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.
There is no conflict between A and B. A world simulator/mmorpg is merely a space where numerous components come together and interact with one another. They do not have to try and exactly mimmic the actual real world we live in, just approximate a dynamic environment in which individual agents doing their own little thing, all intertwine to create a greater system.
There are far, far, far more interesting decisions in an open world than in a game focused on non connected, single mechanics. There is nothing stopping players enjoying a simple combat interface and pvp in a world simulator, yet they can also enjoy the knock on effect that pvp is having in the world space (should they so wish). The same goes for all the other systems.
The point about not being able to compare chess to an mmorpg, but more to a moba and the world analogy should be quite clear. Chess has depth in one element. A moba derives depth through one element. An morpg/world simulatore derives depth through the combination of many elements. How that is not clear I am unsure. A world simulator/mmorpg has vastly more depth because it not only contain enclosed elements/mechanics which each generate their own depth, but these elements/mechanics also interconnect to create even more depth. Pretty obvious really.
Pre set arenas have nothing like the depth a world simulator/mmorpg can have. Yet they do indeed have depth in terms of the specific mechanics that they employ. You can be absorbed by and fps (or the fps genre) for years (I know I have), built on very simple mechanics. As someone who is grounded in fps/rts/mobas/e-sports in general I fully understand that and that is why I have pointed out previously that your notion that simplicity can lead to depth is correct. And yet, there is no camparison to an mmorpg/world simulator. Freedom, intertwining options and dynamism drive depth. The latter type of games clearly have far more than the former.
EVE is not meant to be just a space combat arena game, perhaps the fact that you seem to view and compare every single game, regardless of genre, to an arean based e-sport is the problem you are having. Not everything needs to be faster pussy cat kill kill twitch, in order to be A) Fun or Deep. Furthermore, not everything that is not instant action pew pew is merely a timesink with no purpose.
Arena games are great if you only want to consider the exact here and now. World simulators allow you consider the here and now and the consequences that might have not only in other areas in the here and now, but also in the future. There is far more depth to be derived from that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
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.
Combat can be both in the immediate term and in the future term. A game like chess or an arena game only has the former, an mmorpg (should) have both the former and the latter and as such more depth.
The point is an mmorpg/world simulator should have pvp combat depth as well as depth from a myriad of other mechanics all dynamically interacting with one another. A simplistic combat system and greater world depth are not mutuallly exclusive.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It has mostly to do with making your products attractive to wider audience, by making them simpler to understand and enjoy by many not few. However it usually happens at the cost of complexity and often features which brought gamers to your franchise on the first place. It happens to many games not only MMORPGs, my late favorite is BF franchise and EA/DICE squeezing it out for an extra dollar.
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.
There is no conflict between A and B. A world simulator/mmorpg is merely a space where numerous components come together and interact with one another. They do not have to try and exactly mimmic the actual real world we live in, just approximate a dynamic environment in which individual agents doing their own little thing, all intertwine to create a greater system.
There are far, far, far more interesting decisions in an open world than in a game focused on non connected, single mechanics. There is nothing stopping players enjoying a simple combat interface and pvp in a world simulator, yet they can also enjoy the knock on effect that pvp is having in the world space (should they so wish). The same goes for all the other systems.
The point about not being able to compare chess to an mmorpg, but more to a moba and the world analogy should be quite clear. Chess has depth in one element. A moba derives depth through one element. An morpg/world simulatore derives depth through the combination of many elements. How that is not clear I am unsure. A world simulator/mmorpg has vastly more depth because it not only contain enclosed elements/mechanics which each generate their own depth, but these elements/mechanics also interconnect to create even more depth. Pretty obvious really.
Pre set arenas have nothing like the depth a world simulator/mmorpg can have. Yet they do indeed have depth in terms of the specific mechanics that they employ. You can be absorbed by and fps (or the fps genre) for years (I know I have), built on very simple mechanics. As someone who is grounded in fps/rts/mobas/e-sports in general I fully understand that and that is why I have pointed out previously that your notion that simplicity can lead to depth is correct. And yet, there is no camparison to an mmorpg/world simulator. Freedom, intertwining options and dynamism drive depth. The latter type of games clearly have far more than the former.
EVE is not meant to be just a space combat arena game, perhaps the fact that you seem to view and compare every single game, regardless of genre, to an arean based e-sport is the problem you are having. Not everything needs to be faster pussy cat kill kill twitch, in order to be A) Fun or Deep. Furthermore, not everything that is not instant action pew pew is merely a timesink with no purpose.
Arena games are great if you only want to consider the exact here and now. World simulators allow you consider the here and now and the consequences that might have not only in other areas in the here and now, but also in the future. There is far more depth to be derived from that.
Having come from a time when there was no home computing, or online gaming, and remembering playing outside more than I messed with my Nintendo or Atari 2600. I can remember going to arcades to get my game fix on. Its not that games have gotten simpler, the gamer has just changed. Back in the 80s, games were mostly 4 to 8 bit programs, few were 16bit. They couldnt handle the complexities of modern games. They seemed more difficult not because they were, but because we werent as experienced as gamers, bugs in the games were often accepted as status quo. Personally I fee that todays gamer is to blame on why games are dumbing down. Most gamers now are more able to get games, and play games. Unlike back in the 80s and 90s when computer games and console games were only played by geeky kids who couldnt do it in real life and had no real friends. Most game companies are creating games to favor those players. MMO market is flooded with mindless simple, "casual" games, played by casual gamers. These people are people who most likely 20 years ago wouldnt have came near a computer unless it was work related. It is more socially accepted to be a gamer, look at our TV and movies, comic book heros are mainstream, electronic gaming conventions are broadcast and followed by the major news groups around the world, there is even television channels dedicated to just electronic gaming, G4TV and the like. Places like Youtube, Hulu and Facebook are helping gamers stay at home and still connect with the millions if not billions of others like them. Gamers now are the new "jock" in the US culture. I can remember when athletes used to make fun of people who played console sports games, now they play them themselves. Welcome to the new era, where people who played Ultima Online are the trailblazers of the new MMO market, the Lewis & Clark of sorts. Those of us who beta tested Starcraft (the original) are like the D-Day vets of gaming. We remember when games with a ping of 200ms was considered GOOD.
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.
No one posting here would seriously think that their posts would have any effect on the industry. So what if the game he likes is never in danger. It is never about moving the devs.
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.
