Is longevity even a merit? Or is there something abusive about how the early MMOs hung on to their players tooth and claw and skinnerbox.
I am honestly not looking for longevity (playtime of 6 months plus) in a game anymore, at least not as a top priority. I'll take an MMO I enjoy a lot for 3 months over one I somewhat enjoy for a year.
Well when you are constantly fed dumbed down theme park mmos ofcourse players want something different. Who wants to eat the same meal everyday ?
Madden sells every year.
COD sells whenever a new one comes out. Ditto for Halo. Ditto for GOW. Top 10 selling video games are mostly sequals. I don't know how one can make the case that players want something different. They are obviously paying for similar experiences.
Is longevity even a merit? Or is there something abusive about how the early MMOs hung on to their players tooth and claw and skinnerbox.
I am honestly not looking for longevity (playtime of 6 months plus) in a game anymore, at least not as a top priority. I'll take an MMO I enjoy a lot for 3 months over one I somewhat enjoy for a year.
I would argue not. A fun 10 hour experence is much better than a 1000 hours boring one. It is the quality of the time that matters, not duration.
Personally, i don't really care about the length of a game. Like you said, a very enjoyable 3 months beat somewhat enjoyable for a year.
Very strange debate. Players want different things, that way it has alwasy been and always will be. Whether a majority of players are diverging in a particular direction is hard to prove.
Can you measure depth and how do you compare the depth of modern games to old ones?
Reification is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity.
We talk about these abstracts "difficulty" "complexity" "depth" as if they are something we can measure, in a not-subjective fashion.
I know. If he could measure depth he could back his argument that old games had more of it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
If I had penny for each : "Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.
Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.
Unfortunately only "complex" MMO games today are either rhutless PVP oriented (like EVE) or below todays standards (either too old or made by low budget indy developers)
When will developers understand this? Make a game that challenges player. That you have to research online. Ask people for help. Figure out things.
Not just grind on autopilot with straight line road ahead of you...
So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame
MMOs should be like Chess: Easy to learn, very hard to master. Making them too complex is a misstake just like making them too simple.
The perfect MMO should seem really simple the first few days you play but become more and more advance as you play with background mechanics and a AI that will take you time to understand fully.
However people seems to assume that "complex" is having many skills and attacks instead of things like tactics and wits.
What do players want? Compare League of Legends player base to Eve Online's player base. Simple game vs complex game. Now LoL doesn't have a subscription but it still has a 32 million strong player base. Eve's subscriber total is around 360 thousand. I love complexity in a game but... haven't we all heard the jokes about Eve's learning curve? I usually get about halfway up that learning curve before the game starts feeling like my job and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay a subscription to do work.
It would be perfect if there was a game with Eve's learning curve but it was invisible to the player, so that the player was learning but they were having so much fun they didn't know they were moving up the learning curve.
You could say that as League of Legends adds new strategies and game mechanics to new heroes that increases the complexity of the game sessions but that only goes so far.
Players want to have fun without having to think about thinking too much. If you make the thinking part fun then it slips under the radar.
= "Hmm... sorry boss but we have a tiny problem with our game... it's dieing!!"
= "But my daughter want to go to college so bad, how am I gonna...(muted)"
Look at TSW for example, so many reviewers, bloggers and ordinary players hate it and call it "broken" due to the fact that you actually need to think, google, scream in despair and then "light bulb~" in order to play it. I remember in TotalBiscuit's beta review he claim that this game constantly caused him to overthink stuff and got stuck, but come on... THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS!! You ARE supposed to be wrong from time to time. TSW is a great game with some BIG problems for sure, but broken questing system is definitly not one of those. I guess people nowadays just don't need this kind of "adventure" after work then.
If you think older games had more longevity it may be also because
everything you did in those games simply took longer
novelty - the games were new at the time
Can you measure depth and how do you compare the depth of modern games to old ones?
It is about recognizing that one genre of gaming is more suited to a set of systems than another. That said set of systems generates longevity.
