According to your comments, you are perfectly happy with the status quo. Have at it. Many of us are ready to move on. Good luck to you, and we'll see you when you get bored like we have.
I do understand not everyone plays like I want to. There will always be a market for mouth-breather simple hand holding MMO games. The things is though, is that there is a growing segment of players who want more now. 7+ years of the same rehashed design is not just getting old, it's dead. Guild Wars 2 is proving that, and it's not even that big of a departure.
Nothing wrong with liking what we have right now. You can "move on". I will be having fun with Diablo 3.
And nothing last forever. If this bores me, i will do something else. There is no shortage of entertainment options. MMOs, like other genre, wane & wax. So what if it dies. So what if it changes to something very different.
Here ya go. You didn't specify, so I didn't bother cooking it.
And in case you don't know, that's chunks of lab grown meat for the less discerning customer like yourself.
(I just couldn't resist, heh)
I'm not sure if you're joking or what, but I'll write it out in case some here are not joking and really do not understand what the phrase "just give me a steak" actually means.
There's creation, and there's consumption. About 10 years ago, never as a gamer would I got to a company and say "I want a game that does x, y, and z". I really do not imagine that situation. I'm not a requester. I don't make demands.
What we would do is we would go out to a gaming store and then we'd get a game.
But games were made by people who wanted to make them. These people have an idea of what they want to do. One developer wanted to make an FPS game. Another made an RTS game. Another an RPG game. And at that time we played everything, and what we played were the creative vision offered by the developers.
Offered by the developers. And if a developer offered a bad game, nobody played it. Nobody cared for it.
That's your uncooked steak. A developer knows what an uncooked (undercooked, badly cooked, w/e) steak is. It's a bad steak. Nobody wants that. Devs are aware of that. It's not a mystery.
Same here. I am not requesting a special game full of special features designed just privately for me (wtf? Lol). All I want. All I really want. Is a good game. A good steak. A solid steak. You're the developers, you know how to make a good steak. So make one.
That is what is missing right now. A lot of undercooked steak (bad games, bad design, bad visuals, bad ideas, bad gameplay) on the market. It's not an acceptable steak, it's not looked at. So you can't offer me an uncooked steak and say that since I didn't specify what I want, I should get an uncooked steak. That's ludicrous. I'm never going to that restaurant again, that's what's gonna happen.
I like whatever variation of steak you throw at me. Sandbox, themepark, FPS, RTS, I don't care. But it needs to be done.
But really, I don't want to devolve an otherwise fine conversation into this argument.
The OP seems to be mostly concerned with calling anyone who likes themepark features an idiot, so I'm not sure if there's any hope for this thread...
Not idiots, just 'casual' to the point where brain mass is doing little work. To me, WoW-type themeparks are only one step away from Farmville in complexity and depth. It's a lot like watching TV, really.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Not idiots, just 'casual' to the point where brain mass is doing little work. To me, WoW-type themeparks are only one step away from Farmville in complexity and depth. It's a lot like watching TV, really.
Then perhaps you should take a step back reevaluate your perception of people.
By the way, Diablo I, DooM, etc., are some of the most mindless games out there. Some very intelligent people have played them for fun because they SPECIFICALLY wanted to get away from the grill of real life. Like some posters said here: you want your games to turn into real life or something. A lot of us here specifically do not want that, we want games to relax. That doesn't mean we're dumb, nor doesn't equate a video game to TV or mean that we necessarily wnat brain dead games.
A lot of themeparks have plenty of complex systems that would tire my father very, very quickly. He's a senior programmer. I don't understand you, I really don't.
You are not listening, just generalizing. Why?
It's not like good sandboxes do not exist. EVE Online. Great, AAA level game. What's not to like?
But really, I don't want to devolve an otherwise fine conversation into this argument.
The OP seems to be mostly concerned with calling anyone who likes themepark features an idiot, so I'm not sure if there's any hope for this thread...
Not idiots, just 'casual' to the point where brain mass is doing little work. To me, WoW-type themeparks are only one step away from Farmville in complexity and depth. It's a lot like watching TV, really.
Such elitism. So what it is like watching TV. I enjoy Big Bang Theory, 24, Lost and a number of TV shows too. There is nothing wrong. When i want more intellectual entertainment i read lock-room mysteries, or better yet, work.
We are talking about games here. More complex games are not superior.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbones If you're going to add one thing, add something that gives people a feeling of personal ownership. Let players manage a small section of the landscape to do with as they will, farming necessary things or building ridiculous houses. Allow players to have a hand in managing NPC villages...making them successful and prolific, or miserable and rebellious. Let players start farms to breed animals that give you something relevant when you milk them or kill them. Do all of this without losing the general progression model and quest based stories.
WOW is doing it. You will get your farmville mini-game in MOP.
Personally i don't care. I don't play MMORPGs to farm but more power to those who want the feature.
That's more Pokemon than Farmville or Minecraft. Not exactly the same thing. I don't think that the types of things I'm talking about would even be possible with WoW's engine.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Such elitism. So what it is like watching TV. I enjoy Big Bang Theory, 24, Lost and a number of TV shows too. There is nothing wrong. When i want more intellectual entertainment i read lock-room mysteries, or better yet, work.
This, too. I can say a lot of negative things about commercials but there are plenty of good TV shows out there.
But really, I don't want to devolve an otherwise fine conversation into this argument.
The OP seems to be mostly concerned with calling anyone who likes themepark features an idiot, so I'm not sure if there's any hope for this thread...
