If the majority wanted EVE, they would play EVE. They don't.
No matter what the content is, if you can AFK it, it's crap. The entire point of games is interactivity. If you can AFK it, why bother? A book or movie would certainly be more enjoyable if you're content to have zero interactivity.
I don't know how you could feel my argument is grasping at straws. It's plainly evident what most people find fun. Players clearly want gameplay, and AFKing isn't gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If u wanna afk gameplay why not go play rts games. There are many many mmorts on the market u could play that allow u to do just that , Afk gameplay is a big part of rts games.
If u wanna afk gameplay why not go play rts games. There are many many mmorts on the market u could play that allow u to do just that , Afk gameplay is a big part of rts games.
Not quite the same caliber of evil, though.
In one, you login, make decisions, and logout. Your time in-game is entirely full of meaningful decisions (gameplay.)
In EVE, you login, make decisions, and kinda go AFK -- but not too AFK because if you actually go AFK you might eventually get caught by someone and killed. So it's this painful "you need to sit at your computer and actually do nothing for 10 minutes" experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
i understand that. its hwy i suggested it. i have actually played some rts games for fun. To see what were like and there is nothing better for afk gaming.
that said from what ive read of eve if u go afk too long some perosn can come up on u kill u adn loot your stuff. And u are sol
wouldnt seem to smart to go afk in eve from what ive read though ive never played it.
If u wanna afk gameplay why not go play rts games. There are many many mmorts on the market u could play that allow u to do just that , Afk gameplay is a big part of rts games.
Not quite the same caliber of evil, though.
In one, you login, make decisions, and logout. Your time in-game is entirely full of meaningful decisions (gameplay.)
In EVE, you login, make decisions, and kinda go AFK -- but not too AFK because if you actually go AFK you might eventually get caught by someone and killed. So it's this painful "you need to sit at your computer and actually do nothing for 10 minutes" experience.
People would probably say that this takes skill in game. Then again, some people like this shit.
How long did it take for folks to kill one mob in EQ again? Oh, yeah, that took some real skill!
Only safe place to afk in EVE is in space stations. But even that can come back to bite you in the ass because if your in pirate territory or in a Corps at war with another and someone sees you IN the station...they could have ambush parties waiting outside when you undock (Depending on territory security level), or scouts follow you until an opportune time to strike presents itself.
And for some of these replies here...name me 1 MMORPG today that doesn't have some sort of waiting. They ALL have timesinks, some just desguise them better than others.
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
I didn't cut a single part of your post. And from nowhere on these forums since you are basing your opinion on basis of these forums / polls i got even a slightest idea that there are enough players to sustain games like these. Yes FE is still making cash after being almost closed down and now it is F2P. Now there is just getting by and then there is living good. If you are hoping for a quality AAA MMO with all these features well sorry i have been also waiting for that but not gonna happen. All you will get is more indy low quality broken MMOS. I never said you need millions to keep running the game but who in their right mind would want another Spellborn and Vanguard? not that games were bad but why would companies want to sink money in something which is most probably going to shut downor completely ignored?
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.
For me fast travel is instant gratification, just like dungeon finders. Even Battle grounds vs. open world pvp, I must say I like battle grounds at times too, as long as they are treated as minor mini games.
I had some of my best times with slow travel. Here let me explain :
Slow travel makes you stay put. Slow travel makes you stay in a zone for longer soaking up the lore. Along with slow leveling it helps you make friends. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU FOUND A NEW FRIEND ? ...I would guess an older mmo !
When was the last time you got a group together for a dungeon or raid and traveled together having fun along the way ?... Let me guess an older style mmo.
Some would argue that slow travel is a time sync....Well, yes it is. But did you ever stop and think about immersion instead of fast leveling. If you only have two hours to play you can make your time deep, rich, and fun. Or do you need to see three levels in two hours.
If the majority wanted EVE, they would play EVE. They don't.
No matter what the content is, if you can AFK it, it's crap. The entire point of games is interactivity. If you can AFK it, why bother? A book or movie would certainly be more enjoyable if you're content to have zero interactivity.
I don't know how you could feel my argument is grasping at straws. It's plainly evident what most people find fun. Players clearly want gameplay, and AFKing isn't gameplay.
I dont think you grasp the fundementals of synergy in good mmorg game design. A good game gives you things to do while you travel, in other worlds the world that the developers created is used, its not thrown away after 1 flight (poor design). You do not need to AFK., AFKing wasnt what this thread was about. A mmorg is about the virtual world and content is part of that world. The world is greater than the sum of its parts.
Instant travelling cuts that world out, so why have the world at all - it turns into a co-operative rpg when you do that. A Coorg is fine for those that enjoy it, but it is no mmorg. Take WOW, for the first 2 years it was much more of a mmorg than it was now, and had MILLIONs of players, with limited instant travel. Now look, yup it has millions of more playing it, but the game it is almost entirely a co-op game now, and again, many of those players actually don't like playing it. If you dont believe me, listen to the chat in game, its vile and anti-social.
