But SWG had more depth, complexity and game play choices than other MMORPG. WoW was simplistic questing with tons of running around yet it was more popular. Kind of goes against what you say.
Citation needed.
This is evidence of WOW's depth. It's a hard to master base rotation (not shown is the way that monster abilities forcibly vary your rotation; when the mob needs to be interrupted or puts fire under your feet, those decisions (to interrupt or move) take priority, which in some WOW rotations can result in you returning to your rotation in a different spot than you left off.)
If you can provide evidence that SWG involved decisions more challenging than that, then you've successfully established your claim that "SWG had more depth".
Without evidence, it's an empty claim.
With evidence, you've said something meaningful.
You're talking about combat. I am talking about depth in features about what you can do and how. The depth and complexity is far greater. It's not really disputable. My point is that games like flapping bird can outsell Civ series. WoW didn't sell because it was complex or deep. It sold because it was easy to play and brought the MMORPG experience down to level that was digestible for the average gamer.
And that situation you are talking about are very limited. I played WoW during Mop expansions and majority of what I did was typical questhub generic stuff. I had a poor rotation and it mattered little since I was out of game so long. I leveled a Shaman from 42 to 55 and switched to DK to my friends server which was my goal. I basically button mashed my DK 15 levels or so before I got too bored to continue.
The problem isn't mixing PVE and PVP. The problem is mixin cry baby carebears and people who PVP. Without PVE elements a world would be pretty barren. There's nothing wrong with fighting over world bosses or gathering/farming nodes. People can dungeon crawl when they're battle weary.
It's all a matter of who is playing. As you can see there are some pretty violently raw butt hurt victims who call other players sociopaths and other idiocy. THESE are the folks who need themeparks with absolutely no OWPVP, EVER... EVER. They need to be made understood that if a game contains OWPVP that means the game isn't for them. Once a developer makes the mistake of saying "you can do either exclusiely" the game will be absolutely ruined by people who cry, get beat up and stuffed in their lockers for a living.
So the people who like PVE are nothing but care bear cry baby's and the people who prefer PVP are god's chosen?
Why ask what I'm saying when what I wrote is in the quote.
If you noticed (you didn't) I said; "the problem is mixing cry baby carebears and people who PVP."
I didn't state that people who PVP don't do any PVE (because that would be a contradiction of the type of player I am) nor did I say that people who PVP are "god's chosen".
You can skim through this thread and find people who will join any game that is OWPVP w/ PVE elements whining about being "ganked" and "griefed" calling others "sociopaths" because they themselves choose to play the PVE side and behave as if the OWPVP portion doesn't exist. Apparently players that come into contact with them should do this as well or they're nutters.
Don't get me wrong, games need good rulesets and GMs to fight true harassment but self discipline about the games we chose to play goes a long way.
It's the developers job to hang a disclaimer in these cases. I've seen people play Archeage, Black Desert Online, Aion and other titles like OWPVP wasn't a thing, then cry, report people, etc because of their desire to RP as a victimized villager. Hell, I've seen people in Blade & Soul put on the PVP bopae then go full meltdown mode because they got attacked by another player from the opposing faction.
The moral of the story is, if a game has ANY OWPVP and you're a carebear... don't play the game, or please for the love of good things, don't act so victimized and outraged. Care-a-lot is a safe place. Stay there.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I like the idea of both PvP and PvE being in a game, but stats and skills act separately in each. If they balanced them both as if they were separate things, then it can create a more balanced game. Separate gear, stats, skill balancing. Maybe have the option to throw your character into PvP mode so the stats and skills change, I don't know. I just feel like it could be done, but it would just take a little work. Currently if a game is more balanced for one or the other it forces people into playing something they don't like if that's what is better. In WoW I remember when people were using raiding gear for arenas because it was performing better than the current arena set, having to go do the raids to do player vs player doesn't make much sense.
first people need to stop feeling that they need to balance PVP. That is the core problem with PVP in MMORPGs. The mage bitches on the forum that he gets his ass handed to him everytime he stands around and a Rogue stunlocks him. We get people that bitch when Warlock survivablity his high and they can fear people like crazy yet if 3 range focus on him fast he is dead. Yet people bitch in the forums want warlocks nerf because they cannot be solo killed.
We need to get away from I am a Mage and Rogues kill me when I allow them to get close to me and stop the crying BS because when changes to classes take effect it hurts PVE because these classes abilities get changed for both areas.
But SWG had more depth, complexity and game play choices than other MMORPG. WoW was simplistic questing with tons of running around yet it was more popular. Kind of goes against what you say.
Citation needed.
This is evidence of WOW's depth. It's a hard to master base rotation (not shown is the way that monster abilities forcibly vary your rotation; when the mob needs to be interrupted or puts fire under your feet, those decisions (to interrupt or move) take priority, which in some WOW rotations can result in you returning to your rotation in a different spot than you left off.)
If you can provide evidence that SWG involved decisions more challenging than that, then you've successfully established your claim that "SWG had more depth".
Without evidence, it's an empty claim.
With evidence, you've said something meaningful.
Your link is only evidence that combat rotations in WoW are deep and I doubt you'll find anyone who actually played SWG who'll say that combat itself was deeper (because it wasn't).
However, the game as a whole was far deeper
Character Building: Link If you download the template builder (I can't find an online version, sorry) and have a play, you'll see that actually developing and building a character is far deeper than anything WoW has.
These are only some examples of the depth offered. SWG didn't offer depth through the buttons you press during combat, WoW and most modern MMORPGs do indeed offer greater depth in that area. But SWG offered more depth in just about every other aspect of the game.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
But SWG had more depth, complexity and game play choices than other MMORPG. WoW was simplistic questing with tons of running around yet it was more popular. Kind of goes against what you say.
Citation needed.