Combat can be both in the immediate term and in the future term. A game like chess or an arena game only has the former, an mmorpg (should) have both the former and the latter and as such more depth.
The point is an mmorpg/world simulator should have pvp combat depth as well as depth from a myriad of other mechanics all dynamically interacting with one another. A simplistic combat system and greater world depth are not mutuallly exclusive.
Why should it? The most successful MMOs have combat depth and focus on it. Many successful SP & MP games focuses on tactical depth. It is a matter of preference.
Why should it? The most successful MMOs have combat depth and focus on it. Many successful SP & MP games focuses on tactical depth. It is a matter of preference.
Notice you are saying "MMO" and I am talking about MMORPG/world simulators. An MMO could simply be a massive shoot em up. There is a clear difference and there is also a clear reason why the latter should combine both immediate pvp and longer term potential.
Also note that a game which provides both allows the player to decide and play what his/her preference is, a game offering only the former allows for no such choice.
Successful SP and small scale MP games do indeed only focus on one mechanic, but then I have already touched on the stark difference between such games in previous posts.
I'm not quite sure what the argument is, it seems people are arguing AGAINST having choice within an environment, or somehow think that by combining mechanics it is impossible to have elegant, immediate combat. The first part is daft, the second part is simply false.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
There is no conflict between A and B. A world simulator/mmorpg is merely a space where numerous components come together and interact with one another. They do not have to try and exactly mimmic the actual real world we live in, just approximate a dynamic environment in which individual agents doing their own little thing, all intertwine to create a greater system.
There are far, far, far more interesting decisions in an open world than in a game focused on non connected, single mechanics. There is nothing stopping players enjoying a simple combat interface and pvp in a world simulator, yet they can also enjoy the knock on effect that pvp is having in the world space (should they so wish). The same goes for all the other systems.
The point about not being able to compare chess to an mmorpg, but more to a moba and the world analogy should be quite clear. Chess has depth in one element. A moba derives depth through one element. An morpg/world simulatore derives depth through the combination of many elements. How that is not clear I am unsure. A world simulator/mmorpg has vastly more depth because it not only contain enclosed elements/mechanics which each generate their own depth, but these elements/mechanics also interconnect to create even more depth. Pretty obvious really.
Pre set arenas have nothing like the depth a world simulator/mmorpg can have. Yet they do indeed have depth in terms of the specific mechanics that they employ. You can be absorbed by and fps (or the fps genre) for years (I know I have), built on very simple mechanics. As someone who is grounded in fps/rts/mobas/e-sports in general I fully understand that and that is why I have pointed out previously that your notion that simplicity can lead to depth is correct. And yet, there is no camparison to an mmorpg/world simulator. Freedom, intertwining options and dynamism drive depth. The latter type of games clearly have far more than the former.
EVE is not meant to be just a space combat arena game, perhaps the fact that you seem to view and compare every single game, regardless of genre, to an arean based e-sport is the problem you are having. Not everything needs to be faster pussy cat kill kill twitch, in order to be A) Fun or Deep. Furthermore, not everything that is not instant action pew pew is merely a timesink with no purpose.
Arena games are great if you only want to consider the exact here and now. World simulators allow you consider the here and now and the consequences that might have not only in other areas in the here and now, but also in the future. There is far more depth to be derived from that.
There are always design decisions where A and B are in conflict, you're just choosing to only focus on (or you're only aware of) the design decisions where both goals are simultaneously possible.
In the case of world combat, there are things preventing a player from enjoying combat depth there -- my EVE point is one such example.
Chess having depth in "one element" doesn't affect the overall magnitude of depth (in fact, the focusallows the game to be deeper, as pointed out in my EVE example.)
This depth-through-focus actually addresses all your remaining points too. (Except the abberant comment about "twitch" which is irrelevant since many turn-based games also have superior depth to a sprawling mess like EVE.) In EVE's case, it's own systems step on each others' toes and reduce the overall potential depth the game could have.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Also note that a game which provides both allows the player to decide and play what his/her preference is, a game offering only the former allows for no such choice.
And of course the trade-off is dev resources. Even a company like Blizz cannot pump out content as fast as it wants. So resource is a constraint.
I am not against choices. More choices are obviously better. However, given resource constraint, i would much rather a game focus on what it is good at .. and often that is combat depth/gameplay ... then trying to do many other things without succeeding.
There are always design decisions where A and B are in conflict, you're just choosing to only focus on (or you're only aware of) the design decisions where both goals are simultaneously possible.
In the case of world combat, there are things preventing a player from enjoying combat depth there -- my EVE point is one such example.
Chess having depth in "one element" doesn't affect the overall magnitude of depth (in fact, the focusallows the game to be deeper, as pointed out in my EVE example.)
This depth-through-focus actually addresses all your remaining points too. (Except the abberant comment about "twitch" which is irrelevant since many turn-based games also have superior depth to a sprawling mess like EVE.) In EVE's case, it's own systems step on each others' toes and reduce the overall potential depth the game could have.
An environment which combines multiple depth creating mechanics to not only generate depth from the set mechanics but from the cross combination of the mechanics has more depth and scope than an individual mechanic on it's own.
Combining mechanics does not neccessitate an exponential increase in the complexity or decrease in the inherent depth of each and every mechanic.
You can "focus" on one indivual mechanic within a global system as much as you would should the mechanic be stood alone. Playing chess within a simulated world for example would not magically make the game of chess within said world less deep.
It is quite frankly amazing that someone can straight faced try and debate that an individual mechanic (which can have it's own inherent depth), has more depth than a web of systems. The web may be complex but the individual mechanics are simple, which allows the individual agents to devote just as much time and focus to them should they so wish, but means that the overall system has greater depth than the sum of it's parts.
EVE's systems do not step on each others toes, they work together in order to create a deeply engaging game.
EDIT:
On your comment about events stopping someone enjoying something for a moment in time in the game. That has nothing at all to do with depth and everything to do with an individuals personal preference. Some people would rather have less depth and more instant, on tap action. Some would prefer to have the chance of having a dynamic system potentially altering what they are doing at any given moment.
Regardless that has zero bearing on the depth a system or combination of systems can offer. As pointed out before I may find enjoyment from the myriad of ways that I can kick a can about in the air, prefer it to playing chess even. And yet my preference would have zero impact upon what depth chess does offer.
Perhaps you are putting your seeming dislike for everything non immediate and non single mechanic focused in the way?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
And of course the trade-off is dev resources. Even a company like Blizz cannot pump out content as fast as it wants. So resource is a constraint.