Not idiots, just 'casual' to the point where brain mass is doing little work. To me, WoW-type themeparks are only one step away from Farmville in complexity and depth. It's a lot like watching TV, really.
Why does people liking something different than you need to be associated with a negative conotation?
Originally posted by lizardbones If you're going to add one thing, add something that gives people a feeling of personal ownership. Let players manage a small section of the landscape to do with as they will, farming necessary things or building ridiculous houses. Allow players to have a hand in managing NPC villages...making them successful and prolific, or miserable and rebellious. Let players start farms to breed animals that give you something relevant when you milk them or kill them. Do all of this without losing the general progression model and quest based stories.
WOW is doing it. You will get your farmville mini-game in MOP.
Personally i don't care. I don't play MMORPGs to farm but more power to those who want the feature.
That's more Pokemon than Farmville or Minecraft. Not exactly the same thing. I don't think that the types of things I'm talking about would even be possible with WoW's engine.
Both. You haven't read the new "farming" feature in MOP?
And i quote "A new faction lets player have their own farms in-game. They will be able to manage livestock and more all the while gaining reputation. Other factions will offer other activities, from raising a serpent to become your mount to defending outposts for dailies."
How is this not farmville? Note that this is seperate from the pokemon system in MOP.
Originally posted by UnlightWhen sandboxes stop trying pawn off players griefing players, no matter how creatively, as content, I'll start taking them seriously. Players don't generate content, we consume it.
I never understood the constant complaints about PKs or griefers, they don't affect my game play much. Sure, they can temporarily lock me out from a small area or similar, but what keeps you from doing something else or (what I usually do) finding help to take sweet revenge?
If you prefer it all fluffy and friendly, PVP games aren't your thing but hey, there are tons of PVE games for you if you can't or don't want to handle PVP, nobody forces you to play a PVP game.
As for players not creating content, I don't agree. If the developers give the players the right tools, the players can create it with ease. And there are plenty of players that prefer creating content over just consuming it, just look at Minecraft or Lego if you want non examples that everybody knows about.
Originally posted by UnlightGive me an open world that can live and evolve without players in it, and I'll be among the first to take up residence.
Why don't you play single player games then? They seem to be exactly what you look for. No other players annoying your gaming fun, no monthly fees either.
Here ya go. You didn't specify, so I didn't bother cooking it.
And in case you don't know, that's chunks of lab grown meat for the less discerning customer like yourself.
(I just couldn't resist, heh)
I'm not sure if you're joking or what, but I'll write it out in case some here are not joking and really do not understand what the phrase "just give me a steak" actually means.
There's creation, and there's consumption. About 10 years ago, never as a gamer would I got to a company and say "I want a game that does x, y, and z". I really do not imagine that situation. I'm not a requester. I don't make demands.
What we would do is we would go out to a gaming store and then we'd get a game.
But games were made by people who wanted to make them. These people have an idea of what they want to do. One developer wanted to make an FPS game. Another made an RTS game. Another an RPG game. And at that time we played everything, and what we played were the creative vision offered by the developers.
Offered by the developers. And if a developer offered a bad game, nobody played it. Nobody cared for it.
That's your uncooked steak. A developer knows what an uncooked (undercooked, badly cooked, w/e) steak is. It's a bad steak. Nobody wants that. Devs are aware of that. It's not a mystery.
Same here. I am not requesting a special game full of special features designed just privately for me (wtf? Lol). All I want. All I really want. Is a good game. A good steak. A solid steak. You're the developers, you know how to make a good steak. So make one.
That is what is missing right now. A lot of undercooked steak (bad games, bad design, bad visuals, bad ideas, bad gameplay) on the market. It's not an acceptable steak, it's not looked at. So you can't offer me an uncooked steak and say that since I didn't specify what I want, I should get an uncooked steak. That's ludicrous. I'm never going to that restaurant again, that's what's gonna happen.
I like whatever variation of steak you throw at me. Sandbox, themepark, FPS, RTS, I don't care. But it needs to be done.
Ok, understood. But I'm not you. I have particular tastes. And I'm going to say what those are. I'm not just going to go away and stop buying, I'm going to ask for what I want before I give up and go away.
And it seems to me that I'm not all that different than many others. I don't think it's just me.
Here ya go. You didn't specify, so I didn't bother cooking it.
And in case you don't know, that's chunks of lab grown meat for the less discerning customer like yourself.
(I just couldn't resist, heh)
I'm not sure if you're joking or what, but I'll write it out in case some here are not joking and really do not understand what the phrase "just give me a steak" actually means.
There's creation, and there's consumption. About 10 years ago, never as a gamer would I got to a company and say "I want a game that does x, y, and z". I really do not imagine that situation. I'm not a requester. I don't make demands.
What we would do is we would go out to a gaming store and then we'd get a game.
But games were made by people who wanted to make them. These people have an idea of what they want to do. One developer wanted to make an FPS game. Another made an RTS game. Another an RPG game. And at that time we played everything, and what we played were the creative vision offered by the developers.
Offered by the developers. And if a developer offered a bad game, nobody played it. Nobody cared for it.
That's your uncooked steak. A developer knows what an uncooked (undercooked, badly cooked, w/e) steak is. It's a bad steak. Nobody wants that. Devs are aware of that. It's not a mystery.
Same here. I am not requesting a special game full of special features designed just privately for me (wtf? Lol). All I want. All I really want. Is a good game. A good steak. A solid steak. You're the developers, you know how to make a good steak. So make one.