This is evidence of WOW's depth. It's a hard to master base rotation (not shown is the way that monster abilities forcibly vary your rotation; when the mob needs to be interrupted or puts fire under your feet, those decisions (to interrupt or move) take priority, which in some WOW rotations can result in you returning to your rotation in a different spot than you left off.)
If you can provide evidence that SWG involved decisions more challenging than that, then you've successfully established your claim that "SWG had more depth".
Without evidence, it's an empty claim.
With evidence, you've said something meaningful.
Your link is only evidence that combat rotations in WoW are deep and I doubt you'll find anyone who actually played SWG who'll say that combat itself was deeper (because it wasn't).
However, the game as a whole was far deeper
Character Building: Link If you download the template builder (I can't find an online version, sorry) and have a play, you'll see that actually developing and building a character is far deeper than anything WoW has.
These are only some examples of the depth offered. SWG didn't offer depth through the buttons you press during combat, WoW and most modern MMORPGs do indeed offer greater depth in that area. But SWG offered more depth in just about every other aspect of the game.
so it depends...do you want to play Happy Home Maker Online or WARcraft Online.....cause that is what will determine depth to you.
But SWG had more depth, complexity and game play choices than other MMORPG. WoW was simplistic questing with tons of running around yet it was more popular. Kind of goes against what you say.
Citation needed.
This is evidence of WOW's depth. It's a hard to master base rotation (not shown is the way that monster abilities forcibly vary your rotation; when the mob needs to be interrupted or puts fire under your feet, those decisions (to interrupt or move) take priority, which in some WOW rotations can result in you returning to your rotation in a different spot than you left off.)
If you can provide evidence that SWG involved decisions more challenging than that, then you've successfully established your claim that "SWG had more depth".
Without evidence, it's an empty claim.
With evidence, you've said something meaningful.
Your link is only evidence that combat rotations in WoW are deep and I doubt you'll find anyone who actually played SWG who'll say that combat itself was deeper (because it wasn't).
However, the game as a whole was far deeper
Character Building: Link If you download the template builder (I can't find an online version, sorry) and have a play, you'll see that actually developing and building a character is far deeper than anything WoW has.
These are only some examples of the depth offered. SWG didn't offer depth through the buttons you press during combat, WoW and most modern MMORPGs do indeed offer greater depth in that area. But SWG offered more depth in just about every other aspect of the game.
so it depends...do you want to play Happy Home Maker Online or WARcraft Online.....cause that is what will determine depth to you.
Again with the WARcraft nonsense?
WAR can be fought either vs AI(cooperatively) or vs other players(competitevely).
It's all up to a player's tastes after all. Whether he prefers something like WH40k or something like League of Justice / The Avengers.
The name != the theme or, heavens forbid, the mechanics of a game
the nonsense is thinking that just because you make a complicated system that only 10% of people want to play it is "depth".....crafting, housing, etc...that is fine if you like it, but if you do not it is not depth it is a waste of resources.
But SWG had more depth, complexity and game play choices than other MMORPG. WoW was simplistic questing with tons of running around yet it was more popular. Kind of goes against what you say.
Citation needed.
This is evidence of WOW's depth. It's a hard to master base rotation (not shown is the way that monster abilities forcibly vary your rotation; when the mob needs to be interrupted or puts fire under your feet, those decisions (to interrupt or move) take priority, which in some WOW rotations can result in you returning to your rotation in a different spot than you left off.)
If you can provide evidence that SWG involved decisions more challenging than that, then you've successfully established your claim that "SWG had more depth".
Without evidence, it's an empty claim.
With evidence, you've said something meaningful.
Your link is only evidence that combat rotations in WoW are deep and I doubt you'll find anyone who actually played SWG who'll say that combat itself was deeper (because it wasn't).
However, the game as a whole was far deeper
Character Building: Link If you download the template builder (I can't find an online version, sorry) and have a play, you'll see that actually developing and building a character is far deeper than anything WoW has.
These are only some examples of the depth offered. SWG didn't offer depth through the buttons you press during combat, WoW and most modern MMORPGs do indeed offer greater depth in that area. But SWG offered more depth in just about every other aspect of the game.
so it depends...do you want to play Happy Home Maker Online or WARcraft Online.....cause that is what will determine depth to you.
Again with the WARcraft nonsense?
WAR can be fought either vs AI(cooperatively) or vs other players(competitevely).
It's all up to a player's tastes after all. Whether he prefers something like WH40k or something like League of Justice / The Avengers.
The name != the theme or, heavens forbid, the mechanics of a game
the nonsense is thinking that just because you make a complicated system that only 10% of people want to play it is "depth".....crafting, housing, etc...that is fine if you like it, but if you do not it is not depth it is a waste of resources.
Actually, what I consider even more nonsensical is thinking that home makers are not capable of going to war.... especially if you make them unhappy!
But SWG had more depth, complexity and game play choices than other MMORPG. WoW was simplistic questing with tons of running around yet it was more popular. Kind of goes against what you say.
Citation needed.
This is evidence of WOW's depth. It's a hard to master base rotation (not shown is the way that monster abilities forcibly vary your rotation; when the mob needs to be interrupted or puts fire under your feet, those decisions (to interrupt or move) take priority, which in some WOW rotations can result in you returning to your rotation in a different spot than you left off.)
If you can provide evidence that SWG involved decisions more challenging than that, then you've successfully established your claim that "SWG had more depth".
Without evidence, it's an empty claim.
With evidence, you've said something meaningful.
Your link is only evidence that combat rotations in WoW are deep and I doubt you'll find anyone who actually played SWG who'll say that combat itself was deeper (because it wasn't).
However, the game as a whole was far deeper
Character Building: Link If you download the template builder (I can't find an online version, sorry) and have a play, you'll see that actually developing and building a character is far deeper than anything WoW has.
