the genre has changed in far too many ways for my taste which while somewhat evolved, is still pretty true to the original reason I enjoyed mmos 10+ years ago.
I dunno Az, you've had an additional ten years of soaking up negativity from message boards.
Anyway, we now return the audience to their regularly scheduled Portents of Doom Channel programming. Brought to you by Cassandra's Secret, Inc. "Why pay all that extra silver for the Oracle at Delphi?"
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.
Thats exactly one of the reasons why I feel this genre is dead/dying. Developers arent making mmorpgs worth travelling through. If they were, we wouldn't be calling instant travel an evolution.
It's amazing how many different things you believe caused the genre to die.
He did say "ONE of the reasons" and furthered said "I" believe.. which makes it his opinion.. Nothing wrong with that
Thats exactly one of the reasons why I feel this genre is dead/dying. Developers arent making mmorpgs worth travelling through. If they were, we wouldn't be calling instant travel an evolution.
That's not even close to it though. Travel, even in an interesting world, is still only going to be interesting one single time.
There are two types of worlds to explore in games: the literal world, and the game systems.
When you play Chess, there's no world. But you're still exploring. You're exploring the system space of "What happens if I castle early this game?" or "What happens if I use pawns more aggressively than usual to control more of the board?" It's interesting to explore because there are so many possibilities and their outcomes might not be clear due to the other player's moves.
And if that type of exploration was a big part of MMORPGs, we'd be completely fine (even with instant travel.)
The problem is, many new MMORPGs have been 50-80% the same game as games you've played before -- which means you've explored 50-80% of their game systems before even playing them!
Developers actually are making worlds worth exploring through. I've enjoyed exploring the locations in TSW, RIFT, and GW2. But literal world exploration only goes so far, and tends to lean heavily on system exploration. Because there's no significant game depth to travel, and really when I'm world-exploring it's because there are systems to discover out there -- there's a new Council of Venice (TSW) vendor out there somewhere if I manage to discover them. But if the systems I'm traveling to discover are the exact same as I've experienced before, the thrill of discovery is partially (or maybe even fully) removed.
So the problem is wholly on the game systems side of the fence. Game worlds have been plenty worth exploring, but when gameplay is 50-80% duplicate of what we've seen before that removes the majority of systems exploration (which is actually the majority of exploration in the entire game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So less people enjoy travel than lobby games, oh shit I guess it is totally invalid then right, right? It doesn't cut it. I mean there are a miniscule amount of people who like to wander through a game world from time to time. After all, you've counted them up haven't you. But let's not let the fact that some clearly do enjoy it get in the way.
Some people enjoy travelling through a game world, many people enjoy the mechanics that travel directly links into such as the economy et al.
Hi Mr Gamer, like some FFA OWPvP? Well tough shit, you can't have that i'm afraid, we have to remove travel and replace it with teleports because Axehilt says you are not getting a fun efficiency rating of 3.3 per hour compared to when he is queueing in a lobby.
Perhaps if you had stated "less people enjoy aspects of games derived from travel as opposed to instant action elements" or, "travel rammed into the wrong game is not always beneficial" and left it there you would have had a point. And I would have agreed. Sadly you didn't and (as usual) you don't.
In the case of games most of those experiences can NOT be replicated without travel. It has been repeatedly demonstrated how travel can impact upon a games economy, on it's territory warfare, on its player created meta roles and on it's pvp. And yet you still ignore that because non of those count to you. You only want e-sports and instances and so taking travel out of a game means nothing to you and for some off reason this means you are unable to grasp the fact that is actually matters to others. But there are less of them, so they don't count I guess.
"It won't ever be missed", except by those that enjoy it and/or enjoy the impact it has on other systems. But then, that wouldn't be you right so fuck em...
I have said not everyone finds the mechanics fun, I have not said they suit every game. Clearly travel does not matter in a game with high amounts of instancing, no open world pvp and a game with a centralized AH, loot based economy. Travel without fast travel would be pointless. I have also not said that 100% "slow" travel with zero fast travel at all is the right way to go either.
The simple fact of the matter is that it is as clear as day that travel can directly and indirectly generate fun for players in the right games, that travel cannot simply be ripped out of such games and replaced as though nothing has happened. If you are going to proclaim that people cannot come up with reasons why travel is good/fun and then when someone does stick your fingers in your ears and go "nah nah popularity", or suggest "travels impact on other systems doesn't count!!!" then it is a bit of a waste of time continuing the debate frankly.
Wow.
There have been so many threads where I've tried to get you to admit obvious, plainly-observable traits of reality. And after all this time, you've finally done it! I'm proud of you!
You didn't go all the way -- you still seem to think that merely "less" people enjoy travel for travel's sake, rather than the reality of 99.99% of players having a clear goal to travel when they travel (and that's what they're traveling for; not travel itself) -- but you at least conceded that much.
The discussion isn't whether slow travel can never exist, but whether the trend of instant travel is bad, which it isn't.
Instant travel makes sense for the overwhelming majority of games.
For the rest?
If you're making FarmVille and not a game, that's the one situation where slow travel is fine. Because the goal of such a game is relaxtion and not gameplay, slow travel works. There's a place for these types of activities and 40-60 year old women love them, but they're not quite "games".
If you're making World PVP game, typical slow travel is a terrible solution. Since travel is necessary for gameplay purposes, it should be modified to be a minigame unto itself (so travel actually is fun to do for its own sake.) In EVE's case this would be a travel minigame which increased the speed of your ship (and if you're in a fleet, the speed of larger, slower ships than yourself.) Performance at the minigame would increase your speed. I'm leaving out the details for brevity's sake but the point of the game would be something deep where absolute 100% efficiency is virtually unattainable and you feel there's always room for improvement. Because at that point travel itself would be fun and not simply a cruel joke that has CCP's devs laughing on the way to the bank.
I guess you'd have an easier time convincing me EVE was intended to be a casual FarmVille than a game.
Honestly since there are so many of these casual systems in EVE, I'm becoming more and more convinced that's the underlying reason behind its success. I suppose it's a lot like Mafia Wars that way -- a skin of tough-guy over a game which is predominantly casual.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There have been so many threads where I've tried to get you to admit obvious, plainly-observable traits of reality. And after all this time, you've finally done it! I'm proud of you!