That is what is missing right now. A lot of undercooked steak (bad games, bad design, bad visuals, bad ideas, bad gameplay) on the market. It's not an acceptable steak, it's not looked at. So you can't offer me an uncooked steak and say that since I didn't specify what I want, I should get an uncooked steak. That's ludicrous. I'm never going to that restaurant again, that's what's gonna happen.
I like whatever variation of steak you throw at me. Sandbox, themepark, FPS, RTS, I don't care. But it needs to be done.
I disagree that developers automatically know how to make a good game. I think they are as guilty as being stuck in a rut as anyone, and they have the added pressure of being guided by suits and bean counters who just want to turn a profit, not deliver a fun long-term gaming experience.
Look at TOR. EA doesn't want to put any money into it. The game still has players, and turned a tidy profit, and they don't care if it just dwindles and dies. They may put out an expansion to make more money, but they aren't going to go through and fix the flaws that are keeping large crowds of people from making it their home game.
The thing about Day Z, whether you like the game or not, is that one guy made this mod and shook up the industry some by providing an emergent gameplay experience through a relatively simple game-mod. Now the makers of ArmA are selling more boxes on a two year old game, and the guy is being interviewed all over the internet for doing something innovative.
There are several compelling aspects of Day Z that attract a lot of people, and will probably enhance gaming as a whole. For one thing, it's more or less a 'sandbox' game, and people are loving the open-ended survival aspect of it. I find that interesting, since so many people on this website claim that no one wants open-ended sandbox gameplay. In Day Z, like other past sandboxes, the players themselves make up most of the content, and there is something very, very immersive about this. Already people are asking for more persistant MMO features.
As I have read stories about people's experiences, or seen videos on YouTube, I couldn't help but think of Star Wars Galaxies back in Pre-CU when we used to run around Dathomir in groups and just try to survive the killer mobs and get some decent crafting materials. We had a blast, and no quests were required. In Day Z you walk this countryside and just try to stay alive. There are no quests, but listen to how much fun people are having. You just don't get that type of immerision from predictable themepark games.
I'll say this too. The developers Xsyon need to go and read up about Day Z, because THAT is exactly what is missing from Xsyon. They have the sandbox world, the crafting and all that stuff, but they have no *game*. Take a game like Xyson and add the adventure, pvp, and danger factor of Day Z, and you may have something.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Ok, understood. But I'm not you. I have particular tastes. And I'm going to say what those are. I'm not just going to go away and stop buying, I'm going to ask for what I want before I give up and go away.
And it seems to me that I'm not all that different than many others. I don't think it's just me.
It is a free world. We all vote with our wallet on the entertainment we like, and express what we like on the internet. You are not alone.
I never understood the constant complaints about PKs or griefers, they don't affect my game play much. Sure, they can temporarily lock me out from a small area or similar, but what keeps you from doing something else or (what I usually do) finding help to take sweet revenge?
PKers/griefers pretty much directly influence gameplay, IMO. They limit how you play, what you can do, where can you do it, how can you do it. If being at war in EVE means I'm stuck in a station. If low sec pirates mean I can't go to low sec. Explain to me how that doesn't limit me.
And why should I particularly care about revenge? I think this shows immediately those games appeal to people who are into such player dynamics. I'm not. I don't care for killing players for no reason or enacting revenge. Even if I did want to enact revenge, I probably wouldn't be able to. Chances are, the guy who killed me is a skilled pirate in a Dramiel while I can barely afford a Rifter.
If you prefer it all fluffy and friendly, PVP games aren't your thing but hey, there are tons of PVE games for you if you can't or don't want to handle PVP, nobody forces you to play a PVP game.
I'm not aware of any diminished PvP or PvE sandboxes at the moment. EVE is probably the closest to a diminished PvP game atm, and you know how PvP driven that game is.
Furthermore, I do not recall saying someone was forcing me to play a PvP sandbox. There was just a poster here who seemed to imply every themepark should be a sandbox, which to me means a PvP sandbox. I was trying to explain why that gameplay doesn't appeal to a lot of people.
Yes theme park syndrome is becoming more and more common. The Sandpark hybrid is obviously going to be tried in the future, they are simply wasting too much money out there making themeparks for game tourists who don't stay for more than 3 months.
Ok, understood. But I'm not you. I have particular tastes. And I'm going to say what those are. I'm not just going to go away and stop buying, I'm going to ask for what I want before I give up and go away.
And it seems to me that I'm not all that different than many others. I don't think it's just me.
I'm curious, who are you gonna ask? How?
Originally posted by MindTrigger
I disagree that developers automatically know how to make a good game. I think they are as guilty as being stuck in a rut as anyone, and they have the added pressure of being guided by suits and bean counters who just want to turn a profit, not deliver a fun long-term gaming experience.
Most old games were made with little to none player interaction. In fact, I think games were much better when developers did what they wanted and weren't pressured by neither suits nor gamers to do something specific to appeal to way too many people which results in a bland game that appeals to no one.
Why do suits pressure? Because they want to appeal to gamers.
Look at TOR. EA doesn't want to put any money into it. The game still has players, and turned a tidy profit, and they don't care if it just dwindles and dies. They may put out an expansion to make more money, but they aren't going to go through and fix the flaws that are keeping large crowds of people from making it their home game.
TOR is the uncooked steak I'm talking about.