These are only some examples of the depth offered. SWG didn't offer depth through the buttons you press during combat, WoW and most modern MMORPGs do indeed offer greater depth in that area. But SWG offered more depth in just about every other aspect of the game.
so it depends...do you want to play Happy Home Maker Online or WARcraft Online.....cause that is what will determine depth to you.
Again with the WARcraft nonsense?
WAR can be fought either vs AI(cooperatively) or vs other players(competitevely).
It's all up to a player's tastes after all. Whether he prefers something like WH40k or something like League of Justice / The Avengers.
The name != the theme or, heavens forbid, the mechanics of a game
the nonsense is thinking that just because you make a complicated system that only 10% of people want to play it is "depth".....crafting, housing, etc...that is fine if you like it, but if you do not it is not depth it is a waste of resources.
Actually, what I consider even more nonsensical is thinking that home makers are not capable of going to war.... especially if you make them unhappy!
Their war is a war of attrition. With your soul and will that is lost slowly but steadily on the battlefield.
The moral of the story is, if a game has ANY OWPVP and you're a carebear... don't play the game, or please for the love of good things, don't act so victimized and outraged. Care-a-lot is a safe place. Stay there.
yeh .. and dev figure out that most players don't like OWPVP anyway .. so most games don't have it anyway.
But again, it is fair game on a forum like this to air my preference. I think OWPVP is not fun, and I won't play a OWPVP game (except pvp-only war games like planetside 2).
You're talking about combat. I am talking about depth in features about what you can do and how. The depth and complexity is far greater. It's not really disputable. My point is that games like flapping bird can outsell Civ series. WoW didn't sell because it was complex or deep. It sold because it was easy to play and brought the MMORPG experience down to level that was digestible for the average gamer.
And that situation you are talking about are very limited. I played WoW during Mop expansions and majority of what I did was typical questhub generic stuff. I had a poor rotation and it mattered little since I was out of game so long. I leveled a Shaman from 42 to 55 and switched to DK to my friends server which was my goal. I basically button mashed my DK 15 levels or so before I got too bored to continue.
No, when I'm talking about game depth I'm talking about game depth.
For example you probably could find a guide online somewhere which stepped through the many factors needed to play Sim City at a high level. The game's moderate depth would be apparent by posting a link to such a guide, and that game has no combat.
Either you have evidence of SWG's depth, or you don't.
If you have evidence, then your point may actually be indisputable.
Otherwise you lack evidence, at which point your point most definitely is disputable.
Flappy Bird didn't outsell Civilization. I believe Civ4's price at launch was $49.99. Times 3 million copies, that makes around $150 million. Flappy Bird made $50k a day, then it would take 3,000 days to accumulate that much money (and the game undoubtedly wasn't making $50k a day anymore a mere 356 days after release). (And sure if we conservatively estimate the profit per copy that Civ received at $25, that's still 1,500 days of Flappy Bird making $50k a day and only 1,060 days have passed since release.)
See how that works? 1. You said something. 2. I disagreed, showing hard evidence.
The rotations I describe are the majority of play for those who don't quit WOW while leveling. It takes less than 14 days /playtime to reach max level, and my most-played character probably has over 356 days playtime at this point. Even if I idled in town half that time (which sounds like an overly conservative estimate), the vast majority of my playtime was spent engaged in dungeons or raids where my skill was highly rewarded. For that matter, those days spent leveling still rewarded player skill, you just accepted mediocrity.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're talking about combat. I am talking about depth in features about what you can do and how. The depth and complexity is far greater. It's not really disputable. My point is that games like flapping bird can outsell Civ series. WoW didn't sell because it was complex or deep. It sold because it was easy to play and brought the MMORPG experience down to level that was digestible for the average gamer.
And that situation you are talking about are very limited. I played WoW during Mop expansions and majority of what I did was typical questhub generic stuff. I had a poor rotation and it mattered little since I was out of game so long. I leveled a Shaman from 42 to 55 and switched to DK to my friends server which was my goal. I basically button mashed my DK 15 levels or so before I got too bored to continue.
No, when I'm talking about game depth I'm talking about game depth.
For example you probably could find a guide online somewhere which stepped through the many factors needed to play Sim City at a high level. The game's moderate depth would be apparent by posting a link to such a guide, and that game has no combat.
Either you have evidence of SWG's depth, or you don't.
If you have evidence, then your point may actually be indisputable.
Otherwise you lack evidence, at which point your point most definitely is disputable.
Flappy Bird didn't outsell Civilization. I believe Civ4's price at launch was $49.99. Times 3 million copies, that makes around $150 million. Flappy Bird made $50k a day, then it would take 3,000 days to accumulate that much money (and the game undoubtedly wasn't making $50k a day anymore a mere 356 days after release). (And sure if we conservatively estimate the profit per copy that Civ received at $25, that's still 1,500 days of Flappy Bird making $50k a day and only 1,060 days have passed since release.)
See how that works? 1. You said something. 2. I disagreed, showing hard evidence.
The rotations I describe are the majority of play for those who don't quit WOW while leveling. It takes less than 14 days /playtime to reach max level, and my most-played character probably has over 356 days playtime at this point. Even if I idled in town half that time (which sounds like an overly conservative estimate), the vast majority of my playtime was spent engaged in dungeons or raids where my skill was highly rewarded. For that matter, those days spent leveling still rewarded player skill, you just accepted mediocrity.
I think most outside of you will agree that SWG had far more depth than WoW. If you're point is only combat than probably so. If you're talking about overall game there
I said games like Flappy birds can outsell games like Civ. Not that they do but there are mobile games that likely do like Candy Crush and pay to win mobile models that the F2P harbinger always brings up. It's a point that simplistic games sell just as well as complex not literal statistics.
No, I was simply trying to catch up and the combat generally was over too fast for me to have a real feel for or need a great rotation. Maybe there are places where rotation made a huge difference but it certainly wasn't in the open world leveling process
I think most outside of you will agree that SWG had far more depth than WoW. If you're point is only combat than probably so. If you're talking about overall game there
I said games like Flappy birds can outsell games like Civ. Not that they do but there are mobile games that likely do like Candy Crush and pay to win mobile models that the F2P harbinger always brings up. It's a point that simplistic games sell just as well as complex not literal statistics.