FPS/MOBAS/RTS/Sports games/card games etc are vastly superior to mmorpgs at offering single, dedicated mechanics/e-sports. They are also able to offer basic community features. They can produce longevity via providing a level of mechanical service mmorpgs thus far cannot, and by simply spinning out more of the same franchise, which mmorpgs thus far cannot. MMORPGS providing a toned down version of mechanics is not going to promote longevity.
You argument that some of the older games had longevity merely because "it took ages to do everything and they were new" and thus had no real depth, is an odd one. No doubt those factors did play a small part, but to say it had nothing to do with dynamic, interlinked world mechanics and communities just flies in the face of reality.
Many mmorpgs now remove the world simulation idea and thus remove and chance of depth from that. Modern mmos could no doubt improve upon it, improve upon that aspect of the older games but they simply remove it to the greater extent, ringfencing every mechanic off. Many of these mmorpgs try to take ideas and derive longevity from mechanics taken from other gaming genres, they simply can't do this very well for the main part as of yet. So why would players stick around.
Which leaves them with grinds.
I couldn't give a toss about the sandbox vs themepark or old vs new debate here. Everything has it's place, but the question is why do more recent mmorpgs seem to have less longevity. If they do indeed have less longevity, which seems to be the case, the reasons seem obvious. They remove any longevity from dynamic player interaction in complex world systems, and they merely badly mimic other gaming genres.
Can you derive depth from a complex game world... yes. Can you derive depth from single, simple mechanics... yes. The trouble is a great deal of more modern mmos remove the first option and have to compete with dedicated games for the second option. Hence the problem, hence the shiny grinds and hence the lack of longevity at the moment for the main part.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Can you measure depth and how do you compare the depth of modern games to old ones?
Reification is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity.
We talk about these abstracts "difficulty" "complexity" "depth" as if they are something we can measure, in a not-subjective fashion.
I know. If he could measure depth he could back his argument that old games had more of it.
I have posted reasons explaining why I believe certain systems and thus games generate depth/longevity depending upon the gaming genre. Perhaps you would care to actually attempt to debate the reasons instead of simply saying "hurr no proof" which is tantamount to what you are saying here.
The interesting part is you both seem to have missed the point. I have not said which form derives more depth, I have not said that complex systems immediately mean more depth than simple systems. I have not measured depth or complexity.
I have merely pointed out that one genre of gaming seems more suited to one from a system than another, that by erring away from these systems longevity is lost. That may not be an issue so long as the mmorpg genre catches up with the smaller scale, dedicated games and can actually match them at what they do AND if people only see the mmorpg genre as having the potential to be a carbon copy of said games. Others however feel the mmorpg genre offers something unique and feel that the lack of longevity stems from a switch in core system ethos.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Players want complexity, but complains when cannot keep up. In some cases certain designs are indeed tedious, but in most cases it is simply pointless complaints. There is simply no way a single MMORPG can fit everyone's idea of complexity, or even 10 MMORPG each with different complexity.
I don't mind complexity at all, in fact the more complex the system the better. The ones that make my brain think endlessly for hours even while not playing is a good sign that the game have got some depth. Of course, complexities that cripples the fluidity of gameplay can only be considered bad design. My general rule of thumb when testing out a game is to give it a good try, even if I don't find it that particularly interesting I'll still make sure I experience the key contents before deciding.
The problem is the mainstream gamers hates simple designs because it is boring, but they also cannot handle complex designs. It is one of those mouth vs. action thing (AKA hypocrisy), or in the cases of more casual gamers is that they do not have the time for complex designs which is understandable.
Complexity and depth are not always necessarily equal to each other in terms of MMO design. However, some degree of complexity must exist in order for the game to have depth. The current MMORPG community have fairly low tolerance for complex designs, and the tolerance level is so low that it is affecting depth. Devs often will pick up this trend when designing a game, and it is no coincidence that in recent years the MMORPG that came out were mostly shallow. Interaction between player and devs is like a cycle, both the player's and developer's attitude affects the outcome.
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
If I had penny for each : "Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.
Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.
Unfortunately only "complex" MMO games today are either rhutless PVP oriented (like EVE) or below todays standards (either too old or made by low budget indy developers)
When will developers understand this? Make a game that challenges player. That you have to research online. Ask people for help. Figure out things.