You didn't go all the way -- you still seem to think that merely "less" people enjoy travel for travel's sake, rather than the reality of 99.99% of players having a clear goal to travel when they travel (and that's what they're traveling for; not travel itself) -- but you at least conceded that much.
The discussion isn't whether slow travel can never exist, but whether the trend of instant travel is bad, which it isn't.
Instant travel makes sense for the overwhelming majority of games.
For the rest?
If you're making FarmVille and not a game, that's the one situation where slow travel is fine. Because the goal of such a game is relaxtion and not gameplay, slow travel works. There's a place for these types of activities and 40-60 year old women love them, but they're not quite "games".
If you're making World PVP game, typical slow travel is a terrible solution. Since travel is necessary for gameplay purposes, it should be modified to be a minigame unto itself (so travel actually is fun to do for its own sake.) In EVE's case this would be a travel minigame which increased the speed of your ship (and if you're in a fleet, the speed of larger, slower ships than yourself.) Performance at the minigame would increase your speed. I'm leaving out the details for brevity's sake but the point of the game would be something deep where absolute 100% efficiency is virtually unattainable and you feel there's always room for improvement. Because at that point travel itself would be fun and not simply a cruel joke that has CCP's devs laughing on the way to the bank.
I guess you'd have an easier time convincing me EVE was intended to be a casual FarmVille than a game.
Honestly since there are so many of these casual systems in EVE, I'm becoming more and more convinced that's the underlying reason behind its success. I suppose it's a lot like Mafia Wars that way -- a skin of tough-guy over a game which is predominantly casual.
I frequently and freely point out which mechanics are the most popular and why. I frequently and freely comment on the fact that not all mechanics fit all games, or that not all people like the same mechanics. I frequently and freely point out the downside to certain mechanics. I am actually capable of appreciating the pros and cons of mechanics that fall outside of the remit as to what I personally, subjectively find fun. I have done that over the course of this thread and in the other threads I have been involved in. So not sure what you are going on about in your opening gambit quite frankly.
You should try it sometime, as opposed to just trying to pan mechanics you don't like with massively overblown statements, or making a complete arse of a debate on "true" pvp or complexity. "Press any key dude, I can't too much state space man!!!!"
Seriously though, you mentioned that advocates of travel through a game world don't justify the system. I have done that whilst at the same time repeatedly saying it only fits certain games/systems and that it doesn't appeal to everyone. And your counter to that is popularity? Cool, incredibly enlightening that and yet even though that is all you have, you are still here arguing the toss. Amazing.
If you think the debate is only that fast travel is bad, and I have already repeatedly said that is not the case, that it depends on the game. Then it has to be asked, why the fuck are you trying to argue with me? But no it has to be "only 0.0000000000000001% like open world games with limited instant travel, and the systems aren't any good and they are all a bunch of bastards".
40-60 year old women? That's a good one, even by your standards. What's next, only rapists like EVE? No ofc not, the old "hurr EVE casuals" is next and it adds oh so much to the debate.
As for travel minigames, yeah sounds shockingly poor and borderline ADHD (unsurprising given your walking comment) if I am being honest. The other posters suggestion was better and again, that wouldn't replicate what you can find in an open world travel game anyway. But who cares about that right... Must... press... buttons... all... the... time!
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Seriously though, you mentioned that advocates of travel through a game world don't justify the system.
As for travel minigames, yeah sounds shockingly poor and borderline ADHD (unsurprising given your walking comment) if I am being honest. The other posters suggestion was better and again, that wouldn't replicate what you can find in an open world travel game anyway. But who cares about that right... Must... press... buttons... all... the... time!
The issue is: there are few mechanics which absolutely require travel through a game world. And those exceptions can be accomplished in vastly more interesting ways. (It's hard for something not to be "vastly more interesting" when we're comparing it with the virtual non-gameplay of travel.)
The ADHD insult is hilarious. If you're so content with an inactive, passive, casual role in your games, why not watch TV instead? Meanwhile the point of games is interaction, and the non-gameplay of travel isn't interaction.
The other poster's suggestion didn't improve travel itself. The non-gameplay of travel is the fundamental problem and the reason games with excessive travel do poorly. Excessive non-gameplay is the game playing the player. Players want to play the game, they don't want to be played.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That was the issue: there were few mechanics which absolutely required travel through a game world to work. And thoserare exceptions to could be accomplished in vastly more interesting ways.
The ADHD insult is hilarious. If you're so content with an inactive, passive, casual role in your games, why not watch TV instead? Meanwhile the point of games is interaction, and the non-gameplay of travel isn't interaction.
The other poster's suggestion didn't improve travel itself. The non-gameplay of travel is the fundamental problem and the reason games with excessive travel do poorly. Excessive non-gameplay is the game playing the player. Players want to play the game, they don't want to be played.
The likes of fully open pvp, territory and resource control and the fact that they require travel through a game world and the further impact upon a games economy cannot simply be accomplished in other ways. It is going to be interesting to see you replicate them and the enjoyment some get strolling through a game world via another system. Feel free to demonstrate how, if your ideas are promising I will actually conceed that fact. But you cannot simply write them off for being "niche".
Looking at that post i'm not sure you know what ADHD is, anyway I'd rather not continue with the churlishness. It achieves nothing in the long run.
The point of mmorpgs is enjoyment, if someone finds that from walking through a world, or the mechanics that walking through a world drives, then they don't need to be hammering away at keys every five seconds. You might, others don't.
What players want depends on the individual, I have a fair idea what certain crowds look for, but I certainly wouldn't presume to either speak for the entire playerbase, or write off mechanics simply because a smaller section prefer them.
Remember that as well as not advocating "slow travel" for all games, I am also not advocating zero fast travel in open world games. So long as the instant travel does not impact upon significant mechanics.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The likes of fully open pvp, territory and resource control and the fact that they require travel through a game world and the further impact upon a games economy cannot simply be accomplished in other ways. It is also going to be interesting to see you replicate the enjoyment some get strolling through a game world via another system. But feel free to demonstrate how and I will comment on whether your ideas are actually promising and if they are I will actually conceed that fact. But you cannot simply write them off for being "niche".