If a successful game creates a toxic unhealthy community where people pay through addiction it should hardly be applauded because it makes the publisher millions of profit.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
If the majority wanted EVE, they would play EVE. They don't.
No matter what the content is, if you can AFK it, it's crap. The entire point of games is interactivity. If you can AFK it, why bother? A book or movie would certainly be more enjoyable if you're content to have zero interactivity.
I don't know how you could feel my argument is grasping at straws. It's plainly evident what most people find fun. Players clearly want gameplay, and AFKing isn't gameplay.
Popularity has zero relevance to the original argument. The case I have made all the way through is what mechanics are able to provide, not what everyone happens to want at any given time. I have repeated that in every single post and yet your only counter point is " but but popularity!!!!!!!!".
Popularity as a point being put forward would have real merit if that is what I had been talking about at any given time. As it isn't the fact that you can only respond with it shows that you have no real case and are simply replying each time to be argumentitive/troll.
It is clear you are clutching at straws because your only gambits are popularity which has no relevance to my argument and the afk straw man. Implying that whilst some do afk in EVE, does not by extension mean that all game worlds and travel through them can all be afkd. That said game world does not provde game play mechanics.
Again it doesn't matter what the majority want in terms of what game play mechanics can actually provide. They can either provide game play or not, the amount of people who like said game play HAS NO FUCKING IMPACT WHATSOEVER UPON THAT.
A dynamic game world is more than A to B and it is more than one trip and then port about, in fact it's game play mechanics are hurt by that porting about. You have provided absolutely fuck all in the way of even a half competent counter argument to that. What Spammy McSpam the 12 year old face rolling lobby gamer from Scotland happens to prefer from his or her gaming experience is meaningless to this little tete a tete as at no point has my case been about popularity...at all.
Unless you can prove that a dynamic game world cannot provide game play content/mechanics past one trip through it then you have no reason to be continuing this debate. It is clear you have lost it when instead of attempting to prove my case wrong (which let's face it is impossible as a dynamic game world can clearly provide game play mechanics) you keep harping on about what the "masses" want as though that has any impact whatsoever on the argument. It doesn't so either give it up or try come up with something worthwhile for a change.
Just to reiterate, I am merely making the case that a game world can be far more than A to B. That a game world can provide dynamic gameplay mechanics which are inhibited by the ability to fast travel everywhere you have been once (and thus negate the game world). A game world and travel through it can be more than just a time sink.The case is not about what mechanics are more popular, nor is it about which mechanics are easier to make
I really do not see what you can argue against with any of that quite frankly, but if you insist on stumbling on like a loon then the following are clearly not valid counter arguments:
edit ah i thought of a great example to demonstrate how slow travel works:
Scenario : I decide I want to do an instance, and I want to setup a group.
Old School, you advertise, you talk to people, when you get a couple people you start making you way towards the instance, while you are doing this you are chatting with the people you are grouped with, you socialise a bit - and the instance when you get there is more pleasurable because of the socialisation and planning activities your group took.
New School. You sit in a queue, you donbt talk to the people you group up with, you just tear into the instance and try to get through it as fast as possible.
So one example amongs many where slow travelling works, in this case it creates a window where you get time to socialise and bond with the players you group with. MMO.
edit, bunny im from Scotland, pick another country! :P
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
People asking for old school freedom, are asking for the vitual world feeling to return in my opinion. It makes it all so much better. Too good sometimes.
Popularity has zero relevance to the original argument. The case I have made all the way through is what mechanics are able to provide, not what everyone happens to want at any given time. I have repeated that in every single post and yet your only counter point is " but but popularity!!!!!!!!".
Popularity as a point being put forward would have real merit if that is what I had been talking about at any given time. As it isn't the fact that you can only respond with it shows that you have no real case and are simply replying each time to be argumentitive/troll.
It is clear you are clutching at straws because your only gambits are popularity which has no relevance to my argument and the afk straw man. Implying that whilst some do afk in EVE, does not by extension mean that all game worlds and travel through them can all be afkd. That said game world does not provde game play mechanics.
Again it doesn't matter what the majority want in terms of what game play mechanics can actually provide. They can either provide game play or not, the amount of people who like said game play HAS NO FUCKING IMPACT WHATSOEVER UPON THAT.
A dynamic game world is more than A to B and it is more than one trip and then port about, in fact it's game play mechanics are hurt by that porting about. You have provided absolutely fuck all in the way of even a half competent counter argument to that. What Spammy McSpam the 12 year old face rolling lobby gamer from Scotland happens to prefer from his or her gaming experience is meaningless to this little tete a tete as at no point has my case been about popularity...at all.