I am not against choices. More choices are obviously better. However, given resource constraint, i would much rather a game focus on what it is good at .. and often that is combat depth/gameplay ... then trying to do many other things without succeeding.
I'd also rather the dev team stuck to what it knows and I am in no way advocating that each and every game should be some form of world simulator which tries to be everything to all people. I love games created for specific things just as much (if not more) than world simulators and traditional mmorpgs.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
MMORPG's do not have to go off the deep end in world simulation, but they should allow players to control their own characters. Freedom.
If you have a haunted dungeon or haunted house, it is enough to plant it somewhere and allow the players to approach it or tackle it on their own terms. There is absolutely no need to have cutscenes, phased gameplay, and onrails scenes acted out, which amounts to heavy-duty handholding and control.
That word "control"; there it is. Maybe this is what's been going on these past few years.
If you were to go to an amusment park, would you rather be handed a map and allowed to roam freely, or would you want a forced guided tour, seeing only the rides the park management wants you to see, and when they want you to see them? This is sort of what the fight over MMORPG design has come down to.
Cutscenes, phased gameplay and scripted events are good ways to communicate stories. I find they add spice and interests to the game.
Freedom is relative. If there are 10000 scripted quests .. but you can choose to do them in any order, is that enough freedom?
And some control is good. I would never want a FFA PvP game, nor one that allows any number of players to fight a boss (better to have 5 man instance where the encounter is designed for the group).
It is just a matter of degree, and a matter of what is a good gaming experience.
An environment which combines multiple depth creating mechanics to not only generate depth from the set mechanics but from the cross combination of the mechanics has more depth and scope than an individual mechanic on it's own.
Combining mechanics does not neccessitate an exponential increase in the complexity or decrease in the inherent depth of each and every mechanic.
You can "focus" on one indivual mechanic within a global system as much as you would should the mechanic be stood alone. Playing chess within a simulated world for example would not magically make the game of chess within said world less deep.
It is quite frankly amazing that someone can straight faced try and debate that an individual mechanic (which can have it's own inherent depth), has more depth than a web of systems. The web may be complex but the individual mechanics are simple, which allows the individual agents to devote just as much time and focus to them should they so wish, but means that the overall system has greater depth than the sum of it's parts.
EVE's systems do not step on each others toes, they work together in order to create a deeply engaging game.
On your comment about events stopping someone enjoying something for a moment in time in the game. That has nothing at all to do with depth and everything to do with an individuals personal preference. Some people would rather have less depth and more instant, on tap action. Some would prefer to have the chance of having a dynamic system potentially altering what they are doing at any given moment.
Regardless that has zero bearing on the depth a system or combination of systems can offer. As pointed out before I may find enjoyment from the myriad of ways that I can kick a can about in the air, prefer it to playing chess even. And yet my preference would have zero impact upon what depth chess does offer.
Perhaps you are putting your seeming dislike for everything non immediate and non single mechanic focused in the way?
Your initial premise is wrong though. You seem not to understand how mechanics conflict with one another.
Your "inserting Chess into another game" example is perfect for illustrating this. If you insert Chess into EVE it's not going to be isolated from the game's other mechanics. In fact that's your premise for why the game is deeper.
But what happens when Chess can be played 5v1, or when you can craft better pieces? Almost all depth to Chess would be destroyed!
So yes, inserting Chess into a game world would make it less deep.
Replace Chess with "combat" and that's exactly what EVE already did to itself.
Between that and your describing games like League of Legends or Starcraft 2 as "one mechanic", you really don't seem to have a good grasp on game depth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Games are "dumbing down" because as their popularity has grown the gaming population has gotten dumber.
Face it, unlike yesteryear when games were focused on a very specific "gamer" group, now, they have to present games that are accessible to a larger cross section of the general population. And as the gaming population has increased the more it reflects the general population.
As the general population playing has increased, so has the level of "dumbosity" due to a corresponding increase in morons who are participating.
It's not hard to figure out. There are a lot more idiots than smart people in the world. The morons are just gaining as a percentage of the gaming population as developers provide more paste-eater friendly content. I expect this trend will continue until MMO populations more accurately reflect real world populations.
MMO's are a microcosm of humanity and from that perspective, I don't hold out much hope for mankind.
Your initial premise is wrong though. You seem not to understand how mechanics conflict with one another.
Your "inserting Chess into another game" example is perfect for illustrating this. If you insert Chess into EVE it's not going to be isolated from the game's other mechanics. In fact that's your premise for why the game is deeper.
But what happens when Chess can be played 5v1, or when you can craft better pieces? Almost all depth to Chess would be destroyed!
So yes, inserting Chess into a game world would make it less deep.
Replace Chess with "combat" and that's exactly what EVE already did to itself.
Between that and your describing games like League of Legends or Starcraft 2 as "one mechanic", you really don't seem to have a good grasp on game depth.
My premise is far from wrong, you just seem unable to grasp the point being made.
If you insert chess into a world simulation, you have two players within that world playing chess. If someone else barges in than the chess game ends. But whilst it is being played, there is zero loss of any depth of the game of chess whatsoever. If you think otherwise that simply beggars belief and I would have to assume you must be trolling because I would not take you for being so stupid.
You don't suddenly get 5v1 playing chess in the world, you either have 1v1 or no chess at all. Being part of a greater system does not impact upon that. Or wait are you confusing the fact that you might not be able to do exactly what you want, to exactly who you want, at exactly the time you want with a lack for depth? Because if you are you have zero understanding as to what depth is. You are either playgin chess or you are not, there is no 5v1 at all. You are either getting small scale pvp or you are not. You are either getting large scale pvp or you are not. But they all can and do happen and they all in the long game intertwine.
EVE has done nothing to itself beyond creating a game whose depth you clearly don't understand.
You can have paired down, interesting combat and have that included within a game world in which said combat then has repercussions upon mechanics and elements outside of the immediate combat itself. That in turn does not then suddenly reduce the depth of the combat in and of itself. That should be prefectly clear.
That you cannot utilise the mechanic you want, in exactly the way you want, exactly when you want does not reduce the depth of the mechanic. The mechanic is exactly the same, what alters is your personal fun factor which is unique to the individual and has absolutely fuck all whatsoever to do with depth. Let me reiterate, it has nothing at all to do with depth. You may not like the fact that you can't have (say) small scale, equally matched pvp as and when you want, but when it occurs it has exactly the same depth, moreover others will relish the depth it ADDS to the game world in genereal.