Looking at that post i'm not sure you know what ADHD is, anyway I'd rather not continue with the churlishness.
The point of games is enjoyment, if someone finds that from walking through a world, or the mechanics that walking through a world drives, then they don't need to be hammering away at keys every five seconds. You might, others don't.
What players want depends on the individual, I have a fair idea what certain crowds look for, but I certainly wouldn't presume to either speak for the entire playerbase, or right off mechanics simply because a smaller section prefer them.
Remember that as well as not advocating "slow travel" for all games, I am also not advocating zero fast travel in open world games. So long as the instant travel does not impact upon significant mechanics.
Of course I understand what ADHD is. It's just a hilarious thing to use as an insult to a game or player, because you're basically in favor of more passive entertainment -- hence the television comment. Games are meant to be played. They're quite bad when they play the players instead. In fact a game's quality strongly correlates to its interactivity.
If someone enjoys the mechanics that walking through a world drives, there's almost certainly a way to achieve those mechanics without walking through the world, and if not then there's a more engaging activity than "now sit and do nothing for a while" to achieve the same goal.
Really that's the crux of the discussion:
There's always a better game mechanic than "now sit and do nothing for a while".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Of course I understand what ADHD is. It's just a hilarious thing to use as an insult to a game or player, because you're basically in favor of more passive entertainment -- hence the television comment. Games are meant to be played. They're quite bad when they play the players instead. In fact a game's quality strongly correlates to its interactivity.
If someone enjoys the mechanics that walking through a world drives, there's almost certainly a way to achieve those mechanics without walking through the world, and if not then there's a more engaging activity than "now sit and do nothing for a while" to achieve the same goal.
Really that's the crux of the discussion:
There's always a better game mechanic than "now sit and do nothing for a while".
What I am in favour of is some games allowing the freedom for the player to decide how he/she wants to play at any particular time. Games are meant to be played, however mmorpgs/virtual worlds have no set style of play that is right or wrong. Someone walking through the world wondering at the sights is "playing the game" as they see fit.
Again, feel free to list these better mechanics that achieve the freedom an open game world and the travel through it provide. As an example if I want to go to a specfic point, jump my way up a tree and pick off passers by, then how are you replicating that without travel through a game world exactly? Are we having instant travel to every single coordinate on the map? If so, even if I get there, there will now be no passers by coming past my tree. Or should I be made to press buttons as I travel along to justify the fact that I am playing a game?
Personally the idea would be to improve travel by increasing the chances of seeing, interacting with interesting things in the game world itself. Not by removing the travel or forcing people to press buttons, play mini games.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Thats exactly one of the reasons why I feel this genre is dead/dying. Developers arent making mmorpgs worth travelling through. If they were, we wouldn't be calling instant travel an evolution.
That's not even close to it though. Travel, even in an interesting world, is still only going to be interesting one single time.
There are two types of worlds to explore in games: the literal world, and the game systems.
When you play Chess, there's no world. But you're still exploring. You're exploring the system space of "What happens if I castle early this game?" or "What happens if I use pawns more aggressively than usual to control more of the board?" It's interesting to explore because there are so many possibilities and their outcomes might not be clear due to the other player's moves.
And if that type of exploration was a big part of MMORPGs, we'd be completely fine (even with instant travel.)
The problem is, many new MMORPGs have been 50-80% the same game as games you've played before -- which means you've explored 50-80% of their game systems before even playing them!
Developers actually are making worlds worth exploring through. I've enjoyed exploring the locations in TSW, RIFT, and GW2. But literal world exploration only goes so far, and tends to lean heavily on system exploration. Because there's no significant game depth to travel, and really when I'm world-exploring it's because there are systems to discover out there -- there's a new Council of Venice (TSW) vendor out there somewhere if I manage to discover them. But if the systems I'm traveling to discover are the exact same as I've experienced before, the thrill of discovery is partially (or maybe even fully) removed.
So the problem is wholly on the game systems side of the fence. Game worlds have been plenty worth exploring, but when gameplay is 50-80% duplicate of what we've seen before that removes the majority of systems exploration (which is actually the majority of exploration in the entire game.)
Well, like you said, most game worlds are worth exploring once, 2nd time through less so. Now if there was a way to make the world more dynamic, then perhaps it would more entertaining to travel the same road more than once.
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
Originally posted by MannishAll of these games that you people think failed are still here and people play them. I do agree that the genre is more alive today but the problem is that its a themepark genre today and the old school mmo players are more of the sandbox type. What we need are real sandbox games being made by AAA companys.
Nobody can make a saleable sandbox because nobody can describe one.
Its not a giant mystery. Just make make a game that lets you interact with the world in multiple ways. Not just killing. And no, mini games and after thought crafting does not count.
That's an incredibly vague description. I think the more you try to add detail to the systems that you imagine the more you'll find that you either end up with features that already exist in several games, features that are easily abused and end up ruining the game or a game that simply can't be made.
How about deforestation, the ability to dig holes, and the ability to plant things for starter features? Sounds like pretty good kind of sandboxy things. For simplicity, let's take Minecraft as an example of where to start with our system. Now fill the world with people and let them do their thing. What happens? Someone builds something beuatiful, someone builds something awful, and someone goes around chopping everything down and digging holes because it's fun to destroy things. We could allow open PvP so that players could kill the offenders, but then what's stopping the assholes from also killing the people who they are harassing by destroying everything they try to build? So players form groups to hunt the assholes and assholes form groups to harass the rest. Eventually the assholes being outnumbered resort to going around destroying the world while everyone else is logged out and the builders eventually give up on trying to build anything lasting in a world filled with assholes. So now that we're bleeding players we're faced with adding coded limitations to prevent assholes from ruining everything for everyone else which breaks our design doc stating that the game needs to be a sandbox and not placed on rails.