Unless you can prove that a dynamic game world cannot provide game play content/mechanics past one trip through it then you have no reason to be continuing this debate. It is clear you have lost it when instead of attempting to prove my case wrong (which let's face it is impossible as a dynamic game world can clearly provide game play mechanics) you keep harping on about what the "masses" want as though that has any impact whatsoever on the argument. It doesn't so either give it up or try come up with something worthwhile for a change.
Just to reiterate, I am merely making the case that a game world can be far more than A to B. That a game world can provide dynamic gameplay mechanics which are inhibited by the ability to fast travel everywhere you have been once (and thus negate the game world). A game world and travel through it can be more than just a time sink.The case is not about what mechanics are more popular, nor is it about which mechanics are easier to make
I really do not see what you can argue against with any of that quite frankly, but if you insist on stumbling on like a loon then the following are clearly not valid counter arguments:
What you call gameplay between points A and B is rare. So rare that most people don't think it is worth their time. They feel it is a tedium. The majority wants the developers to focus on the content in A and B, not on something that may or may not happen (more often not).
Popularity, subs or sales numbers are the only objective measure of quality. People have clearly voted with their wallets and favor the gameplay and content heavy games over simulation.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
+ : open world, many starter areas, fights involve skill, no quest chains
- : only 2 factions, guild making criteria set very high, tedious travel, not much in the way of story, slow levelling (lots of quest or lots of grind or both)
"New style"
+ : Story driven, voice acting optional, great graphics, solo friendly, fast travel, no time sinks, easier to group for dungeons
- : only 2 factions, harder to group in open world
Story driven is still quite possible with several starter areas (one per race comes to mind). New style combat can also require skill. I see absolutely no really big points in favor of "old school", an invisible railroad to boredom is not my idea of fun. Player driven content can usually not even dream of coming close to a really good story.
When having to choose between "freedom" (however often boring) and a decent story, the reality is that the large majority will go for the story, regardless of what the people posting here say. I doubt old school = sandbox anyway. There are just different ways to making a game. This artificial old school vs. new style distinction isn't very clear cut anyway.
What you call gameplay between points A and B is rare. So rare that most people don't think it is worth their time. They feel it is a tedium. The majority wants the developers to focus on the content in A and B, not on something that may or may not happen (more often not).
Popularity, subs or sales numbers are the only objective measure of quality. People have clearly voted with their wallets and favor the gameplay and content heavy games over simulation.
Rarity does not alter what the mechanics can or can not do. If you want to try and argue against the case that a game world can provide gameplay content then you are going to have to come up with a mechanical reason for that being the case. If I happend to be arguing the case that game simulation is more popular, or is easier to implement, or more accessible than another set of mechanics I could see the point in raising popularity as an issue. As I am not arguing that case (nor ever have) then there is no point in trying to debate the popularity factor. At all.
Popularity and sales figures are far from being an objective measure of quality, let alone being the only one. It is quite unbelievable that someone could think that quite frankly. Regardless, that line of reasoning shows that you have failed to grasp the case being made. It is not a debate about subjective notions of what each individual wants, it is the fact that game world simulations can offer gameplay mechanics over and above a time sink. If only three people in the world enjoyed the economic gameplay (for instance) that a game world generated then those game world driven gameplay mechanics are still valid.
Less people play EVE than WoW. So then it must be the case that the game world in EVE is not creating any gameplay elements at all the right? No one in the game is deriving their gameplay outside of a time sink level, from the game world? All because WoW has more subs. I guess if all of a sudden all of the WoW players jumped on EVE, then the game world would all of a sudden be miraculously generating gameplay after all and WoW would in fact only be a time sink..
Sorry but that line of reasoning is completely and utterly retarded.
A game world can provide gameplay mechanics. Said mechanics will be nullified by the ability to fast travel everywhere in the game world "on your second trip". That is the case being put forward, if you can refute that point by showing that is not the case through the mechanics (or lack thereof) then go for it. Popularity is not a valid counter argument as I have not stated that that style of gameplay is more popular.
Person One: "A game world is just a time sink, any travel after the first trip is a waste of time".
Person Two: "A game world can provide X systems".
Person One: "But that's not popular".
Person Two: "No doubt, but this is about mechanics and being able to offer more than a time sink".
Person One: "Popularity, popularity, popularity"
Person Two: "sigh...".
World simulation can provide gameplay and content. That more people happen to prefer another form of gameplay or content in no way means that all of a sudden it can no longer provide gameplay or content. The mechanics don't suddenly disappear simply because more people play WoW ffs. It is simply a case that more players happen to prefer other gameplay mechanics at this moment in time.
Feel free to help the other poster out (he needs it by God), maybe the two of you can come up with a legitimate reason why all of a sudden a game world cannot provide gameplay content. Try not to fall into the old popularity line again though eh, it isn't a valid line of reasoning in this case.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
If the majority wanted EVE, they would play EVE. They don't.
No matter what the content is, if you can AFK it, it's crap. The entire point of games is interactivity. If you can AFK it, why bother? A book or movie would certainly be more enjoyable if you're content to have zero interactivity.
I don't know how you could feel my argument is grasping at straws. It's plainly evident what most people find fun. Players clearly want gameplay, and AFKing isn't gameplay.
And this is where you somehow just don't get it. Have you played MMO's pre-WoW? I am asking seriously.
Yet again, this is why MMORPG's and console games are different genre's. One is meant for fast paced fun and gratification, one isn't. MMORPG's are different from console gaming for the fact you can take it at your own pace, and everything takes longer because there are no set paths (Or shouldn't be anyways).
But even taking it at your own pace in today's Hamster wheel MMO's you get to cap in a month,...because they are so linear and instanced.
P.S. Bunnyhopper...you are wasting time and brain cells trying to hammer anything into those two.
Blah blah blah blah. Axehilt, go peddle your pro-WoW style, want everything handed to me, make it a console RPG garbage elsewhere. New sure must be what is wanted since it is buried in this poll.
No one is saying they find inconveinience fun. It's only inconveinient to those who don't like to think or work a bit for rewards (Which is also a form of fun and gratification that most new gamers can't seem to grasp). Yet again...this is what seperates MMORPG's from console gaming. You want rewarded and to feel 1337 quickly, go play console games, or stick to WoW.
The inconveniences we're talking about are travel time or time-consuming death penalty or manual group-finding.
Are you really going to sit there and argue that travel time requires "thought" or "work"? That's preposterous.
Actually yes, Before there were in game maps and big arrows over your head telling you exactly where to go you had to ask others or look up how to get where you were going. Then you had to figure out whether or not the route you had chosen was going to get you killed or not by taking you through zones you couldn't handle. Then usually you would have a lot of very interesting stuff happen along the way as in mobs you didn't expect or know about, things you hadn't seen before, players you would meet along the way and just other totally random events that would keep you entertained. In old school MMOs the journey was usually a hell of a lot more entertaining than the destination about 99% of the time. Did you even play any other games before WoW?
What you call gameplay between points A and B is rare. So rare that most people don't think it is worth their time. They feel it is a tedium. The majority wants the developers to focus on the content in A and B, not on something that may or may not happen (more often not).
Popularity, subs or sales numbers are the only objective measure of quality. People have clearly voted with their wallets and favor the gameplay and content heavy games over simulation.
Rarity does not alter what the mechanics can or can not do. If you want to try and argue against the case that a game world can provide gameplay content then you are going to have to come up with a mechanical reason for that being the case. If I happend to be arguing the case that game simulation is more popular, or is easier to implement, or more accessible than another set of mechanics I could see the point in raising popularity as an issue. As I am not arguing that case (nor ever have) then there is no point in trying to debate the popularity factor. At all.
Popularity and sales figures are far from being an objective measure of quality, let alone being the only one. It is quite unbelievable that someone could think that quite frankly. Regardless, that line of reasoning shows that you have failed to grasp the case being made. It is not a debate about subjective notions of what each individual wants, it is the fact that game world simulations can offer gameplay mechanics over and above a time sink. If only three people in the world enjoyed the economic gameplay (for instance) that a game world generated then those game world driven gameplay mechanics are still valid.
Less people play EVE than WoW. So then it must be the case that the game world in EVE is not creating any gameplay elements at all the right? No one in the game is deriving their gameplay outside of a time sink level, from the game world? All because WoW has more subs. I guess if all of a sudden all of the WoW players jumped on EVE, then the game world would all of a sudden be miraculously generating gameplay after all and WoW would in fact only be a time sink..
Sorry but that line of reasoning is completely and utterly retarded.
A game world can provide gameplay mechanics. Said mechanics will be nullified by the ability to fast travel everywhere in the game world "on your second trip". That is the case being put forward, if you can refute that point by showing that is not the case through the mechanics (or lack thereof) then go for it. Popularity is not a valid counter argument as I have not stated that that style of gameplay is more popular.
Person One: "A game world is just a time sink, any travel after the first trip is a waste of time".
Person Two: "A game world can provide X systems".
Person One: "But that's not popular".
Person Two: "No doubt, but this is about mechanics and being able to offer more than a time sink".
Person One: "Popularity, popularity, popularity"
Person Two: "sigh...".
World simulation can provide gameplay and content. That more people happen to prefer another form of gameplay or content in no way means that all of a sudden it can no longer provide gameplay or content. The mechanics don't suddenly disappear simply because more people play WoW ffs. It is simply a case that more players happen to prefer other gameplay mechanics at this moment in time.
Feel free to help the other poster out (he needs it by God), maybe the two of you can come up with a legitimate reason why all of a sudden a game world cannot provide gameplay content. Try not to fall into the old popularity line again though eh, it isn't a valid line of reasoning in this case.
