Originally posted by Deivos That doesn't sound sandbox-ish at all.
Yes, but still much more sandboxish than current instances we are used to see.
My point is that placing restrictions and enforcing competition to cause exclusive access to a dungeon is not a sandbox gameplay element.
It's actually an element that serves to restrict play for a large portion of the community more than it generally already gets dealt.
Making instances more "sandboxy" would be more about changing the things one has access to within instances, not controlling their access, and the consequential ability to both complete missions and achieve other non-directed goals as it suits player interests.
How a sandbox element for controlling a dungeon would play out would more be about gameplay mechanics that can be used to lock out or ward against opposing player entry. Like assembling a literal gate around the dungeon, amassing a somewhat constant flow of tough mobs flooding by, etc.
What you proposed is actually a relatively "themepark" styled concept, as it relies on a rigid scripted mechanic to gate player interaction and play.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Well instances is certainly not a step forward for all genres would you not agree?
It is a step forward for people who like that kind of gameplay.
Genre is just a convenient label .... people are still debating if DDO is a MMORPG.
But would you not agree instance is a step forward and innovation in gameplay design?
Again your missing the point, making all games instanced and the way you want because of your personal preference is just plain selfish period. This is in no way a step forward for any genre for either side.
For example if I was pushing and claiming that persistent world would make diablo "better" and that it would be step forward because that is my preference it would just be me being selfish an ignorant.
Having different genres is a good thing making all these different genres the same gameplay wise is a very very bad thing and why we have all these fail mmorpg that go f2p lately.
As for instances in some games or genres sure it a step forward and a good design but not for all and it certainly isn't innovative.
I am sorry but I am not a selfish 10 year old that thinks every single game and genre should cater to my personal playstayle and preferences.
As for DDO, it has been my main game since 2009 and there's no debate about it, it is not a mmorpg. People rarely group and solo or duo things mostly, most raids can be shotrmanned quite easily and even soloed.
DDO is a dungeon game with some few mmorpg qualities.
I am sorry but your whole reasoning is based around a very self centered and narrow minded point of view..
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Whether the game use instances or not has no bearing on game being a sandbox.
Instanced content are one of the MAIN themepark tools . While sandboxes try to allow players impact/change the world, instances create multiple copies of the world to each player to guarantee zero impact from others in your copy of "world".
Again your missing the point, making all games instanced and the way you want because of your personal preference is just plain selfish period. This is in no way a step forward for any genre for either side.
For example if I was pushing and claiming that persistent world would make diablo "better" and that it would be step forward because that is my preference it would just be me being selfish an ignorant.
What? Stating my preference on a public forum is selfish?
And yes, there are threads (you can go search for them) that talk about what games can be turned into a MMO (with persistent world) .. and Diablo came up.
I guess you think all those who participated are selfish.
Originally posted by Deivos That doesn't sound sandbox-ish at all.
Yes, but still much more sandboxish than current instances we are used to see.
My point is that placing restrictions and enforcing competition to cause exclusive access to a dungeon is not a sandbox gameplay element.
It's actually an element that serves to restrict play for a large portion of the community more than it generally already gets dealt.
Making instances more "sandboxy" would be more about changing the things one has access to within instances, not controlling their access, and the consequential ability to both complete missions and achieve other non-directed goals as it suits player interests.
How a sandbox element for controlling a dungeon would play out would more be about gameplay mechanics that can be used to lock out or ward against opposing player entry. Like assembling a literal gate around the dungeon, amassing a somewhat constant flow of tough mobs flooding by, etc.
What you proposed is actually a relatively "themepark" styled concept, as it relies on a rigid scripted mechanic to gate player interaction and play.
The main issue of instanced content is the creation of multiples copies of a same "place" to each player (or group of players). My proposal is only to make a dungeon be single and open world with a restriction in entrance to avoid overcrowd and allow dramatic/teatralized effects. But the dungeon would be the SAME to everyone. The other raid group to enter would meet the dungeon with part of its content already cleared by previous group.
It's only a idea to allow dramaticity and avoid overcrowd in a open world dungeon.
