The first paragraph is a false assumption. That's one possibility which might occur while designing a world. But it's a stronger possibility that a game will end up that way if the designer is creating a game, and therefore optimizing for interesting decisions over world simulation. Again, it comes down to the subset of decisions which require A vs. B. Better simulation or better decisions.
You're thinking of the subset of design decisions where simulation a world better also adds more interesting decisions. An an AH is a good example of that. And yeah, focusing on these aspects lets a game simulate a world without sacrificing interesting decisions.
But inevitably you're going to hit the other subset of decisions where an A or B tradeoff is required. And you'll have to decide whether to optimize for world simulation or interesting decisions. You won't be able to have both.
As for Chess not being depth, that's ridiculous. Depth is depth. "A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries." -David Sirlin.
MMORPGs are judged by that same measure of depth. They're either interesting longterm or they're not. This doesn't require being more like Chess's specific ruleset, but it does mean the ideal is still a simple-yet-deep game. The simpler you can achieve the same game depth, the better. And the more game depth you can achieve without making things too complex, the better. But spamming a bunch of low-depth, high-complexity mechanics is a sure-fire way to create a lousy game.
Please point out the false assumption.
A world simulator is a game which combines mechanics in order to create a depth and complexity which is greater than the sum part of it's mechanics. You can have a game with trading and a game with pvp. Each game would have a degree of depth and complexity. If you combine these mechanics the overall increase in potential depth, complexity and options for the players is greater than the sum of the parts as you get cross overs.
There is no trade off A to B. The aim is to make an interesting, deep and fun game world by combining realtively basic systems to create a game which is far more than the sum of it's parts. Chess/mobas/fps et al are just one part, and yes they need to have the beautiful simplicity and tactical depth you are thinking of.
Depth is depth? So the game of chess is as "deep" as the world now is it? Well if that is the case the entire thread is pointless, if I enjoy the myriad of ways I can kick a can of beer around then I guess that is as deep as chess right? Let's be realistic here, no one said chess has no depth, but it is simply not comparable to an mmorpg, it is far more akin to a moba/fps/rts. I can devote just as much effort to tactics in small scale combat in an mmorpg and yet also have to be thinking about the bigger picture. In chess or a moba it is all about the here and now and the opponent you are facing at the present time.
What low depth, high complexity mechanics? You seem to be missing the point, world simulator games actually combine realtively simple mechanics which work together in complex and unexpected ways to create depth.
Perhaps anything over and above clicking FIGHT1111111!!!! and loading into a prerolled arena against a set number of opponents over a set time frame is complex these days. Most mmorpg mechanics are incredibly simple to understand, it is the way they interact with one another that matters. More importantly how they allow the players to interact with one another which adds depth. This is what is missing from many modern mmorpgs, which leads nicely to your last paragraph. Because this is precisely why most modern mmorpgs have fuck all longevity.
An mmorpg/world derives it's depth through the combination of components and the interaction of it's participants. Chess/non mmorpg games derive depth through simplicity leading to depth in one specific field. Modern mmorpgs do neither of these things well. They don't allow for dynamic player interaction and openness, nor do they have the simplicity and focus of a pure pvp game (for instance).
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
A world simulator is a game which combines mechanics in order to create a depth and complexity which is greater than the sum part of it's mechanics. You can have a game with trading and a game with pvp. Each game would have a degree of depth and complexity. If you combine these mechanics the overall increase in potential depth, complexity and options for the players is greater than the sum of the parts as you get cross overs.
There is no trade off A to B. The aim is to make an interesting, deep and fun game world by combining realtively basic systems to create a game which is far more than the sum of it's parts. Chess/mobas/fps et al are just one part, and yes they need to have the beautiful simplicity and tactical depth you are thinking of.
Depth is depth? So the game of chess is as "deep" as the world now is it? Well if that is the case the entire thread is pointless, if I enjoy the myriad of ways I can kick a can of beer around then I guess that is as deep as chess right? Let's be realistic here, no one said chess has no depth, but it is simply not comparable to an mmorpg, it is far more akin to a moba/fps/rts. I can devote just as much effort to tactics in small scale combat in an mmorpg and yet also have to be thinking about the bigger picture. In chess or a moba it is all about the here and now and the opponent you are facing at the present time.
What low depth, high complexity mechanics? You seem to be missing the point, world simulator games actually combine realtively simple mechanics which work together in complex and unexpected ways to create depth.
Perhaps anything over and above clicking FIGHT1111111!!!! and loading into a prerolled arena against a set number of opponents over a set time frame is complex these days. Most mmorpg mechanics are incredibly simple to understand, it is the way they interact with one another that matters. More importantly how they allow the players to interact with one another which adds depth. This is what is missing from many modern mmorpgs, which leads nicely to your last paragraph. Because this is precisely why most modern mmorpgs have fuck all longevity.
An mmorpg/world derives it's depth through the combination of components and the interaction of it's participants. Chess/non mmorpg games derive depth through simplicity leading to depth in one specific field. Modern mmorpgs do neither of these things well. They don't allow for dynamic player interaction and openness, nor do they have the simplicity and focus of a pure pvp game (for instance).