The thing about Day Z, whether you like the game or not, is that one guy made this mod and shook up the industry some by providing an emergent gameplay experience through a relatively simple game-mod. Now the makers of ArmA are selling more boxes on a two year old game, and the guy is being interviewed all over the internet for doing something innovative.
Yes. You seem to be proving my point on accident.
There's no shortage of good ideas or people who can do work. The problem is that developers have no room to budge. This guy, who made DayZ, is a developer. Developer not pressured by suits. Developer not pressured by gamers. Developer who doesn't give a shit.
There are several compelling aspects of Day Z that attract a lot of people, and will probably enhance gaming as a whole. For one thing, it's more or less a 'sandbox' game, and people are loving the open-ended survival aspect of it. I find that interesting, since so many people on this website claim that no one wants open-ended sandbox gameplay. In Day Z, like other past sandboxes, the players themselves make up most of the content, and there is something very, very immersive about this. Already people are asking for more persistant MMO features.
As I have read stories about people's experiences, or seen videos on YouTube, I couldn't help but think of Star Wars Galaxies. In Day Z you walk this countryside and just try to stay alive. There are no quests, but listen to how much fun people are having. You just don't get that type of immerision from predictable themepark games.
I'll say this too. The developers Xsyon need to go and read up about Day Z, because THAT is exactly what is missing from Xsyon. They have the sandbox world, the crafting and all that stuff, but they have no *game*. Take a game like Xyson and add the adventure, pvp, and danger factor of Day Z, and you may have something.
Your last 3 posts, in the sandbox world, perhaps. But this doesn't do anything for themeparks, and some of us really can't handle games like DayZ (again, I'm not sure what you want me to do). I didn't say it was a bad game, I never did. I just personally can't handle it due to huge time investments, and I dislike zombies.
Xsyson may be suffering from the same problem of trying to appeal to YOU, actually.
Yes theme park syndrome is becoming more and more common. The Sandpark hybrid is obviously going to be tried in the future, they are simply wasting too much money out there making themeparks for game tourists who don't stay for more than 3 months.
I've come to believe that these "game tourists" are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. In other words, these games are now designed with only three months worth of casual gameplay in them in the first place. People hop games because there is no compelling reason to stay in the current crop. There are no features that make people want to play the same game for 1, 2, or three years anymore. Once you burn through the content, you've seen all there is to see, and the players themselves are not a part of that content. They are only consumers of content, not co-creators.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Theme park, it is what is being served because it is the quick, easier and less complex thing to do. I personally would prefer to subscribe to a sandbox mmo that was fun for several years rather than keep buying theme park mmos which turn to crap within 3-6 months.
I've come to believe that these "game tourists" are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. In other words, these games are now designed with only three months worth of casual gameplay in them in the first place. People hop games because there is no compelling reason to stay in the current crop. There are no features that make people want to play the same game for 1, 2, or three years anymore. Once you burn through the content, you've seen all there is to see, and the players themselves are not a part of that content. They are only consumers of content, not co-creators.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by lizardbones If you're going to add one thing, add something that gives people a feeling of personal ownership. Let players manage a small section of the landscape to do with as they will, farming necessary things or building ridiculous houses. Allow players to have a hand in managing NPC villages...making them successful and prolific, or miserable and rebellious. Let players start farms to breed animals that give you something relevant when you milk them or kill them. Do all of this without losing the general progression model and quest based stories.
WOW is doing it. You will get your farmville mini-game in MOP.Personally i don't care. I don't play MMORPGs to farm but more power to those who want the feature. That's more Pokemon than Farmville or Minecraft. Not exactly the same thing. I don't think that the types of things I'm talking about would even be possible with WoW's engine. Both. You haven't read the new "farming" feature in MOP?
And i quote "A new faction lets player have their own farms in-game. They will be able to manage livestock and more all the while gaining reputation. Other factions will offer other activities, from raising a serpent to become your mount to defending outposts for dailies."
How is this not farmville? Note that this is seperate from the pokemon system in MOP.
Huh. That is very much Farmville like activities. Plus it's tied into the usual faction grind. I'm sure there will be levels, similar to WoW's crafting system. This will be interesting to see. I'm not at all sure I could stomach playing the game long enough to see it though. I've just played too much of it.
But...that is kind of what I'm talking about. Let people 'own' a bit of land, give them some reason to farm it (or build on it, or mine it) and you'll keep them coming back. A sense of ownership is a big incentive to keep playing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Huh. That is very much Farmville like activities. Plus it's tied into the usual faction grind. I'm sure there will be levels, similar to WoW's crafting system. This will be interesting to see. I'm not at all sure I could stomach playing the game long enough to see it though. I've just played too much of it.
But...that is kind of what I'm talking about. Let people 'own' a bit of land, give them some reason to farm it (or build on it, or mine it) and you'll keep them coming back. A sense of ownership is a big incentive to keep playing.
I'd try it but I don't want to pay for yet another expansion.
Ok, understood. But I'm not you. I have particular tastes. And I'm going to say what those are. I'm not just going to go away and stop buying, I'm going to ask for what I want before I give up and go away.
And it seems to me that I'm not all that different than many others. I don't think it's just me.
I'm curious, who are you gonna ask? How?
Originally posted by MindTrigger
I disagree that developers automatically know how to make a good game. I think they are as guilty as being stuck in a rut as anyone, and they have the added pressure of being guided by suits and bean counters who just want to turn a profit, not deliver a fun long-term gaming experience.
Most old games were made with little to none player interaction. In fact, I think games were much better when developers did what they wanted and weren't pressured by neither suits nor gamers to do something specific to appeal to way too many people which results in a bland game that appeals to no one.