Let's say it again, personal preference makes no impact whatsoever on depth.
LoL and SC2 have one mechanic in the sense that it is immediate based pvp. Just like Chess has one mechanic in that it is Chess tactics being utilized by two opponents. There may be tactics and nuances within that but it is still one overarching mechanic. An mmorpg/world sim has multiple mechanics, each with their own depths and nuances.
But seriously 5v1 chess, how the fuck did you arrive at that, it is a terrible analogy which makes zero sense whatsoever. You could play chess in the real world and if some maniac suddenly burst in and smashed up your chess board, the "depth" of chess would be somewhat reduced. And yet that would mean (in your weird logic) that playing chess in the real world somehow reduces the depth of chess because there is always the slim chance of outside interference.
You can have simple games/systems which generate more depth than games which badly fubar a load of complex systems together. But if you are seriously arguing that the depth of a larger scale system which combines multiple mechanics done well (a single mechanic game done badly is just as shite as a world sim done badly) is less than a single mechanic system "because A and B conflicts", then that really is a piss poor argument indeed.
If your argument is "but when it's done badly" then that also falls into the same piss poor catagory. All games are rubbish when done badly.
If your argument is that you can't do what you want exactly when you want, all of the time, again that is a piss poor argument and has nothing to do with depth.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
MMORPG's do not have to go off the deep end in world simulation, but they should allow players to control their own characters. Freedom.
If you have a haunted dungeon or haunted house, it is enough to plant it somewhere and allow the players to approach it or tackle it on their own terms. There is absolutely no need to have cutscenes, phased gameplay, and onrails scenes acted out, which amounts to heavy-duty handholding and control.
That word "control"; there it is. Maybe this is what's been going on these past few years.
If you were to go to an amusment park, would you rather be handed a map and allowed to roam freely, or would you want a forced guided tour, seeing only the rides the park management wants you to see, and when they want you to see them? This is sort of what the fight over MMORPG design has come down to.
Cutscenes, phased gameplay and scripted events are good ways to communicate stories. I find they add spice and interests to the game.
Freedom is relative. If there are 10000 scripted quests .. but you can choose to do them in any order, is that enough freedom?
And some control is good. I would never want a FFA PvP game, nor one that allows any number of players to fight a boss (better to have 5 man instance where the encounter is designed for the group).
It is just a matter of degree, and a matter of what is a good gaming experience.
The problem with "telling a story" is it can feel contrived and canned. You know every alt is going to go through that "story" or "cutscene" or whatever and things lose their dynamic, spontaneous feel.
That is where the "skip" button comes in. You see the story the first time .. great .. second time .. skip. If it incrases the enjoyment of the first run-through, i don't see a problem. In fact, it is better than killing random mob (like back in EQ) with no reason at all.
Sure, freedom is relative, and with the "10,000" scripted quests, it sure would help if you didn't have to do them in order; at least there would be some semblance of freedom, like pre-WOTLK WOW had and post-Cata WOW had lost.
I too, would never want an FFA PVP game, although there is a definite niche who would. I do feel there is a very large group who want a free range PVE fantasy MMORPG; the forums are indicative of this. And I do realize that linear WOW clones are popping up and falling off like crazy, so those cannot be the answer; maybe not for anyone.
Early EQ1 had the world feel done pretty well, and early WOW to a lesser degree (all consideration of polish and graphical differences aside). Always felt EQ1 (early EQ1) was a "world", and you were not stuck leveling on rails; you could head off to a different continent (if you could surive the journey) and find level-appropriate adventuring areas.
That i would disagree. EQ1 is HORRIBLE. There is no reason to kill mobs but to level. And the world is static ... you know where EACH spawn is going to come out and 100 people are lining up to kill it. Secondly, while you do have some freedom, you are forced to do the game zone by zone because of optimal leveling.
I don't see less freedom in WOW. IN fact, there are more freedom in WOW because you can choose what quests to do .. or not at all.
Not to mention combat is 10x more fun in WOW than in EQ, and you can actualy run a dungeon with a group, instead of camping with 50 others and take a number.
No offense, but that last part is a little bit scary, because you'd fit right in with the teams of some of these recent "splash and crash" WOW clones (really TERA clones). I have read a lot of your posts and most of them seem to favor taking away control from the players and keeping it firmly in the hands of developers who design games almost like interactive movies.
All of these forum back and forth arguments really seem to boil down to one thing: player freedom. Do the devs allow players to wander off the beaten path, or should the players be kept on it (really trapped) by invisible walls, with no progress allowed unless they do a trivial quest for the NPC who is blocking the path?
The whole point of a fantasy MMORPG (and fantasy literature) is escapism, which translates to "freedom to" (i.e., to choose one's own direction) and "freedom from" (i.e., free from artificial hassles, control and petty concerns, but not free from obstacles or challenges, of course).
The lure of the Conan novels, for example, is the idea that you have your cloak, sword, boots, basic clothes, and you can set off for adventure in any direction. Want to travel to Southern Kush? You walk south if you like. To Hyrkania in the East? Why not. Want to dabble in the politics of the Border Kingdoms? Fine, head down there if you want and maybe sell your sword as a mercenary for hire.
Same thing with Middle Earth. Invite your friends over to your Hobbit hovel for bear and biscuits, then hash out a plan to head off into the mountains or the Misty Forest and go explore, maybe stumble across a dungeon or an Elven encampment, even.
FREEDOM is what you ought to consider designing into your games. When devs invoke too much control or hand-holding, THEY are playing the game, not the players.
The only time I really suggest taking player control away is where it creates denser or more interesting player decisions (but those decisions, of course, are player control!)
Freedom is important. Complete freedom isn't. If complete freedom was what people were after, they wouldn't even play a game; they'd code or draw or write music. They wouldn't read about or visit Southern Kush (which they didn't make and they can't control), they'd imagine their own continent and write or draw or code it -- note that these activities aren't games.
Games by definition involve only partial player control; partial freedom. This is necessary for them to actually be games.
None of that argues for an on-rails experience though (although players are prone to massive overexaggeration regarding whether an experience is truly on rails.)
You can still have themeparks like Skyrim where things are completely open (despite everything being a developer-created ride that you have no influence over.) The reason you don't see MMORPGs chase after that style is they have a competing desire to be progression games -- but as MMOs and RPGs, they can't implement completely freeform open world wandering (not without making substantial sacrifices to progression quality.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My premise is far from wrong, you just seem unable to grasp the point being made.