The reason your assumption was false is straight out of my earlier post: a subset of game design decisions will be forced to choose (A) simulating a world better or (B) offering less realistic but more balanced/interesting decisions. Mimicking a world mandates making some of these tradeoff decisions, and if the simulation option is chosen the game will have fewer interesting decisions.
These tradeoff decisions exist, whether or not you believe they do. You can try to optimize for the other subset of design decisions (the ones where simulating a world doesn't reduce depth) but inevitably you're still going to make a decision in the Simulation vs. Deep Decisions subset. There's no way not to make a decision one way or the other. The act of avoiding that subset of decisions would, itself, be a decision.
Who said anything about Chess being "as deep as the world"? It's a deep game. Games always exist somewhere along the spectrum of shallow->deep, which has everything to do with the decisions involved in the game. You implied it was different for Chess vs. MMORPGs; that somehow that definition of depth only works for non-MMORPG games. And that's wrong, because that facet of games is judged the same way regardless of genre.
Preset arena games can still be deep experiences because they optimize the entire experience from start to finish to be about interesting decisions. The devs have specifically carved away the fatty non-gameplay mechanics (mechanics which occupied the player's time without significantly adding to depth, if they added depth at all.)
Something like EVE may have a ton of moving parts but by having so many parts they take large steps towards shallower gameplay (out-zerg or out-progresion your opponents to achieve victory) and have excessive amounts of fatty non-gameplay (parts of the game which are timesink-heavy but decision-lite.)
Actually it's not even the number of parts; it's the inclusion of a few poorly-designed mechanics which marginalize the decision quality of their well-designed mechanics. This isn't just an issue of these mechanics failing to add significant depth, but that the mechanics actually reduce the overall depth of the game; instead of victory resting on a plethora of interesting decisions just before and during combat, other game mechanics overwhelm and marginalize those decisions in favor of systems less frequent interesting decisions whic happen well before the fight even happens.
Somewhere buried in EVE there's a fantastic space combat arena game, but you never see it. You never see it because the more important (but shallower) things like travel, trade, zerging, and progression stomp all over what is otherwise an interesting loadout and piloting game. Which would've been fine if the density of interesting decisions in trade and travel was there, but it's not. Those features provide a few interesting decisions, but they're so rare that they don't characterize the game itself. Which results in a game that feels starved for interesting decisions, which is why so many players consider it a boring spreadsheet game.
Meanwhile in the better arena-style games, everything rests on your decisions from the moment a match starts. And because the game is decision-centric, and because it doesn't compromise the quality of those decisions, these games tend to perform better and engage players longer.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
People who engage in virtual worlds almost always play more time per day than people who play games. No one has ever spent 1000 hours of their life playing Angry Birds.
Magic: The Gathering is perhaps the most complex game in the world. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of cards. There are hundreds of mechanics on those cards.
Chess has simple base pieces. There are only 6 kinds of pieces, they all have 1 movement style. You could point at chess and say, see! simple deep games are more popular than complex games like Magic.
Do you have proof of any of these statements?
Are you saying almost all Eve players spent more time in the game than EQ raiders? Than people who play Halo a lot? I highly doubt you can back up your statement.
Is chess more popular than Magic, including the computer version? Than all other complex games? How about monopoly?
Somewhere buried in EVE there's a fantastic space combat area game, but you never see it.
No. The space combat game in Eve is pretty bad. I would MUCH rather play STO. If you do early PvE mission, the combat consists of having your ship gets into range automatically and keep firing missiles. It was NOT fun at all.
Somewhere buried in EVE there's a fantastic space combat area game, but you never see it.
No. The space combat game in Eve is pretty bad. I would MUCH rather play STO. If you do early PvE mission, the combat consists of having your ship gets into range automatically and keep firing missiles. It was NOT fun at all.
Yeah, but it's basically the very reason that they can fit a thousand players in the same spot for massive PvP... which some would claim is "NOT fun at all" either.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Depth in mmorpgs is generated by the players interacting with one another within a game world which allows them to interact in numerous and diverse ways. Most games massively restrict this and hence, have next to no depth. A cool combat system is not depth in an mmo, it may provide pvp depth to a moba, but in the genre of mmorpgs that really is not going to cut it.
Depth in combat system is depth. Like chess, the only thing deep is the tactical considerations.
I would MUCH prefer a MMO have depth in combat system than anything else.
Somewhere buried in EVE there's a fantastic space combat area game, but you never see it.
No. The space combat game in Eve is pretty bad. I would MUCH rather play STO. If you do early PvE mission, the combat consists of having your ship gets into range automatically and keep firing missiles. It was NOT fun at all.
Yeah, but it's basically the very reason that they can fit a thousand players in the same spot for massive PvP... which some would claim is "NOT fun at all" either.
I have no desire to pvp.
Eve is "NOT fun at all" to me. That is why i play the 21 day trial twice (the second time after Eve claims it has "improve" pve) and decided not to sub.
Somewhere buried in EVE there's a fantastic space combat area game, but you never see it.
No. The space combat game in Eve is pretty bad. I would MUCH rather play STO. If you do early PvE mission, the combat consists of having your ship gets into range automatically and keep firing missiles. It was NOT fun at all.