Why do suits pressure? Because they want to appeal to gamers.
Look at TOR. EA doesn't want to put any money into it. The game still has players, and turned a tidy profit, and they don't care if it just dwindles and dies. They may put out an expansion to make more money, but they aren't going to go through and fix the flaws that are keeping large crowds of people from making it their home game.
TOR is the uncooked steak I'm talking about.
The thing about Day Z, whether you like the game or not, is that one guy made this mod and shook up the industry some by providing an emergent gameplay experience through a relatively simple game-mod. Now the makers of ArmA are selling more boxes on a two year old game, and the guy is being interviewed all over the internet for doing something innovative.
Yes. You seem to be proving my point on accident.
There's no shortage of good ideas or people who can do work. The problem is that developers have no room to budge. This guy, who made DayZ, is a developer. Developer not pressured by suits. Developer not pressured by gamers. Developer who doesn't give a shit.
There are several compelling aspects of Day Z that attract a lot of people, and will probably enhance gaming as a whole. For one thing, it's more or less a 'sandbox' game, and people are loving the open-ended survival aspect of it. I find that interesting, since so many people on this website claim that no one wants open-ended sandbox gameplay. In Day Z, like other past sandboxes, the players themselves make up most of the content, and there is something very, very immersive about this. Already people are asking for more persistant MMO features.
As I have read stories about people's experiences, or seen videos on YouTube, I couldn't help but think of Star Wars Galaxies. In Day Z you walk this countryside and just try to stay alive. There are no quests, but listen to how much fun people are having. You just don't get that type of immerision from predictable themepark games.
I'll say this too. The developers Xsyon need to go and read up about Day Z, because THAT is exactly what is missing from Xsyon. They have the sandbox world, the crafting and all that stuff, but they have no *game*. Take a game like Xyson and add the adventure, pvp, and danger factor of Day Z, and you may have something.
Your last 3 posts, in the sandbox world, perhaps. But this doesn't do anything for themeparks, and some of us really can't handle games like DayZ (again, I'm not sure what you want me to do). I didn't say it was a bad game, I never did. I just personally can't handle it due to huge time investments, and I dislike zombies.
Xsyson may be suffering from the same problem of trying to appeal to YOU, actually.
Who said the concept behind Day Z needed to be zombies? It could be giant marshmallow-dudes. I'm referring to the mechanics of the game, which transcend whatever skin and story you stick on it. Zombies were easy to implement in the Arma engine, and it's a concept people get. There is plenty of room to play with emergent gameplay outside of zombie survivial. That's cool if this game isn't your gig. I'm not trying to make it so. I'm saying some of these concepts can be added to themeparks to enhance them. What actual features are used and how they are changed to fit a themepark is a discussion for another thread.
Ask yourself this: what can be done to themeparks to make them better? I think they are inherently limited, because really all you can do to them, just like Disneyland, is add more themepark content. More quests, more instances, a new zone, etc. Guild Wars 2 is shaking up some of the finer mechanics, but at the end of the day it's still a fairly simple and fun themepark.
What else can you do? Perhaps you could make AI in the mobs better, but other than start adding more complexity to the game, there are few roads to take to make them 'better'. Many people around here see that these games need to start including the players as co-creators of content, and there are many ways to do this. Right now all you do is run around in a themepark and consume the entertainment until you run out. I mention sandboxes because they are the other side of the issue. The are games where the players make almost all of the content on their own, and I personally think that is more fun, but I understand that it's not for everyone. However, I think there is a happy middle ground here that can attract both types of gamers, and also perhaps introduce millions of gamers who came into this genre during the themepark boom to try something a bit more intersting.
As I have mentioned before, I have been a hardcore FPS clan match gamer since the mid- 90's. I had no idea how much fun I would have crafting, interacting socially and playing in sandbox games until I stumbled upon it. To assume that people who have never played with any sandbox features simply don't want to, is ludicrous. A lot of gamers have never had the opportunity to try it, and the only offerings there have been in recent years are broken, under-budget indy developers.
Anyway, as I have told you ad nauseum, I know the changes I am proposing are not for everyone. This entire thread is for people who are sick and tired of the status quo, not for people who are perfectly fine with today's casual themeparks.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Originally posted by lizardbones If you're going to add one thing, add something that gives people a feeling of personal ownership. Let players manage a small section of the landscape to do with as they will, farming necessary things or building ridiculous houses. Allow players to have a hand in managing NPC villages...making them successful and prolific, or miserable and rebellious. Let players start farms to breed animals that give you something relevant when you milk them or kill them. Do all of this without losing the general progression model and quest based stories.
WOW is doing it. You will get your farmville mini-game in MOP.Personally i don't care. I don't play MMORPGs to farm but more power to those who want the feature.
That's more Pokemon than Farmville or Minecraft. Not exactly the same thing. I don't think that the types of things I'm talking about would even be possible with WoW's engine.
Both. You haven't read the new "farming" feature in MOP?
And i quote "A new faction lets player have their own farms in-game. They will be able to manage livestock and more all the while gaining reputation. Other factions will offer other activities, from raising a serpent to become your mount to defending outposts for dailies."
How is this not farmville? Note that this is seperate from the pokemon system in MOP.
Huh. That is very much Farmville like activities. Plus it's tied into the usual faction grind. I'm sure there will be levels, similar to WoW's crafting system. This will be interesting to see. I'm not at all sure I could stomach playing the game long enough to see it though. I've just played too much of it.