The secret is to make dungeon vast and not the 1-2 hour dungeons we have today. Vanguard has some vast dungeon that span many level, dungeons within dungeons that take days to finish and in some cases weeks.
No need for instanced dungeons if done right.
nah .. either you have to walk a long time before seeing anything interesting, or it will be too long to fight through.
Rubbish lol.
Instances are much better ... more control ... no need to bump into others.
I guess you haven't played a mmo with the type of dungeons i'm talking about.
Again your missing the point, making all games instanced and the way you want because of your personal preference is just plain selfish period. This is in no way a step forward for any genre for either side.
For example if I was pushing and claiming that persistent world would make diablo "better" and that it would be step forward because that is my preference it would just be me being selfish an ignorant.
What? Stating my preference on a public forum is selfish?
And yes, there are threads (you can go search for them) that talk about what games can be turned into a MMO (with persistent world) .. and Diablo came up.
I guess you think all those who participated are selfish.
No stating your preference isn't selfish but not being objective and like a child claiming this and this will be better because that's how I like is, especially if the thing you like better has it's own genre already.
Here's an analogy:
A child prince tastes an apple and an orange for the first time and declares," I like oranges better than apples!". Stating his preference isn't selfish.
After some time he then proudly declares, "cut down all apple trees and replace them with orange trees, it will be a step forward,,, because I prefer oranges" this would indeed be self centered and selfish no doubt about it and this is what you are doing.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Better to find a way to remove instances so people can play together.
If people who to play with any stranger who come along, instances would not have been invented in the first place.
Personally, i don't want to play with random strangers without my control. I prefer instances much more than open world.
I think it is telling that many of the 'old school' games moved away from their original design to include more instancing, more control over the pvp, etc. Those developers were privy to the actual data about what people did, liked, and left the game over.
It's perfectly fine to like particular design elements, but that doesn't mean that the ones you dislike are automatically bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil! Instancing solved some problems. It added some as well.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
A child prince tastes an apple and an orange for the first time and declares," I like oranges better than apples!". Stating his preference isn't selfish.
After some time he then proudly declares, "cut down all apple trees and replace them with orange trees, it will be a step forward,,, because I prefer oranges" this would indeed be self centered and selfish no doubt about it and this is what you are doing.
Great .. then i will continue to state my preference. Since i have no power to change anything anyway .. and i don't even say what "mmo should become" (in fact, i wrote about the idea of what mmo "should be" is flawed) ... then you should have no problem with my posts.
In fact, i will make sure that i am clear that the preferences being stated is mine.
You wouldn't object if i separately discuss what is popular in the market (which is totally objective, and has nothing to do with my preference .. for example, i don't like minecraft & skyrim, and i still state them as popular) would you? (since they are "objective" as you say).
It's perfectly fine to like particular design elements, but that doesn't mean that the ones you dislike are automatically bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil! Instancing solved some problems. It added some as well.
Of course. In fact, "bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil" is totally subjective (as i have stated many times).
Hence i can totally say sandbox is bad/poor/awful FOR ME ... but if you like it, it is your prerogative.
It's perfectly fine to like particular design elements, but that doesn't mean that the ones you dislike are automatically bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil! Instancing solved some problems. It added some as well.
Of course. In fact, "bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil" is totally subjective (as i have stated many times).
Hence i can totally say sandbox is bad/poor/awful FOR ME ... but if you like it, it is your prerogative.
I actually didn't play those early MMOs, mostly because after investigation, I felt the problems outweighed the benefits. A lot of the 'open game' problems (spawn camping, ninja looting, sociopathic asshats, etc) were responsible for that choice. I personally don't see how instancing hurts immersion more than, say, a line of parties sitting somewhere waiting for needed boss to spawn on site.
But yes, different strokes for all....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I guess you haven't played a mmo with the type of dungeons i'm talking about.
Yes i did. I played EQ .. horrible game to me. Camping was not fun. I am glad i now can choose games with NO open dungeons and only instanced ones.
It's good that you can play games that you prefer no one says you shouldn't and maybe even try sticking to the genres that give you that.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Asm0deus
Here's an analogy:
A child prince tastes an apple and an orange for the first time and declares," I like oranges better than apples!". Stating his preference isn't selfish.