No way, EVE's combat engine has tons of potential to be a unique and deep game. It just gets so trivialized by the outside non-combat systems that it never gets to shine, or gets the tuning tweaks it'd need to be a really great arena game. Between the ability to freely choose your trajectory (or orbit a target) and the fact that lateral motion impacts weapon accuracy, the game had a ton of potential.
Like if each game is a 200vs200 fight with respawns to fight over destroying a primary objective (with several sub-objectives helping you achieve that goal) and you have a credit income to purchase your loadout and ship each spawn (spend it on a lot of medium-sized ship spawns, or save it up for a big endgame capital ship.)
With a more Planetside-like setup the game would have a ton of potential for depth, fun, and teamwork. But instead it'll continue its current course forever.
PVE would require a bit more work than that, but I could also see that being shaped into something fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is part of all overall agenda to mass manipulation and dumbing down in order to keep power and control over the masses.
Gaming industry is just one of the branches where an overall design is pushed to takes place. The big publishers/gaming companies are just tools in the hands of bigger people in the hierarchy.
Basically all answers here so far are wrong, as it has nothing to do with gaming itself.
Its not a case of them "dumbing down" its simply a case that like NEARLY EVERYTHING in life people no longer want to waste time.
ITs why there are microwave meals that sell better than gourmet cookbooks, people in general these days want the best results, in the shortest time, with the least effort possible.
This is something that pretty much effects every part of your life, few people want challenge for challenges sake any more. There are some left, but not many.
Get used to it. The times are always changing. However, I don't think that they're being dumbed down, but rather as the generation of developers change so does the games being developed. Occasionally I bust out my old Sega Genesis or my SNES and wonder how the hell did I beat some of these games when I was a kid.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed: And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!" ~Lord George Gordon Byron
No, we are talking about FUN. The only evidence you have for games being more fun, as you constantly argue all the fucking time, is popularity. That's almost a direct quote.
Time scale is important because time scale determines popularity. If you don't have the time to play a certain kind of game, you are going to play something else. If a game takes 5 minutes to achieve a goal, and you can play it on your phone on the bus, its got a much larger potential player base than a game that takes a long time to achieve a goal because people just don't have time for it.
You keep arguing as if people were rational actors and that all decisions were based on a single cause. This just isn't the case in real life.
You are always wrong not because you are dumb, but because you refuse to move beyond the first layer of a discussion.
And depth is not the goal of a game. Fun is the goal. Depth is one of the possible theories for why some games are more fun. But you have never proven it.
Many people prefer virtual worlds over games. You may argue that MORE people prefer games. But you can't just assert that its because games are more fun. You have to PROVE it. And you NEVER do.
People who engage in virtual worlds almost always play more time per day than people who play games. No one has ever spent 1000 hours of their life playing Angry Birds.
Magic: The Gathering is perhaps the most complex game in the world. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of cards. There are hundreds of mechanics on those cards.
Chess has simple base pieces. There are only 6 kinds of pieces, they all have 1 movement style. You could point at chess and say, see! simple deep games are more popular than complex games like Magic.
But I would say:
Chess was invented prior to Magic by something on thew order of centuries. Chess was a status game. The rich played Chess and only the rich had the free time to be good at it in general. Thus being good at chess was a status symbol. The reason Chess became important is the same reason there was a huge push for learning Latin in public schools. Because the middle class was emulating the rich.
Chess wasn't popular and iconic purely based on gameplay. No one looks at a game and decides to do it purely because of gameplay. They evaluate its accessibility, its social status, its costs to get and so forth.
But you can never think about this. You just keep on insisting that all that matters is game play.
Time scale certainly shapes popularity by shoving away larger and larger chunks of the potential playerbase by requiring longer and longer sittings, but that still has nothing to do with the topic at hand: game depth vs. complexity vs. "dumbing down".
Sure depth isn't the only goal, but it's the primary factor giving games longevity. Depth measures how long it takes to master a game, and spending time mastering a game is one of the primary ways games are considered fun.
That's why you probably played Chess much longer than you played Tic Tac Toe; TTT is mastered very rapidly by children and then considered uninteresting, whereas Chess takes much longer to master.
And as an extension, this is the primary reason Chess is still played a lot today. Almost nobody gives a crap about social status. Social status wouldn't make you play Tic Tac Toe longer (it could've never been a high-status game anyway, because the upper class is better educated and wouldn't be amused long with a shallow game..)
People dont' need to be rational for their behaviors and desires to be known. Plenty of game designers have made games all their lives then written books on it, and they're all saying things which completely disagree with what you're saying here.
The proof that games are more fun than worlds is this: sometimes while designing a game the designer is faced with a decision between (a) mimicking reality better and (b) being a deeper game with more interesting decisions. In the subset of design decisions where that tradeoff decision is required, choosing A (world simulation) results in less interesting decisions. And since interesting decisions are one of the primary ways games are fun, creating a world makes a game which is going to be slightly less fun.