No, I was simply trying to catch up and the combat generally was over too fast for me to have a real feel for or need a great rotation. Maybe there are places where rotation made a huge difference but it certainly wasn't in the open world leveling process
Are you implying subjective opinions are more important than objective reality? That's obviously not the case.
Look, the depth of WOW has been objectively established here. You either do or don't have evidence of SWG being deeper. It really seems like you don't have that evidence.
Name one shallow mobile title that has outperformed Civilization. Keep in mind Candy Crush is still reasonably deep (given that your decisions and planning matter and there's a moderately large difference in effectiveness between newbie and expert players.)
Is this simply you failing to discern the distinctions between Complexity, Game Depth, and Perceived Complexity? It sounds an awful lot like you're jumping to the conclusion that Perceived Complexity is Depth, which is false. (Because Chess' rules fit on one sheet of paper, and yet even with that very simple perceived complexity the resulting game depth is extremely deep.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think most outside of you will agree that SWG had far more depth than WoW. If you're point is only combat than probably so. If you're talking about overall game there
I said games like Flappy birds can outsell games like Civ. Not that they do but there are mobile games that likely do like Candy Crush and pay to win mobile models that the F2P harbinger always brings up. It's a point that simplistic games sell just as well as complex not literal statistics.
No, I was simply trying to catch up and the combat generally was over too fast for me to have a real feel for or need a great rotation. Maybe there are places where rotation made a huge difference but it certainly wasn't in the open world leveling process
Are you implying subjective opinions are more important than objective reality? That's obviously not the case.
Look, the depth of WOW has been objectively established here. You either do or don't have evidence of SWG being deeper. It really seems like you don't have that evidence.
Name one shallow mobile title that has outperformed Civilization. Keep in mind Candy Crush is still reasonably deep (given that your decisions and planning matter and there's a moderately large difference in effectiveness between newbie and expert players.)
Is this simply you failing to discern the distinctions between Complexity, Game Depth, and Perceived Complexity? It sounds an awful lot like you're jumping to the conclusion that Perceived Complexity is Depth, which is false. (Because Chess' rules fit on one sheet of paper, and yet even with that very simple perceived complexity the resulting game depth is extremely deep.)
I could show evidence but you have shown not to accept evidence outside of your viewpoint anyways. Even people you quoted have countered your very statements you turned around and attempted to discredit them.
But there is a post above here that links all of the systems you full and know well that exist. It's still subjective but I think a majority would agree about depth or complexity . The crafting in SWG is likely more deep than all of WoW.
Nope I have played lots of games. Depth is complexity. I think you're confusing depth with playability. Chess is complex and also easily playable. It's complexity is why it's deep because it's the same thing.
I think most outside of you will agree that SWG had far more depth than WoW. If you're point is only combat than probably so. If you're talking about overall game there
I said games like Flappy birds can outsell games like Civ. Not that they do but there are mobile games that likely do like Candy Crush and pay to win mobile models that the F2P harbinger always brings up. It's a point that simplistic games sell just as well as complex not literal statistics.
No, I was simply trying to catch up and the combat generally was over too fast for me to have a real feel for or need a great rotation. Maybe there are places where rotation made a huge difference but it certainly wasn't in the open world leveling process
Are you implying subjective opinions are more important than objective reality? That's obviously not the case.
Look, the depth of WOW has been objectively established here. You either do or don't have evidence of SWG being deeper. It really seems like you don't have that evidence.
Name one shallow mobile title that has outperformed Civilization. Keep in mind Candy Crush is still reasonably deep (given that your decisions and planning matter and there's a moderately large difference in effectiveness between newbie and expert players.)
Is this simply you failing to discern the distinctions between Complexity, Game Depth, and Perceived Complexity? It sounds an awful lot like you're jumping to the conclusion that Perceived Complexity is Depth, which is false. (Because Chess' rules fit on one sheet of paper, and yet even with that very simple perceived complexity the resulting game depth is extremely deep.)
I could show evidence but you have shown not to accept evidence outside of your viewpoint anyways. Even people you quoted have countered your very statements you turned around and attempted to discredit them.
But there is a post above here that links all of the systems you full and know well that exist. It's still subjective but I think a majority would agree about depth or complexity . The crafting in SWG is likely more deep than all of WoW.
Nope I have played lots of games. Depth is complexity. I think you're confusing depth with playability. Chess is complex and also easily playable. It's complexity is why it's deep because it's the same thing.
complex for the purpose of being tedious and complex due to numerous tactics and tricks that can be employed to counter or attack an opponent are not the same thing....
I think most outside of you will agree that SWG had far more depth than WoW. If you're point is only combat than probably so. If you're talking about overall game there
I said games like Flappy birds can outsell games like Civ. Not that they do but there are mobile games that likely do like Candy Crush and pay to win mobile models that the F2P harbinger always brings up. It's a point that simplistic games sell just as well as complex not literal statistics.
No, I was simply trying to catch up and the combat generally was over too fast for me to have a real feel for or need a great rotation. Maybe there are places where rotation made a huge difference but it certainly wasn't in the open world leveling process
Are you implying subjective opinions are more important than objective reality? That's obviously not the case.
Look, the depth of WOW has been objectively established here. You either do or don't have evidence of SWG being deeper. It really seems like you don't have that evidence.
Name one shallow mobile title that has outperformed Civilization. Keep in mind Candy Crush is still reasonably deep (given that your decisions and planning matter and there's a moderately large difference in effectiveness between newbie and expert players.)