You make a virtual world the same way you create a themepark, study and innovate on things of the past, a virtual world doesn't even need to be 100% sandbox, what it needs is a pusedo-realistic way to exist in the world as well as multiple ways to produce for the world, be it building, supplying, controlling, fighting, entertaining, etc.. These types of things are what sets a virtual world apart, it has an added simulation under the hood. Not all that different than what sets TES apart from other RPGs.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well, like you said, most game worlds are worth exploring once, 2nd time through less so. Now if there was a way to make the world more dynamic, then perhaps it would more entertaining to travel the same road more than once.
Well there are a few ways that can be improved upon in my opinion.
First of all it seems the most obvious (and for me the best) way of improving or driving dynamism within a game world is via player interactions. PVP, trade, territory control, bandits etc etc. If you are constantly meeting new people who you can actually interact with, then the world is that much more dynamic. The peaceful village you passed last week might be a a ravaged warzone the next time you pass it.
How about player monster play? I GM puts out a notice time and people get picked via some metric to fill pre selected monster roles. The GM lead band of player monsters then roams around an area, the players having to track them down or defend against them. Monster players are rewarded after with some title or overall "score" they can flex their e-peen over should they so wish.
Or the players could just get off their own fat arses and do something. Easter egg hunts for treasure, player run events, an update on storyteller tool as seen in SWG.
Outside of that the aim would clearly be to push more dynamic pve encounters. GM's could run roaming events.
The npcs could be switched from static mobs to randomly generated spawns which then go on to roam within a specifc area/range. As the npcs kill players and other "good" npcs the mobs overall rating increases, they grow in numbers and power and their range increases until they are finally put down.
A similar thing could be done with resources in the sense of packs of deer, wolves or a sci-fi equivalent. Promoting hunters/trackers who chase down non static prey.
How about randomly spawning instanced dungeon portals. Travel through the world looking for them.
After that you have altering the actual terrain, player villages etc springing up, being torn down in wars, the landscape shifting to reflect that. The wood you passed through may now have a mill and a small hamlet in the centre of it with a player run workshop.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It seems sometimes like there is a double standard when talking about virtual worlds and themeparks. We embrace change and look for innovation in themepark design. Then we shoot down virtual worlds because old systems may not have worked without considering the possibility that these ideas can also be refined and innovated upon just like themepark design.
What I am in favour of is some games allowing the freedom for the player to decide how he/she wants to play at any particular time. Games are meant to be played, however mmorpgs/virtual worlds have no set style of play that is right or wrong. Someone walking through the world wondering at the sights is "playing the game" as they see fit.
Again, feel free to list these better mechanics that achieve the freedom an open game world and the travel through it provide. As an example if I want to go to a specfic point, jump my way up a tree and pick off passers by, then how are you replicating that without travel through a game world exactly? Are we having instant travel to every single coordinate on the map? If so, even if I get there, there will now be no passers by coming past my tree. Or should I be made to press buttons as I travel along to justify the fact that I am playing a game?
If you were advocating player freedom, you'd be in favor of fast travel.
Fast travel is a choice. The player has the freedom to choose fast or slow travel (because you can still walk anywhere if you enjoy travel for travel's sake.)
It's absolutely possible to have fast travel coexist with bandit ambushes. The ambusher chooses the route to ambush along, and the next time someone uses that fast travel pathway they're instead sent to an ambush and PVP happens.
But even without that, in the case where travel actually happens, it's clearly better for that travel to involve gameplay and decisions than be "do nothing and wait for a while". If you describe that as "ADHD" and "needing to hit buttons" then you're describing all gameplay in every game in that same negative light (which is why it's such a comical criticism.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What I am in favour of is some games allowing the freedom for the player to decide how he/she wants to play at any particular time. Games are meant to be played, however mmorpgs/virtual worlds have no set style of play that is right or wrong. Someone walking through the world wondering at the sights is "playing the game" as they see fit.
The how come you are not in favour of skipping travel when people find it boring? The REASON why instant/fast travel is so popular is because there is a demand for it.
I, for on, find traveling the same route more than 2 times very boring. I find that in a combat centric game, travel is just a distraction.
It seems sometimes like there is a double standard when talking about virtual worlds and themeparks. We embrace change and look for innovation in themepark design. Then we shoot down virtual worlds because old systems may not have worked without considering the possibility that these ideas can also be refined and innovated upon just like themepark design.
There is a "weird" standard.
When companies are implementing NEW functionalities like LFD, LFR and x-realm matching, they are not called innovative. When companies go back to OLD ideas like UO or EQ, they are called innovative.
Personally, i think the innovation in recent MMOs is precisely adding technology (like phasing) to make them more game like, and more fun (to me).
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by FoomerangIt seems sometimes like there is a double standard when talking about virtual worlds and themeparks. We embrace change and look for innovation in themepark design. Then we shoot down virtual worlds because old systems may not have worked without considering the possibility that these ideas can also be refined and innovated upon just like themepark design.
There is a "weird" standard.
When companies are implementing NEW functionalities like LFD, LFR and x-realm matching, they are not called innovative. When companies go back to OLD ideas like UO or EQ, they are called innovative.
Personally, i think the innovation in recent MMOs is precisely adding technology (like phasing) to make them more game like, and more fun (to me).
See I look at it as lfd is an evolution of the themepark problem of group finding. But you talk about virtual world mechanics and people cant seem to get past "wtf ffa full loot pvp is fail".
What I am in favour of is some games allowing the freedom for the player to decide how he/she wants to play at any particular time. Games are meant to be played, however mmorpgs/virtual worlds have no set style of play that is right or wrong. Someone walking through the world wondering at the sights is "playing the game" as they see fit.
The how come you are not in favour of skipping travel when people find it boring? The REASON why instant/fast travel is so popular is because there is a demand for it.
I, for on, find traveling the same route more than 2 times very boring. I find that in a combat centric game, travel is just a distraction.
Eh?
What I am against is being able to skip travel in certain games if that then has a negative impact upon the interlinked dynamics of said game. If travel through a world impacts upon a player run economy or territory control, or resources control or pvp, then no you shouldn't just be able to skip it, unless the few bits you can instantly port to have no impact upon the overall mechanics.
But then if you don't want to have to travel at all and if you don't give a shit about player run economies and the like then you are not going to be playing those games in the first place.
I'm all for skipping travel in games where it is of little to no actual consequence. If you don't want to see a game world and by porting around you have no negative impact upon other mechanics then you port around to your hearts content for all I care.