You insist I can "never think about this", and yet you're the one whose posts fly in the face of common game design knowledge. Whereas my posts are supported by several well-known books on design, and professed by several well-known, successful designers. All the evidence and common knowledge is stacked against you, and you really should educate yourself on the topic matter before disagreeing so strongly.
I have educated myself. And I disagree. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't know as much as you. It could just as easily mean I know more.
The reason for simple game mechanics is because people are stupid. Just because you don't understand how a mechanic can be a total game changer doesn't mean the potential isn't there.
Most chess players don't really understand the proper use of pawns. Just because you personally can't create depth with pawns doesn't mean its not there.
A lot of the time complexity is an illusion created because you just don't understand how to process data properly. Maybe you are dumb, maybe you can't think outside the box, maybe you just got a shitty education from the crappy American school system, and I left public out on purpose, private isn't any better.
Some people think that calculating 3 to the 10th power is complex and why bother because we have calculators. Well it takes me like 10 seconds to get through it. Not because I'm smart, I can go a lot higher than 10 pretty quickly, but because I bothered to learn how to do it easily. In fact having high quality aim in an FPS is a fuck of a lot harder than that but you spent all of your life from birth learning how to do it. So you see your simple but deep game is 100x more complicated than my complex game could ever be but you just don't care. You like a certain kind of game and only care that it stays on the top of the heap.
That is stupid. "Complex" games are never going to be popular. You will always have more choices than those of us who prefer to do management and grand strategy, so there is no reason not to try to expand your horizons.
Even if you were right, there is still no reason to argue because your type of game is not and never will be in danger. If your games are so damn fun then go play them. Some of us don't have the luxury of a glut of gaming options.
This is part of all overall agenda to mass manipulation and dumbing down in order to keep power and control over the masses.
Gaming industry is just one of the branches where an overall design is pushed to takes place. The big publishers/gaming companies are just tools in the hands of bigger people in the hierarchy.
Basically all answers here so far are wrong, as it has nothing to do with gaming itself.
I've seen some mighty tin-foil hat posts in this forum, but this one dethrones them all.
Grats!
For achievements in tin-foil-hatting, Interesting is hereby awarded the [Tin Crown]!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is part of all overall agenda to mass manipulation and dumbing down in order to keep power and control over the masses.
Gaming industry is just one of the branches where an overall design is pushed to takes place. The big publishers/gaming companies are just tools in the hands of bigger people in the hierarchy.
Basically all answers here so far are wrong, as it has nothing to do with gaming itself.
I've seen some mighty tin-foil hat posts in this forum, but this one dethrones them all.
Grats!
For achievements in tin-foil-hatting, Interesting is hereby awarded the [Tin Crown]!
Yeah well you have never read MY POSTS.
I wear a tinfoil hat ON TOP of my regular timfoil hat. I am typing this from my bunker as we speak and I know the Illuminati are reading this...They are watching me....
~but every time we log into this site we are PvPing with words.
If combat in EVE consisted of passive-aggressive arguments, would it be more "fun" at that point?
(In a sense it already does there, but most of it involves calling one's mother a whore)
Just because you think the forums are "pvping with words" doesnt' mean that everyone sees it that way.
But I'll bite.
perhaps people feel that they are more comfortable pvp'ing in arenas they agree to. I've seen posts where people would rather pvp in maps or instances over ffa pvp.
And I can buy that. In each exampe the people are fine with the agreed terms of pvp. One where you all appear and have goals and the other where people roam and find opponents.
Do you like sports?
Some like football (talking American football at the moment) with it's action and tackling, etc. Some like Baseball. With it's steady controlled and measured game play, no tackling.
Just because one likes baseball doesnt' mean they like football. And vice versa. And some just like both. And some like neither.
and some like golf *shudders*
though I played lots of mini golf today so that's a different enchilada all together.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I have educated myself. And I disagree. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't know as much as you. It could just as easily mean I know more.
The reason for simple game mechanics is because people are stupid. Just because you don't understand how a mechanic can be a total game changer doesn't mean the potential isn't there.
Most chess players don't really understand the proper use of pawns. Just because you personally can't create depth with pawns doesn't mean its not there.
So you see your simple but deep game is 100x more complicated than my complex game could ever be but you just don't care. You like a certain kind of game and only care that it stays on the top of the heap.
That is stupid. "Complex" games are never going to be popular. You will always have more choices than those of us who prefer to do management and grand strategy, so there is no reason not to try to expand your horizons.
Even if you were right, there is still no reason to argue because your type of game is not and never will be in danger. If your games are so damn fun then go play them. Some of us don't have the luxury of a glut of gaming options.
And finally, get over your appeal to authority problem. Yes, a bunch of famous designers agree with you. So fucking what? Again that only makes you even more of a troll for arguing if your position is all perfect and right, why do you even bother?
I consider you a huge troll, and so my first guess as to your answer to my question is that you are just trying to enlighten us poor incorrect losers, because that is always the first response of your kind.
So you've actually read books on game design like A Theory of Fun by Koster and other major design books, and you disagree with all that built up design knowledge?
...on what basis?
A hunch?!?
Because I'm a game designer and witness every day the patterns Raph Koster, Jesse Schell, and Soren Johnson describe in what they've written.