After some time he then proudly declares, "cut down all apple trees and replace them with orange trees, it will be a step forward,,, because I prefer oranges" this would indeed be self centered and selfish no doubt about it and this is what you are doing.
Great .. then i will continue to state my preference. Since i have no power to change anything anyway .. and i don't even say what "mmo should become" (in fact, i wrote about the idea of what mmo "should be" is flawed) ... then you should have no problem with my posts.
In fact, i will make sure that i am clear that the preferences being stated is mine.
You wouldn't object if i separately discuss what is popular in the market (which is totally objective, and has nothing to do with my preference .. for example, i don't like minecraft & skyrim, and i still state them as popular) would you? (since they are "objective" as you say).
Except you are not just stating your preference! You are claiming genres that do not cater to your preference should change simply to suit you, even though there are genres that cater to your preferences already, and that it is a step forward and that at the detriment of those that enjoy the genre like it is.
You can try and hide behind the "I'm just stating my preferences" but that's hogwash.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Arglebargle
It's perfectly fine to like particular design elements, but that doesn't mean that the ones you dislike are automatically bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil! Instancing solved some problems. It added some as well.
Of course. In fact, "bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil" is totally subjective (as i have stated many times).
Hence i can totally say sandbox is bad/poor/awful FOR ME ... but if you like it, it is your prerogative.
Of course what is good bad etc is subjective and it's why we have different genres. But doing like you are doing and closing your eyes to all other gameplay except your preferences is more than just stating Your preferences, it's being purposely unobjective, narrow mind and self centered.
Take post #38 for example, Arglebargle states his preference and his views/opinons but he is able to see that not everyone will agree or like the same thing and he is not ona crusade to kake everything cater to his preferences. I don't agree with all he say but I can respect his opinion
In your case...claiming that your just stating your preferences is a load of hogwash.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
It's perfectly fine to like particular design elements, but that doesn't mean that the ones you dislike are automatically bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil! Instancing solved some problems. It added some as well.
Of course. In fact, "bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil" is totally subjective (as i have stated many times).
Hence i can totally say sandbox is bad/poor/awful FOR ME ... but if you like it, it is your prerogative.
I actually didn't play those early MMOs, mostly because after investigation, I felt the problems outweighed the benefits. A lot of the 'open game' problems (spawn camping, ninja looting, sociopathic asshats, etc) were responsible for that choice. I personally don't see how instancing hurts immersion more than, say, a line of parties sitting somewhere waiting for needed boss to spawn on site.
But yes, different strokes for all....
I played them .. i didn't like them. That is why I don't play them anymore. Very simple.
It's perfectly fine to like particular design elements, but that doesn't mean that the ones you dislike are automatically bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil! Instancing solved some problems. It added some as well.
Of course. In fact, "bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil" is totally subjective (as i have stated many times).
Hence i can totally say sandbox is bad/poor/awful FOR ME ... but if you like it, it is your prerogative.
I actually didn't play those early MMOs, mostly because after investigation, I felt the problems outweighed the benefits. A lot of the 'open game' problems (spawn camping, ninja looting, sociopathic asshats, etc) were responsible for that choice. I personally don't see how instancing hurts immersion more than, say, a line of parties sitting somewhere waiting for needed boss to spawn on site.
But yes, different strokes for all....
I played them .. i didn't like them. That is why I don't play them anymore. Very simple.
I played them too and I enjoyed them. Very simple.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Asm0deus
Again claiming that your just stating your preferences in this case is a load of hogwash.
If you cannot comprehend what i said and see that I am just stating my preference .. it is your reading problem, not mine.
You are always welcome to misinterpret me ... and ignore my posts. There are plenty of others who don't.
I have seen plenty of your posts in this thread and in other threads and it always comes back to this crusade your on. My comprehension of the english language is just fine, you on the other hand....
You seriously need to learn the difference between stating preferences and claiming things as facts. It's not my problem if you cannot communicate properly and therefore can't express yourself accurately.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
It's perfectly fine to like particular design elements, but that doesn't mean that the ones you dislike are automatically bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil! Instancing solved some problems. It added some as well.
Of course. In fact, "bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil" is totally subjective (as i have stated many times).
Hence i can totally say sandbox is bad/poor/awful FOR ME ... but if you like it, it is your prerogative.
I actually didn't play those early MMOs, mostly because after investigation, I felt the problems outweighed the benefits. A lot of the 'open game' problems (spawn camping, ninja looting, sociopathic asshats, etc) were responsible for that choice. I personally don't see how instancing hurts immersion more than, say, a line of parties sitting somewhere waiting for needed boss to spawn on site.
But yes, different strokes for all....
I played them .. i didn't like them. That is why I don't play them anymore. Very simple.
I guess it's to much to ask to just get along with other people in MMOs these days. Yes some people were out to ruin other experiences and there was competition over certain areas in the game. That is part of what made it challenging in fun. It's also what made it feel like something special instead of just a game to pass the time. The people in the games were a lot more interesting then any NPC could be. Some of them might have hindered people and others might have helped people, but at least there were real villains and heroes. They provided a variety of entertainment that NPCs could never provide. Being able to find a place in the society was pretty interesting. It's what you don't seem to grasp and probably why you didn't get original MMORPGs. You probably want a game that provides no roadblocks in your path to the glory of killing and looting NPCs.
I guess it's to much to ask to just get along with other people in MMOs these days.
Yes it is. That is why i play solo (or with family). I don't have to get along with any strangers. Or i can just do a LFD (rarely) and hit the quit button if we don't get along.
I guess it's to much to ask to just get along with other people in MMOs these days.
Yes it is. That is why i play solo (or with family). I don't have to get along with any strangers. Or i can just do a LFD (rarely) and hit the quit button if we don't get along.
You do realize you could put people on ignore in old games if you wanted to right? I know there wasn't an easy button to push like today's games. You had to type something into the chat box like /ignore playername. Not to difficult.
I guess it's to much to ask to just get along with other people in MMOs these days.
Yes it is. That is why i play solo (or with family). I don't have to get along with any strangers. Or i can just do a LFD (rarely) and hit the quit button if we don't get along.
You do realize you could put people on ignore in old games if you wanted to right? I know there wasn't an easy button to push like today's games. You had to type something into the chat box like /ignore playername. Not to difficult.
That would be too much effort for him methinks, I mean if he can't click a button and poof be instantly in the dungeon then the games doing something wrong by his previous remarks so I am pretty sure typing /ignore or even saying hi everyone! when he does join a party would be asking too much. All this is only an assumption based on previous posts of his on the matter so I could be wrong.
He might be the kind to say hi but then rage quit at the first death in difficult group content, that's what I get from his post anyhoot.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I guess it's to much to ask to just get along with other people in MMOs these days.
Yes it is. That is why i play solo (or with family). I don't have to get along with any strangers. Or i can just do a LFD (rarely) and hit the quit button if we don't get along.
You do realize you could put people on ignore in old games if you wanted to right? I know there wasn't an easy button to push like today's games. You had to type something into the chat box like /ignore playername. Not to difficult.
That would be too much effort for him methinks, I mean if he can't click a button and poof be instantly in the dungeon then the games doing something wrong by his previous remarks so I am pretty sure typing /ignore or even saying hi everyone! when he does join a party would be asking too much. All this is only an assumption based on previous posts of his on the matter so I could be wrong.
He might be the kind to say hi but then rage quit at the first death in difficult group content, that's what I get from his post anyhoot.
lol
The funny thing is being an introvert I had difficulty with the social aspect of old MMOs, but at the same time I didn't realize it was what made them special until after it was gone and couldn't be recaptured again. I guess it's one of those old sayings you don't know what you have until it's gone. It certainly sounds like he doesn't want to be in a massively multiplayer game though. He seems to have no interest in interacting with people at all unless they are there to help him kill mobs and get loot.
XP/Loot sharing in mmos like GW2 goes a long way towards solving issues of ninja looting, spawn camping, etc. The biggest problems in the older mmos was that rewards were exclusive to the first group that tapped or did the most damage, etc. Additionally, having randomly spawning mobs with exclusive rewards, or one time rewards for the one group who killed X and no one else ever got to see the fight also created much of the hostility in the genre.
So much of the genre has been inherently built on a competitive spirit in the general game. Even when WoW created a questing system that took a character from 1-50 that could be soloed, then the competitive spirit was renewed with small spawning areas and limited spawning of the kill quest mobs. If cooperation had been part of the inherent design, then we wouldn't need a discussion of instancing vs. open dungeons, since many of the problems that lead to instances would have never been created.
As for my personal feelings. In the open world, having open world dungeons that are sprawling and challenging can be possible, as long as it's understood that at the outset of the game those areas will probably zerged to hell and gone and then become lightly populated as people progress through the game. Instances can be set aside for things like story or challenges that require limited group sizes. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
XP/Loot sharing in mmos like GW2 goes a long way towards solving issues of ninja looting, spawn camping, etc. The biggest problems in the older mmos was that rewards were exclusive to the first group that tapped or did the most damage, etc. Additionally, having randomly spawning mobs with exclusive rewards, or one time rewards for the one group who killed X and no one else ever got to see the fight also created much of the hostility in the genre.
So much of the genre has been inherently built on a competitive spirit in the general game. Even when WoW created a questing system that took a character from 1-50 that could be soloed, then the competitive spirit was renewed with small spawning areas and limited spawning of the kill quest mobs. If cooperation had been part of the inherent design, then we wouldn't need a discussion of instancing vs. open dungeons, since many of the problems that lead to instances would have never been created.
As for my personal feelings. In the open world, having open world dungeons that are sprawling and challenging can be possible, as long as it's understood that at the outset of the game those areas will probably zerged to hell and gone and then become lightly populated as people progress through the game. Instances can be set aside for things like story or challenges that require limited group sizes. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I believe that you are correct when you say that removing ninja looting and fighting over mobs from the game removed a lot of player hostility, but it also removed something intangible. I would like to call it competitive spirit. Having contested areas made it more difficult to get things and more rewarding when you got them.
XP/Loot sharing in mmos like GW2 goes a long way towards solving issues of ninja looting, spawn camping, etc. The biggest problems in the older mmos was that rewards were exclusive to the first group that tapped or did the most damage, etc. Additionally, having randomly spawning mobs with exclusive rewards, or one time rewards for the one group who killed X and no one else ever got to see the fight also created much of the hostility in the genre.
So much of the genre has been inherently built on a competitive spirit in the general game. Even when WoW created a questing system that took a character from 1-50 that could be soloed, then the competitive spirit was renewed with small spawning areas and limited spawning of the kill quest mobs. If cooperation had been part of the inherent design, then we wouldn't need a discussion of instancing vs. open dungeons, since many of the problems that lead to instances would have never been created.
As for my personal feelings. In the open world, having open world dungeons that are sprawling and challenging can be possible, as long as it's understood that at the outset of the game those areas will probably zerged to hell and gone and then become lightly populated as people progress through the game. Instances can be set aside for things like story or challenges that require limited group sizes. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Ah but as you have stated solutions have been found to some of these problems that plagued the first mmorpgs pray tell why they couldn't be applied to a a new mmorpg with a huge seamless world?
Many of the problems which made instancing popular can be resolved now without the need for instances.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Comments
My point is that placing restrictions and enforcing competition to cause exclusive access to a dungeon is not a sandbox gameplay element.
It's actually an element that serves to restrict play for a large portion of the community more than it generally already gets dealt.
Making instances more "sandboxy" would be more about changing the things one has access to within instances, not controlling their access, and the consequential ability to both complete missions and achieve other non-directed goals as it suits player interests.
How a sandbox element for controlling a dungeon would play out would more be about gameplay mechanics that can be used to lock out or ward against opposing player entry. Like assembling a literal gate around the dungeon, amassing a somewhat constant flow of tough mobs flooding by, etc.
What you proposed is actually a relatively "themepark" styled concept, as it relies on a rigid scripted mechanic to gate player interaction and play.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Again your missing the point, making all games instanced and the way you want because of your personal preference is just plain selfish period. This is in no way a step forward for any genre for either side.
For example if I was pushing and claiming that persistent world would make diablo "better" and that it would be step forward because that is my preference it would just be me being selfish an ignorant.
Having different genres is a good thing making all these different genres the same gameplay wise is a very very bad thing and why we have all these fail mmorpg that go f2p lately.
As for instances in some games or genres sure it a step forward and a good design but not for all and it certainly isn't innovative.
I am sorry but I am not a selfish 10 year old that thinks every single game and genre should cater to my personal playstayle and preferences.
As for DDO, it has been my main game since 2009 and there's no debate about it, it is not a mmorpg. People rarely group and solo or duo things mostly, most raids can be shotrmanned quite easily and even soloed.
DDO is a dungeon game with some few mmorpg qualities.
I am sorry but your whole reasoning is based around a very self centered and narrow minded point of view..
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Instanced content are one of the MAIN themepark tools . While sandboxes try to allow players impact/change the world, instances create multiple copies of the world to each player to guarantee zero impact from others in your copy of "world".
What? Stating my preference on a public forum is selfish?
And yes, there are threads (you can go search for them) that talk about what games can be turned into a MMO (with persistent world) .. and Diablo came up.
I guess you think all those who participated are selfish.
The main issue of instanced content is the creation of multiples copies of a same "place" to each player (or group of players). My proposal is only to make a dungeon be single and open world with a restriction in entrance to avoid overcrowd and allow dramatic/teatralized effects. But the dungeon would be the SAME to everyone. The other raid group to enter would meet the dungeon with part of its content already cleared by previous group.
It's only a idea to allow dramaticity and avoid overcrowd in a open world dungeon.
I guess you haven't played a mmo with the type of dungeons i'm talking about.
No stating your preference isn't selfish but not being objective and like a child claiming this and this will be better because that's how I like is, especially if the thing you like better has it's own genre already.
Here's an analogy:
A child prince tastes an apple and an orange for the first time and declares," I like oranges better than apples!". Stating his preference isn't selfish.
After some time he then proudly declares, "cut down all apple trees and replace them with orange trees, it will be a step forward,,, because I prefer oranges" this would indeed be self centered and selfish no doubt about it and this is what you are doing.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I think it is telling that many of the 'old school' games moved away from their original design to include more instancing, more control over the pvp, etc. Those developers were privy to the actual data about what people did, liked, and left the game over.
It's perfectly fine to like particular design elements, but that doesn't mean that the ones you dislike are automatically bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil! Instancing solved some problems. It added some as well.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Yes i did. I played EQ .. horrible game to me. Camping was not fun. I am glad i now can choose games with NO open dungeons and only instanced ones.
Great .. then i will continue to state my preference. Since i have no power to change anything anyway .. and i don't even say what "mmo should become" (in fact, i wrote about the idea of what mmo "should be" is flawed) ... then you should have no problem with my posts.
In fact, i will make sure that i am clear that the preferences being stated is mine.
You wouldn't object if i separately discuss what is popular in the market (which is totally objective, and has nothing to do with my preference .. for example, i don't like minecraft & skyrim, and i still state them as popular) would you? (since they are "objective" as you say).
Of course. In fact, "bad/poor/awful/spawn of the devil" is totally subjective (as i have stated many times).
Hence i can totally say sandbox is bad/poor/awful FOR ME ... but if you like it, it is your prerogative.
I actually didn't play those early MMOs, mostly because after investigation, I felt the problems outweighed the benefits. A lot of the 'open game' problems (spawn camping, ninja looting, sociopathic asshats, etc) were responsible for that choice. I personally don't see how instancing hurts immersion more than, say, a line of parties sitting somewhere waiting for needed boss to spawn on site.
But yes, different strokes for all....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
It's good that you can play games that you prefer no one says you shouldn't and maybe even try sticking to the genres that give you that.
Except you are not just stating your preference! You are claiming genres that do not cater to your preference should change simply to suit you, even though there are genres that cater to your preferences already, and that it is a step forward and that at the detriment of those that enjoy the genre like it is.
You can try and hide behind the "I'm just stating my preferences" but that's hogwash.
Of course what is good bad etc is subjective and it's why we have different genres. But doing like you are doing and closing your eyes to all other gameplay except your preferences is more than just stating Your preferences, it's being purposely unobjective, narrow mind and self centered.
Take post #38 for example, Arglebargle states his preference and his views/opinons but he is able to see that not everyone will agree or like the same thing and he is not ona crusade to kake everything cater to his preferences. I don't agree with all he say but I can respect his opinion
In your case...claiming that your just stating your preferences is a load of hogwash.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
There are no themepark or sandbox tools, they are just tools. You either build themepark or sandbox with them.
I played them .. i didn't like them. That is why I don't play them anymore. Very simple.
If you cannot comprehend what i said and see that I am just stating my preference .. it is your reading problem, not mine.
You are always welcome to misinterpret me ... and ignore my posts. There are plenty of others who don't.
I played them too and I enjoyed them. Very simple.
I have seen plenty of your posts in this thread and in other threads and it always comes back to this crusade your on. My comprehension of the english language is just fine, you on the other hand....
You seriously need to learn the difference between stating preferences and claiming things as facts. It's not my problem if you cannot communicate properly and therefore can't express yourself accurately.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I guess it's to much to ask to just get along with other people in MMOs these days. Yes some people were out to ruin other experiences and there was competition over certain areas in the game. That is part of what made it challenging in fun. It's also what made it feel like something special instead of just a game to pass the time. The people in the games were a lot more interesting then any NPC could be. Some of them might have hindered people and others might have helped people, but at least there were real villains and heroes. They provided a variety of entertainment that NPCs could never provide. Being able to find a place in the society was pretty interesting. It's what you don't seem to grasp and probably why you didn't get original MMORPGs. You probably want a game that provides no roadblocks in your path to the glory of killing and looting NPCs.
Yes it is. That is why i play solo (or with family). I don't have to get along with any strangers. Or i can just do a LFD (rarely) and hit the quit button if we don't get along.
You do realize you could put people on ignore in old games if you wanted to right? I know there wasn't an easy button to push like today's games. You had to type something into the chat box like /ignore playername. Not to difficult.
That would be too much effort for him methinks, I mean if he can't click a button and poof be instantly in the dungeon then the games doing something wrong by his previous remarks so I am pretty sure typing /ignore or even saying hi everyone! when he does join a party would be asking too much. All this is only an assumption based on previous posts of his on the matter so I could be wrong.
He might be the kind to say hi but then rage quit at the first death in difficult group content, that's what I get from his post anyhoot.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
lol
The funny thing is being an introvert I had difficulty with the social aspect of old MMOs, but at the same time I didn't realize it was what made them special until after it was gone and couldn't be recaptured again. I guess it's one of those old sayings you don't know what you have until it's gone. It certainly sounds like he doesn't want to be in a massively multiplayer game though. He seems to have no interest in interacting with people at all unless they are there to help him kill mobs and get loot.
XP/Loot sharing in mmos like GW2 goes a long way towards solving issues of ninja looting, spawn camping, etc. The biggest problems in the older mmos was that rewards were exclusive to the first group that tapped or did the most damage, etc. Additionally, having randomly spawning mobs with exclusive rewards, or one time rewards for the one group who killed X and no one else ever got to see the fight also created much of the hostility in the genre.
So much of the genre has been inherently built on a competitive spirit in the general game. Even when WoW created a questing system that took a character from 1-50 that could be soloed, then the competitive spirit was renewed with small spawning areas and limited spawning of the kill quest mobs. If cooperation had been part of the inherent design, then we wouldn't need a discussion of instancing vs. open dungeons, since many of the problems that lead to instances would have never been created.
As for my personal feelings. In the open world, having open world dungeons that are sprawling and challenging can be possible, as long as it's understood that at the outset of the game those areas will probably zerged to hell and gone and then become lightly populated as people progress through the game. Instances can be set aside for things like story or challenges that require limited group sizes. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I believe that you are correct when you say that removing ninja looting and fighting over mobs from the game removed a lot of player hostility, but it also removed something intangible. I would like to call it competitive spirit. Having contested areas made it more difficult to get things and more rewarding when you got them.
Ah but as you have stated solutions have been found to some of these problems that plagued the first mmorpgs pray tell why they couldn't be applied to a a new mmorpg with a huge seamless world?
Many of the problems which made instancing popular can be resolved now without the need for instances.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.