Not just grind on autopilot with straight line road ahead of you...
So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame
MMOs should be like Chess: Easy to learn, very hard to master. Making them too complex is a misstake just like making them too simple.
The perfect MMO should seem really simple the first few days you play but become more and more advance as you play with background mechanics and a AI that will take you time to understand fully.
However people seems to assume that "complex" is having many skills and attacks instead of things like tactics and wits.
LOke said it perfectly, Chess is a game everyone can play, all you had to do is learn how each piece moves and the basic rules of if your piece is where My piece lands, my piece takes over.
MMORPG doesn't need complex rules or complex game mechanics, make it simple but allow it room to expand into infinity if you wish.
Lets say, what If stats is only limited to STR and DEX and every level up you get a certain number of skill points to distribute.
But lets say that not only your character can be upgraded by the Skill PT, your weapon can also be upgraded by the skill pt, and the skill that you unlock by putting in your skill pt in the weapon can also be upgraded by the skill pt.
A simple mechanic becomes infinite complex because of the many path you can take.
Character : STR 3 DEX 3 ( used up 4 skill pts )
Weapon: Katana requires Character STR 1 to wield , Weapon STR 4 and DEX 4 unlocks skill Slash ( used up 8 skill pts)
Skill: Slash upgrads when DEX 3 is placed into Slash X ( used up 3 skill pts)
and another character might not like skill Slash, so they unlocked another skill that uses only STR3 and DEX3 , and decided not to upgrade the skill and just keep unlocking new ones.
A very simple mechanic that offers depth based on player choice, simple but not complicated.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
I have posted reasons explaining why I believe certain systems and thus games generate depth/longevity depending upon the gaming genre. Perhaps you would care to actually attempt to debate the reasons instead of simply saying "hurr no proof" which is tantamount to what you are saying here.
No...flail. Most people will easily agree that certain systems do promote depth better than others.
But most people would also agree which game is "deeper" is largely subjective. Judgement call.
Just like virtually every other call we make about games--what we like, what would please us to see more of in future releases. Not some magic Iwin button that will instantly make your game a hit if it's included.
I get that a lot from (obviously younger) people. "I won't buy any game that doesn't have X"!
Restricting yourself to a single feature that you believe has magic powers is good for the industry? Hell no, it leads to the Parade of Clones we're already seeing!
If we did receive a sudden Parade of Sandbox, for example (one design taking over virtually every new release)--also not good for the industry.
What this industry (and players?) needs is to stop looking for magic bullets.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
No...flail. Most people will easily agree that certain systems do promote depth better than others.
But most people would also agree which game is "deeper" is largely subjective. Judgement call.
Just like virtually every other call we make about games--what we like, what would please us to see more of in future releases. Not some magic Iwin button that will instantly make your game a hit if it's included.
I get that a lot from (obviously younger) people. "I won't buy any game that doesn't have X"!
Restricting yourself to a single feature that you believe has magic powers is good for the industry? Hell no, it leads to the Parade of Clones we're already seeing!
If we did receive a sudden Parade of Sandbox, for example (one design taking over virtually every new release)--also not good for the industry.
Mork calling Orson, come in Orson. I am not saying which method generates the most depth, as whilst some systems clearly have the potential to generate more depth, it is partly sunjective as you say. But that is NOT what I am commenting upon.
I am not saying single mechanics are not as good, I am not saying arenas are pointless. I am not saying world sims are "teh fking bomb", I am not saying all games should be like UO. I am merely saying that a reason for the perceived lack of longevity in the MMORPG genre specifically, seems most likely to be due to the MMORPG genre moving away from one form of depth generation (fine), to another which it just is not suited to at the moment (not fine).
No one is suggesting all mmorpgs should be the same, what is being suggested is that a potential reasons for the supposed lack of longevity in the genre is derived from the fact that modern mmorpgs are trying to derive longevity/depth from mechanics which are currently far better suited so small scale multiplayer games and single player genre games.
The parade of clones we see is due to mimicking mechanics prevalent in more popular genres of games. This would be fine if MMORPGS did them as well as dedicated games do, but they don't. This would be fine if everyone in an mmorpg was looking for the same thing like they do in a dedicated game, but they don't. This would be fine if single systems could be as dynamic as interlinked systems, but they can't.
My case is that the strive to copy the kind of systems seen in other genres of games at the expense of dynamic community systems is a key factor what is reducing the longevity of mmorpgs at this moment in time. Especially given alot of the systems copied are piss poor compared to those found in other genres. If you don't agree with that, feel free to explain why.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It does not matter if a game is complex or simple, people will still play it, and it will still be a success, as long as the game is FUN TO PLAY.
The problem's start when Devs try to define what players as a whole will actually find to be fun to play.
Ask 100 different players what they find fun, get just as many different answers.
Diablo 3 is perfect example that contradicts your theory.
Its hugely fun to play. However people are leaving because there is nothing that will hold them.
Name a game, any game, that has not lost one single player of it.
Just because some people have stopped playing D3, does not mean it was not a success, and last time I checked, people are still playing it, because those people still find it fun.
So, how does that contradict anything I said in my first post?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Can you measure depth and how do you compare the depth of modern games to old ones?
Reification is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity.
We talk about these abstracts "difficulty" "complexity" "depth" as if they are something we can measure, in a not-subjective fashion.
And yet most of us can discern when something is more difficult, complex than something else. How is that possible?
We must be measuring something, even if only abstractly. It certainly is more difficult to climb a mountain vs a molehill, and we probably can measure the reasons why for it.
Perhaps we won't put a ruler to these terms, but I do think its possible to set out criteria that would help you determine if a MMO was deep or not.
We just might not all agree on what makes something difficult or complex though.
BTW, stop with the tricky Latin stuff, I had to look up Reification, remember, 8th grade words here, keep it on the proper level, your not teaching your logic class at the university.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't think we can even begin to agree on what is complex and what isn't. I've seen a poster or two on here say that UO was not complex. However because I was able to manipulate other players to beat them it was far more complex than most mmorpgs today BY MY STANDARDS. The only mmorpgs where I've seen that level of complexity are in UO, FoM, and EvE.
Players want complexity but the game with the most subs by far is about as dumbed down as they come........
Actually when you consider gear stats, enchants, gems, transmog.. WoW end game raidiing is probably more complex than most games out there including old school games.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Players want complexity but the game with the most subs by far is about as dumbed down as they come........
Actually when you consider gear stats, enchants, gems, transmog.. WoW end game raidiing is probably more complex than most games out there including old school games.
I agree. If you want to optimize your gear in WOW, you actually need a progarm like RAWR. Ditto for Diablo 3. Modern games have lots of complexity in combat.
When i was playing EQ back in the beta to the first expansion, there is no CD, no procs, no complex resource mechanics. Today's games are 10x more complex.
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).
But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.
Why is it, whenever we bring up WoW, we look at it in it's current state as if it was always like that? It wasn't. WoW's degradation did not happen until sometime late in TBC. From 1.1 through I'd say about 2.2, it had earned it's place. The game was damned good. It was fun, complex, challenging and certainly not easy mode. I remember it was around 2.3 where Blizz started making the game easy with sparkly quest objectives, with increase XP gains up to 60. Etc, Etc. WoW 1.1 through WoW 2.2 was also where the game established it's lead in the marked. But after 2.3, WOTLK and beyond, It's been in decline until we see it where it is today. So in this regard. WoW actually furtther supports you claim that EZmode MMOS are not runnaway hits. Since WoW success was not founded on it being so and it's slide down can actually be atributed to EZmode.
I love how many people talk about the decline for ThemePark MMOs as though it occurred in 2004. No. Actually it started in 2008 with WoW 3.1.
Comments
Is longevity even a merit? Or is there something abusive about how the early MMOs hung on to their players tooth and claw and skinnerbox.
I am honestly not looking for longevity (playtime of 6 months plus) in a game anymore, at least not as a top priority. I'll take an MMO I enjoy a lot for 3 months over one I somewhat enjoy for a year.
Madden sells every year.
COD sells whenever a new one comes out. Ditto for Halo. Ditto for GOW. Top 10 selling video games are mostly sequals. I don't know how one can make the case that players want something different. They are obviously paying for similar experiences.
I would argue not. A fun 10 hour experence is much better than a 1000 hours boring one. It is the quality of the time that matters, not duration.
Personally, i don't really care about the length of a game. Like you said, a very enjoyable 3 months beat somewhat enjoyable for a year.
Very strange debate. Players want different things, that way it has alwasy been and always will be. Whether a majority of players are diverging in a particular direction is hard to prove.
I know. If he could measure depth he could back his argument that old games had more of it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
MMOs should be like Chess: Easy to learn, very hard to master. Making them too complex is a misstake just like making them too simple.
The perfect MMO should seem really simple the first few days you play but become more and more advance as you play with background mechanics and a AI that will take you time to understand fully.
However people seems to assume that "complex" is having many skills and attacks instead of things like tactics and wits.
i prefer challenging over complex. maybe it's not so obvious.
What do players want? Compare League of Legends player base to Eve Online's player base. Simple game vs complex game. Now LoL doesn't have a subscription but it still has a 32 million strong player base. Eve's subscriber total is around 360 thousand. I love complexity in a game but... haven't we all heard the jokes about Eve's learning curve? I usually get about halfway up that learning curve before the game starts feeling like my job and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay a subscription to do work.
It would be perfect if there was a game with Eve's learning curve but it was invisible to the player, so that the player was learning but they were having so much fun they didn't know they were moving up the learning curve.
You could say that as League of Legends adds new strategies and game mechanics to new heroes that increases the complexity of the game sessions but that only goes so far.
Players want to have fun without having to think about thinking too much. If you make the thinking part fun then it slips under the radar.
Harder content = Not noob friendly
= Less sub
= "Hmm... sorry boss but we have a tiny problem with our game... it's dieing!!"
= "But my daughter want to go to college so bad, how am I gonna...(muted)"
Look at TSW for example, so many reviewers, bloggers and ordinary players hate it and call it "broken" due to the fact that you actually need to think, google, scream in despair and then "light bulb~" in order to play it. I remember in TotalBiscuit's beta review he claim that this game constantly caused him to overthink stuff and got stuck, but come on... THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS!! You ARE supposed to be wrong from time to time. TSW is a great game with some BIG problems for sure, but broken questing system is definitly not one of those. I guess people nowadays just don't need this kind of "adventure" after work then.
It is about recognizing that one genre of gaming is more suited to a set of systems than another. That said set of systems generates longevity.
FPS/MOBAS/RTS/Sports games/card games etc are vastly superior to mmorpgs at offering single, dedicated mechanics/e-sports. They are also able to offer basic community features. They can produce longevity via providing a level of mechanical service mmorpgs thus far cannot, and by simply spinning out more of the same franchise, which mmorpgs thus far cannot. MMORPGS providing a toned down version of mechanics is not going to promote longevity.
You argument that some of the older games had longevity merely because "it took ages to do everything and they were new" and thus had no real depth, is an odd one. No doubt those factors did play a small part, but to say it had nothing to do with dynamic, interlinked world mechanics and communities just flies in the face of reality.
Many mmorpgs now remove the world simulation idea and thus remove and chance of depth from that. Modern mmos could no doubt improve upon it, improve upon that aspect of the older games but they simply remove it to the greater extent, ringfencing every mechanic off. Many of these mmorpgs try to take ideas and derive longevity from mechanics taken from other gaming genres, they simply can't do this very well for the main part as of yet. So why would players stick around.
Which leaves them with grinds.
I couldn't give a toss about the sandbox vs themepark or old vs new debate here. Everything has it's place, but the question is why do more recent mmorpgs seem to have less longevity. If they do indeed have less longevity, which seems to be the case, the reasons seem obvious. They remove any longevity from dynamic player interaction in complex world systems, and they merely badly mimic other gaming genres.
