing that. But most players clearly prefer actual gameplay over the type of travel found in a game like EVE (which basically tells the player "This involves no gameplay and you could AFK it, but if you actually AFK you're going to be killed so we're basically forcing you to endure a near-decisionless activity.") You don't care about most players, and that's great, but just like I can't dispute your opinion, you can dispute the statement that most players clearly prefer gameplay.
"It amazes me that you are belligerently trying to argue that a dynamic game world and travel through it cannot add gameplay mechanics and be more than a time sink. "
Really? Almost every post I make states that travel (particularly the first trip) has gameplay, but that trying to make repeat A-B trips fun would be less efficient than simply adding new destinations. Yet here you are assuming I think travel has zero gameplay, for the 5+th time. Are you just trolling?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Since the discussion is gameplay and travel, and since you brought up EVE, then bringing up AFKable travel is kinda a foregone conclusion. Decisions are gameplay. AFKing is the opposite of decision-making. Hence, EVE travel is predominantly non-gameplay (and therefore "timesink" by your own definition.)
Synergy only helps so much. If a feature is trash or non-interactive, it still sucks even with synergy.
Again, I've never disputed that the game world can have gameplay. I've pointed out that by skipping travel you get to the other features faster. And if travel is non-gameplay like in EVE, this results in players spending less time doing nothing and more time engaging in actual gameplay. This is more fun to most players.
Do you think the average player has more fun (a) AFK-traveling in EVE or (b) fighting an interesting boss? Because the issue here isn't whether travel can provide some fun, but whether it can provide equal or greater fun than all the other stuff in a game.
Again if all you want to do is admit you have fun in an entirely different way from the majority of players, that's fine and there's no disputing that. But most players clearly prefer actual gameplay over the type of travel found in a game like EVE (which basically tells the player "This involves no gameplay and you could AFK it, but if you actually AFK you're going to be killed so we're basically forcing you to endure a near-decisionless activity.") You don't care about most players, and that's great, but just like I can't dispute your opinion, you can dispute the statement that most players clearly prefer gameplay.
The difference between EVE travel and travel in a game like EQ, WoW or SWG is that in EVE the travel is an economic cost whle in the other games it is meant to be an exploratory, fun activity. The long travel times in EVE are meant to force players to stay in their regions of space and force economies to be locally focused. The travel is specificly made utterly boring so players don't do too much of it.
The difference between EVE travel and travel in a game like EQ, WoW or SWG is that in EVE the travel is an economic cost whle in the other games it is meant to be an exploratory, fun activity. The long travel times in EVE are meant to force players to stay in their regions of space and force economies to be locally focused. The travel is specificly made utterly boring so players don't do too much of it.
I know this.
The issue: knowing this doesn't make it fun. It's massive chunks of my gaming time wasted doing virtually nothing. No amount of feature synergy justifies a game having huge chunks of non-gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I never said it wasn't skipping. It's fast traveling to places you've already explored. Skipping the weak (or non-existant) gameplay of repeat travel is entirely the point.
My argument regarding implementation is the simple fact of game development. You have a limited resource, dev hours, and spending it on inefficient gains will result in an overall worse product than spending those hours efficiently.
Since the discussion is gameplay and travel, and since you brought up EVE, then bringing up AFKable travel is kinda a foregone conclusion. Decisions are gameplay. AFKing is the opposite of decision-making. Hence, EVE travel is predominantly non-gameplay (and therefore "timesink" by your own definition.)
Synergy only helps so much. If a feature is trash or non-interactive, it still sucks even with synergy.
Again, I've never disputed that the game world can have gameplay. I've pointed out that by skipping travel you get to the other features faster. And if travel is non-gameplay like in EVE, this results in players spending less time doing nothing and more time engaging in actual gameplay. This is more fun to most players.
Do you think the average player has more fun (a) AFK-traveling in EVE or (b) fighting an interesting boss? Because the issue here isn't whether travel can provide some fun, but whether it can provide equal or greater fun than all the other stuff in a game.