But...that is kind of what I'm talking about. Let people 'own' a bit of land, give them some reason to farm it (or build on it, or mine it) and you'll keep them coming back. A sense of ownership is a big incentive to keep playing.
The beauty is that you do not have to. It is obviously optional (just the pokemon feature).
I suppose owning a farm will appeal to some people. I wouldn't care less.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by lizardbones If you're going to add one thing, add something that gives people a feeling of personal ownership. Let players manage a small section of the landscape to do with as they will, farming necessary things or building ridiculous houses. Allow players to have a hand in managing NPC villages...making them successful and prolific, or miserable and rebellious. Let players start farms to breed animals that give you something relevant when you milk them or kill them. Do all of this without losing the general progression model and quest based stories.
WOW is doing it. You will get your farmville mini-game in MOP.Personally i don't care. I don't play MMORPGs to farm but more power to those who want the feature.That's more Pokemon than Farmville or Minecraft. Not exactly the same thing. I don't think that the types of things I'm talking about would even be possible with WoW's engine. Both. You haven't read the new "farming" feature in MOP?http://www.simplywarcraft.com/2012/03/mists-of-pandaria-farms-in-warcraft.htmlAnd i quote "A new faction lets player have their own farms in-game. They will be able to manage livestock and more all the while gaining reputation. Other factions will offer other activities, from raising a serpent to become your mount to defending outposts for dailies."How is this not farmville? Note that this is seperate from the pokemon system in MOP. Huh. That is very much Farmville like activities. Plus it's tied into the usual faction grind. I'm sure there will be levels, similar to WoW's crafting system. This will be interesting to see. I'm not at all sure I could stomach playing the game long enough to see it though. I've just played too much of it. But...that is kind of what I'm talking about. Let people 'own' a bit of land, give them some reason to farm it (or build on it, or mine it) and you'll keep them coming back. A sense of ownership is a big incentive to keep playing. The beauty is that you do not have to. It is obviously optional (just the pokemon feature).
I suppose owning a farm will appeal to some people. I wouldn't care less.
Your post actually highlights another incentive to continue playing games. Choice. While I believe players should be able to choose what they do in games because I like it, I think it also leads to players continuing to play. They are making a choice and becoming invested in a game through making those real choices. Games that lack incentive to make those choices and games that lack the choices to begin with have less buy in from the players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't agree. Is bashing a MOB Sandbox or Themepark?
But really, I don't want to devolve an otherwise fine conversation into this argument.
Bashing a mob is really too small a detail to consider either, but PVE combat on the whole is predominantly themepark. The only way it could be considered otherwise is if the way the player "fights" is like oldschool Populous (manipulating the entire game world to achieve victory in combat.)
You have sand and you have rides.
Sandboxes were originally defined because they're a bunch of sand and players create their own stuff, while the themepark players ride the rides the developers constructed and can't change the rides. The dynamic Diablo-esque dungeon you describe is definitely the latter. It's definitely themepark.
You can disagree, but really you're disagreeing with all the developers who coined these concepts in the first place and the fundamental idea behind each concept. You could also disagree with the definition of "up" but that isn't going to change what it means to everyone else.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Nothing wrong with liking what we have right now. You can "move on". I will be having fun with Diablo 3.
And nothing last forever. If this bores me, i will do something else. There is no shortage of entertainment options. MMOs, like other genre, wane & wax. So what if it dies. So what if it changes to something very different.
I'm not sure if you're joking or what, but I'll write it out in case some here are not joking and really do not understand what the phrase "just give me a steak" actually means.
There's creation, and there's consumption. About 10 years ago, never as a gamer would I got to a company and say "I want a game that does x, y, and z". I really do not imagine that situation. I'm not a requester. I don't make demands.
What we would do is we would go out to a gaming store and then we'd get a game.
But games were made by people who wanted to make them. These people have an idea of what they want to do. One developer wanted to make an FPS game. Another made an RTS game. Another an RPG game. And at that time we played everything, and what we played were the creative vision offered by the developers.
Offered by the developers. And if a developer offered a bad game, nobody played it. Nobody cared for it.
That's your uncooked steak. A developer knows what an uncooked (undercooked, badly cooked, w/e) steak is. It's a bad steak. Nobody wants that. Devs are aware of that. It's not a mystery.
Same here. I am not requesting a special game full of special features designed just privately for me (wtf? Lol). All I want. All I really want. Is a good game. A good steak. A solid steak. You're the developers, you know how to make a good steak. So make one.
That is what is missing right now. A lot of undercooked steak (bad games, bad design, bad visuals, bad ideas, bad gameplay) on the market. It's not an acceptable steak, it's not looked at. So you can't offer me an uncooked steak and say that since I didn't specify what I want, I should get an uncooked steak. That's ludicrous. I'm never going to that restaurant again, that's what's gonna happen.
I like whatever variation of steak you throw at me. Sandbox, themepark, FPS, RTS, I don't care. But it needs to be done.
Not idiots, just 'casual' to the point where brain mass is doing little work. To me, WoW-type themeparks are only one step away from Farmville in complexity and depth. It's a lot like watching TV, really.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Then perhaps you should take a step back reevaluate your perception of people.
By the way, Diablo I, DooM, etc., are some of the most mindless games out there. Some very intelligent people have played them for fun because they SPECIFICALLY wanted to get away from the grill of real life. Like some posters said here: you want your games to turn into real life or something. A lot of us here specifically do not want that, we want games to relax. That doesn't mean we're dumb, nor doesn't equate a video game to TV or mean that we necessarily wnat brain dead games.