Come one bunnyhopper you need to cut using those horrible, horrible strawmen. No one said there is no gameplay in travel times. There can be, but it is so scarce that it is not worth the tedium it creates. Most people choose to give that up in favor of less tedium.
If only 3 players like a feature which causes the other 7 players tedium and/or discomfort, it is perfectly acceptable to pursue a solution that is accepted by the majority. If you make travel times optional by allowing fast travel, it is a lesser evil than forcing one or the other. There's always someone who suffers, but the only way to objectively gauge a feature is by its popularity.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
If the majority wanted EVE, they would play EVE. They don't.
No matter what the content is, if you can AFK it, it's crap. The entire point of games is interactivity. If you can AFK it, why bother? A book or movie would certainly be more enjoyable if you're content to have zero interactivity.
I don't know how you could feel my argument is grasping at straws. It's plainly evident what most people find fun. Players clearly want gameplay, and AFKing isn't gameplay.
And this is where you somehow just don't get it. Have you played MMO's pre-WoW? I am asking seriously.
Yet again, this is why MMORPG's and console games are different genre's. One is meant for fast paced fun and gratification, one isn't. MMORPG's are different from console gaming for the fact you can take it at your own pace, and everything takes longer because there are no set paths (Or shouldn't be anyways).
But even taking it at your own pace in today's Hamster wheel MMO's you get to cap in a month,...because they are so linear and instanced.
P.S. Bunnyhopper...you are wasting time and brain cells trying to hammer anything into those two.
Why do you keep insisting people are not getting the point?
Axehilt has mad some pretty valid points, but your saying he doesn;t get it. Sigh...
For me fast travel is instant gratification, just like dungeon finders. Even Battle grounds vs. open world pvp, I must say I like battle grounds at times too, as long as they are treated as minor mini games.
I had some of my best times with slow travel. Here let me explain :
Slow travel makes you stay put. Slow travel makes you stay in a zone for longer soaking up the lore. Along with slow leveling it helps you make friends. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU FOUND A NEW FRIEND ? ...I would guess an older mmo !
When was the last time you got a group together for a dungeon or raid and traveled together having fun along the way ?... Let me guess an older style mmo.
Some would argue that slow travel is a time sync....Well, yes it is. But did you ever stop and think about immersion instead of fast leveling. If you only have two hours to play you can make your time deep, rich, and fun.
Gratification (entertainment) is the purpose of games.
I've made plenty of friends in WOW while raiding.
Are you suggesting Skyrim isnt immersive? It doesn't waste players' time at all with needless timesinks.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
edit ah i thought of a great example to demonstrate how slow travel works:
Scenario : I decide I want to do an instance, and I want to setup a group.
Old School, you advertise, you talk to people, when you get a couple people you start making you way towards the instance, while you are doing this you are chatting with the people you are grouped with, you socialise a bit - and the instance when you get there is more pleasurable because of the socialisation and planning activities your group took.
New School. You sit in a queue, you donbt talk to the people you group up with, you just tear into the instance and try to get through it as fast as possible.
So one example amongs many where slow travelling works, in this case it creates a window where you get time to socialise and bond with the players you group with. MMO.
edit, bunny im from Scotland, pick another country! :P
How long did it take you to get this group together? Was this before or after you finished mowing the lawn.
I don't get how many of keep arguing that waiting around for hours to get a group going is even remotely fun.
Sorry seeing how my work day begins at:
5:50am with a good hour workout
40-50min commute
6:30pm-7pm to come home.
I don't want to wait for hours to find a group to run an instance.
You know what I was doing before this? I was unemployed for over 10mons.
You know what I had? Time! Time, to play any game as long as I want.
And this is where you somehow just don't get it. Have you played MMO's pre-WoW? I am asking seriously.
Yet again, this is why MMORPG's and console games are different genre's. One is meant for fast paced fun and gratification, one isn't. MMORPG's are different from console gaming for the fact you can take it at your own pace, and everything takes longer because there are no set paths (Or shouldn't be anyways).
But even taking it at your own pace in today's Hamster wheel MMO's you get to cap in a month,...because they are so linear and instanced.
I tried a lot of MMORPGs pre-WOW (basically everything except UO and EQ.) They were big empty wastes of time.
This definitely isn't a console vs. MMORPG thing. Most PC games provide gameplay for your dollar. Early MMORPGs were pretty empty.
Getting to cap is irrelevant because there's so much more left to do. But you're fixated on leveling.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
edit ah i thought of a great example to demonstrate how slow travel works:
Scenario : I decide I want to do an instance, and I want to setup a group.
Old School, you advertise, you talk to people, when you get a couple people you start making you way towards the instance, while you are doing this you are chatting with the people you are grouped with, you socialise a bit - and the instance when you get there is more pleasurable because of the socialisation and planning activities your group took.