If you insert chess into a world simulation, you have two players within that world playing chess. If someone else barges in than the chess game ends. But whilst it is being played, there is zero loss of any depth of the game of chess whatsoever. If you think otherwise that simply beggars belief and I would have to assume you must be trolling because I would not take you for being so stupid.
You don't suddenly get 5v1 playing chess in the world, you either have 1v1 or no chess at all. Being part of a greater system does not impact upon that. Or wait are you confusing the fact that you might not be able to do exactly what you want, to exactly who you want, at exactly the time you want with a lack for depth? Because if you are you have zero understanding as to what depth is. You are either playgin chess or you are not, there is no 5v1 at all. You are either getting small scale pvp or you are not. You are either getting large scale pvp or you are not. But they all can and do happen and they all in the long game intertwine.
EVE has done nothing to itself beyond creating a game whose depth you clearly don't understand.
You can have paired down, interesting combat and have that included within a game world in which said combat then has repercussions upon mechanics and elements outside of the immediate combat itself. That in turn does not then suddenly reduce the depth of the combat in and of itself. That should be prefectly clear.
That you cannot utilise the mechanic you want, in exactly the way you want, exactly when you want does not reduce the depth of the mechanic. The mechanic is exactly the same, what alters is your personal fun factor which is unique to the individual and has absolutely fuck all whatsoever to do with depth. Let me reiterate, it has nothing at all to do with depth. You may not like the fact that you can't have (say) small scale, equally matched pvp as and when you want, but when it occurs it has exactly the same depth, moreover others will relish the depth it ADDS to the game world in genereal.
Let's say it again, personal preference makes no impact whatsoever on depth.
LoL and SC2 have one mechanic in the sense that it is immediate based pvp. Just like Chess has one mechanic in that it is Chess tactics being utilized by two opponents. There may be tactics and nuances within that but it is still one overarching mechanic. An mmorpg/world sim has multiple mechanics, each with their own depths and nuances.
But seriously 5v1 chess, how the fuck did you arrive at that, it is a terrible analogy which makes zero sense whatsoever. You could play chess in the real world and if some maniac suddenly burst in and smashed up your chess board, the "depth" of chess would be somewhat reduced. And yet that would mean (in your weird logic) that playing chess in the real world somehow reduces the depth of chess because there is always the slim chance of outside interference.
You can have simple games/systems which generate more depth than games which badly fubar a load of complex systems together. But if you are seriously arguing that the depth of a larger scale system which combines multiple mechanics done well (a single mechanic game done badly is just as shite as a world sim done badly) is less than a single mechanic system "because A and B conflicts", then that really is a piss poor argument indeed.
If your argument is "but when it's done badly" then that also falls into the same piss poor catagory. All games are rubbish when done badly.
If your argument is that you can't do what you want exactly when you want, all of the time, again that is a piss poor argument and has nothing to do with depth.
The problem is your premise was that multiple mechanics together create depth. So yes, we're talking about 5v1 Chess, because we're talking about Chess existing amongstother mechanics, not isolated from them.
Where did I come up with 5v1 Chess?
Chess is a game of competitive combat
EVE has combat.
EVE allows its combat to be completely predetermined (utterly irrelevant and shallow) by non-combat systems, because it's amongst other mechanics, not isolated from them.
So 5v1 Chess is basically what's happening in the combat game inside of EVE.
Isolated (1v1 chess), it's deep.
Mixed in with other mechanics (5v1 chess), the depth is overwritten.
Simple enough, right?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem is your premise was that multiple mechanics together create depth. So yes, we're talking about 5v1 Chess, because we're talking about Chess existing amongstother mechanics, not isolated from them.
Where did I come up with 5v1 Chess?
Chess is a "combat" game.
MMORPGs like EVE have combat.
EVE allows non-combat influences to completely pre-determine its combat. (ie 5v1 fights)
So 5v1 Chess is basically what's happening in the combat game inside of EVE.
Isolated (1v1 chess), it's deep.
Mixed in with other mechanics (5v1 chess), the depth is overwritten.
Simple enough, right?
The premise is indeed simple and yet you are still getting it wrong somehow, God knows how. The mechanics intertwine, but at the fundamental level the base mechanics are the same, it is the comination of them which creates the added depth.
Playing 5v1 chess as a demonstration of interrelated mechanics is a complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps I should give you a more basic analogy?
Imagine a game of chess with two protagonists. Now imagine a game of chess whose outcome decides a wager, said wager influences which person becomes the sole owner of a company. Said company then goes on to dominate it's market. The company becomes a strong lobbying leader, influencing local politics, and so on and so forth.
There is no 5 fucking people playing the game of chess, the chess remains the same and yet it leads to events which are far beyond the scope of the single game of chess that occured.
Grasp it yet?
You can indeed have 1 v 1 or 5 v 5 battles in EVE. You can and could set up restrictions on items, ships and character skills in said conflict. If you take the time to organise it. The fundamental depth of each individual mechanic is not lost, at all. Your issue seems to be you cannot necessarily get exactly what you want all of the time, without organising it. That may suck for you as a player if that is your preference, yet it does not reduce the depth at all.
If more players move into smaller scale combat it evolves dynamically, at first you had small scale combat with all it's depth, then you get larger scale combat and the whole mechanics shift to something else with a different type of depth. There is no loss of depth, just an evolution via a dynamic/fluid process.
But seriously, you are trying to suggest that a single isolated, closed off mechanic can have more depth than a global macro scale system which has a complex web of mechanics and dynamically interacting agents? You must be out of your tree.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
That word "control"; there it is. Maybe this is what's been going on these past few years.
Yep, anti-freedom. Why? Because a hand-holding themepark environment produces a single player experience in an online game that also prevents software piracy, an issue that plagues SP publication.
These aren't MMOs for MMORPG gamers. They're MMOs for SP and coop gamers. But since you must have to have an account and server access to play, you can't play an unlicensed copy.
That's my take on the MMORPG / SPRPG hybrids that we're seeing so many of.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
The premise is indeed simple and yet you are still getting it wrong somehow, God knows how. The mechanics intertwine, but at the fundamental level the base mechanics are the same, it is the comination of them which creates the added depth.
Here. It's simple:
I add a new mechanic to EVE: Paper, Rock, Scissors.
You can challenge any player to R/P/S to instantly kill them. Permanently. No respawn. Buy a new account.
You can win any territory by winning R/P/S.