Again if all you want to do is admit you have fun in an entirely different way from the majority of players, that's fine and there's no disputing that. But most players clearly prefer actual gameplay over the type of travel found in a game like EVE (which basically tells the player "This involves no gameplay and you could AFK it, but if you actually AFK you're going to be killed so we're basically forcing you to endure a near-decisionless activity.") You don't care about most players, and that's great, but just like I can't dispute your opinion, you can dispute the statement that most players clearly prefer gameplay.
"It amazes me that you are belligerently trying to argue that a dynamic game world and travel through it cannot add gameplay mechanics and be more than a time sink. "
Really? Almost every post I make states that travel (particularly the first trip) has gameplay, but that trying to make repeat A-B trips fun would be less efficient than simply adding new destinations. Yet here you are assuming I think travel has zero gameplay, for the 5+th time. Are you just trolling?
Going on about popularity and what you presume game developers should best spend their time and money on again... really? Oh lawd.
That "boring ass" travel and game world in EVE is what drives the gameplay that the players who subscribe to it love and why it is lauded as once of the greatest mmos ever. You know territory control, the economy and the player meta roles NEED that game world and the fact you cannot port everywhere you have ever been once before right..right? It is providing gameplay, the major part of the game play, and whilst you may find it boring clearly others do not.
As for your last part, efficiency, oh look that word again. It may be more "efficient" to try and simply jam more raids and instancesinto a game for you, because all you can see is a lobby game. For others they want content from a dynamic world, not yet another fucking mob grind at the end of the rainbow.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
this is what I love about Eve perversly, I micro manage so i have things to do while I travel.
Axel, Re A>B only once comments. Why not make A> B enjoyable so the journey is worth it? Aka a beautiful virtual world. Compare it to a journey through beautiful mountains on a train in real life. Sure you could get a plane, but imagine there was no rush to get to your end destination - Economy class in a plane, or first class on a scenic journey sitting at a table so you can do stuff while you are travelling. If you pick the former when you are not rushing somewhere, well you do not get what your one life is all about. This transposes to virtual worlds in true mmorgs, you plan and enjoy activities while you are travelling. Immersion during travelling also adds weight and ultimately longevity to the game (and you dont need to pay developer salaries to maintain this). Fast trashy instances and fast travelling - look at WOW, LOTR and most importantly look at the population of these games, because i tell you many many players who play the game don't enjoy it, yet they dont leave. That is wrong and disturbing, and passes more than a resemblance to the behaviour of addicts (all i care about is next fix/instance)
Something is deeply wrong in the mmorg gaming world if people play money for a game they dont like playing - good profits though eh. Think about this seriously people pay £15 a month or so for a game they do not enjoy. What do development houses say to this? many people subscribe, so we must be doing it right. Or is it the management/shareholders that say this i wonder?
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
Going on about popularity and what you presume game developers should best spend their time and money on again... really? Oh lawd.
That "boring ass" travel and game world in EVE is what drives the gameplay that the players who subscribe to it love and why it is lauded as once of the greatest mmos ever. You know territory control, the economy and the player meta roles NEED that game world and the fact you cannot port everywhere you have ever been once before right..right? It is providing gameplay, the major part of the game play, and whilst you may find it boring clearly others do not.
As for your last part, efficiency, oh look that word again. It may be more "efficient" to try and simply jam more raids and instancesinto a game for you, because all you can see is a lobby game. For others they want content from a dynamic world, not yet another fucking mob grind at the end of the rainbow
It's not just more efficient to add content for me. It's more efficient for most gamers.
Again, if you just want to say "You're right Axe, this is what the majority wants but I don't have the same tastes as the majority." then that kinda ends the discussion. All I'm doing is pointing out what most players clearly show a preference for -- and it's not AFKing.
Again, like my reply above states: Just because boring travel has a purpose in EVE doesn't make AFKing fun. It's great that you somehow find enjoyment with a game where most of the time you're not making any decisions and just sitting there. But most players want abundant gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's not just more efficient to add content for me. It's more efficient for most gamers.
Again, if you just want to say "You're right Axe, this is what the majority wants but I don't have the same tastes as the majority." then that kinda ends the discussion. All I'm doing is pointing out what most players clearly show a preference for -- and it's not AFKing.
Again, like my reply above states: Just because boring travel has a purpose in EVE doesn't make AFKing fun. It's great that you somehow find enjoyment with a game where most of the time you're not making any decisions and just sitting there. But most players want abundant gameplay.
Excellent, even though I have repeatedly commented upon the fact that I am talking about mechanics explicitly and not popularity or subjective opinion. Even though the entire discussion was concerned with mechanics and what they could provide in terms of game play and not what people subjectively prefered.
Even though I have repeatedly pointed out that what the "majority wants" has nothing whatsoever to do with what mechanics can or cannot provide.
You are still having to grasp at straws and talk about what you feel the majority wants. As though that somehow means all of a sudden a dynamic game world could not provide game play content. I have pointed out in pretty much every single post I am debating the merits of the mechanics, not debating the merits of a system in terms of consumer popularity.
Your repeated and frankly pointless going on about how you personally feel EVE is boring is quite amusing but completely misses the point and fails to add anything whatsoever to your "case" (although let's face it, you don't have a case do you). EVE's game world and the travel through it provides the mechanics that drive the game. They provide gameplay content many, mant people find enjoyable.
I can and have gone afk in pvp combat (and lived) and in pve content (and lived). I guess ALL pve and pvp content by that token is now invalidated right?
The case is simple, game worlds can provide game play content which is inhibited by the ability to port travel across it all "once you have seen it once". Your refutation of that case by stating what you feel the public wants is comical at best. No one in the world could want the mechanics but they would still offer the same game play or potential for game play regardless.
IB4 "POPULARITY!!!!!!!!".
But seriously if you are going to rely on what you think the masses want, or what you think a developer will spend his money on. Or what you find boring. In a debate about what certain mechanics can actually provide, then for gods sake don't bother. Just come up with another cracker about Tolkien and the need for efficiency in literature, we could all do with a good laugh.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
If I have to choose, old school freedom. But why should I have to choose? I want freedom, and a story and a world lore that is compelling enough to make me want to play. I want story and freedom. Is that really too much to ask?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
for me id go story any day of the week. Thats me though. I love the story in bioware games . I love to read books . anne mccaffrey is my fav author.
That said some players want more freedom and i think majority would want both if they can have it.
Theyd love to have a godo story with the freedom to level many diffrent ways. To maybe level as a non combatant and have that crafter story to go with it.
I think for me i perfer themepark games beause of the story. Id rather have a story given to me and content that i can play through then m ake my own. But im not a creative type. Wish i was. Turns out creative stuff wasnt me i was always better at math and science in school
That said id love to see a game do both. I migth even try it out .
Comments
I disagree, look at where archeage is headed, thats an example of innovation (potentially) that could well cross the line. Trying to categorise and deal in absolutes is the realm of the manager and average joe architect who is unwilling or unable to think outside the box as it were.
edit i should add, I agree in that any game should be designed as a game first, the rest is detail.
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
Hear, hear!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
An in depth, dynamic game world which you cannot simply "skip over" all the time provides a wealth of gameplay mechanics and opportunities. It is far more than a time sink. That many games do not do it well or that many players are more interested in games with less depth in no way refutes that point.
A to B is great, A to B with the middle ground generating gameplay mechanics is greater. If you can always skip that middle ground then you lose those systems. I fail to see how anyone could possibly refute that claim.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Um. I have never suggested skipping A to B.
I have stated A->B->C->D->E (with gameplay in between each) is very clearly superior to A->B, A->B, A->B unless a game expends extraordinary effort designing something which doesn't currently exist in MMORPGs. (And then pointed out that creating A-B-C-D-E is actually cheaper than developing an entirely new system to make A->B, A->B enjoyable...which means those dev hours get applied towards making some other system more enjoyable instead.)
Fast travel gets us the former journey.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What, throughout the entire thread you have be extolling the virtues of skipping from A to B after you have seen the world once. That seems a lot like skipping from A to B to me.
You have a point that it is cheaper and easier to simply slam combat/raid type content in a game and then have the game world non dynamic or non gameplay mechanic driving. Of course that is the case, but at no point have I argued that it was easier to do that, nor does it invalidate the qualities and potential game play it can bring. The qualities I have been pointing out all through this thread.
As for it not existing currently in mmos that seems incorrect to me. EVE generates gameplay mechanics through it's game world and the travel you do through it. You cannot simply instantly appear at any location you have ever been before. If you could the economy would be nothing like it is today, nor would the territorial conflict or the pvp. It may not be your cup of tea but then that is ot the point. Again, even if no game had done it effectively, it would not be a good argument to put against the merits of a dynamic game world, it would simply server to show that developers go for the quick fix option.
You seem almost in agreement with me now to be honest, travels through a game world can generate game play and are more than just time sinks. Fast travel everywhere would kill that. Your resistance to that now seems to focus on the fact that it is not easy to do. That's a fair comment and I agree with you on that point, but it is not something I have been arguing against at any time. I have also never stated that traveling for the sake of it, through a game world that offers no dynamic gameplay mechanics is a good thing.
I have to wonder why it took so much back and forth for it to boil down to saying in essence that "it's not easy".
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Um. A-B-C-D-E *is* skipping A-B. Note that A-B never repeats itself. That's because you're only doing new travel. You're never repeating travel.
A-B is skipped subsequent trips. But you still get that fun exploration the first time (and other times if you really want, but it's optional at that point.)
Whether something is hard to implement may invalidate the potential gameplay something can bring, because the more costly feature A is, the less likely you can implement feature B (or in this case, the more costly A is, the less content you have time/money to create.)
EVE is a textbook case of travel being overwhelmingly boring. Or do you think players eagerly want 95% of their travel to be completely AFKable? Do you think they'd consider that "dynamic gameplay" just because 5% of the time something dynamic happens?
When I've described travel as "non-gameplay", AFK travel in EVE has been exactly what I've pictured in my mind.
I've never changed my tune, so if you perceive me as being almost in agreement with you it's because you stopped being argumentative and read my posts.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
LOL...
So the biggest stumbling block to "widespread" success for early MMO's was that they were too "sim-like" ?
I guess the fact that when games like UO or EQ first came out only a fraction of population even had access to a computer, let alone internet access, let alone fast and reliable internet access when compared to today had nothing to do with it at all?
Simulations don't make popular games? I guess that's why the Sim series of games was so short lived....had so few titles...won such little critical aclaim....and had such marginal sales?
Eve has a "marginal" user base? So that's why it's rated within the top 5 highest subscription games in the West....ahead of about 90% of the "New School" MMO's that have been released in recent years....including ones based off popular IP's and much higher production budgets? And it's a sci-fi game where you play a spaceship? If that's "marginal"...excuse me but where do I sign up to invest?
Because todays Themepark MMO's have done such an excellent job of creating unique, interesting, non-repeated content at a rate that matches most users demands?
I think I'd like to have some of the meds that you are on please....it sounds very pleasant.
You do realize part of the benefit of dynamic systems is exactly that you are making more efficient use of resources. You don't have to handcraft entire new areas of the gameworld from scratch....but can reuse existing areas by changing some of the parameters of them (like what is currently inhabiting them ... or the current weather or thier state of repair, etc). It's an upfront investment of resources to build the system....but once you've got it built...it actualy saves far more on resources in the long run.... just like good scripting or world building tools.
Heck, with PvP based games....you aren't even really relying so much on the Developers to provide alot of the dynamic content...it's done by the players themselves..... They are the antagonists that the players might encounter in thier travels. They are the brigands, the traveling bards, the army patrols, the merchants that a player might encounter while traveling through an area one time...and not there the next. In those cases you actualy expending ZERO resources as a Dev to create dynamic effects for your players....because the other players are doing it for you.
Poll says different!
Sorry late on into this thread and still reading. but saw the overwhelming results so far and then read this post lol.
297 votes in total on website which is known as a refugee camp for old school gamers and 60% want old school while 13% just want to see the results.. Not even surprised. That is minority of the minority of gamers worldwide this website represents.
How many servers SWTOR will launch with on release?
ShredderSE - Umm how many do they need? Maybe 6.
US, EU, Asian, France, German and Russian.
Subs will be so low there is no need for more
Snoocky-How many servers?
The first 3 months a lot...after that 2 i guess, one for PVE and 1 for PVP...
Thorbrand - SWTOR doesn't have longevity at all. Might be one of the shortest lived MMOs.
which is exactly why coming onto a site like this and making that kind of comment gives me a little tickle!
Not arguing with you friend just what the black and white was already telling us.
I admit i am a minority, is that a bad thing? of course not. it's just simply different. fact is this site is known through the mmo community as a major player....am i wrong? and if the majority of people here are voting for the "old school" then surely there are enough players there to cater for?
I am in no way saying there are more than the modern mmo player, just that surely there are enough.
Oh sweet Jesus..
Skipping subsequent trips is still fucking skipping. You are advocating skipping. I know full well you are talking about subsequent trips, but doing that in a dynamic game world game is a done goofed idea for the most part. You are advocating skipping (just in case you missed the point yet again).
What kind of argument is "oh well if you make the game world better they will just make everything else worse". That has to be the biggest pile of crap argument I have seen on these forums (yes even including some of the other gems you come out with). Trying to argue against the merits of mechanics because a developer may, MAY be lazy and neglect something else is fucking hilariously bad. Even by your standards.
You think EVE is boring, that is subjective. That the game world and the need to travel through it adds massively to the overall dynamics of the game is a fact. It's about the synergy of the systems don't you know...
So now you are trying to change the subject to AFK travel? Cool.
I've read your posts all the way through (including the hilarious ones calling Tolkien "inefficient"), which is why the massive flaws in your cases are as clear as day.
Game world can add gameplay mechanics. Game world and travel through it can be dynamic. The ability to instant travel through a game with gameplay mechanics which are expressly created by the game world invalidates those mechanics. Those points should be so obvious that even a squashed hedgehog could understand them.
It amazes me that you are belligerently trying to argue that a dynamic game world and travel through it cannot add gameplay mechanics and be more than a time sink. That you cannot see that "skipping travel on your second go" to every location you have ever been, waters down and removes those game play mechanics is beyond belief.
IB4 "But Skyrim!!!!" a single player game with no player economy, no player territory control and no player socialization and no point in this discussion. Sounds like your kind of "mmo" though.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Who said it is a bad thing? but i would never use this website or forums as some kind of proof for just anything considering the minority of players who visit forums on regular basis compared to amount of players all over the world. if you think 60% out of 297 those who voted are enough to support an old school freedom MMO well..who am i to deny it to you
But like i have said many many times the old school MMOS have been coming and going for quite some time now and no the production of such games is not completely halted. But sadly they either end up getting closed like Spellborn or see very tough times like Fallen Earth. So that kinda puts a question mark on 'if there are surely enough players there to cater for'.
How many servers SWTOR will launch with on release?
ShredderSE - Umm how many do they need? Maybe 6.
US, EU, Asian, France, German and Russian.
Subs will be so low there is no need for more
Snoocky-How many servers?
The first 3 months a lot...after that 2 i guess, one for PVE and 1 for PVP...
Thorbrand - SWTOR doesn't have longevity at all. Might be one of the shortest lived MMOs.
Why cut out the parts of my post that answer what you are writing? you do realise that others following the thread have probably read the part in that same post where i said that in no way am i saying that there are more old scholers than modern players, and all i am saying is that if there are obviously enough asking for it to warrant a decent profitable game if made correctly.
And do you really believe that old school players only visit this site? of course they dont and of course there is a large number of each side that not only didnt vote, but have not ever visited this site. and as has been proven by many smaller dev teams countless times.....you simply dont need millions to keep a game running.
and i see your last point...but even you can see that these old school games are e=still running even to this day?
EQ, Vanguard, uo to name a few. Even fallen earth is still making cash. and add to that the few players that call for an old style SWG ( i say few in jest by the way, as you know there are hundreds of thousands of them always arguing about thier beloved game ).
So yes going from the evidence, i would say there are plenty for good old school style game to cater for.
but of course i may be wrong. just simply my opinion on it
I never said it wasn't skipping. It's fast traveling to places you've already explored. Skipping the weak (or non-existant) gameplay of repeat travel is entirely the point.
My argument regarding implementation is the simple fact of game development. You have a limited resource, dev hours, and spending it on inefficient gains will result in an overall worse product than spending those hours efficiently.
Since the discussion is gameplay and travel, and since you brought up EVE, then bringing up AFKable travel is kinda a foregone conclusion. Decisions are gameplay. AFKing is the opposite of decision-making. Hence, EVE travel is predominantly non-gameplay (and therefore "timesink" by your own definition.)
Synergy only helps so much. If a feature is trash or non-interactive, it still sucks even with synergy.
Again, I've never disputed that the game world can have gameplay. I've pointed out that by skipping travel you get to the other features faster. And if travel is non-gameplay like in EVE, this results in players spending less time doing nothing and more time engaging in actual gameplay. This is more fun to most players.
Do you think the average player has more fun (a) AFK-traveling in EVE or (b) fighting an interesting boss? Because the issue here isn't whether travel can provide some fun, but whether it can provide equal or greater fun than all the other stuff in a game.
Again if all you want to do is admit you have fun in an entirely different way from the majority of players, that's fine and there's no disputing that. But most players clearly prefer actual gameplay over the type of travel found in a game like EVE (which basically tells the player "This involves no gameplay and you could AFK it, but if you actually AFK you're going to be killed so we're basically forcing you to endure a near-decisionless activity.") You don't care about most players, and that's great, but just like I can't dispute your opinion, you can dispute the statement that most players clearly prefer gameplay.
"It amazes me that you are belligerently trying to argue that a dynamic game world and travel through it cannot add gameplay mechanics and be more than a time sink. "
Really? Almost every post I make states that travel (particularly the first trip) has gameplay, but that trying to make repeat A-B trips fun would be less efficient than simply adding new destinations. Yet here you are assuming I think travel has zero gameplay, for the 5+th time. Are you just trolling?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The difference between EVE travel and travel in a game like EQ, WoW or SWG is that in EVE the travel is an economic cost whle in the other games it is meant to be an exploratory, fun activity. The long travel times in EVE are meant to force players to stay in their regions of space and force economies to be locally focused. The travel is specificly made utterly boring so players don't do too much of it.
I know this.
The issue: knowing this doesn't make it fun. It's massive chunks of my gaming time wasted doing virtually nothing. No amount of feature synergy justifies a game having huge chunks of non-gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Going on about popularity and what you presume game developers should best spend their time and money on again... really? Oh lawd.
That "boring ass" travel and game world in EVE is what drives the gameplay that the players who subscribe to it love and why it is lauded as once of the greatest mmos ever. You know territory control, the economy and the player meta roles NEED that game world and the fact you cannot port everywhere you have ever been once before right..right? It is providing gameplay, the major part of the game play, and whilst you may find it boring clearly others do not.
As for your last part, efficiency, oh look that word again. It may be more "efficient" to try and simply jam more raids and instancesinto a game for you, because all you can see is a lobby game. For others they want content from a dynamic world, not yet another fucking mob grind at the end of the rainbow.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
this is what I love about Eve perversly, I micro manage so i have things to do while I travel.
Axel, Re A>B only once comments. Why not make A> B enjoyable so the journey is worth it? Aka a beautiful virtual world. Compare it to a journey through beautiful mountains on a train in real life. Sure you could get a plane, but imagine there was no rush to get to your end destination - Economy class in a plane, or first class on a scenic journey sitting at a table so you can do stuff while you are travelling. If you pick the former when you are not rushing somewhere, well you do not get what your one life is all about. This transposes to virtual worlds in true mmorgs, you plan and enjoy activities while you are travelling. Immersion during travelling also adds weight and ultimately longevity to the game (and you dont need to pay developer salaries to maintain this). Fast trashy instances and fast travelling - look at WOW, LOTR and most importantly look at the population of these games, because i tell you many many players who play the game don't enjoy it, yet they dont leave. That is wrong and disturbing, and passes more than a resemblance to the behaviour of addicts (all i care about is next fix/instance)
Something is deeply wrong in the mmorg gaming world if people play money for a game they dont like playing - good profits though eh. Think about this seriously people pay £15 a month or so for a game they do not enjoy. What do development houses say to this? many people subscribe, so we must be doing it right. Or is it the management/shareholders that say this i wonder?
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
It's not just more efficient to add content for me. It's more efficient for most gamers.
Again, if you just want to say "You're right Axe, this is what the majority wants but I don't have the same tastes as the majority." then that kinda ends the discussion. All I'm doing is pointing out what most players clearly show a preference for -- and it's not AFKing.
Again, like my reply above states: Just because boring travel has a purpose in EVE doesn't make AFKing fun. It's great that you somehow find enjoyment with a game where most of the time you're not making any decisions and just sitting there. But most players want abundant gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But you realise the human brain is just not geared up for 'constant gameplay' dont you?
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
You realize nothing forces a player in LOL, COD, WOW, etc to play for 8 hours straight, don't you?
But when you do play, gameplay is basically constant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Excellent, even though I have repeatedly commented upon the fact that I am talking about mechanics explicitly and not popularity or subjective opinion. Even though the entire discussion was concerned with mechanics and what they could provide in terms of game play and not what people subjectively prefered.
Even though I have repeatedly pointed out that what the "majority wants" has nothing whatsoever to do with what mechanics can or cannot provide.
You are still having to grasp at straws and talk about what you feel the majority wants. As though that somehow means all of a sudden a dynamic game world could not provide game play content. I have pointed out in pretty much every single post I am debating the merits of the mechanics, not debating the merits of a system in terms of consumer popularity.
Your repeated and frankly pointless going on about how you personally feel EVE is boring is quite amusing but completely misses the point and fails to add anything whatsoever to your "case" (although let's face it, you don't have a case do you). EVE's game world and the travel through it provides the mechanics that drive the game. They provide gameplay content many, mant people find enjoyable.
I can and have gone afk in pvp combat (and lived) and in pve content (and lived). I guess ALL pve and pvp content by that token is now invalidated right?
The case is simple, game worlds can provide game play content which is inhibited by the ability to port travel across it all "once you have seen it once". Your refutation of that case by stating what you feel the public wants is comical at best. No one in the world could want the mechanics but they would still offer the same game play or potential for game play regardless.
IB4 "POPULARITY!!!!!!!!".
But seriously if you are going to rely on what you think the masses want, or what you think a developer will spend his money on. Or what you find boring. In a debate about what certain mechanics can actually provide, then for gods sake don't bother. Just come up with another cracker about Tolkien and the need for efficiency in literature, we could all do with a good laugh.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
If I have to choose, old school freedom. But why should I have to choose? I want freedom, and a story and a world lore that is compelling enough to make me want to play. I want story and freedom. Is that really too much to ask?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
for me id go story any day of the week. Thats me though. I love the story in bioware games . I love to read books . anne mccaffrey is my fav author.
That said some players want more freedom and i think majority would want both if they can have it.
Theyd love to have a godo story with the freedom to level many diffrent ways. To maybe level as a non combatant and have that crafter story to go with it.
I think for me i perfer themepark games beause of the story. Id rather have a story given to me and content that i can play through then m ake my own. But im not a creative type. Wish i was. Turns out creative stuff wasnt me i was always better at math and science in school
That said id love to see a game do both. I migth even try it out .