New School. You sit in a queue, you donbt talk to the people you group up with, you just tear into the instance and try to get through it as fast as possible.
So one example amongs many where slow travelling works, in this case it creates a window where you get time to socialise and bond with the players you group with. MMO.
edit, bunny im from Scotland, pick another country! :P
How long did it take you to get this group together? Was this before or after you finished mowing the lawn.
I don't get how many of keep arguing that waiting around for hours to get a group going is even remotely fun.
Sorry seeing how my work day begins at:
5:50am with a good hour workout
40-50min commute
6:30pm-7pm to come home.
I don't want to wait for hours to find a group to run an instance.
You know what I was doing before this? I was unemployed for over 10mons.
You know what I had? Time! Time, to play any game as long as I want.
it took less time than it does now when you wait in your queue, because you actually knew lots of people in game - did you not know this? Now actually read my post, it was about opportunities to socialise and actually interacting with people. Mmorg used to = fun from socialising, not getting in 3 instances an hour (that are more about getting fold per hour than having fun) Your working pattern is pretty normal btw, it hasnt really got anything to do with this thread.
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
Comments
If the majority wanted EVE, they would play EVE. They don't.
No matter what the content is, if you can AFK it, it's crap. The entire point of games is interactivity. If you can AFK it, why bother? A book or movie would certainly be more enjoyable if you're content to have zero interactivity.
I don't know how you could feel my argument is grasping at straws. It's plainly evident what most people find fun. Players clearly want gameplay, and AFKing isn't gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If u wanna afk gameplay why not go play rts games. There are many many mmorts on the market u could play that allow u to do just that , Afk gameplay is a big part of rts games.
Not quite the same caliber of evil, though.
In one, you login, make decisions, and logout. Your time in-game is entirely full of meaningful decisions (gameplay.)
In EVE, you login, make decisions, and kinda go AFK -- but not too AFK because if you actually go AFK you might eventually get caught by someone and killed. So it's this painful "you need to sit at your computer and actually do nothing for 10 minutes" experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
i understand that. its hwy i suggested it. i have actually played some rts games for fun. To see what were like and there is nothing better for afk gaming.
that said from what ive read of eve if u go afk too long some perosn can come up on u kill u adn loot your stuff. And u are sol
wouldnt seem to smart to go afk in eve from what ive read though ive never played it.
People would probably say that this takes skill in game. Then again, some people like this shit.
How long did it take for folks to kill one mob in EQ again? Oh, yeah, that took some real skill!
Only safe place to afk in EVE is in space stations. But even that can come back to bite you in the ass because if your in pirate territory or in a Corps at war with another and someone sees you IN the station...they could have ambush parties waiting outside when you undock (Depending on territory security level), or scouts follow you until an opportune time to strike presents itself.
And for some of these replies here...name me 1 MMORPG today that doesn't have some sort of waiting. They ALL have timesinks, some just desguise them better than others.
I didn't cut a single part of your post. And from nowhere on these forums since you are basing your opinion on basis of these forums / polls i got even a slightest idea that there are enough players to sustain games like these. Yes FE is still making cash after being almost closed down and now it is F2P. Now there is just getting by and then there is living good. If you are hoping for a quality AAA MMO with all these features well sorry i have been also waiting for that but not gonna happen. All you will get is more indy low quality broken MMOS. I never said you need millions to keep running the game but who in their right mind would want another Spellborn and Vanguard? not that games were bad but why would companies want to sink money in something which is most probably going to shut downor completely ignored?
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.
Several post were about slow travel vs. fast.
For me fast travel is instant gratification, just like dungeon finders. Even Battle grounds vs. open world pvp, I must say I like battle grounds at times too, as long as they are treated as minor mini games.
I had some of my best times with slow travel. Here let me explain :
Slow travel makes you stay put. Slow travel makes you stay in a zone for longer soaking up the lore. Along with slow leveling it helps you make friends. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU FOUND A NEW FRIEND ? ...I would guess an older mmo !
When was the last time you got a group together for a dungeon or raid and traveled together having fun along the way ?... Let me guess an older style mmo.
Some would argue that slow travel is a time sync....Well, yes it is. But did you ever stop and think about immersion instead of fast leveling. If you only have two hours to play you can make your time deep, rich, and fun. Or do you need to see three levels in two hours.
Fast leveling = solo play
fast travel = solo play
chain quest with story = solo play
Dungeon finders = solo play, inadvertently
Group quest, and Rifts = solo play, inadvertently
I dont think you grasp the fundementals of synergy in good mmorg game design. A good game gives you things to do while you travel, in other worlds the world that the developers created is used, its not thrown away after 1 flight (poor design). You do not need to AFK., AFKing wasnt what this thread was about. A mmorg is about the virtual world and content is part of that world. The world is greater than the sum of its parts.