A lot of themeparks have plenty of complex systems that would tire my father very, very quickly. He's a senior programmer. I don't understand you, I really don't.
You are not listening, just generalizing. Why?
It's not like good sandboxes do not exist. EVE Online. Great, AAA level game. What's not to like?
Such elitism. So what it is like watching TV. I enjoy Big Bang Theory, 24, Lost and a number of TV shows too. There is nothing wrong. When i want more intellectual entertainment i read lock-room mysteries, or better yet, work.
We are talking about games here. More complex games are not superior.
Personally i don't care. I don't play MMORPGs to farm but more power to those who want the feature.
That's more Pokemon than Farmville or Minecraft. Not exactly the same thing. I don't think that the types of things I'm talking about would even be possible with WoW's engine.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This, too. I can say a lot of negative things about commercials but there are plenty of good TV shows out there.
Why does people liking something different than you need to be associated with a negative conotation?
Both. You haven't read the new "farming" feature in MOP?
http://www.simplywarcraft.com/2012/03/mists-of-pandaria-farms-in-warcraft.html
And i quote "A new faction lets player have their own farms in-game. They will be able to manage livestock and more all the while gaining reputation. Other factions will offer other activities, from raising a serpent to become your mount to defending outposts for dailies."
How is this not farmville? Note that this is seperate from the pokemon system in MOP.
I never understood the constant complaints about PKs or griefers, they don't affect my game play much. Sure, they can temporarily lock me out from a small area or similar, but what keeps you from doing something else or (what I usually do) finding help to take sweet revenge?
If you prefer it all fluffy and friendly, PVP games aren't your thing but hey, there are tons of PVE games for you if you can't or don't want to handle PVP, nobody forces you to play a PVP game.
As for players not creating content, I don't agree. If the developers give the players the right tools, the players can create it with ease. And there are plenty of players that prefer creating content over just consuming it, just look at Minecraft or Lego if you want non examples that everybody knows about.
Why don't you play single player games then? They seem to be exactly what you look for. No other players annoying your gaming fun, no monthly fees either.
Ok, understood. But I'm not you. I have particular tastes. And I'm going to say what those are. I'm not just going to go away and stop buying, I'm going to ask for what I want before I give up and go away.
And it seems to me that I'm not all that different than many others. I don't think it's just me.
Once upon a time....
I disagree that developers automatically know how to make a good game. I think they are as guilty as being stuck in a rut as anyone, and they have the added pressure of being guided by suits and bean counters who just want to turn a profit, not deliver a fun long-term gaming experience.
Look at TOR. EA doesn't want to put any money into it. The game still has players, and turned a tidy profit, and they don't care if it just dwindles and dies. They may put out an expansion to make more money, but they aren't going to go through and fix the flaws that are keeping large crowds of people from making it their home game.
The thing about Day Z, whether you like the game or not, is that one guy made this mod and shook up the industry some by providing an emergent gameplay experience through a relatively simple game-mod. Now the makers of ArmA are selling more boxes on a two year old game, and the guy is being interviewed all over the internet for doing something innovative.
There are several compelling aspects of Day Z that attract a lot of people, and will probably enhance gaming as a whole. For one thing, it's more or less a 'sandbox' game, and people are loving the open-ended survival aspect of it. I find that interesting, since so many people on this website claim that no one wants open-ended sandbox gameplay. In Day Z, like other past sandboxes, the players themselves make up most of the content, and there is something very, very immersive about this. Already people are asking for more persistant MMO features.
As I have read stories about people's experiences, or seen videos on YouTube, I couldn't help but think of Star Wars Galaxies back in Pre-CU when we used to run around Dathomir in groups and just try to survive the killer mobs and get some decent crafting materials. We had a blast, and no quests were required. In Day Z you walk this countryside and just try to stay alive. There are no quests, but listen to how much fun people are having. You just don't get that type of immerision from predictable themepark games.
I'll say this too. The developers Xsyon need to go and read up about Day Z, because THAT is exactly what is missing from Xsyon. They have the sandbox world, the crafting and all that stuff, but they have no *game*. Take a game like Xyson and add the adventure, pvp, and danger factor of Day Z, and you may have something.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
It is a free world. We all vote with our wallet on the entertainment we like, and express what we like on the internet. You are not alone.
Yes theme park syndrome is becoming more and more common. The Sandpark hybrid is obviously going to be tried in the future, they are simply wasting too much money out there making themeparks for game tourists who don't stay for more than 3 months.
I'm curious, who are you gonna ask? How?
Your last 3 posts, in the sandbox world, perhaps. But this doesn't do anything for themeparks, and some of us really can't handle games like DayZ (again, I'm not sure what you want me to do). I didn't say it was a bad game, I never did. I just personally can't handle it due to huge time investments, and I dislike zombies.
Xsyson may be suffering from the same problem of trying to appeal to YOU, actually.
I've come to believe that these "game tourists" are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. In other words, these games are now designed with only three months worth of casual gameplay in them in the first place. People hop games because there is no compelling reason to stay in the current crop. There are no features that make people want to play the same game for 1, 2, or three years anymore. Once you burn through the content, you've seen all there is to see, and the players themselves are not a part of that content. They are only consumers of content, not co-creators.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Theme park, it is what is being served because it is the quick, easier and less complex thing to do. I personally would prefer to subscribe to a sandbox mmo that was fun for several years rather than keep buying theme park mmos which turn to crap within 3-6 months.