You can earn 100 billion ISK instantly by winning R/P/S (you lose nothing for losing.)
I'm saying that that would make EVE ultra shallow.
You're saying it wouldn't. I guess because you feel additional game mechanics only ever increase a game's depth?
But that's ridiculous. The mechanics exist in the same space. They influence one another. If one mechanic overwhelms the other, it can reduce the overall game depth. Which is exactly what occurs in a game like EVE (less extreme than my example, but there's still a lot of depth cannibalization.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Seriously though, you are adding RPS and then intentionally adding a non dynamic reward system that is created specifically in order to destroy any meta game. And you are using that as some kind of valid argument? Really?
You will note in the chess analogy the players made a wager. You will also not that there are never any mechanics which suddenly kill your account and give all your territory to another player. Again perhaps you are having issue seeing out side of the immediate and cannot see the longer, meta game?
[mod edit]
You're completely ridiculous.
You're pretending mechanics can't cannibalize the depth of other mechanics. My examples have proven they can.
You're closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and going "la-la-la" with the "dynamic rewards" bit, despite the fact that my example would still cannibalize depth if tie games of R/P/S only result in 1 million ISK earned.
You ignore reality with your Chess wager scenario, which has nothing to do with the reality of EVE where the depth of "chess" (Combat) is margalized by outside game systems (the ability to bring multiple players to a single chess match, and the ability to bring better pieces to the chess match.) It's a simpler, less extreme, but real-world scenario of my R/P/S example of depth cannibalization.
[mod edit] Mechanics are capable of cannibalizing overall game depth. This is a fact of game design, and I've illustrated it through several examples, both real and extreme. It's a painfully obvious and simple fact of game design, but if you're incapable of seeing it there's no point in wasting my time further trying to educate you.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I agree on the surface. The first game I remember playing, in '85, is Joust for Atari. Simple game, simple controller, yet incredibly complex when considering timing, especially when versus another player(my mom or dad mostly, both of whom can still beat me almost half the time- we still have all our old game systems). I remember when the number of actions given the player to overcome the computer was incredibly small- Run and Jump, and WHOA! FIREBALL! ANd the Tanooki suit? Fuggeddaboutit! Games by and large have lost their simplicity, and I sorta miss that.
Comments
There is no conflict between A and B. A world simulator/mmorpg is merely a space where numerous components come together and interact with one another. They do not have to try and exactly mimmic the actual real world we live in, just approximate a dynamic environment in which individual agents doing their own little thing, all intertwine to create a greater system.
There are far, far, far more interesting decisions in an open world than in a game focused on non connected, single mechanics. There is nothing stopping players enjoying a simple combat interface and pvp in a world simulator, yet they can also enjoy the knock on effect that pvp is having in the world space (should they so wish). The same goes for all the other systems.
The point about not being able to compare chess to an mmorpg, but more to a moba and the world analogy should be quite clear. Chess has depth in one element. A moba derives depth through one element. An morpg/world simulatore derives depth through the combination of many elements. How that is not clear I am unsure. A world simulator/mmorpg has vastly more depth because it not only contain enclosed elements/mechanics which each generate their own depth, but these elements/mechanics also interconnect to create even more depth. Pretty obvious really.
Pre set arenas have nothing like the depth a world simulator/mmorpg can have. Yet they do indeed have depth in terms of the specific mechanics that they employ. You can be absorbed by and fps (or the fps genre) for years (I know I have), built on very simple mechanics. As someone who is grounded in fps/rts/mobas/e-sports in general I fully understand that and that is why I have pointed out previously that your notion that simplicity can lead to depth is correct. And yet, there is no camparison to an mmorpg/world simulator. Freedom, intertwining options and dynamism drive depth. The latter type of games clearly have far more than the former.
EVE is not meant to be just a space combat arena game, perhaps the fact that you seem to view and compare every single game, regardless of genre, to an arean based e-sport is the problem you are having. Not everything needs to be faster pussy cat kill kill twitch, in order to be A) Fun or
Deep. Furthermore, not everything that is not instant action pew pew is merely a timesink with no purpose.
Arena games are great if you only want to consider the exact here and now. World simulators allow you consider the here and now and the consequences that might have not only in other areas in the here and now, but also in the future. There is far more depth to be derived from that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Combat can be both in the immediate term and in the future term. A game like chess or an arena game only has the former, an mmorpg (should) have both the former and the latter and as such more depth.
The point is an mmorpg/world simulator should have pvp combat depth as well as depth from a myriad of other mechanics all dynamically interacting with one another. A simplistic combat system and greater world depth are not mutuallly exclusive.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It has mostly to do with making your products attractive to wider audience, by making them simpler to understand and enjoy by many not few. However it usually happens at the cost of complexity and often features which brought gamers to your franchise on the first place. It happens to many games not only MMORPGs, my late favorite is BF franchise and EA/DICE squeezing it out for an extra dollar.
+1
Having come from a time when there was no home computing, or online gaming, and remembering playing outside more than I messed with my Nintendo or Atari 2600. I can remember going to arcades to get my game fix on. Its not that games have gotten simpler, the gamer has just changed. Back in the 80s, games were mostly 4 to 8 bit programs, few were 16bit. They couldnt handle the complexities of modern games. They seemed more difficult not because they were, but because we werent as experienced as gamers, bugs in the games were often accepted as status quo. Personally I fee that todays gamer is to blame on why games are dumbing down. Most gamers now are more able to get games, and play games. Unlike back in the 80s and 90s when computer games and console games were only played by geeky kids who couldnt do it in real life and had no real friends. Most game companies are creating games to favor those players. MMO market is flooded with mindless simple, "casual" games, played by casual gamers. These people are people who most likely 20 years ago wouldnt have came near a computer unless it was work related. It is more socially accepted to be a gamer, look at our TV and movies, comic book heros are mainstream, electronic gaming conventions are broadcast and followed by the major news groups around the world, there is even television channels dedicated to just electronic gaming, G4TV and the like. Places like Youtube, Hulu and Facebook are helping gamers stay at home and still connect with the millions if not billions of others like them. Gamers now are the new "jock" in the US culture. I can remember when athletes used to make fun of people who played console sports games, now they play them themselves. Welcome to the new era, where people who played Ultima Online are the trailblazers of the new MMO market, the Lewis & Clark of sorts. Those of us who beta tested Starcraft (the original) are like the D-Day vets of gaming. We remember when games with a ping of 200ms was considered GOOD.