Instant travelling cuts that world out, so why have the world at all - it turns into a co-operative rpg when you do that. A Coorg is fine for those that enjoy it, but it is no mmorg. Take WOW, for the first 2 years it was much more of a mmorg than it was now, and had MILLIONs of players, with limited instant travel. Now look, yup it has millions of more playing it, but the game it is almost entirely a co-op game now, and again, many of those players actually don't like playing it. If you dont believe me, listen to the chat in game, its vile and anti-social.
If a successful game creates a toxic unhealthy community where people pay through addiction it should hardly be applauded because it makes the publisher millions of profit.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Popularity has zero relevance to the original argument. The case I have made all the way through is what mechanics are able to provide, not what everyone happens to want at any given time. I have repeated that in every single post and yet your only counter point is " but but popularity!!!!!!!!".
Popularity as a point being put forward would have real merit if that is what I had been talking about at any given time. As it isn't the fact that you can only respond with it shows that you have no real case and are simply replying each time to be argumentitive/troll.
It is clear you are clutching at straws because your only gambits are popularity which has no relevance to my argument and the afk straw man. Implying that whilst some do afk in EVE, does not by extension mean that all game worlds and travel through them can all be afkd. That said game world does not provde game play mechanics.
Again it doesn't matter what the majority want in terms of what game play mechanics can actually provide. They can either provide game play or not, the amount of people who like said game play HAS NO FUCKING IMPACT WHATSOEVER UPON THAT.
A dynamic game world is more than A to B and it is more than one trip and then port about, in fact it's game play mechanics are hurt by that porting about. You have provided absolutely fuck all in the way of even a half competent counter argument to that. What Spammy McSpam the 12 year old face rolling lobby gamer from Scotland happens to prefer from his or her gaming experience is meaningless to this little tete a tete as at no point has my case been about popularity...at all.
Unless you can prove that a dynamic game world cannot provide game play content/mechanics past one trip through it then you have no reason to be continuing this debate. It is clear you have lost it when instead of attempting to prove my case wrong (which let's face it is impossible as a dynamic game world can clearly provide game play mechanics) you keep harping on about what the "masses" want as though that has any impact whatsoever on the argument. It doesn't so either give it up or try come up with something worthwhile for a change.
Just to reiterate, I am merely making the case that a game world can be far more than A to B. That a game world can provide dynamic gameplay mechanics which are inhibited by the ability to fast travel everywhere you have been once (and thus negate the game world). A game world and travel through it can be more than just a time sink.The case is not about what mechanics are more popular, nor is it about which mechanics are easier to make
I really do not see what you can argue against with any of that quite frankly, but if you insist on stumbling on like a loon then the following are clearly not valid counter arguments:
Popularity isn't a valid counter.
It "being harder to do" isn't a valid counter.
AFK straw men arguments are not a valid counter.
Popularity is not a valid counter.
Popularity is not a valid counter.
IB4 "POPULARITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Yet again.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
edit ah i thought of a great example to demonstrate how slow travel works:
Scenario : I decide I want to do an instance, and I want to setup a group.
Old School, you advertise, you talk to people, when you get a couple people you start making you way towards the instance, while you are doing this you are chatting with the people you are grouped with, you socialise a bit - and the instance when you get there is more pleasurable because of the socialisation and planning activities your group took.
New School. You sit in a queue, you donbt talk to the people you group up with, you just tear into the instance and try to get through it as fast as possible.
So one example amongs many where slow travelling works, in this case it creates a window where you get time to socialise and bond with the players you group with. MMO.
edit, bunny im from Scotland, pick another country! :P
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
People asking for old school freedom, are asking for the vitual world feeling to return in my opinion. It makes it all so much better. Too good sometimes.
"It's the virtual world stupid"
What you call gameplay between points A and B is rare. So rare that most people don't think it is worth their time. They feel it is a tedium. The majority wants the developers to focus on the content in A and B, not on something that may or may not happen (more often not).
Popularity, subs or sales numbers are the only objective measure of quality. People have clearly voted with their wallets and favor the gameplay and content heavy games over simulation.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
did you read any of the posts here? Ah wait you also used the word simulation to somehow describe mmorgs.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
whats the best mmorg experience/period of time that you have had?
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
Rarity does not alter what the mechanics can or can not do. If you want to try and argue against the case that a game world can provide gameplay content then you are going to have to come up with a mechanical reason for that being the case. If I happend to be arguing the case that game simulation is more popular, or is easier to implement, or more accessible than another set of mechanics I could see the point in raising popularity as an issue. As I am not arguing that case (nor ever have) then there is no point in trying to debate the popularity factor. At all.
Popularity and sales figures are far from being an objective measure of quality, let alone being the only one. It is quite unbelievable that someone could think that quite frankly. Regardless, that line of reasoning shows that you have failed to grasp the case being made. It is not a debate about subjective notions of what each individual wants, it is the fact that game world simulations can offer gameplay mechanics over and above a time sink. If only three people in the world enjoyed the economic gameplay (for instance) that a game world generated then those game world driven gameplay mechanics are still valid.