Most players not using pawns correctly in Chess is the perfect example, because it takes place in a game where the rules around pawns are incredibly simple, yet the use of those pawns has a depth to it that only a better player will discover. That's good game design.
Conversely complex games are bad design because they create a barrier between the player and one of the purposes of games: fun (through pattery mastery.) That might be fine if it was necessary to be complex in order to create a deep game. But it isn't! Chess and many other games provide deep gameplay without complex rules!
Typically it's not considered trolling to state something then back it up with logic, observations, firsthand experience, and following it up with the words of others more experienced than myself. Personally I consider it a superior way to hold a discussion to your choice of personal insults.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I have educated myself. And I disagree. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't know as much as you. It could just as easily mean I know more.
The reason for simple game mechanics is because people are stupid. Just because you don't understand how a mechanic can be a total game changer doesn't mean the potential isn't there.
Most chess players don't really understand the proper use of pawns. Just because you personally can't create depth with pawns doesn't mean its not there.
So you see your simple but deep game is 100x more complicated than my complex game could ever be but you just don't care. You like a certain kind of game and only care that it stays on the top of the heap.
That is stupid. "Complex" games are never going to be popular. You will always have more choices than those of us who prefer to do management and grand strategy, so there is no reason not to try to expand your horizons.
Even if you were right, there is still no reason to argue because your type of game is not and never will be in danger. If your games are so damn fun then go play them. Some of us don't have the luxury of a glut of gaming options.
And finally, get over your appeal to authority problem. Yes, a bunch of famous designers agree with you. So fucking what? Again that only makes you even more of a troll for arguing if your position is all perfect and right, why do you even bother?
I consider you a huge troll, and so my first guess as to your answer to my question is that you are just trying to enlighten us poor incorrect losers, because that is always the first response of your kind.
So you've actually read books on game design like A Theory of Fun by Koster and other major design books, and you disagree with all that built up design knowledge?
...on what basis?
A hunch?!?
Because I'm a game designer and witness every day the patterns Raph Koster, Jesse Schell, and Soren Johnson describe in what they've written.
Most players not using pawns correctly in Chess is the perfect example, because it takes place in a game where the rules around pawns are incredibly simple, yet the use of those pawns has a depth to it that only a better player will discover. That's good game design.
Conversely complex games are bad design because they create a barrier between the player and one of the purposes of games: fun (through pattery mastery.) That might be fine if it was necessary to be complex in order to create a deep game. But it isn't! Chess and many other games provide deep gameplay without complex rules!
Typically it's not considered trolling to state something then back it up with logic, observations, firsthand experience, and following it up with the words of others more experienced than myself. Personally I consider it a superior way to hold a discussion to your choice of personal insults.
HA, HAHA that is where you are wrong son, trolling= having a different opinion. So yes you are trolling, how do it feel troll. But its a sad day when you are call a troll because you disagree with someone.
You Have to remember that early MMOGs were pretty simple to start with but always lacked a informative tutorial or help system. the conveniences that have sprung up to allow new players to genre have indeed made them seem "dumbed down" because players want to get right to the game and start playing.
In those early days of MMOGs many of the tools they gave players were pretty draconian. we had to figure it out and that's why some MMOs had a steep learning curve.
When I first played starwars galaxies we didn't have speeders we had to walk all those very large planets on foot until they added them. and when they did add them you have to have a camp out to summon one or be in a municipal zone. try that now with a MMO and you will have a riot on your hands.
it's like the old joke "we had to walk to school". which is why when a young person complains about having to walk to school,older people laugh at them. they have it so easy now. thats why raiders in Wow have become very angry. the gear mechanics that required they spend a great many hours wiping to defeat a boss or dungeon for a reward, that reward is now a few tokens on a gear vendor. no more work required.
It is generational. you won't play a game that doesn't have a LFG for PVE/PVP you have been trained that it's a standard feature all MMOs should have. if you played a game with no Mini map or compass in the right hand corner you would think it's a unfinished game.
If you had to craft all your own gear instead of running a group for easy loot drops, you would ragequit the game.If you had to walk the entire time until you hit level 40 you would hit the forums to QQ about how you don't wanna be frodo.
Thats why MMOs now fail. they create so many tools and make the mechanics so simple it's hardly worth playing once you hit end game. even people who love how easy it is, deep down want a deeper experience that feels rewarding and the tools to make the character they created not just another elf warrior who looks like all the other elf warriors.
No way, EVE's combat engine has tons of potential to be a unique and deep game. It just gets so trivialized by the outside non-combat systems that it never gets to shine, or gets the tuning tweaks it'd need to be a really great arena game. Between the ability to freely choose your trajectory (or orbit a target) and the fact that lateral motion impacts weapon accuracy, the game had a ton of potential.
Like if each game is a 200vs200 fight with respawns to fight over destroying a primary objective (with several sub-objectives helping you achieve that goal) and you have a credit income to purchase your loadout and ship each spawn (spend it on a lot of medium-sized ship spawns, or save it up for a big endgame capital ship.)
With a more Planetside-like setup the game would have a ton of potential for depth, fun, and teamwork. But instead it'll continue its current course forever.