Is this simply you failing to discern the distinctions between Complexity, Game Depth, and Perceived Complexity? It sounds an awful lot like you're jumping to the conclusion that Perceived Complexity is Depth, which is false. (Because Chess' rules fit on one sheet of paper, and yet even with that very simple perceived complexity the resulting game depth is extremely deep.)
I could show evidence but you have shown not to accept evidence outside of your viewpoint anyways. Even people you quoted have countered your very statements you turned around and attempted to discredit them.
But there is a post above here that links all of the systems you full and know well that exist. It's still subjective but I think a majority would agree about depth or complexity . The crafting in SWG is likely more deep than all of WoW.
Nope I have played lots of games. Depth is complexity. I think you're confusing depth with playability. Chess is complex and also easily playable. It's complexity is why it's deep because it's the same thing.
complex for the purpose of being tedious and complex due to numerous tactics and tricks that can be employed to counter or attack an opponent are not the same thing....
But as you admit yourself complex is complex regardless of purpose or outcome. Depth is complexity. Chess is complex but easy to pick up because its playability.
I think most outside of you will agree that SWG had far more depth than WoW. If you're point is only combat than probably so. If you're talking about overall game there
I said games like Flappy birds can outsell games like Civ. Not that they do but there are mobile games that likely do like Candy Crush and pay to win mobile models that the F2P harbinger always brings up. It's a point that simplistic games sell just as well as complex not literal statistics.
No, I was simply trying to catch up and the combat generally was over too fast for me to have a real feel for or need a great rotation. Maybe there are places where rotation made a huge difference but it certainly wasn't in the open world leveling process
Are you implying subjective opinions are more important than objective reality? That's obviously not the case.
Look, the depth of WOW has been objectively established here. You either do or don't have evidence of SWG being deeper. It really seems like you don't have that evidence.
Name one shallow mobile title that has outperformed Civilization. Keep in mind Candy Crush is still reasonably deep (given that your decisions and planning matter and there's a moderately large difference in effectiveness between newbie and expert players.)
Is this simply you failing to discern the distinctions between Complexity, Game Depth, and Perceived Complexity? It sounds an awful lot like you're jumping to the conclusion that Perceived Complexity is Depth, which is false. (Because Chess' rules fit on one sheet of paper, and yet even with that very simple perceived complexity the resulting game depth is extremely deep.)
I could show evidence but you have shown not to accept evidence outside of your viewpoint anyways. Even people you quoted have countered your very statements you turned around and attempted to discredit them.
But there is a post above here that links all of the systems you full and know well that exist. It's still subjective but I think a majority would agree about depth or complexity . The crafting in SWG is likely more deep than all of WoW.
Nope I have played lots of games. Depth is complexity. I think you're confusing depth with playability. Chess is complex and also easily playable. It's complexity is why it's deep because it's the same thing.
complex for the purpose of being tedious and complex due to numerous tactics and tricks that can be employed to counter or attack an opponent are not the same thing....
But as you admit yourself complex is complex regardless of purpose or outcome. Depth is complexity. Chess is complex but easy to pick up because its playability.
complex on it's own does not mean depth in game terms. I can give you a task to dig holes to certain depths and fill them in to win a prize. Due to various complexities of the depths and ground composition it could a complex task to complete....it does not mean the task has "depth" to your tedious activity that playing a game of chess does. "depth" needs a sense of interest, intrigue, and entertainment also.
I think most outside of you will agree that SWG had far more depth than WoW. If you're point is only combat than probably so. If you're talking about overall game there
I said games like Flappy birds can outsell games like Civ. Not that they do but there are mobile games that likely do like Candy Crush and pay to win mobile models that the F2P harbinger always brings up. It's a point that simplistic games sell just as well as complex not literal statistics.
No, I was simply trying to catch up and the combat generally was over too fast for me to have a real feel for or need a great rotation. Maybe there are places where rotation made a huge difference but it certainly wasn't in the open world leveling process
Are you implying subjective opinions are more important than objective reality? That's obviously not the case.
Look, the depth of WOW has been objectively established here. You either do or don't have evidence of SWG being deeper. It really seems like you don't have that evidence.
Name one shallow mobile title that has outperformed Civilization. Keep in mind Candy Crush is still reasonably deep (given that your decisions and planning matter and there's a moderately large difference in effectiveness between newbie and expert players.)
Is this simply you failing to discern the distinctions between Complexity, Game Depth, and Perceived Complexity? It sounds an awful lot like you're jumping to the conclusion that Perceived Complexity is Depth, which is false. (Because Chess' rules fit on one sheet of paper, and yet even with that very simple perceived complexity the resulting game depth is extremely deep.)
I could show evidence but you have shown not to accept evidence outside of your viewpoint anyways. Even people you quoted have countered your very statements you turned around and attempted to discredit them.
But there is a post above here that links all of the systems you full and know well that exist. It's still subjective but I think a majority would agree about depth or complexity . The crafting in SWG is likely more deep than all of WoW.
Nope I have played lots of games. Depth is complexity. I think you're confusing depth with playability. Chess is complex and also easily playable. It's complexity is why it's deep because it's the same thing.
complex for the purpose of being tedious and complex due to numerous tactics and tricks that can be employed to counter or attack an opponent are not the same thing....
But as you admit yourself complex is complex regardless of purpose or outcome. Depth is complexity. Chess is complex but easy to pick up because its playability.
complex on it's own does not mean depth in game terms. I can give you a task to dig holes to certain depths and fill them in to win a prize. Due to various complexities of the depths and ground composition it could a complex task to complete....it does not mean the task has "depth" to your tedious activity that playing a game of chess does. "depth" needs a sense of interest, intrigue, and entertainment also.
So if you have a game with no depth it's simple?That means that a game with complexity has depth as it's the opposite.
A games enjoyment is subjective and not proof of depth but how "good" the game is to you or a majority. Judging by Minecraft, Terraria or Starbound which are complex games based mindlessly digging as a major function have sold pretty well.