Can you derive depth from a complex game world... yes. Can you derive depth from single, simple mechanics... yes. The trouble is a great deal of more modern mmos remove the first option and have to compete with dedicated games for the second option. Hence the problem, hence the shiny grinds and hence the lack of longevity at the moment for the main part.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I have posted reasons explaining why I believe certain systems and thus games generate depth/longevity depending upon the gaming genre. Perhaps you would care to actually attempt to debate the reasons instead of simply saying "hurr no proof" which is tantamount to what you are saying here.
The interesting part is you both seem to have missed the point. I have not said which form derives more depth, I have not said that complex systems immediately mean more depth than simple systems. I have not measured depth or complexity.
I have merely pointed out that one genre of gaming seems more suited to one from a system than another, that by erring away from these systems longevity is lost. That may not be an issue so long as the mmorpg genre catches up with the smaller scale, dedicated games and can actually match them at what they do AND if people only see the mmorpg genre as having the potential to be a carbon copy of said games. Others however feel the mmorpg genre offers something unique and feel that the lack of longevity stems from a switch in core system ethos.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Well yes for the most part, but also no.
Players want complexity, but complains when cannot keep up. In some cases certain designs are indeed tedious, but in most cases it is simply pointless complaints. There is simply no way a single MMORPG can fit everyone's idea of complexity, or even 10 MMORPG each with different complexity.
I don't mind complexity at all, in fact the more complex the system the better. The ones that make my brain think endlessly for hours even while not playing is a good sign that the game have got some depth. Of course, complexities that cripples the fluidity of gameplay can only be considered bad design. My general rule of thumb when testing out a game is to give it a good try, even if I don't find it that particularly interesting I'll still make sure I experience the key contents before deciding.
The problem is the mainstream gamers hates simple designs because it is boring, but they also cannot handle complex designs. It is one of those mouth vs. action thing (AKA hypocrisy), or in the cases of more casual gamers is that they do not have the time for complex designs which is understandable.
Complexity and depth are not always necessarily equal to each other in terms of MMO design. However, some degree of complexity must exist in order for the game to have depth. The current MMORPG community have fairly low tolerance for complex designs, and the tolerance level is so low that it is affecting depth. Devs often will pick up this trend when designing a game, and it is no coincidence that in recent years the MMORPG that came out were mostly shallow. Interaction between player and devs is like a cycle, both the player's and developer's attitude affects the outcome.
LOke said it perfectly, Chess is a game everyone can play, all you had to do is learn how each piece moves and the basic rules of if your piece is where My piece lands, my piece takes over.
MMORPG doesn't need complex rules or complex game mechanics, make it simple but allow it room to expand into infinity if you wish.
Lets say, what If stats is only limited to STR and DEX and every level up you get a certain number of skill points to distribute.
But lets say that not only your character can be upgraded by the Skill PT, your weapon can also be upgraded by the skill pt, and the skill that you unlock by putting in your skill pt in the weapon can also be upgraded by the skill pt.
A simple mechanic becomes infinite complex because of the many path you can take.
Character : STR 3 DEX 3 ( used up 4 skill pts )
Weapon: Katana requires Character STR 1 to wield , Weapon STR 4 and DEX 4 unlocks skill Slash ( used up 8 skill pts)
Skill: Slash upgrads when DEX 3 is placed into Slash X ( used up 3 skill pts)
and another character might not like skill Slash, so they unlocked another skill that uses only STR3 and DEX3 , and decided not to upgrade the skill and just keep unlocking new ones.
A very simple mechanic that offers depth based on player choice, simple but not complicated.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
No...flail. Most people will easily agree that certain systems do promote depth better than others.
But most people would also agree which game is "deeper" is largely subjective. Judgement call.
Just like virtually every other call we make about games--what we like, what would please us to see more of in future releases. Not some magic Iwin button that will instantly make your game a hit if it's included.
I get that a lot from (obviously younger) people. "I won't buy any game that doesn't have X"!
Restricting yourself to a single feature that you believe has magic powers is good for the industry? Hell no, it leads to the Parade of Clones we're already seeing!
If we did receive a sudden Parade of Sandbox, for example (one design taking over virtually every new release)--also not good for the industry.