PVE would require a bit more work than that, but I could also see that being shaped into something fun.
No, Narius is quite right, the combat is quite simple. They have only recently started to plan on adding more interesting mechanics to it like battleship-only blink etc. When you really look into it, Eve's combat becomes about avoiding check-mate situations*, and there are loads of them. Many fleet compositions do not have a sensible counter to them and majority of the player-made decisions are outright worse than others.
It doesn't rate highly on depth in my book. However it is deceptively hard to learn the metagame which may make it appear that the game is deep. But when you fly with few of the best players in the game you really notice how it is. Even when the fans talk about Eve they don't talk about the combat or the combat mechanics, they talk about the drama involved and the metagame. The combat itself is not very good.
EDIT: *And many of those check-mate situations are against an aggressive player leading to situations where fleets avoid engagement unless the othermakes a mistake in the pre-combat shuffle. I've been on too many fleet fights where both sides wait for the other fleet to take the initiave. Too often combat occurs only when the other side knowingly (or unknowingly) makes an unwise move to start combat.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
Please point out the false assumption.
A world simulator is a game which combines mechanics in order to create a depth and complexity which is greater than the sum part of it's mechanics. You can have a game with trading and a game with pvp. Each game would have a degree of depth and complexity. If you combine these mechanics the overall increase in potential depth, complexity and options for the players is greater than the sum of the parts as you get cross overs.
There is no trade off A to B. The aim is to make an interesting, deep and fun game world by combining realtively basic systems to create a game which is far more than the sum of it's parts. Chess/mobas/fps et al are just one part, and yes they need to have the beautiful simplicity and tactical depth you are thinking of.
Depth is depth? So the game of chess is as "deep" as the world now is it? Well if that is the case the entire thread is pointless, if I enjoy the myriad of ways I can kick a can of beer around then I guess that is as deep as chess right? Let's be realistic here, no one said chess has no depth, but it is simply not comparable to an mmorpg, it is far more akin to a moba/fps/rts. I can devote just as much effort to tactics in small scale combat in an mmorpg and yet also have to be thinking about the bigger picture. In chess or a moba it is all about the here and now and the opponent you are facing at the present time.
What low depth, high complexity mechanics? You seem to be missing the point, world simulator games actually combine realtively simple mechanics which work together in complex and unexpected ways to create depth.
Perhaps anything over and above clicking FIGHT1111111!!!! and loading into a prerolled arena against a set number of opponents over a set time frame is complex these days. Most mmorpg mechanics are incredibly simple to understand, it is the way they interact with one another that matters. More importantly how they allow the players to interact with one another which adds depth. This is what is missing from many modern mmorpgs, which leads nicely to your last paragraph. Because this is precisely why most modern mmorpgs have fuck all longevity.
An mmorpg/world derives it's depth through the combination of components and the interaction of it's participants. Chess/non mmorpg games derive depth through simplicity leading to depth in one specific field. Modern mmorpgs do neither of these things well. They don't allow for dynamic player interaction and openness, nor do they have the simplicity and focus of a pure pvp game (for instance).
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The reason your assumption was false is straight out of my earlier post: a subset of game design decisions will be forced to choose (A) simulating a world better or (B) offering less realistic but more balanced/interesting decisions. Mimicking a world mandates making some of these tradeoff decisions, and if the simulation option is chosen the game will have fewer interesting decisions.
These tradeoff decisions exist, whether or not you believe they do. You can try to optimize for the other subset of design decisions (the ones where simulating a world doesn't reduce depth) but inevitably you're still going to make a decision in the Simulation vs. Deep Decisions subset. There's no way not to make a decision one way or the other. The act of avoiding that subset of decisions would, itself, be a decision.
Who said anything about Chess being "as deep as the world"? It's a deep game. Games always exist somewhere along the spectrum of shallow->deep, which has everything to do with the decisions involved in the game. You implied it was different for Chess vs. MMORPGs; that somehow that definition of depth only works for non-MMORPG games. And that's wrong, because that facet of games is judged the same way regardless of genre.
Preset arena games can still be deep experiences because they optimize the entire experience from start to finish to be about interesting decisions. The devs have specifically carved away the fatty non-gameplay mechanics (mechanics which occupied the player's time without significantly adding to depth, if they added depth at all.)
Something like EVE may have a ton of moving parts but by having so many parts they take large steps towards shallower gameplay (out-zerg or out-progresion your opponents to achieve victory) and have excessive amounts of fatty non-gameplay (parts of the game which are timesink-heavy but decision-lite.)
Actually it's not even the number of parts; it's the inclusion of a few poorly-designed mechanics which marginalize the decision quality of their well-designed mechanics. This isn't just an issue of these mechanics failing to add significant depth, but that the mechanics actually reduce the overall depth of the game; instead of victory resting on a plethora of interesting decisions just before and during combat, other game mechanics overwhelm and marginalize those decisions in favor of systems less frequent interesting decisions whic happen well before the fight even happens.