Out of interest, if you find travelling more than once boring, wouldn't it be better to try and improve the game world so that you don't find it boring as you constantly move through it. You know as opposed to just missing the entire thing out altogether?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
If you were advocating player freedom, you'd be in favor of fast travel.
Fast travel is a choice. The player has the freedom to choose fast or slow travel (because you can still walk anywhere if you enjoy travel for travel's sake.)
It's absolutely possible to have fast travel coexist with bandit ambushes. The ambusher chooses the route to ambush along, and the next time someone uses that fast travel pathway they're instead sent to an ambush and PVP happens.
But even without that, in the case where travel actually happens, it's clearly better for that travel to involve gameplay and decisions than be "do nothing and wait for a while". If you describe that as "ADHD" and "needing to hit buttons" then you're describing all gameplay in every game in that same negative light (which is why it's such a comical criticism.)
You have a choice when you choose which type of game to play, or which game within a genre you decide to play. There are countless titles that cater to the "fast or no travel" taste. Trying to justify the same mechanics for every type of game and thus limit player choice by fubaring up gameplay elements dependant upon travel, well no, that's not a good thing.
Except those bandit ambushes mean players having to select from computer selected, pre defined routes, In the open world version you can take any route, regardless of how convoluted and attack (or not) at any point along it. How exactly does this scenario end? Does one side have to win? Because in the open world version you could choose not to engage the fight and hide if you think the convoy is too strong, you could run the hell away, the convoy may even get lucky and get help from a passer by.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot script the kind of dynamics you can have from an open world, well not without making it so retardedly complex that it is pointless to do.
That development time would be better served actually improving the game world, instead of looking at ways of replicating systems which are already in place in order to remove the game world.....
Walking through a game world is "doing something". Moving around isn't smacking something on the head but you are still doing something. Removing the dynamics that travel can bring to an open world game simply because you feel the need to hit buttons is clearly NOT an improvement at all.
As for the ADHD comment (which I suggested we moved away from in fairness), there is a difference between hitting buttons to do something and hitting buttons for the sake of hitting buttons.
Again, when speaking of open, virtual worlds. Not about themeparks, not about lobby games, not about arena/instanced specific games. It seems more sensible to actually look for ways of improving the world (you know the thing that makes it unique) so you can enjoy travel etc within it more, as opposed to trying to remove the world and turn it into a lobby game. If someone has no interest in that whatsoever, cool there are loads of other games out there, enjoy.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It seems sometimes like there is a double standard when talking about virtual worlds and themeparks. We embrace change and look for innovation in themepark design. Then we shoot down virtual worlds because old systems may not have worked without considering the possibility that these ideas can also be refined and innovated upon just like themepark design.
There is a "weird" standard.
When companies are implementing NEW functionalities like LFD, LFR and x-realm matching, they are not called innovative. When companies go back to OLD ideas like UO or EQ, they are called innovative.
Personally, i think the innovation in recent MMOs is precisely adding technology (like phasing) to make them more game like, and more fun (to me).
While 'technically' it is innovation - I am not calling it personally innovfative, cause for me it is devolution and walking backwards in direction of non-mmo multiplayer games, so that's why I personally in my own rating cannot put it into 'innovative' bracket.
Making mmo less mmo is not innovative for me.
Of course this is very subjective, but well I am not analyst making internal report on something but simply a player and consumer.
If you were advocating player freedom, you'd be in favor of fast travel. Fast travel is a choice. The player has the freedom to choose fast or slow travel (because you can still walk anywhere if you enjoy travel for travel's sake.)
In that context, Game Genie offers player freedom and choice. But it also trivializes the intended experience.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot script the kind of dynamics you can have from an open world, well not without making it so retardedly complex that it is pointless to do.
Walking through a game world is "doing something". Moving around isn't smacking something on the head but you are still doing something. Removing the dynamics that travel can bring to an open world game simply because you feel the need to hit buttons is clearly NOT an improvement at all.
As for the ADHD comment (which I suggested we moved away from in fairness), there is a difference between hitting buttons to do something and hitting buttons for the sake of hitting buttons.
Sure, and if you absolutely had to have travel happen slowly in a game world you would simply add depth to travel instead of letting it be some "sit there and do nothing" activity, which is one tiny step away from being the shallowest type of gameplay imaginable (the miniscule scrap of depth provided by mob-avoidance is the only thing keeping it from being completely shallow...and that's not even part of EVE travel.)
Walking through a game world is doing something. It's not doing something interesting. Games should be interesting. Completely shallow games don't entertain long. Neither do games which force you to spend significant time doing completely shallow activities (because the net sum of a game's activities is what the overall experience is, and travel becomes deadweight which tanks the experience.)
For the final bit, yes you're right. And my proposed system is hitting buttons to do something. It adds depth to an activity nearly devoid of depth, so that travel doesn't tank the experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm a bit torn. On one hand I'd like the travel to be automatic (like autopilot) if I'm required to travel. But if it were made interesting sure I would play it.
Thing is, a lot of the time when people talk about world, travel and stuff like that, they are talking about what could happen. However in practice, while something might happen usually nothing happens. So it makes travelling boring and not worth the rare encounters.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Sure, and if you absolutely had to have travel happen slowly in a game world you would simply add depth to travel instead of letting it be some "sit there and do nothing" activity, which is one tiny step away from being the shallowest type of gameplay imaginable (the miniscule scrap of depth provided by mob-avoidance is the only thing keeping it from being completely shallow...and that's not even part of EVE travel.)
Walking through a game world is doing something. It's not doing something interesting. Games should be interesting. Completely shallow games don't entertain long. Neither do games which force you to spend significant time doing completely shallow activities (because the net sum of a game's activities is what the overall experience is, and travel becomes deadweight which tanks the experience.)
For the final bit, yes you're right. And my proposed system is hitting buttons to do something. It adds depth to an activity nearly devoid of depth, so that travel doesn't tank the experience.