What this industry (and players?) needs is to stop looking for magic bullets.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Mork calling Orson, come in Orson. I am not saying which method generates the most depth, as whilst some systems clearly have the potential to generate more depth, it is partly sunjective as you say. But that is NOT what I am commenting upon.
I am not saying single mechanics are not as good, I am not saying arenas are pointless. I am not saying world sims are "teh fking bomb", I am not saying all games should be like UO. I am merely saying that a reason for the perceived lack of longevity in the MMORPG genre specifically, seems most likely to be due to the MMORPG genre moving away from one form of depth generation (fine), to another which it just is not suited to at the moment (not fine).
No one is suggesting all mmorpgs should be the same, what is being suggested is that a potential reasons for the supposed lack of longevity in the genre is derived from the fact that modern mmorpgs are trying to derive longevity/depth from mechanics which are currently far better suited so small scale multiplayer games and single player genre games.
The parade of clones we see is due to mimicking mechanics prevalent in more popular genres of games. This would be fine if MMORPGS did them as well as dedicated games do, but they don't. This would be fine if everyone in an mmorpg was looking for the same thing like they do in a dedicated game, but they don't. This would be fine if single systems could be as dynamic as interlinked systems, but they can't.
My case is that the strive to copy the kind of systems seen in other genres of games at the expense of dynamic community systems is a key factor what is reducing the longevity of mmorpgs at this moment in time. Especially given alot of the systems copied are piss poor compared to those found in other genres. If you don't agree with that, feel free to explain why.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Name a game, any game, that has not lost one single player of it.
Just because some people have stopped playing D3, does not mean it was not a success, and last time I checked, people are still playing it, because those people still find it fun.
So, how does that contradict anything I said in my first post?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
And yet most of us can discern when something is more difficult, complex than something else. How is that possible?
We must be measuring something, even if only abstractly. It certainly is more difficult to climb a mountain vs a molehill, and we probably can measure the reasons why for it.
Perhaps we won't put a ruler to these terms, but I do think its possible to set out criteria that would help you determine if a MMO was deep or not.
We just might not all agree on what makes something difficult or complex though.
BTW, stop with the tricky Latin stuff, I had to look up Reification, remember, 8th grade words here, keep it on the proper level, your not teaching your logic class at the university.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't think we can even begin to agree on what is complex and what isn't. I've seen a poster or two on here say that UO was not complex. However because I was able to manipulate other players to beat them it was far more complex than most mmorpgs today BY MY STANDARDS. The only mmorpgs where I've seen that level of complexity are in UO, FoM, and EvE.
My theme song.
Erm harsh death penalties do not add complexity. I am almost certain I can write a mathemical proof of this.
So gamers want complexity
Is that why they complain when they can't make one button macros in MMOs
Players want complexity but the game with the most subs by far is about as dumbed down as they come........
Actually when you consider gear stats, enchants, gems, transmog.. WoW end game raidiing is probably more complex than most games out there including old school games.
I agree. If you want to optimize your gear in WOW, you actually need a progarm like RAWR. Ditto for Diablo 3. Modern games have lots of complexity in combat.
When i was playing EQ back in the beta to the first expansion, there is no CD, no procs, no complex resource mechanics. Today's games are 10x more complex.
Why is it, whenever we bring up WoW, we look at it in it's current state as if it was always like that? It wasn't. WoW's degradation did not happen until sometime late in TBC. From 1.1 through I'd say about 2.2, it had earned it's place. The game was damned good. It was fun, complex, challenging and certainly not easy mode. I remember it was around 2.3 where Blizz started making the game easy with sparkly quest objectives, with increase XP gains up to 60. Etc, Etc. WoW 1.1 through WoW 2.2 was also where the game established it's lead in the marked. But after 2.3, WOTLK and beyond, It's been in decline until we see it where it is today. So in this regard. WoW actually furtther supports you claim that EZmode MMOS are not runnaway hits. Since WoW success was not founded on it being so and it's slide down can actually be atributed to EZmode.
I love how many people talk about the decline for ThemePark MMOs as though it occurred in 2004. No. Actually it started in 2008 with WoW 3.1.