Less people play EVE than WoW. So then it must be the case that the game world in EVE is not creating any gameplay elements at all the right? No one in the game is deriving their gameplay outside of a time sink level, from the game world? All because WoW has more subs. I guess if all of a sudden all of the WoW players jumped on EVE, then the game world would all of a sudden be miraculously generating gameplay after all and WoW would in fact only be a time sink..
Sorry but that line of reasoning is completely and utterly retarded.
A game world can provide gameplay mechanics. Said mechanics will be nullified by the ability to fast travel everywhere in the game world "on your second trip". That is the case being put forward, if you can refute that point by showing that is not the case through the mechanics (or lack thereof) then go for it. Popularity is not a valid counter argument as I have not stated that that style of gameplay is more popular.
Person One: "A game world is just a time sink, any travel after the first trip is a waste of time".
Person Two: "A game world can provide X systems".
Person One: "But that's not popular".
Person Two: "No doubt, but this is about mechanics and being able to offer more than a time sink".
Person One: "Popularity, popularity, popularity"
Person Two: "sigh...".
World simulation can provide gameplay and content. That more people happen to prefer another form of gameplay or content in no way means that all of a sudden it can no longer provide gameplay or content. The mechanics don't suddenly disappear simply because more people play WoW ffs. It is simply a case that more players happen to prefer other gameplay mechanics at this moment in time.
Feel free to help the other poster out (he needs it by God), maybe the two of you can come up with a legitimate reason why all of a sudden a game world cannot provide gameplay content. Try not to fall into the old popularity line again though eh, it isn't a valid line of reasoning in this case.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
And this is where you somehow just don't get it. Have you played MMO's pre-WoW? I am asking seriously.
Yet again, this is why MMORPG's and console games are different genre's. One is meant for fast paced fun and gratification, one isn't. MMORPG's are different from console gaming for the fact you can take it at your own pace, and everything takes longer because there are no set paths (Or shouldn't be anyways).
But even taking it at your own pace in today's Hamster wheel MMO's you get to cap in a month,...because they are so linear and instanced.
P.S. Bunnyhopper...you are wasting time and brain cells trying to hammer anything into those two.
Actually yes, Before there were in game maps and big arrows over your head telling you exactly where to go you had to ask others or look up how to get where you were going. Then you had to figure out whether or not the route you had chosen was going to get you killed or not by taking you through zones you couldn't handle. Then usually you would have a lot of very interesting stuff happen along the way as in mobs you didn't expect or know about, things you hadn't seen before, players you would meet along the way and just other totally random events that would keep you entertained. In old school MMOs the journey was usually a hell of a lot more entertaining than the destination about 99% of the time. Did you even play any other games before WoW?
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Come one bunnyhopper you need to cut using those horrible, horrible strawmen. No one said there is no gameplay in travel times. There can be, but it is so scarce that it is not worth the tedium it creates. Most people choose to give that up in favor of less tedium.
If only 3 players like a feature which causes the other 7 players tedium and/or discomfort, it is perfectly acceptable to pursue a solution that is accepted by the majority. If you make travel times optional by allowing fast travel, it is a lesser evil than forcing one or the other. There's always someone who suffers, but the only way to objectively gauge a feature is by its popularity.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Why do you keep insisting people are not getting the point?
Axehilt has mad some pretty valid points, but your saying he doesn;t get it. Sigh...
Gratification (entertainment) is the purpose of games.
I've made plenty of friends in WOW while raiding.
Are you suggesting Skyrim isnt immersive? It doesn't waste players' time at all with needless timesinks.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How long did it take you to get this group together? Was this before or after you finished mowing the lawn.
I don't get how many of keep arguing that waiting around for hours to get a group going is even remotely fun.
Sorry seeing how my work day begins at:
5:50am with a good hour workout
40-50min commute
6:30pm-7pm to come home.
I don't want to wait for hours to find a group to run an instance.
You know what I was doing before this? I was unemployed for over 10mons.
You know what I had? Time! Time, to play any game as long as I want.
I tried a lot of MMORPGs pre-WOW (basically everything except UO and EQ.) They were big empty wastes of time.
This definitely isn't a console vs. MMORPG thing. Most PC games provide gameplay for your dollar. Early MMORPGs were pretty empty.
Getting to cap is irrelevant because there's so much more left to do. But you're fixated on leveling.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
it took less time than it does now when you wait in your queue, because you actually knew lots of people in game - did you not know this? Now actually read my post, it was about opportunities to socialise and actually interacting with people. Mmorg used to = fun from socialising, not getting in 3 instances an hour (that are more about getting fold per hour than having fun) Your working pattern is pretty normal btw, it hasnt really got anything to do with this thread.
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