Thus as I said before....Depth is subjective...it is only depth if one finds the complexity entertaining and interesting. To say one game has more depth than another is a subjective statement and can not be proved or disproved. Thus Warcraft and SWG are both deep or at the same time very shallow depending on the player. To fight over which is more deep is a pointless argument.
I could show evidence but you have shown not to accept evidence outside of your viewpoint anyways. Even people you quoted have countered your very statements you turned around and attempted to discredit them.
But there is a post above here that links all of the systems you full and know well that exist. It's still subjective but I think a majority would agree about depth or complexity . The crafting in SWG is likely more deep than all of WoW.
Nope I have played lots of games. Depth is complexity. I think you're confusing depth with playability. Chess is complex and also easily playable. It's complexity is why it's deep because it's the same thing.
You can't show evidence. You haven't shown evidence.
For example: show evidence of my rejecting evidence. You can't, because it never occurred.
Your posts are a neverending series of baseless remarks which bear no resemblance whatsoever to reality.
We've already covered how what Koster says is the model of successful games and what he does has not been that model (and so has resulted in weaker successes than he could've achieved otherwise.) The only haze in that distinction is that I'm sure many parts of Koster's games do fit the model he recommends, but the whole overall doesn't and so all of the individual experiences where it doesn't fit his recommended model were the chips in the paint of what might otherwise have been a lot more successful.
Yes, if you're unable to form a nuanced view of the nuanced world (where people aren't binary right or wrong 100% of the time) then you're going to struggle to understand that particular point. Heck, I strongly argue for "interesting decision" style gameplay and yet if you knew the games I've designed I'm sure you could hunt down parts of them which failed to offer a steady flow of interesting decisions -- and that would be a nuanced combination of mistakes on my part as well as the fact that games aren't made by single designers and so neither Koster nor I are responsible for every single part of every feature of the games we've worked on. (So some of the simplified statements made here, like calling them "Koster's games" are unfairly attributing the entire game's design to his decisions.)
Chess has simple rules. Its perceived complexity is low. Game depth isn't simply a matter of complexity but of the amount of and variance of viable decision paths within the game's decision set. But sure, in typical Vermillion style I'd expect you to hold beliefs which reject probably the most common and basic design wisdom (that games should be "simple yet deep".)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You can't show evidence. You haven't shown evidence.
I will not be wasting time because there is ample evidence that you ignore ample evidence. cameltosis provided evidence which you casually ignored or did not see.
show evidence of my rejecting evidence. You can't, because it never occurred.
There is a whole thread of you ignoring or coming up with strawman to side step evidence. I will not quote those either but I am sure you know the thread I am talking about.
Your posts are a neverending series of baseless remarks which bear no resemblance whatsoever to reality.
You can do a google search with chess and complex that will come up with 16 million hits. I think that's real enough for anyone. Depth is complexity. Chess has simple rules but complex workings. Thus its a complex game that is has easy playability because its based on movements. The need to understand moves before they happen is the complexity.
amount of and variance of viable decision paths within the game's decision set.
A complex way of saying complex.
We've already covered how what Koster says is the model of successful games and what he does has not been that model (and so has resulted in weaker successes than he could've achieved otherwise.) The only haze in that distinction is that I'm sure many parts of Koster's games do fit the model he recommends, but the whole overall doesn't and so all of the individual experiences where it doesn't fit his recommended model were the chips in the paint of what might otherwise have been a lot more successful.
Commercial success of a game does not mean its a weaker model. SWG is a more complex game that was harder to get into and provided less help and poor mechanics as a previous generation MMORPG. WoW was a simplified MMORPG with a direct simple mechanics of combat, questhubs and good UI. SWG had bad optimization. WoW ran on a toaster pretty much. WoW spent millions on market to an already online community of fanboys that didn't play MMORPG. SWG did not.
There are many things that aren't successful that are subjectively good but don't appeal to the mass market. This common in many forms of entertainment where the more complex or deep format doesn't get as much run or money as simple and easy to consume ones. Its not rocket science.
I will not be wasting time because there is ample evidence that you ignore ample evidence. cameltosis provided evidence which you casually ignored or did not see.
So in other words you agree that you're saying nothing of worth.
Okay well when you feel like saying something tangible, feel free to present that idea alongside evidence.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It always leads to balancing nightmares and a fracture community, as changes to benefit one side often negatively affect the other side and the rationales for either style of play are often at odds.
But SWG had more depth, complexity and game play choices than other MMORPG. WoW was simplistic questing with tons of running around yet it was more popular. Kind of goes against what you say.
Citation needed.
This is evidence of WOW's depth. It's a hard to master base rotation (not shown is the way that monster abilities forcibly vary your rotation; when the mob needs to be interrupted or puts fire under your feet, those decisions (to interrupt or move) take priority, which in some WOW rotations can result in you returning to your rotation in a different spot than you left off.)
If you can provide evidence that SWG involved decisions more challenging than that, then you've successfully established your claim that "SWG had more depth".
Without evidence, it's an empty claim.
With evidence, you've said something meaningful.
Your link is only evidence that combat rotations in WoW are deep and I doubt you'll find anyone who actually played SWG who'll say that combat itself was deeper (because it wasn't).
However, the game as a whole was far deeper
Character Building: Link If you download the template builder (I can't find an online version, sorry) and have a play, you'll see that actually developing and building a character is far deeper than anything WoW has.
These are only some examples of the depth offered. SWG didn't offer depth through the buttons you press during combat, WoW and most modern MMORPGs do indeed offer greater depth in that area. But SWG offered more depth in just about every other aspect of the game.
I will not be wasting time because there is ample evidence that you ignore ample evidence. cameltosis provided evidence which you casually ignored or did not see.
So in other words you agree that you're saying nothing of worth.
Okay well when you feel like saying something tangible, feel free to present that idea alongside evidence. .