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/
Can you list the titles you speak of?
That's more Pokemon than Farmville or Minecraft. Not exactly the same thing. I don't think that the types of things I'm talking about would even be possible with WoW's engine.
Both. You haven't read the new "farming" feature in MOP?
http://www.simplywarcraft.com/2012/03/mists-of-pandaria-farms-in-warcraft.html
And i quote "A new faction lets player have their own farms in-game. They will be able to manage livestock and more all the while gaining reputation. Other factions will offer other activities, from raising a serpent to become your mount to defending outposts for dailies."
How is this not farmville? Note that this is seperate from the pokemon system in MOP.
Huh. That is very much Farmville like activities. Plus it's tied into the usual faction grind. I'm sure there will be levels, similar to WoW's crafting system. This will be interesting to see. I'm not at all sure I could stomach playing the game long enough to see it though. I've just played too much of it.
But...that is kind of what I'm talking about. Let people 'own' a bit of land, give them some reason to farm it (or build on it, or mine it) and you'll keep them coming back. A sense of ownership is a big incentive to keep playing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'd try it but I don't want to pay for yet another expansion.
Who said the concept behind Day Z needed to be zombies? It could be giant marshmallow-dudes. I'm referring to the mechanics of the game, which transcend whatever skin and story you stick on it. Zombies were easy to implement in the Arma engine, and it's a concept people get. There is plenty of room to play with emergent gameplay outside of zombie survivial. That's cool if this game isn't your gig. I'm not trying to make it so. I'm saying some of these concepts can be added to themeparks to enhance them. What actual features are used and how they are changed to fit a themepark is a discussion for another thread.
Ask yourself this: what can be done to themeparks to make them better? I think they are inherently limited, because really all you can do to them, just like Disneyland, is add more themepark content. More quests, more instances, a new zone, etc. Guild Wars 2 is shaking up some of the finer mechanics, but at the end of the day it's still a fairly simple and fun themepark.
What else can you do? Perhaps you could make AI in the mobs better, but other than start adding more complexity to the game, there are few roads to take to make them 'better'. Many people around here see that these games need to start including the players as co-creators of content, and there are many ways to do this. Right now all you do is run around in a themepark and consume the entertainment until you run out. I mention sandboxes because they are the other side of the issue. The are games where the players make almost all of the content on their own, and I personally think that is more fun, but I understand that it's not for everyone. However, I think there is a happy middle ground here that can attract both types of gamers, and also perhaps introduce millions of gamers who came into this genre during the themepark boom to try something a bit more intersting.
As I have mentioned before, I have been a hardcore FPS clan match gamer since the mid- 90's. I had no idea how much fun I would have crafting, interacting socially and playing in sandbox games until I stumbled upon it. To assume that people who have never played with any sandbox features simply don't want to, is ludicrous. A lot of gamers have never had the opportunity to try it, and the only offerings there have been in recent years are broken, under-budget indy developers.
Anyway, as I have told you ad nauseum, I know the changes I am proposing are not for everyone. This entire thread is for people who are sick and tired of the status quo, not for people who are perfectly fine with today's casual themeparks.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
The beauty is that you do not have to. It is obviously optional (just the pokemon feature).
I suppose owning a farm will appeal to some people. I wouldn't care less.
That's more Pokemon than Farmville or Minecraft. Not exactly the same thing. I don't think that the types of things I'm talking about would even be possible with WoW's engine.
Both. You haven't read the new "farming" feature in MOP? http://www.simplywarcraft.com/2012/03/mists-of-pandaria-farms-in-warcraft.html And i quote "A new faction lets player have their own farms in-game. They will be able to manage livestock and more all the while gaining reputation. Other factions will offer other activities, from raising a serpent to become your mount to defending outposts for dailies." How is this not farmville? Note that this is seperate from the pokemon system in MOP.
Huh. That is very much Farmville like activities. Plus it's tied into the usual faction grind. I'm sure there will be levels, similar to WoW's crafting system. This will be interesting to see. I'm not at all sure I could stomach playing the game long enough to see it though. I've just played too much of it. But...that is kind of what I'm talking about. Let people 'own' a bit of land, give them some reason to farm it (or build on it, or mine it) and you'll keep them coming back. A sense of ownership is a big incentive to keep playing.
The beauty is that you do not have to. It is obviously optional (just the pokemon feature).
I suppose owning a farm will appeal to some people. I wouldn't care less.
Your post actually highlights another incentive to continue playing games. Choice. While I believe players should be able to choose what they do in games because I like it, I think it also leads to players continuing to play. They are making a choice and becoming invested in a game through making those real choices. Games that lack incentive to make those choices and games that lack the choices to begin with have less buy in from the players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Bashing a mob is really too small a detail to consider either, but PVE combat on the whole is predominantly themepark. The only way it could be considered otherwise is if the way the player "fights" is like oldschool Populous (manipulating the entire game world to achieve victory in combat.)
You have sand and you have rides.
Sandboxes were originally defined because they're a bunch of sand and players create their own stuff, while the themepark players ride the rides the developers constructed and can't change the rides. The dynamic Diablo-esque dungeon you describe is definitely the latter. It's definitely themepark.
You can disagree, but really you're disagreeing with all the developers who coined these concepts in the first place and the fundamental idea behind each concept. You could also disagree with the definition of "up" but that isn't going to change what it means to everyone else.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver