Long before MMORPGs became a homogenized cultural phenomenon thanks
to World of Warcraft, pioneering virtual world players felt they were
embarking on a journey in a genre that had no boundaries or limits. It
was only natural to believe that this unique participatory virtual
existence — only possible in fantasy MMORPGs — was the start of
something special. Even though the first MMORPGs were very basic, we had
a sense of anticipation that more exciting, immersive, living and
breathing virtual worlds were ahead on the horizon.
It never happened. Instead, it got worse.
I have never in my life disagreed with an article more.
It never happened. Instead, it got better. MMOs are finally games, and not a pretense of virtual worlds.
I have to admit, i was extremely surprised to see this response from you...
Count me in as astonished.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Calling 2004-2008 WOW deep is a bit awkward, given that that was objectively the shallowest period of WOW. The rotations were barely deeper than pre-existing MMORPGs at that point, and were generally quite simple and easy to master. So the game really didn't become deep until after 2008 (classes didn't even generally have 3 viable specs until 2007's release of Burning Crusade.)
Originally, "rotations" were of no concern unless you were raiding -- which did not occupy a large proportion of most players' time, I would guess. I played a mage in Vanilla, and my teammates could not care less what my rotation was, just whether I kept the right enemy as a sheep. I would say that the game became shallower later, when players began to use rotations and AoE in the 5-mans.
Originally, "rotations" were of no concern unless you were raiding -- which did not occupy a large proportion of most players' time, I would guess. I played a mage in Vanilla, and my teammates could not care less what my rotation was, just whether I kept the right enemy as a sheep. I would say that the game became shallower later, when players began to use rotations and AoE in the 5-mans.
You would only say that if you lack the definition of game depth. Game depth is a measure of how hard a game is to full master, and is essentially skill cap.
The older, simpler rotations were easier to master. Modern rotations are objectively deeper.
An easy-to-master game is not a deep game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally, "rotations" were of no concern unless you were raiding -- which did not occupy a large proportion of most players' time, I would guess. I played a mage in Vanilla, and my teammates could not care less what my rotation was, just whether I kept the right enemy as a sheep. I would say that the game became shallower later, when players began to use rotations and AoE in the 5-mans.
You would only say that if you lack the definition of game depth. Game depth is a measure of how hard a game is to full master, and is essentially skill cap.
The older, simpler rotations were easier to master. Modern rotations are objectively deeper.
An easy-to-master game is not a deep game.
Combat depth would be about forcing players to alternate between strategies, against some foes you move in, do quick flurries and get out, against others you combo stuns with heavy melee spikes, sometimes you might just have to kite the enemies.
Combat rotations is mostly about complexity. In many ways you could replace mmorpg combat rotations with a key that says damage since that's the case in far too many games.
A good game has a proper mix of both aspects, sadly much of the content in WoW lacks depth.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Originally, "rotations" were of no concern unless you were raiding -- which did not occupy a large proportion of most players' time, I would guess. I played a mage in Vanilla, and my teammates could not care less what my rotation was, just whether I kept the right enemy as a sheep. I would say that the game became shallower later, when players began to use rotations and AoE in the 5-mans.
You would only say that if you lack the definition of game depth. Game depth is a measure of how hard a game is to full master, and is essentially skill cap.
The older, simpler rotations were easier to master. Modern rotations are objectively deeper.
An easy-to-master game is not a deep game.
IMO combat rotations are a very small part in determining if a virtual world style MMORPG has depth.
EVE'S combat rotations, somewhat shallow, EVE's depth, unmatched in the industry.
Oh yes, its complexity is unmatched as well, I do know the difference and the latter is not a bad thing, even if the average player lack the skills (such as patience and perseverance) to master it.
I will agree in one thing, EVE is likely the only MMORPG that no player has ever really mastered in all areas (or for that matter even fully understood), not even the developer's who created it.
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
My favorite mmorpg is a niche one probably no one on the forums heard of. In the old days studios were making mmorpg with 3 million budget.
Nowadays even indie mmorpg have higher than 3 million budget. Yet people have more fun 10 years ago. Just give indie game a shot. There's a few coming out. CU, Crowfall etc.
Combat depth would be about forcing players to alternate between strategies, against some foes you move in, do quick flurries and get out, against others you combo stuns with heavy melee spikes, sometimes you might just have to kite the enemies.
Combat rotations is mostly about complexity. In many ways you could replace mmorpg combat rotations with a key that says damage since that's the case in far too many games.
A good game has a proper mix of both aspects, sadly much of the content in WoW lacks depth.
Why would you say this?
Nearly every boss in WOW disrupts the standard rotation, forcing alternation.
WOW rotations aren't complex. In fact it's the shift towards simpler -- the reduction in total skill count -- that causes many players to mistakenly assume the rotations aren't deep. "Dumbed down" is the immediate assumption literally every time WOW reduces skill count, and yet modern rotations are generally much deeper than earlier ones because of how skills interact with each other.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Combat depth would be about forcing players to alternate between strategies, against some foes you move in, do quick flurries and get out, against others you combo stuns with heavy melee spikes, sometimes you might just have to kite the enemies.
Combat rotations is mostly about complexity. In many ways you could replace mmorpg combat rotations with a key that says damage since that's the case in far too many games.
A good game has a proper mix of both aspects, sadly much of the content in WoW lacks depth.
Why would you say this?
Nearly every boss in WOW disrupts the standard rotation, forcing alternation.
WOW rotations aren't complex. In fact it's the shift towards simpler -- the reduction in total skill count -- that causes many players to mistakenly assume the rotations aren't deep. "Dumbed down" is the immediate assumption literally every time WOW reduces skill count, and yet modern rotations are generally much deeper than earlier ones because of how skills interact with each other.
Mostly bosses forced you to dance to the tunes, run away from the boss, stay behind the boss, stay in front of the boss, spread out, gather up while doing the same thing that you always do, stop hitting the boss.
There are exceptions to the dance routine, but for the most part you did the same thing that you always did and wondered why the same people always failed doing stuff.
Post edited by Shaigh on
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
IMO combat rotations are a very small part in determining if a virtual world style MMORPG has depth.
EVE'S combat rotations, somewhat shallow, EVE's depth, unmatched in the industry.
Oh yes, its complexity is unmatched as well, I do know the difference and the latter is not a bad thing, even if the average player lack the skills (such as patience and perseverance) to master it.
I will agree in one thing, EVE is likely the only MMORPG that no player has ever really mastered in all areas (or for that matter even fully understood), not even the developer's who created it.
Insert "the cliff" picture here.
That's not how we describe things.
When someone uses one can of black paint on a piece of paper, you'd call that "black".
When someone uses one can of black paint on a white house, you'd call that "off-white".
When calling a game deep or shallow, you're talking about the entire game. You're going to describe the average experience. So if 10% of your time in-game is very deep but the remaining 90% is shallow, you don't call the result "deep".
"The cliff" is mostly about complexity. If you created rock-paper-scissors-shotgun-etc that had 200 different items that each countered 1 thing and lost to 1 thing, you'd have the exact same cliff graphic even though the game would only be as deep as rock-paper-scissors. While EVE is deeper than the mere memorization of its very numerous game elements, it's mostly the complexity which causes "the cliff" graphic.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Combat depth would be about forcing players to alternate between strategies, against some foes you move in, do quick flurries and get out, against others you combo stuns with heavy melee spikes, sometimes you might just have to kite the enemies.
Combat rotations is mostly about complexity. In many ways you could replace mmorpg combat rotations with a key that says damage since that's the case in far too many games.
A good game has a proper mix of both aspects, sadly much of the content in WoW lacks depth.
Why would you say this?
Nearly every boss in WOW disrupts the standard rotation, forcing alternation.
WOW rotations aren't complex. In fact it's the shift towards simpler -- the reduction in total skill count -- that causes many players to mistakenly assume the rotations aren't deep. "Dumbed down" is the immediate assumption literally every time WOW reduces skill count, and yet modern rotations are generally much deeper than earlier ones because of how skills interact with each other.
That's why, with equal gear, two players of the same class can have huge efficiency differences. The good player will do up to the double DPS than the "zomg rotations r ez u just mash buttowns!" noob.
Interestingly enough, the same is true of a skilled combat pilot in EVE vs one is less so. Must be the depth.
But still people think it's just a matter of turning on your guns and orbiting your opponent.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I can never help but agree with Wolfshead articles. For years I had his articles in my sig on this very site.
That said, even though I agree wholeheartedly with this article, and want very much to play the game he is talking about, I believe its much further out of reach than he postulates. In fact, for about the last 2 years every other article by Wolfshead has been the same griping about WoW and propagating the ideal that without dynamic content, we will never have an enjoyable MMO again. I don't buy it.
Don't get me wrong, I relish the thought of the day when players can actually log in and individually and collectively make an impact on the game world. A day when each server is different from the next, and the story in one realm is different from any other. Unfortunately, that day is still a ways off. What little dynamic content developers are capable of creating right now at a realistic cost and development time is so shallow, its almost not even worth including.
Still, I hope his articles inspire current and future devs to think outside of the box.
Combat depth would be about forcing players to alternate between strategies, against some foes you move in, do quick flurries and get out, against others you combo stuns with heavy melee spikes, sometimes you might just have to kite the enemies.
Combat rotations is mostly about complexity. In many ways you could replace mmorpg combat rotations with a key that says damage since that's the case in far too many games.
A good game has a proper mix of both aspects, sadly much of the content in WoW lacks depth.
Why would you say this?
Nearly every boss in WOW disrupts the standard rotation, forcing alternation.
WOW rotations aren't complex. In fact it's the shift towards simpler -- the reduction in total skill count -- that causes many players to mistakenly assume the rotations aren't deep. "Dumbed down" is the immediate assumption literally every time WOW reduces skill count, and yet modern rotations are generally much deeper than earlier ones because of how skills interact with each other.
That's why, with equal gear, two players of the same class can have huge efficiency differences. The good player will do up to the double DPS than the "zomg rotations r ez u just mash buttowns!" noob.
The difference in efficiency has to do with how quickly you react to what happens and not about making the correct choice. When you play with good players you notice that they have very little combat downtime, a bad player tends to freeze up when stuff happens.
Its twitch.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Scot said: Follow you vision, like Minecraft, H1Z1, be bold.
People did. It's called stop making mmorpg.
Wow was build upon the metrics of what "most" people wants. That's why it is a huge success. And that's why only wow clones after it manage to have decent amount of players. "Oh a few hundred thousands players what a failure", that's what people call wow clones. If it is a non wow clone type mmorpg, people would call it huge success.
Honestly listen to the QQ on the forum...
"I don't play darkfall because it is too hardcore eventhough I want to play a hardcore game."
"I dont' play archeage, because eventhough it is perfect it is pay to win."
That's the problem with the industry. You are taking a niche of a niche who want another niche.
Before WoW we had had very different MMOs; UO, EQ, AC. What the metrics lovers tell us is that we know what people want now. Possibly after over 16 years and I would suggest that view is distorted by many factors, which I touched on in previous posts.
WoW did not have over 16 years and hundreds (?) of MMOs to look at. So if it looked at DAOC's three way PvP it could garner some player satisfaction with that gameplay from that game. But no other game had that system so how could they know to run with it or not? Same for say all human races in AC, was that what players wanted? AC was the only big western MMO with all human player races, so again how do you make a decision based on one game?
After WoW, many more games were designed like it with some variation. Here metrics have an easy time, little variation and years of data. Easy to work out what changes went down well and what did not.
Also this whole metric and focus group idea leaves out the fact that gaming companies don't pass on their data to other companies. Of course unless someone wants to say they worked at WOW back then this is all speculation. So I assume this was all done by internet surveys and Blizzard focus groups. Not very accurate. I do realise that gaming companies share data with third party ones, who then produce industry data on the likes of sales and game population. But the veracity of that has been called into question before. Not even sure they existed back then?
Where you are right is gaming houses are hardly making any MMORPG's, but depends on what you call a MMO. To me PS2 is a FPS MMO, Minecraft is a Crafting MMO and H1Z1 is a Survival MMO, while ESO is a MMORPG (nearly there). You seem to think that those who favour old school only what exactly what was on the old box, back in 2000, with top notch graphics.
All the games I just mentioned have some old school in them. The open world PvP, the importance of crafting, building a game on a genre which was unproven for MMOs, large scale arena PvP. These are MMO hybrids taking the old and adding the new. In the case of PS2, adding a "2" on the end and bringing gameplay back what the industry had moved away from, presumably because the business case was not there for it.
Yes I do want more RPG MMO's, classic style, AAA but with a nod to the new as much to the old. But that isn't the only type of new MMO I want, some of those hybrids I mentioned are great too.
I can never help but agree with Wolfshead articles. For years I had his articles in my sig on this very site.
That said, even though I agree wholeheartedly with this article, and want very much to play the game he is talking about, I believe its much further out of reach than he postulates. In fact, for about the last 2 years every other article by Wolfshead has been the same griping about WoW and propagating the ideal that without dynamic content, we will never have an enjoyable MMO again. I don't buy it.
Don't get me wrong, I relish the thought of the day when players can actually log in and individually and collectively make an impact on the game world. A day when each server is different from the next, and the story in one realm is different from any other. Unfortunately, that day is still a ways off. What little dynamic content developers are capable of creating right now at a realistic cost and development time is so shallow, its almost not even worth including.
Still, I hope his articles inspire current and future devs to think outside of the box.
That day is further away than it should because we have been trying to perfect the WoW experience through out the genre.
After WoW, many more games were designed like it with some variation. Here metrics have an easy time, little variation and years of data. Easy to work out what changes went down well and what did not.
The metric is really about getting as many different "players type" as possible.
Themepark game have single player mode, group mode, story, lore, easy mode, hard mode, arena pvp, open world pvp. It try to satisfy as many different type of players as possible. The main point is they have everything so people "choose" how they want to play. None of the groups even need to intersect with each other.
Most people on this forum complaining wants their game to make one way. And only for them. That's the difference.
If anything I think Wow or other themepark game did wrong is they could make a zone for FFA pvp full loot. For example ESO and GW2 have a seperate game mode called 3 way server vs server.
Mostly bosses forced you to dance to the tunes, run away from the boss, stay behind the boss, stay in front of the boss, spread out, gather up while doing the same thing that you always do, stop hitting the boss.
There are exceptions to the dance routine, but for the most part you did the same thing that you always did and wondered why the same people always failed doing stuff.
When you play chess against your 7 year old cousin, any strategy works. You can choose to only ever move pawns and still beat them.
When you play chess against a grandmaster, you're forced to 'dance to the tune' of typical high-tier chess play.
Essentially you're trying to insult WOW by saying you're forced to "dance to the tune" of various bosses -- and yet that's exactly the thing that makes the game highly rewarding of player skill. It may not be dynamic like Chess on a per-boss basis, but that's why new bosses are released. (It's a content-driven game, and bosses are content.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The difference in efficiency has to do with how quickly you react to what happens and not about making the correct choice. When you play with good players you notice that they have very little combat downtime, a bad player tends to freeze up when stuff happens.
Its twitch.
When the boss casts a spell, quickly reacting with another Heroic Strike is still the wrong choice. You need to make the right choice to perform well, and that's what skill is.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Long before MMORPGs became a homogenized cultural phenomenon thanks
to World of Warcraft, pioneering virtual world players felt they were
embarking on a journey in a genre that had no boundaries or limits. It
was only natural to believe that this unique participatory virtual
existence — only possible in fantasy MMORPGs — was the start of
something special. Even though the first MMORPGs were very basic, we had
a sense of anticipation that more exciting, immersive, living and
breathing virtual worlds were ahead on the horizon.
It never happened. Instead, it got worse.
I have never in my life disagreed with an article more.
It never happened. Instead, it got better. MMOs are finally games, and not a pretense of virtual worlds.
I have to admit, i was extremely surprised to see this response from you...
Count me in as astonished.
Not as astonished as me about how astonished you are
I can never help but agree with Wolfshead articles. For years I had his articles in my sig on this very site.
That said, even though I agree wholeheartedly with this article, and want very much to play the game he is talking about, I believe its much further out of reach than he postulates. In fact, for about the last 2 years every other article by Wolfshead has been the same griping about WoW and propagating the ideal that without dynamic content, we will never have an enjoyable MMO again. I don't buy it.
Don't get me wrong, I relish the thought of the day when players can actually log in and individually and collectively make an impact on the game world. A day when each server is different from the next, and the story in one realm is different from any other. Unfortunately, that day is still a ways off. What little dynamic content developers are capable of creating right now at a realistic cost and development time is so shallow, its almost not even worth including.
Still, I hope his articles inspire current and future devs to think outside of the box.
That day is further away than it should because we have been trying to perfect the WoW experience through out the genre.
That has undeniably set us back. However, the sheer amount of resources it would take is so far beyond anything ever create, its insane. I don't think people really comprehend what it takes for a truly dynamic world. World - not just content or a smattering of scripted events. It would basically require full MMO teams for every server and adapting everything to the players actions. It would require dozens of writers (many for EVERY server), as well as a slew of coders.
People will of course argue that the players alone create the story but that just isn't going to happen. There has to be some structure (like a DM in dnd), or things will inevitably run amok.
I personally believe this is why EQNext died in the water. It just wasn't feasible. I also suspect that Blizzard's Titan team had aspirations of a similar sort, and also decided against it.
After WoW, many more games were designed like it with some variation. Here metrics have an easy time, little variation and years of data. Easy to work out what changes went down well and what did not.
The metric is really about getting as many different "players type" as possible.
Themepark game have single player mode, group mode, story, lore, easy mode, hard mode, arena pvp, open world pvp. It try to satisfy as many different type of players as possible. The main point is they have everything so people "choose" how they want to play. None of the groups even need to intersect with each other.
Most people on this forum complaining wants their game to make one way. And only for them. That's the difference.
If anything I think Wow or other themepark game did wrong is they could make a zone for FFA pvp full loot. For example ESO and GW2 have a seperate game mode called 3 way server vs server.
Well we knew they were trying to maximise the player base before WoW, metrics is just a number crunching exercise to aid that process. But from what you say its more about including what everyone wants rather than trying to find things to exclude.
You can see how some of even just the gameplay elements you have picked conflict with each other. If you like single player mode are you going to want to do any group mode and visa versa. Likewise if you like easy play and hard play and so on. The problem with this type of game design is you end up with a mish-mash of ticked boxes, that's not good for vision or creativity.
Its not just gamers saying this as Jonathan Blow (Braid, The Witness) pointed out the gaming industry seems set up to stifle creativity not encourage it.
After WoW, many more games were designed like it with some variation. Here metrics have an easy time, little variation and years of data. Easy to work out what changes went down well and what did not.
The metric is really about getting as many different "players type" as possible.
Themepark game have single player mode, group mode, story, lore, easy mode, hard mode, arena pvp, open world pvp. It try to satisfy as many different type of players as possible. The main point is they have everything so people "choose" how they want to play. None of the groups even need to intersect with each other.
Most people on this forum complaining wants their game to make one way. And only for them. That's the difference.
If anything I think Wow or other themepark game did wrong is they could make a zone for FFA pvp full loot. For example ESO and GW2 have a seperate game mode called 3 way server vs server.
Well we knew they were trying to maximise the player base before WoW, metrics is just a number crunching exercise to aid that process. But from what you say its more about including what everyone wants rather than trying to find things to exclude.
You can see how some of even just the gameplay elements you have picked conflict with each other. If you like single player mode are you going to want to do any group mode and visa versa. Likewise if you like easy play and hard play and so on. The problem with this type of game design is you end up with a mish-mash of ticked boxes, that's not good for vision or creativity.
Its not just gamers saying this as Jonathan Blow (Braid, The Witness) pointed out the gaming industry seems set up to stifle creativity not encourage it.
i don't know but first you assume people like to solo don't like to group. 2nd you assume it matters because the idea is those 2 group never need to intersect.
There are people who spend almost all the playing time grouping in wow.
also you assume wow don't have 3 side because of design. it's more because you still need to design another faction. I doubt warhammer only have 2 side because they think it's a good idea. it's more of development cost allocation problem.
After WoW, many more games were designed like it with some variation. Here metrics have an easy time, little variation and years of data. Easy to work out what changes went down well and what did not.
The metric is really about getting as many different "players type" as possible.
Themepark game have single player mode, group mode, story, lore, easy mode, hard mode, arena pvp, open world pvp. It try to satisfy as many different type of players as possible. The main point is they have everything so people "choose" how they want to play. None of the groups even need to intersect with each other.
Most people on this forum complaining wants their game to make one way. And only for them. That's the difference.
If anything I think Wow or other themepark game did wrong is they could make a zone for FFA pvp full loot. For example ESO and GW2 have a seperate game mode called 3 way server vs server.
Well we knew they were trying to maximise the player base before WoW, metrics is just a number crunching exercise to aid that process. But from what you say its more about including what everyone wants rather than trying to find things to exclude.
You can see how some of even just the gameplay elements you have picked conflict with each other. If you like single player mode are you going to want to do any group mode and visa versa. Likewise if you like easy play and hard play and so on. The problem with this type of game design is you end up with a mish-mash of ticked boxes, that's not good for vision or creativity.
Its not just gamers saying this as Jonathan Blow (Braid, The Witness) pointed out the gaming industry seems set up to stifle creativity not encourage it.
i don't know but first you assume people like to solo don't like to group. 2nd you assume it matters because the idea is those 2 group never need to intersect.
There are people who spend almost all the playing time grouping in wow.
also you assume wow don't have 3 side because of design. it's more because you still need to design another faction. I doubt warhammer only have 2 side because they think it's a good idea. it's more of development cost allocation problem.
Its not that I think people who solo never like to group, but in todays MMOs I would say most players are soloers. That causes a problem because it is hard to design content that both groups like. Your idea is this does not matter because both groups do what they like and nothing else? This is a MMO, people are meant to interact, so not intersecting is important.
Having two ways of doing anything in a MMO almost always means one way will be chosen, the easy way. People see grouping as taking time so they solo, maybe not even by preference, just because it is easier. That does not make it more "fun" for them. But I do realise many in MMOs prefer to solo. What I am pointing out here is gameplay elements are not independent they can negatively effect each other.
I totally agree that the reason 3 sided PVP is so rarely seen is cost. But how about large arena versus set piece scenarios (mini battles)? I don't see one being harder to design and build than the other. When a MMO has both what wins out? Easy path all the time, so its mini battles. In Warhammer the mini battles distracted from the arena battlegrounds. In SWTOR the arena was deserted after they brought in the mini battles. Again, one type of gameplay can negatively effect another.
Comments
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Originally, "rotations" were of no concern unless you were raiding -- which did not occupy a large proportion of most players' time, I would guess. I played a mage in Vanilla, and my teammates could not care less what my rotation was, just whether I kept the right enemy as a sheep. I would say that the game became shallower later, when players began to use rotations and AoE in the 5-mans.
The older, simpler rotations were easier to master. Modern rotations are objectively deeper.
An easy-to-master game is not a deep game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Combat rotations is mostly about complexity. In many ways you could replace mmorpg combat rotations with a key that says damage since that's the case in far too many games.
A good game has a proper mix of both aspects, sadly much of the content in WoW lacks depth.
EVE'S combat rotations, somewhat shallow, EVE's depth, unmatched in the industry.
Oh yes, its complexity is unmatched as well, I do know the difference and the latter is not a bad thing, even if the average player lack the skills (such as patience and perseverance) to master it.
I will agree in one thing, EVE is likely the only MMORPG that no player has ever really mastered in all areas (or for that matter even fully understood), not even the developer's who created it.
Insert "the cliff" picture here.
"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
Nowadays even indie mmorpg have higher than 3 million budget. Yet people have more fun 10 years ago. Just give indie game a shot. There's a few coming out. CU, Crowfall etc.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There are exceptions to the dance routine, but for the most part you did the same thing that you always did and wondered why the same people always failed doing stuff.
That's not how we describe things.
When someone uses one can of black paint on a piece of paper, you'd call that "black".
When someone uses one can of black paint on a white house, you'd call that "off-white".
When calling a game deep or shallow, you're talking about the entire game. You're going to describe the average experience. So if 10% of your time in-game is very deep but the remaining 90% is shallow, you don't call the result "deep".
"The cliff" is mostly about complexity. If you created rock-paper-scissors-shotgun-etc that had 200 different items that each countered 1 thing and lost to 1 thing, you'd have the exact same cliff graphic even though the game would only be as deep as rock-paper-scissors. While EVE is deeper than the mere memorization of its very numerous game elements, it's mostly the complexity which causes "the cliff" graphic.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But still people think it's just a matter of turning on your guns and orbiting your opponent.
"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
That said, even though I agree wholeheartedly with this article, and want very much to play the game he is talking about, I believe its much further out of reach than he postulates. In fact, for about the last 2 years every other article by Wolfshead has been the same griping about WoW and propagating the ideal that without dynamic content, we will never have an enjoyable MMO again. I don't buy it.
Don't get me wrong, I relish the thought of the day when players can actually log in and individually and collectively make an impact on the game world. A day when each server is different from the next, and the story in one realm is different from any other. Unfortunately, that day is still a ways off. What little dynamic content developers are capable of creating right now at a realistic cost and development time is so shallow, its almost not even worth including.
Still, I hope his articles inspire current and future devs to think outside of the box.
Its twitch.
The metric is really about getting as many different "players type" as possible.
Themepark game have single player mode, group mode, story, lore, easy mode, hard mode, arena pvp, open world pvp. It try to satisfy as many different type of players as possible. The main point is they have everything so people "choose" how they want to play. None of the groups even need to intersect with each other.
Most people on this forum complaining wants their game to make one way. And only for them. That's the difference.
If anything I think Wow or other themepark game did wrong is they could make a zone for FFA pvp full loot. For example ESO and GW2 have a seperate game mode called 3 way server vs server.
When you play chess against a grandmaster, you're forced to 'dance to the tune' of typical high-tier chess play.
Essentially you're trying to insult WOW by saying you're forced to "dance to the tune" of various bosses -- and yet that's exactly the thing that makes the game highly rewarding of player skill. It may not be dynamic like Chess on a per-boss basis, but that's why new bosses are released. (It's a content-driven game, and bosses are content.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When the boss casts a spell, quickly reacting with another Heroic Strike is still the wrong choice. You need to make the right choice to perform well, and that's what skill is.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
People will of course argue that the players alone create the story but that just isn't going to happen. There has to be some structure (like a DM in dnd), or things will inevitably run amok.
I personally believe this is why EQNext died in the water. It just wasn't feasible. I also suspect that Blizzard's Titan team had aspirations of a similar sort, and also decided against it.
There are people who spend almost all the playing time grouping in wow.
also you assume wow don't have 3 side because of design. it's more because you still need to design another faction. I doubt warhammer only have 2 side because they think it's a good idea. it's more of development cost allocation problem.
Its not that I think people who solo never like to group, but in todays MMOs I would say most players are soloers. That causes a problem because it is hard to design content that both groups like. Your idea is this does not matter because both groups do what they like and nothing else? This is a MMO, people are meant to interact, so not intersecting is important.
Having two ways of doing anything in a MMO almost always means one way will be chosen, the easy way. People see grouping as taking time so they solo, maybe not even by preference, just because it is easier. That does not make it more "fun" for them. But I do realise many in MMOs prefer to solo. What I am pointing out here is gameplay elements are not independent they can negatively effect each other.
I totally agree that the reason 3 sided PVP is so rarely seen is cost. But how about large arena versus set piece scenarios (mini battles)? I don't see one being harder to design and build than the other. When a MMO has both what wins out? Easy path all the time, so its mini battles. In Warhammer the mini battles distracted from the arena battlegrounds. In SWTOR the arena was deserted after they brought in the mini battles. Again, one type of gameplay can negatively effect another.