No, you've proven that evidence doesn't matter. This is all subjective stuff outside of your mind where you're ideals are the bible. And someone bothered to do what I wasn't but you as I said clearly ignored it or didn't see it. Shouldn't have be hard to find a page back.
I could show evidence but you have shown not to accept evidence outside of your viewpoint anyways. Even people you quoted have countered your very statements you turned around and attempted to discredit them.
But there is a post above here that links all of the systems you full and know well that exist. It's still subjective but I think a majority would agree about depth or complexity . The crafting in SWG is likely more deep than all of WoW.
Nope I have played lots of games. Depth is complexity. I think you're confusing depth with playability. Chess is complex and also easily playable. It's complexity is why it's deep because it's the same thing.
You can't show evidence. You haven't shown evidence.
For example: show evidence of my rejecting evidence. You can't, because it never occurred.
I posted a ton of links on the previous page (10) that showed that SWG had more depth than WoW.
The only area where WoW exceeded the depth of SWG is in combat, but SWG beats WoW's depth in all other areas of the game. So, overall, SWG is deeper than WoW.
Of course, this doesn't matter much because most people (myself included) enjoy combat as our main focus and so I'd rather take a game with deep combat that is shallow everywhere else instead of shallow combat and deep systems everywhere else. Not that SWG had shallow combat, rather the opposite, it just wasn't as deep as WoW.
It is very hard to achieve depth without complexity, so most deep games / systems are also complex, however, complexity doesn't automatically mean the game / system is deep. For example, sw:tor is a complex game (it has tons of skills, levels, mechanics etc) but it is not a deep game because of the lack of emergent gameplay or meaningful choices.
On the flipside, chess is a simple game, lacking in complexity (only takes 30seconds to explain the rules to someone) but it is a deep game because there is a crazy amount of options, strategies, playstyles etc resulting in very different experiences.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
And that situation you are talking about are very limited. I played WoW during Mop expansions and majority of what I did was typical questhub generic stuff. I had a poor rotation and it mattered little since I was out of game so long. I leveled a Shaman from 42 to 55 and switched to DK to my friends server which was my goal. I basically button mashed my DK 15 levels or so before I got too bored to continue.
If you noticed (you didn't) I said; "the problem is mixing cry baby carebears and people who PVP."
I didn't state that people who PVP don't do any PVE (because that would be a contradiction of the type of player I am) nor did I say that people who PVP are "god's chosen".
You can skim through this thread and find people who will join any game that is OWPVP w/ PVE elements whining about being "ganked" and "griefed" calling others "sociopaths" because they themselves choose to play the PVE side and behave as if the OWPVP portion doesn't exist. Apparently players that come into contact with them should do this as well or they're nutters.
Don't get me wrong, games need good rulesets and GMs to fight true harassment but self discipline about the games we chose to play goes a long way.
It's the developers job to hang a disclaimer in these cases. I've seen people play Archeage, Black Desert Online, Aion and other titles like OWPVP wasn't a thing, then cry, report people, etc because of their desire to RP as a victimized villager. Hell, I've seen people in Blade & Soul put on the PVP bopae then go full meltdown mode because they got attacked by another player from the opposing faction.
The moral of the story is, if a game has ANY OWPVP and you're a carebear... don't play the game, or please for the love of good things, don't act so victimized and outraged. Care-a-lot is a safe place. Stay there.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We need to get away from I am a Mage and Rogues kill me when I allow them to get close to me and stop the crying BS because when changes to classes take effect it hurts PVE because these classes abilities get changed for both areas.
However, the game as a whole was far deeper
Character Building: Link If you download the template builder (I can't find an online version, sorry) and have a play, you'll see that actually developing and building a character is far deeper than anything WoW has.
Crafting: Intro to weaponsmithing | Armoursmithing
PvP: An interesting read about PvP setups / extras
Social: Building a city | Musician guide | Doctor Buffing Guide | Image Designer Guide
These are only some examples of the depth offered. SWG didn't offer depth through the buttons you press during combat, WoW and most modern MMORPGs do indeed offer greater depth in that area. But SWG offered more depth in just about every other aspect of the game.
so it depends...do you want to play Happy Home Maker Online or WARcraft Online.....cause that is what will determine depth to you.
the nonsense is thinking that just because you make a complicated system that only 10% of people want to play it is "depth".....crafting, housing, etc...that is fine if you like it, but if you do not it is not depth it is a waste of resources.
Their war is a war of attrition. With your soul and will that is lost slowly but steadily on the battlefield.
But again, it is fair game on a forum like this to air my preference. I think OWPVP is not fun, and I won't play a OWPVP game (except pvp-only war games like planetside 2).
For example you probably could find a guide online somewhere which stepped through the many factors needed to play Sim City at a high level. The game's moderate depth would be apparent by posting a link to such a guide, and that game has no combat.
Either you have evidence of SWG's depth, or you don't.
- If you have evidence, then your point may actually be indisputable.
- Otherwise you lack evidence, at which point your point most definitely is disputable.
Flappy Bird didn't outsell Civilization. I believe Civ4's price at launch was $49.99. Times 3 million copies, that makes around $150 million. Flappy Bird made $50k a day, then it would take 3,000 days to accumulate that much money (and the game undoubtedly wasn't making $50k a day anymore a mere 356 days after release). (And sure if we conservatively estimate the profit per copy that Civ received at $25, that's still 1,500 days of Flappy Bird making $50k a day and only 1,060 days have passed since release.)See how that works? 1. You said something. 2. I disagreed, showing hard evidence.
The rotations I describe are the majority of play for those who don't quit WOW while leveling. It takes less than 14 days /playtime to reach max level, and my most-played character probably has over 356 days playtime at this point. Even if I idled in town half that time (which sounds like an overly conservative estimate), the vast majority of my playtime was spent engaged in dungeons or raids where my skill was highly rewarded. For that matter, those days spent leveling still rewarded player skill, you just accepted mediocrity.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I said games like Flappy birds can outsell games like Civ. Not that they do but there are mobile games that likely do like Candy Crush and pay to win mobile models that the F2P harbinger always brings up. It's a point that simplistic games sell just as well as complex not literal statistics.