So much crap, so little quality.
No one posting here would seriously think that their posts would have any effect on the industry. So what if the game he likes is never in danger. It is never about moving the devs.
It is always about having fun on forums.
Why should it? The most successful MMOs have combat depth and focus on it. Many successful SP & MP games focuses on tactical depth. It is a matter of preference.
Notice you are saying "MMO" and I am talking about MMORPG/world simulators. An MMO could simply be a massive shoot em up. There is a clear difference and there is also a clear reason why the latter should combine both immediate pvp and longer term potential.
Also note that a game which provides both allows the player to decide and play what his/her preference is, a game offering only the former allows for no such choice.
Successful SP and small scale MP games do indeed only focus on one mechanic, but then I have already touched on the stark difference between such games in previous posts.
I'm not quite sure what the argument is, it seems people are arguing AGAINST having choice within an environment, or somehow think that by combining mechanics it is impossible to have elegant, immediate combat. The first part is daft, the second part is simply false.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
There are always design decisions where A and B are in conflict, you're just choosing to only focus on (or you're only aware of) the design decisions where both goals are simultaneously possible.
In the case of world combat, there are things preventing a player from enjoying combat depth there -- my EVE point is one such example.
Chess having depth in "one element" doesn't affect the overall magnitude of depth (in fact, the focus allows the game to be deeper, as pointed out in my EVE example.)
This depth-through-focus actually addresses all your remaining points too. (Except the abberant comment about "twitch" which is irrelevant since many turn-based games also have superior depth to a sprawling mess like EVE.) In EVE's case, it's own systems step on each others' toes and reduce the overall potential depth the game could have.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And of course the trade-off is dev resources. Even a company like Blizz cannot pump out content as fast as it wants. So resource is a constraint.
I am not against choices. More choices are obviously better. However, given resource constraint, i would much rather a game focus on what it is good at .. and often that is combat depth/gameplay ... then trying to do many other things without succeeding.
An environment which combines multiple depth creating mechanics to not only generate depth from the set mechanics but from the cross combination of the mechanics has more depth and scope than an individual mechanic on it's own.
Combining mechanics does not neccessitate an exponential increase in the complexity or decrease in the inherent depth of each and every mechanic.
You can "focus" on one indivual mechanic within a global system as much as you would should the mechanic be stood alone. Playing chess within a simulated world for example would not magically make the game of chess within said world less deep.
It is quite frankly amazing that someone can straight faced try and debate that an individual mechanic (which can have it's own inherent depth), has more depth than a web of systems. The web may be complex but the individual mechanics are simple, which allows the individual agents to devote just as much time and focus to them should they so wish, but means that the overall system has greater depth than the sum of it's parts.
EVE's systems do not step on each others toes, they work together in order to create a deeply engaging game.
EDIT:
On your comment about events stopping someone enjoying something for a moment in time in the game. That has nothing at all to do with depth and everything to do with an individuals personal preference. Some people would rather have less depth and more instant, on tap action. Some would prefer to have the chance of having a dynamic system potentially altering what they are doing at any given moment.
Regardless that has zero bearing on the depth a system or combination of systems can offer. As pointed out before I may find enjoyment from the myriad of ways that I can kick a can about in the air, prefer it to playing chess even. And yet my preference would have zero impact upon what depth chess does offer.
Perhaps you are putting your seeming dislike for everything non immediate and non single mechanic focused in the way?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I'd also rather the dev team stuck to what it knows and I am in no way advocating that each and every game should be some form of world simulator which tries to be everything to all people. I love games created for specific things just as much (if not more) than world simulators and traditional mmorpgs.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Cutscenes, phased gameplay and scripted events are good ways to communicate stories. I find they add spice and interests to the game.
Freedom is relative. If there are 10000 scripted quests .. but you can choose to do them in any order, is that enough freedom?
And some control is good. I would never want a FFA PvP game, nor one that allows any number of players to fight a boss (better to have 5 man instance where the encounter is designed for the group).
It is just a matter of degree, and a matter of what is a good gaming experience.
Your initial premise is wrong though. You seem not to understand how mechanics conflict with one another.
Your "inserting Chess into another game" example is perfect for illustrating this. If you insert Chess into EVE it's not going to be isolated from the game's other mechanics. In fact that's your premise for why the game is deeper.
But what happens when Chess can be played 5v1, or when you can craft better pieces? Almost all depth to Chess would be destroyed!
So yes, inserting Chess into a game world would make it less deep.
Replace Chess with "combat" and that's exactly what EVE already did to itself.
Between that and your describing games like League of Legends or Starcraft 2 as "one mechanic", you really don't seem to have a good grasp on game depth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Games are "dumbing down" because as their popularity has grown the gaming population has gotten dumber.
Face it, unlike yesteryear when games were focused on a very specific "gamer" group, now, they have to present games that are accessible to a larger cross section of the general population. And as the gaming population has increased the more it reflects the general population.
As the general population playing has increased, so has the level of "dumbosity" due to a corresponding increase in morons who are participating.
It's not hard to figure out. There are a lot more idiots than smart people in the world. The morons are just gaining as a percentage of the gaming population as developers provide more paste-eater friendly content. I expect this trend will continue until MMO populations more accurately reflect real world populations.
MMO's are a microcosm of humanity and from that perspective, I don't hold out much hope for mankind.
My premise is far from wrong, you just seem unable to grasp the point being made.
If you insert chess into a world simulation, you have two players within that world playing chess. If someone else barges in than the chess game ends. But whilst it is being played, there is zero loss of any depth of the game of chess whatsoever. If you think otherwise that simply beggars belief and I would have to assume you must be trolling because I would not take you for being so stupid.
You don't suddenly get 5v1 playing chess in the world, you either have 1v1 or no chess at all. Being part of a greater system does not impact upon that. Or wait are you confusing the fact that you might not be able to do exactly what you want, to exactly who you want, at exactly the time you want with a lack for depth? Because if you are you have zero understanding as to what depth is. You are either playgin chess or you are not, there is no 5v1 at all. You are either getting small scale pvp or you are not. You are either getting large scale pvp or you are not. But they all can and do happen and they all in the long game intertwine.
EVE has done nothing to itself beyond creating a game whose depth you clearly don't understand.
You can have paired down, interesting combat and have that included within a game world in which said combat then has repercussions upon mechanics and elements outside of the immediate combat itself. That in turn does not then suddenly reduce the depth of the combat in and of itself. That should be prefectly clear.
That you cannot utilise the mechanic you want, in exactly the way you want, exactly when you want does not reduce the depth of the mechanic. The mechanic is exactly the same, what alters is your personal fun factor which is unique to the individual and has absolutely fuck all whatsoever to do with depth. Let me reiterate, it has nothing at all to do with depth. You may not like the fact that you can't have (say) small scale, equally matched pvp as and when you want, but when it occurs it has exactly the same depth, moreover others will relish the depth it ADDS to the game world in genereal.
Let's say it again, personal preference makes no impact whatsoever on depth.
LoL and SC2 have one mechanic in the sense that it is immediate based pvp. Just like Chess has one mechanic in that it is Chess tactics being utilized by two opponents. There may be tactics and nuances within that but it is still one overarching mechanic. An mmorpg/world sim has multiple mechanics, each with their own depths and nuances.
But seriously 5v1 chess, how the fuck did you arrive at that, it is a terrible analogy which makes zero sense whatsoever. You could play chess in the real world and if some maniac suddenly burst in and smashed up your chess board, the "depth" of chess would be somewhat reduced. And yet that would mean (in your weird logic) that playing chess in the real world somehow reduces the depth of chess because there is always the slim chance of outside interference.
You can have simple games/systems which generate more depth than games which badly fubar a load of complex systems together. But if you are seriously arguing that the depth of a larger scale system which combines multiple mechanics done well (a single mechanic game done badly is just as shite as a world sim done badly) is less than a single mechanic system "because A and B conflicts", then that really is a piss poor argument indeed.
If your argument is "but when it's done badly" then that also falls into the same piss poor catagory. All games are rubbish when done badly.
If your argument is that you can't do what you want exactly when you want, all of the time, again that is a piss poor argument and has nothing to do with depth.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The only time I really suggest taking player control away is where it creates denser or more interesting player decisions (but those decisions, of course, are player control!)
Freedom is important. Complete freedom isn't. If complete freedom was what people were after, they wouldn't even play a game; they'd code or draw or write music. They wouldn't read about or visit Southern Kush (which they didn't make and they can't control), they'd imagine their own continent and write or draw or code it -- note that these activities aren't games.
Games by definition involve only partial player control; partial freedom. This is necessary for them to actually be games.
None of that argues for an on-rails experience though (although players are prone to massive overexaggeration regarding whether an experience is truly on rails.)
You can still have themeparks like Skyrim where things are completely open (despite everything being a developer-created ride that you have no influence over.) The reason you don't see MMORPGs chase after that style is they have a competing desire to be progression games -- but as MMOs and RPGs, they can't implement completely freeform open world wandering (not without making substantial sacrifices to progression quality.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem is your premise was that multiple mechanics together create depth. So yes, we're talking about 5v1 Chess, because we're talking about Chess existing amongst other mechanics, not isolated from them.
Where did I come up with 5v1 Chess?
Isolated (1v1 chess), it's deep.
Mixed in with other mechanics (5v1 chess), the depth is overwritten.
Simple enough, right?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The premise is indeed simple and yet you are still getting it wrong somehow, God knows how. The mechanics intertwine, but at the fundamental level the base mechanics are the same, it is the comination of them which creates the added depth.
Playing 5v1 chess as a demonstration of interrelated mechanics is a complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps I should give you a more basic analogy?
Imagine a game of chess with two protagonists. Now imagine a game of chess whose outcome decides a wager, said wager influences which person becomes the sole owner of a company. Said company then goes on to dominate it's market. The company becomes a strong lobbying leader, influencing local politics, and so on and so forth.
There is no 5 fucking people playing the game of chess, the chess remains the same and yet it leads to events which are far beyond the scope of the single game of chess that occured.
Grasp it yet?
You can indeed have 1 v 1 or 5 v 5 battles in EVE. You can and could set up restrictions on items, ships and character skills in said conflict. If you take the time to organise it. The fundamental depth of each individual mechanic is not lost, at all. Your issue seems to be you cannot necessarily get exactly what you want all of the time, without organising it. That may suck for you as a player if that is your preference, yet it does not reduce the depth at all.
If more players move into smaller scale combat it evolves dynamically, at first you had small scale combat with all it's depth, then you get larger scale combat and the whole mechanics shift to something else with a different type of depth. There is no loss of depth, just an evolution via a dynamic/fluid process.
But seriously, you are trying to suggest that a single isolated, closed off mechanic can have more depth than a global macro scale system which has a complex web of mechanics and dynamically interacting agents? You must be out of your tree.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Yep, anti-freedom. Why? Because a hand-holding themepark environment produces a single player experience in an online game that also prevents software piracy, an issue that plagues SP publication.
These aren't MMOs for MMORPG gamers. They're MMOs for SP and coop gamers. But since you must have to have an account and server access to play, you can't play an unlicensed copy.
That's my take on the MMORPG / SPRPG hybrids that we're seeing so many of.
Here. It's simple:
"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 got to read these last few pages when I get an hour to myself where I'm not falling asleep or drunk.
Noteworthy stuff.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
You're completely ridiculous.
You're pretending mechanics can't cannibalize the depth of other mechanics. My examples have proven they can.
You're closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and going "la-la-la" with the "dynamic rewards" bit, despite the fact that my example would still cannibalize depth if tie games of R/P/S only result in 1 million ISK earned.
You ignore reality with your Chess wager scenario, which has nothing to do with the reality of EVE where the depth of "chess" (Combat) is margalized by outside game systems (the ability to bring multiple players to a single chess match, and the ability to bring better pieces to the chess match.) It's a simpler, less extreme, but real-world scenario of my R/P/S example of depth cannibalization.
[mod edit] Mechanics are capable of cannibalizing overall game depth. This is a fact of game design, and I've illustrated it through several examples, both real and extreme. It's a painfully obvious and simple fact of game design, but if you're incapable of seeing it there's no point in wasting my time further trying to educate you.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I agree on the surface. The first game I remember playing, in '85, is Joust for Atari. Simple game, simple controller, yet incredibly complex when considering timing, especially when versus another player(my mom or dad mostly, both of whom can still beat me almost half the time- we still have all our old game systems). I remember when the number of actions given the player to overcome the computer was incredibly small- Run and Jump, and WHOA! FIREBALL! ANd the Tanooki suit? Fuggeddaboutit! Games by and large have lost their simplicity, and I sorta miss that.
Anything new here? Hmmm... Nope. o/