Travelling through a game world IS interesting to some, if people bothered to actually improve game worlds as opposed to try and remove them, then it would be interesting for far more. There are countless ways to make game worlds more interesting by layering in dynamic pvp and pve events, by layering in game world structure changes. That means the second trip is very different for the first. Just removing features and bypassing the gameworld.. no, not so good.
Travel is shallow you say and adds no depth, but that neglects the fact that it adds depth and gameplay features to a game world which you cannot simply replicate with scripted features. It also neglects the fact that your subjective view as to what shallow gameplay is, doesn't matter at all to those who actually enjoy the act of travelling through a game world.
Maybe you are making the mistake of thinking that virtual worlds and travel through them should be altered to appeal to the hardcore, must bash buttons constantly, must be in an instance constantly crowd. You would be very, very wrong in thinking that.
Travel through a game world improves the experience for plenty of players both directly and indirectly. Hitting buttons for the sake of it does no such thing, and your proposed system certainly doesn't add depth. If you think a scripted minigame is going to add the same depth and freedom as travel through an open world in the case of virtual world games, then that is gobsmacking. Again, feel free to point out these methods in detail.
Once more it seems clear that improving the game world is far superior to removing the game world.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I'm a bit torn. On one hand I'd like the travel to be automatic (like autopilot) if I'm required to travel. But if it were made interesting sure I would play it.
Thing is, a lot of the time when people talk about world, travel and stuff like that, they are talking about what could happen. However in practice, while something might happen usually nothing happens. So it makes travelling boring and not worth the rare encounters.
Yep I agree to a greater extent. There is certainly a great deal that can be improved upon by making the actual worlds you are travelling through more dynamic and interesting.
It seems to make far more sense to look to ways to improve the game world, which in turn makes travelling through it more interesting to more people, more often. Whilst it also allows you to keep in place the interlinking systems that travel through a game worlds allows for, dynamic territory control, bandits and trade routes, non centralized economy etc. Rather then trying to rip it out of a game.
I just find it unbelievable that peoples first idea is to try and actually remove the game world, one of the unique, defining features of mmorpgs, as opposed to thinking about improving the game world instead. That doesn't mean, I hasten to add, that I think all mmorpgs should be structured in such a way, far from it.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
I dunno Az, you've had an additional ten years of soaking up negativity from message boards.
Anyway, we now return the audience to their regularly scheduled Portents of Doom Channel programming. Brought to you by Cassandra's Secret, Inc. "Why pay all that extra silver for the Oracle at Delphi?"
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.
He did say "ONE of the reasons" and furthered said "I" believe.. which makes it his opinion.. Nothing wrong with that
That's not even close to it though. Travel, even in an interesting world, is still only going to be interesting one single time.
There are two types of worlds to explore in games: the literal world, and the game systems.
When you play Chess, there's no world. But you're still exploring. You're exploring the system space of "What happens if I castle early this game?" or "What happens if I use pawns more aggressively than usual to control more of the board?" It's interesting to explore because there are so many possibilities and their outcomes might not be clear due to the other player's moves.
And if that type of exploration was a big part of MMORPGs, we'd be completely fine (even with instant travel.)
The problem is, many new MMORPGs have been 50-80% the same game as games you've played before -- which means you've explored 50-80% of their game systems before even playing them!
Developers actually are making worlds worth exploring through. I've enjoyed exploring the locations in TSW, RIFT, and GW2. But literal world exploration only goes so far, and tends to lean heavily on system exploration. Because there's no significant game depth to travel, and really when I'm world-exploring it's because there are systems to discover out there -- there's a new Council of Venice (TSW) vendor out there somewhere if I manage to discover them. But if the systems I'm traveling to discover are the exact same as I've experienced before, the thrill of discovery is partially (or maybe even fully) removed.
So the problem is wholly on the game systems side of the fence. Game worlds have been plenty worth exploring, but when gameplay is 50-80% duplicate of what we've seen before that removes the majority of systems exploration (which is actually the majority of exploration in the entire game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wow.
There have been so many threads where I've tried to get you to admit obvious, plainly-observable traits of reality. And after all this time, you've finally done it! I'm proud of you!
You didn't go all the way -- you still seem to think that merely "less" people enjoy travel for travel's sake, rather than the reality of 99.99% of players having a clear goal to travel when they travel (and that's what they're traveling for; not travel itself) -- but you at least conceded that much.
The discussion isn't whether slow travel can never exist, but whether the trend of instant travel is bad, which it isn't.
Instant travel makes sense for the overwhelming majority of games.
For the rest?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I frequently and freely point out which mechanics are the most popular and why. I frequently and freely comment on the fact that not all mechanics fit all games, or that not all people like the same mechanics. I frequently and freely point out the downside to certain mechanics. I am actually capable of appreciating the pros and cons of mechanics that fall outside of the remit as to what I personally, subjectively find fun. I have done that over the course of this thread and in the other threads I have been involved in. So not sure what you are going on about in your opening gambit quite frankly.
You should try it sometime, as opposed to just trying to pan mechanics you don't like with massively overblown statements, or making a complete arse of a debate on "true" pvp or complexity. "Press any key dude, I can't too much state space man!!!!"
Seriously though, you mentioned that advocates of travel through a game world don't justify the system. I have done that whilst at the same time repeatedly saying it only fits certain games/systems and that it doesn't appeal to everyone. And your counter to that is popularity? Cool, incredibly enlightening that and yet even though that is all you have, you are still here arguing the toss. Amazing.
If you think the debate is only that fast travel is bad, and I have already repeatedly said that is not the case, that it depends on the game. Then it has to be asked, why the fuck are you trying to argue with me? But no it has to be "only 0.0000000000000001% like open world games with limited instant travel, and the systems aren't any good and they are all a bunch of bastards".
40-60 year old women? That's a good one, even by your standards. What's next, only rapists like EVE? No ofc not, the old "hurr EVE casuals" is next and it adds oh so much to the debate.
As for travel minigames, yeah sounds shockingly poor and borderline ADHD (unsurprising given your walking comment) if I am being honest. The other posters suggestion was better and again, that wouldn't replicate what you can find in an open world travel game anyway. But who cares about that right... Must... press... buttons... all... the... time!
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The issue is: there are few mechanics which absolutely require travel through a game world. And those exceptions can be accomplished in vastly more interesting ways. (It's hard for something not to be "vastly more interesting" when we're comparing it with the virtual non-gameplay of travel.)
The ADHD insult is hilarious. If you're so content with an inactive, passive, casual role in your games, why not watch TV instead? Meanwhile the point of games is interaction, and the non-gameplay of travel isn't interaction.
The other poster's suggestion didn't improve travel itself. The non-gameplay of travel is the fundamental problem and the reason games with excessive travel do poorly. Excessive non-gameplay is the game playing the player. Players want to play the game, they don't want to be played.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The likes of fully open pvp, territory and resource control and the fact that they require travel through a game world and the further impact upon a games economy cannot simply be accomplished in other ways. It is going to be interesting to see you replicate them and the enjoyment some get strolling through a game world via another system. Feel free to demonstrate how, if your ideas are promising I will actually conceed that fact. But you cannot simply write them off for being "niche".
Looking at that post i'm not sure you know what ADHD is, anyway I'd rather not continue with the churlishness. It achieves nothing in the long run.
The point of mmorpgs is enjoyment, if someone finds that from walking through a world, or the mechanics that walking through a world drives, then they don't need to be hammering away at keys every five seconds. You might, others don't.
What players want depends on the individual, I have a fair idea what certain crowds look for, but I certainly wouldn't presume to either speak for the entire playerbase, or write off mechanics simply because a smaller section prefer them.
Remember that as well as not advocating "slow travel" for all games, I am also not advocating zero fast travel in open world games. So long as the instant travel does not impact upon significant mechanics.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Of course I understand what ADHD is. It's just a hilarious thing to use as an insult to a game or player, because you're basically in favor of more passive entertainment -- hence the television comment. Games are meant to be played. They're quite bad when they play the players instead. In fact a game's quality strongly correlates to its interactivity.
If someone enjoys the mechanics that walking through a world drives, there's almost certainly a way to achieve those mechanics without walking through the world, and if not then there's a more engaging activity than "now sit and do nothing for a while" to achieve the same goal.
Really that's the crux of the discussion:
There's always a better game mechanic than "now sit and do nothing for a while".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What I am in favour of is some games allowing the freedom for the player to decide how he/she wants to play at any particular time. Games are meant to be played, however mmorpgs/virtual worlds have no set style of play that is right or wrong. Someone walking through the world wondering at the sights is "playing the game" as they see fit.
Again, feel free to list these better mechanics that achieve the freedom an open game world and the travel through it provide. As an example if I want to go to a specfic point, jump my way up a tree and pick off passers by, then how are you replicating that without travel through a game world exactly? Are we having instant travel to every single coordinate on the map? If so, even if I get there, there will now be no passers by coming past my tree. Or should I be made to press buttons as I travel along to justify the fact that I am playing a game?
Personally the idea would be to improve travel by increasing the chances of seeing, interacting with interesting things in the game world itself. Not by removing the travel or forcing people to press buttons, play mini games.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Well, like you said, most game worlds are worth exploring once, 2nd time through less so. Now if there was a way to make the world more dynamic, then perhaps it would more entertaining to travel the same road more than once.
"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
You make a virtual world the same way you create a themepark, study and innovate on things of the past, a virtual world doesn't even need to be 100% sandbox, what it needs is a pusedo-realistic way to exist in the world as well as multiple ways to produce for the world, be it building, supplying, controlling, fighting, entertaining, etc.. These types of things are what sets a virtual world apart, it has an added simulation under the hood. Not all that different than what sets TES apart from other RPGs.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well there are a few ways that can be improved upon in my opinion.
First of all it seems the most obvious (and for me the best) way of improving or driving dynamism within a game world is via player interactions. PVP, trade, territory control, bandits etc etc. If you are constantly meeting new people who you can actually interact with, then the world is that much more dynamic. The peaceful village you passed last week might be a a ravaged warzone the next time you pass it.
How about player monster play? I GM puts out a notice time and people get picked via some metric to fill pre selected monster roles. The GM lead band of player monsters then roams around an area, the players having to track them down or defend against them. Monster players are rewarded after with some title or overall "score" they can flex their e-peen over should they so wish.
Or the players could just get off their own fat arses and do something. Easter egg hunts for treasure, player run events, an update on storyteller tool as seen in SWG.
Outside of that the aim would clearly be to push more dynamic pve encounters. GM's could run roaming events.
The npcs could be switched from static mobs to randomly generated spawns which then go on to roam within a specifc area/range. As the npcs kill players and other "good" npcs the mobs overall rating increases, they grow in numbers and power and their range increases until they are finally put down.
A similar thing could be done with resources in the sense of packs of deer, wolves or a sci-fi equivalent. Promoting hunters/trackers who chase down non static prey.
How about randomly spawning instanced dungeon portals. Travel through the world looking for them.
After that you have altering the actual terrain, player villages etc springing up, being torn down in wars, the landscape shifting to reflect that. The wood you passed through may now have a mill and a small hamlet in the centre of it with a player run workshop.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It seems sometimes like there is a double standard when talking about virtual worlds and themeparks. We embrace change and look for innovation in themepark design. Then we shoot down virtual worlds because old systems may not have worked without considering the possibility that these ideas can also be refined and innovated upon just like themepark design.
If you were advocating player freedom, you'd be in favor of fast travel.
Fast travel is a choice. The player has the freedom to choose fast or slow travel (because you can still walk anywhere if you enjoy travel for travel's sake.)
It's absolutely possible to have fast travel coexist with bandit ambushes. The ambusher chooses the route to ambush along, and the next time someone uses that fast travel pathway they're instead sent to an ambush and PVP happens.
But even without that, in the case where travel actually happens, it's clearly better for that travel to involve gameplay and decisions than be "do nothing and wait for a while". If you describe that as "ADHD" and "needing to hit buttons" then you're describing all gameplay in every game in that same negative light (which is why it's such a comical criticism.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The how come you are not in favour of skipping travel when people find it boring? The REASON why instant/fast travel is so popular is because there is a demand for it.
I, for on, find traveling the same route more than 2 times very boring. I find that in a combat centric game, travel is just a distraction.
There is a "weird" standard.
When companies are implementing NEW functionalities like LFD, LFR and x-realm matching, they are not called innovative. When companies go back to OLD ideas like UO or EQ, they are called innovative.
Personally, i think the innovation in recent MMOs is precisely adding technology (like phasing) to make them more game like, and more fun (to me).
When companies are implementing NEW functionalities like LFD, LFR and x-realm matching, they are not called innovative. When companies go back to OLD ideas like UO or EQ, they are called innovative.
Personally, i think the innovation in recent MMOs is precisely adding technology (like phasing) to make them more game like, and more fun (to me).
See I look at it as lfd is an evolution of the themepark problem of group finding.
But you talk about virtual world mechanics and people cant seem to get past "wtf ffa full loot pvp is fail".
Eh?
What I am against is being able to skip travel in certain games if that then has a negative impact upon the interlinked dynamics of said game. If travel through a world impacts upon a player run economy or territory control, or resources control or pvp, then no you shouldn't just be able to skip it, unless the few bits you can instantly port to have no impact upon the overall mechanics.
But then if you don't want to have to travel at all and if you don't give a shit about player run economies and the like then you are not going to be playing those games in the first place.
I'm all for skipping travel in games where it is of little to no actual consequence. If you don't want to see a game world and by porting around you have no negative impact upon other mechanics then you port around to your hearts content for all I care.
Out of interest, if you find travelling more than once boring, wouldn't it be better to try and improve the game world so that you don't find it boring as you constantly move through it. You know as opposed to just missing the entire thing out altogether?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
You have a choice when you choose which type of game to play, or which game within a genre you decide to play. There are countless titles that cater to the "fast or no travel" taste. Trying to justify the same mechanics for every type of game and thus limit player choice by fubaring up gameplay elements dependant upon travel, well no, that's not a good thing.
Except those bandit ambushes mean players having to select from computer selected, pre defined routes, In the open world version you can take any route, regardless of how convoluted and attack (or not) at any point along it. How exactly does this scenario end? Does one side have to win? Because in the open world version you could choose not to engage the fight and hide if you think the convoy is too strong, you could run the hell away, the convoy may even get lucky and get help from a passer by.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot script the kind of dynamics you can have from an open world, well not without making it so retardedly complex that it is pointless to do.
That development time would be better served actually improving the game world, instead of looking at ways of replicating systems which are already in place in order to remove the game world.....
Walking through a game world is "doing something". Moving around isn't smacking something on the head but you are still doing something. Removing the dynamics that travel can bring to an open world game simply because you feel the need to hit buttons is clearly NOT an improvement at all.
As for the ADHD comment (which I suggested we moved away from in fairness), there is a difference between hitting buttons to do something and hitting buttons for the sake of hitting buttons.
Again, when speaking of open, virtual worlds. Not about themeparks, not about lobby games, not about arena/instanced specific games. It seems more sensible to actually look for ways of improving the world (you know the thing that makes it unique) so you can enjoy travel etc within it more, as opposed to trying to remove the world and turn it into a lobby game. If someone has no interest in that whatsoever, cool there are loads of other games out there, enjoy.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
While 'technically' it is innovation - I am not calling it personally innovfative, cause for me it is devolution and walking backwards in direction of non-mmo multiplayer games, so that's why I personally in my own rating cannot put it into 'innovative' bracket.
Making mmo less mmo is not innovative for me.
Of course this is very subjective, but well I am not analyst making internal report on something but simply a player and consumer.
In that context, Game Genie offers player freedom and choice. But it also trivializes the intended experience.
Sure, and if you absolutely had to have travel happen slowly in a game world you would simply add depth to travel instead of letting it be some "sit there and do nothing" activity, which is one tiny step away from being the shallowest type of gameplay imaginable (the miniscule scrap of depth provided by mob-avoidance is the only thing keeping it from being completely shallow...and that's not even part of EVE travel.)
Walking through a game world is doing something. It's not doing something interesting. Games should be interesting. Completely shallow games don't entertain long. Neither do games which force you to spend significant time doing completely shallow activities (because the net sum of a game's activities is what the overall experience is, and travel becomes deadweight which tanks the experience.)
For the final bit, yes you're right. And my proposed system is hitting buttons to do something. It adds depth to an activity nearly devoid of depth, so that travel doesn't tank the experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm a bit torn. On one hand I'd like the travel to be automatic (like autopilot) if I'm required to travel. But if it were made interesting sure I would play it.
Thing is, a lot of the time when people talk about world, travel and stuff like that, they are talking about what could happen. However in practice, while something might happen usually nothing happens. So it makes travelling boring and not worth the rare encounters.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Travel is shallow you say and adds no depth, but that neglects the fact that it adds depth and gameplay features to a game world which you cannot simply replicate with scripted features. It also neglects the fact that your subjective view as to what shallow gameplay is, doesn't matter at all to those who actually enjoy the act of travelling through a game world.
Maybe you are making the mistake of thinking that virtual worlds and travel through them should be altered to appeal to the hardcore, must bash buttons constantly, must be in an instance constantly crowd. You would be very, very wrong in thinking that.
Travel through a game world improves the experience for plenty of players both directly and indirectly. Hitting buttons for the sake of it does no such thing, and your proposed system certainly doesn't add depth. If you think a scripted minigame is going to add the same depth and freedom as travel through an open world in the case of virtual world games, then that is gobsmacking. Again, feel free to point out these methods in detail.
Once more it seems clear that improving the game world is far superior to removing the game world.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Yep I agree to a greater extent. There is certainly a great deal that can be improved upon by making the actual worlds you are travelling through more dynamic and interesting.
It seems to make far more sense to look to ways to improve the game world, which in turn makes travelling through it more interesting to more people, more often. Whilst it also allows you to keep in place the interlinking systems that travel through a game worlds allows for, dynamic territory control, bandits and trade routes, non centralized economy etc. Rather then trying to rip it out of a game.
I just find it unbelievable that peoples first idea is to try and actually remove the game world, one of the unique, defining features of mmorpgs, as opposed to thinking about improving the game world instead. That doesn't mean, I hasten to add, that I think all mmorpgs should be structured in such a way, far from it.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."