No, I was simply trying to catch up and the combat generally was over too fast for me to have a real feel for or need a great rotation. Maybe there are places where rotation made a huge difference but it certainly wasn't in the open world leveling process
Look, the depth of WOW has been objectively established here. You either do or don't have evidence of SWG being deeper. It really seems like you don't have that evidence.
Name one shallow mobile title that has outperformed Civilization. Keep in mind Candy Crush is still reasonably deep (given that your decisions and planning matter and there's a moderately large difference in effectiveness between newbie and expert players.)
Is this simply you failing to discern the distinctions between Complexity, Game Depth, and Perceived Complexity? It sounds an awful lot like you're jumping to the conclusion that Perceived Complexity is Depth, which is false. (Because Chess' rules fit on one sheet of paper, and yet even with that very simple perceived complexity the resulting game depth is extremely deep.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But there is a post above here that links all of the systems you full and know well that exist. It's still subjective but I think a majority would agree about depth or complexity . The crafting in SWG is likely more deep than all of WoW.
Nope I have played lots of games. Depth is complexity. I think you're confusing depth with playability. Chess is complex and also easily playable. It's complexity is why it's deep because it's the same thing.
complex for the purpose of being tedious and complex due to numerous tactics and tricks that can be employed to counter or attack an opponent are not the same thing....
complex on it's own does not mean depth in game terms. I can give you a task to dig holes to certain depths and fill them in to win a prize. Due to various complexities of the depths and ground composition it could a complex task to complete....it does not mean the task has "depth" to your tedious activity that playing a game of chess does. "depth" needs a sense of interest, intrigue, and entertainment also.
A games enjoyment is subjective and not proof of depth but how "good" the game is to you or a majority. Judging by Minecraft, Terraria or Starbound which are complex games based mindlessly digging as a major function have sold pretty well.
For example: show evidence of my rejecting evidence. You can't, because it never occurred.
Your posts are a neverending series of baseless remarks which bear no resemblance whatsoever to reality.
We've already covered how what Koster says is the model of successful games and what he does has not been that model (and so has resulted in weaker successes than he could've achieved otherwise.) The only haze in that distinction is that I'm sure many parts of Koster's games do fit the model he recommends, but the whole overall doesn't and so all of the individual experiences where it doesn't fit his recommended model were the chips in the paint of what might otherwise have been a lot more successful.
Yes, if you're unable to form a nuanced view of the nuanced world (where people aren't binary right or wrong 100% of the time) then you're going to struggle to understand that particular point. Heck, I strongly argue for "interesting decision" style gameplay and yet if you knew the games I've designed I'm sure you could hunt down parts of them which failed to offer a steady flow of interesting decisions -- and that would be a nuanced combination of mistakes on my part as well as the fact that games aren't made by single designers and so neither Koster nor I are responsible for every single part of every feature of the games we've worked on. (So some of the simplified statements made here, like calling them "Koster's games" are unfairly attributing the entire game's design to his decisions.)
Chess has simple rules. Its perceived complexity is low. Game depth isn't simply a matter of complexity but of the amount of and variance of viable decision paths within the game's decision set. But sure, in typical Vermillion style I'd expect you to hold beliefs which reject probably the most common and basic design wisdom (that games should be "simple yet deep".)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is a whole thread of you ignoring or coming up with strawman to side step evidence. I will not quote those either but I am sure you know the thread I am talking about.
You can do a google search with chess and complex that will come up with 16 million hits. I think that's real enough for anyone. Depth is complexity. Chess has simple rules but complex workings. Thus its a complex game that is has easy playability because its based on movements. The need to understand moves before they happen is the complexity.
A complex way of saying complex.
Commercial success of a game does not mean its a weaker model. SWG is a more complex game that was harder to get into and provided less help and poor mechanics as a previous generation MMORPG. WoW was a simplified MMORPG with a direct simple mechanics of combat, questhubs and good UI. SWG had bad optimization. WoW ran on a toaster pretty much. WoW spent millions on market to an already online community of fanboys that didn't play MMORPG. SWG did not.There are many things that aren't successful that are subjectively good but don't appeal to the mass market. This common in many forms of entertainment where the more complex or deep format doesn't get as much run or money as simple and easy to consume ones. Its not rocket science.
Okay well when you feel like saying something tangible, feel free to present that idea alongside evidence.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, you've proven that evidence doesn't matter. This is all subjective stuff outside of your mind where you're ideals are the bible. And someone bothered to do what I wasn't but you as I said clearly ignored it or didn't see it. Shouldn't have be hard to find a page back.
I posted a ton of links on the previous page (10) that showed that SWG had more depth than WoW.
The only area where WoW exceeded the depth of SWG is in combat, but SWG beats WoW's depth in all other areas of the game. So, overall, SWG is deeper than WoW.
Of course, this doesn't matter much because most people (myself included) enjoy combat as our main focus and so I'd rather take a game with deep combat that is shallow everywhere else instead of shallow combat and deep systems everywhere else. Not that SWG had shallow combat, rather the opposite, it just wasn't as deep as WoW.
Also, @Vermillion_Raventhal depth =/= complexity.
It is very hard to achieve depth without complexity, so most deep games / systems are also complex, however, complexity doesn't automatically mean the game / system is deep. For example, sw:tor is a complex game (it has tons of skills, levels, mechanics etc) but it is not a deep game because of the lack of emergent gameplay or meaningful choices.
On the flipside, chess is a simple game, lacking in complexity (only takes 30seconds to explain the rules to someone) but it is a deep game because there is a crazy amount of options, strategies, playstyles etc resulting in very different experiences.