Somewhere buried in EVE there's a fantastic space combat arena game, but you never see it. You never see it because the more important (but shallower) things like travel, trade, zerging, and progression stomp all over what is otherwise an interesting loadout and piloting game. Which would've been fine if the density of interesting decisions in trade and travel was there, but it's not. Those features provide a few interesting decisions, but they're so rare that they don't characterize the game itself. Which results in a game that feels starved for interesting decisions, which is why so many players consider it a boring spreadsheet game.
Meanwhile in the better arena-style games, everything rests on your decisions from the moment a match starts. And because the game is decision-centric, and because it doesn't compromise the quality of those decisions, these games tend to perform better and engage players longer.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Do you have proof of any of these statements?
Are you saying almost all Eve players spent more time in the game than EQ raiders? Than people who play Halo a lot? I highly doubt you can back up your statement.
Is chess more popular than Magic, including the computer version? Than all other complex games? How about monopoly?
No. The space combat game in Eve is pretty bad. I would MUCH rather play STO. If you do early PvE mission, the combat consists of having your ship gets into range automatically and keep firing missiles. It was NOT fun at all.
Yeah, but it's basically the very reason that they can fit a thousand players in the same spot for massive PvP... which some would claim is "NOT fun at all" either.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Depth in combat system is depth. Like chess, the only thing deep is the tactical considerations.
I would MUCH prefer a MMO have depth in combat system than anything else.
I have no desire to pvp.
Eve is "NOT fun at all" to me. That is why i play the 21 day trial twice (the second time after Eve claims it has "improve" pve) and decided not to sub.
STO is a much more fun game to me.
~but every time we log into this site we are PvPing with words.
If combat in EVE consisted of passive-aggressive arguments, would it be more "fun" at that point?
(In a sense it already does there, but most of it involves calling one's mother a whore)
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Meh... tell us something we didn't already know. It's getting harder and harder to stave off the instant gratification crowd too =/
PvPing with words is not the same as Pvpings with fantasy characters, or space ships.
Can't beat them, just join them.
Nothing worng with instant gratification. We are talking about ENTERTAINMENT here.
No way, EVE's combat engine has tons of potential to be a unique and deep game. It just gets so trivialized by the outside non-combat systems that it never gets to shine, or gets the tuning tweaks it'd need to be a really great arena game. Between the ability to freely choose your trajectory (or orbit a target) and the fact that lateral motion impacts weapon accuracy, the game had a ton of potential.
Like if each game is a 200vs200 fight with respawns to fight over destroying a primary objective (with several sub-objectives helping you achieve that goal) and you have a credit income to purchase your loadout and ship each spawn (spend it on a lot of medium-sized ship spawns, or save it up for a big endgame capital ship.)
With a more Planetside-like setup the game would have a ton of potential for depth, fun, and teamwork. But instead it'll continue its current course forever.
PVE would require a bit more work than that, but I could also see that being shaped into something fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is part of all overall agenda to mass manipulation and dumbing down in order to keep power and control over the masses.
Gaming industry is just one of the branches where an overall design is pushed to takes place. The big publishers/gaming companies are just tools in the hands of bigger people in the hierarchy.
Basically all answers here so far are wrong, as it has nothing to do with gaming itself.
Its not a case of them "dumbing down" its simply a case that like NEARLY EVERYTHING in life people no longer want to waste time.
ITs why there are microwave meals that sell better than gourmet cookbooks, people in general these days want the best results, in the shortest time, with the least effort possible.
This is something that pretty much effects every part of your life, few people want challenge for challenges sake any more. There are some left, but not many.
Get used to it. The times are always changing. However, I don't think that they're being dumbed down, but rather as the generation of developers change so does the games being developed. Occasionally I bust out my old Sega Genesis or my SNES and wonder how the hell did I beat some of these games when I was a kid.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"
~Lord George Gordon Byron
I have educated myself. And I disagree. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't know as much as you. It could just as easily mean I know more.
The reason for simple game mechanics is because people are stupid. Just because you don't understand how a mechanic can be a total game changer doesn't mean the potential isn't there.
Most chess players don't really understand the proper use of pawns. Just because you personally can't create depth with pawns doesn't mean its not there.
A lot of the time complexity is an illusion created because you just don't understand how to process data properly. Maybe you are dumb, maybe you can't think outside the box, maybe you just got a shitty education from the crappy American school system, and I left public out on purpose, private isn't any better.
Some people think that calculating 3 to the 10th power is complex and why bother because we have calculators. Well it takes me like 10 seconds to get through it. Not because I'm smart, I can go a lot higher than 10 pretty quickly, but because I bothered to learn how to do it easily. In fact having high quality aim in an FPS is a fuck of a lot harder than that but you spent all of your life from birth learning how to do it. So you see your simple but deep game is 100x more complicated than my complex game could ever be but you just don't care. You like a certain kind of game and only care that it stays on the top of the heap.
That is stupid. "Complex" games are never going to be popular. You will always have more choices than those of us who prefer to do management and grand strategy, so there is no reason not to try to expand your horizons.
Even if you were right, there is still no reason to argue because your type of game is not and never will be in danger. If your games are so damn fun then go play them. Some of us don't have the luxury of a glut of gaming options.
[mod edit]
In politics/debate, the first person to get all offended and emotional loses the game.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I've seen some mighty tin-foil hat posts in this forum, but this one dethrones them all.
Grats!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah well you have never read MY POSTS.
I wear a tinfoil hat ON TOP of my regular timfoil hat. I am typing this from my bunker as we speak and I know the Illuminati are reading this...They are watching me....
I WANT THAT AWARD DAMMIT
Just because you think the forums are "pvping with words" doesnt' mean that everyone sees it that way.
But I'll bite.
perhaps people feel that they are more comfortable pvp'ing in arenas they agree to. I've seen posts where people would rather pvp in maps or instances over ffa pvp.
And I can buy that. In each exampe the people are fine with the agreed terms of pvp. One where you all appear and have goals and the other where people roam and find opponents.
Do you like sports?
Some like football (talking American football at the moment) with it's action and tackling, etc. Some like Baseball. With it's steady controlled and measured game play, no tackling.
Just because one likes baseball doesnt' mean they like football. And vice versa. And some just like both. And some like neither.
and some like golf *shudders*
though I played lots of mini golf today so that's a different enchilada all together.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I remember playing a game called Parsec on the TI-99.
I used to have the hardest time refueling. (Going through the small "cave")
I also used to play Hunt the Wumpus
The first game I beat was Zaxxon, took me all summer...... (And cost me about 50 dollars)
Games have changed, I've gotten old
Now? I can't even get through all of the stages on Angry Birds Rio.....
The moral of this story is?
There isn't one, I was just strolling down memory lane.
Life is Short, Read a Book.
So you've actually read books on game design like A Theory of Fun by Koster and other major design books, and you disagree with all that built up design knowledge?
...on what basis?
A hunch?!?
Because I'm a game designer and witness every day the patterns Raph Koster, Jesse Schell, and Soren Johnson describe in what they've written.
Most players not using pawns correctly in Chess is the perfect example, because it takes place in a game where the rules around pawns are incredibly simple, yet the use of those pawns has a depth to it that only a better player will discover. That's good game design.
Conversely complex games are bad design because they create a barrier between the player and one of the purposes of games: fun (through pattery mastery.) That might be fine if it was necessary to be complex in order to create a deep game. But it isn't! Chess and many other games provide deep gameplay without complex rules!
Typically it's not considered trolling to state something then back it up with logic, observations, firsthand experience, and following it up with the words of others more experienced than myself. Personally I consider it a superior way to hold a discussion to your choice of personal insults.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
HA, HAHA that is where you are wrong son, trolling= having a different opinion. So yes you are trolling, how do it feel troll. But its a sad day when you are call a troll because you disagree with someone.
You Have to remember that early MMOGs were pretty simple to start with but always lacked a informative tutorial or help system. the conveniences that have sprung up to allow new players to genre have indeed made them seem "dumbed down" because players want to get right to the game and start playing.
In those early days of MMOGs many of the tools they gave players were pretty draconian. we had to figure it out and that's why some MMOs had a steep learning curve.
When I first played starwars galaxies we didn't have speeders we had to walk all those very large planets on foot until they added them. and when they did add them you have to have a camp out to summon one or be in a municipal zone. try that now with a MMO and you will have a riot on your hands.
it's like the old joke "we had to walk to school". which is why when a young person complains about having to walk to school,older people laugh at them. they have it so easy now. thats why raiders in Wow have become very angry. the gear mechanics that required they spend a great many hours wiping to defeat a boss or dungeon for a reward, that reward is now a few tokens on a gear vendor. no more work required.
It is generational. you won't play a game that doesn't have a LFG for PVE/PVP you have been trained that it's a standard feature all MMOs should have. if you played a game with no Mini map or compass in the right hand corner you would think it's a unfinished game.
If you had to craft all your own gear instead of running a group for easy loot drops, you would ragequit the game.If you had to walk the entire time until you hit level 40 you would hit the forums to QQ about how you don't wanna be frodo.
Thats why MMOs now fail. they create so many tools and make the mechanics so simple it's hardly worth playing once you hit end game. even people who love how easy it is, deep down want a deeper experience that feels rewarding and the tools to make the character they created not just another elf warrior who looks like all the other elf warriors.
No, Narius is quite right, the combat is quite simple. They have only recently started to plan on adding more interesting mechanics to it like battleship-only blink etc. When you really look into it, Eve's combat becomes about avoiding check-mate situations*, and there are loads of them. Many fleet compositions do not have a sensible counter to them and majority of the player-made decisions are outright worse than others.
It doesn't rate highly on depth in my book. However it is deceptively hard to learn the metagame which may make it appear that the game is deep. But when you fly with few of the best players in the game you really notice how it is. Even when the fans talk about Eve they don't talk about the combat or the combat mechanics, they talk about the drama involved and the metagame. The combat itself is not very good.
EDIT: *And many of those check-mate situations are against an aggressive player leading to situations where fleets avoid engagement unless the othermakes a mistake in the pre-combat shuffle. I've been on too many fleet fights where both sides wait for the other fleet to take the initiave. Too often combat occurs only when the other side knowingly (or unknowingly) makes an unwise move to start combat.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky