I believe some people just don't understand what an RPG is. A lot of these people who claim they are developers and have read lots of books have little passion for the origin of storytelling (the root of RPGS). They only care about bringing in the most customers and providing a quick game that can be gotten into without to much investment of oneself. Most of their talk is about combat and how to make it more interesting. They rarely talk about the the world, the adventure, the story, the environment, the NPCs, interacting with the world, and many other things. To them the game experience is simply about making combat challenging. To me such a game as described by Axehilt is not even an RPG. I just tire of fighting with him about it as he just repeats the same thing like it is proof that this is the way things should be. The truth is things change and they will change again. Some game mechanics are likely to come back into style again at some point. They just are out of style right now. The masses are fickle and may leave gaming all together at some point. Those who really love gaming and RPGs will still be around.
When someone points out a RPG mechanic (vertical progression) creates objectively shallower PVP, that doesn't mean they've failed to understand what RPGs are.
Keep in mind that until MMORPGs PVP wasn't even a major element -- in either videogame or tabletop RPGs. So pointing out how that mechanic of RPGs doesn't create good PVP is actually very much consistent with the history of RPGs (which is maybe something you should catch up on before chiming in and implying others don't understand what RPGs are.)
I frequently talk about the story of MMORPGs, when that's the topic at hand and there's something to discuss. The current sub-topic you're replying to is about PVP, so naturally the posts are about PVP (funny how that works.)
The core pillars of videogame RPGs have been story, progression, and stats-driven combat since almost the very beginning*, so it's only when someone implies story doesn't fit (including its implementation in the form of quests) that there's much to discuss on that particular pillar. (* The earliest RPGs were even lighter on story, and therefore just about combat and progression. But this phase was pretty short-lived as even by Ultima you had some story presence -- it just was pretty limited compared with what you get in better modern RPGs.)
Just keep in mind you always have the option to post rational, well-thought out posts instead of making baseless jabs at me.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So whats the choices right now for people that want some character building RPG?
Man, I realized that I have no idea, but I suspect it's not an MMORPG. I'm hoping to see some risk-taking in future online RPGs, whether they be massively multiplayer or simply multiplayer.
I'm also going to branch out a little and try some games that I wouldn't normally try, such as Pantheon. I've even got on my schedule to try Tree of Savior starting in May, but I can tell you what the problem with ToS will be (aside from the art style).
More choices for character development is great, but we also need gameplay mechanics to make those choices meaningful (or even just useful). I have a feeling ToS lack those mechanics, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Anyway, I wish I had a better answer for you.
The first one that brings meaningfull choice to MMORPG's has a winner....
its so simple...... make a world with 9 factions... one center and 3 axisses... Everyone starts in the centrall faction... axis : good-Evil chaoss-order Beleiver-NonBeleiver
every action you take, moves you over atleast one axis... and not just quest choices, but also what kind of Mobs and NPC's you kill... in the end you will end up in a faction based on your choices and actions... You will allways be at war with the opposing faction, unless you choose to stay a member of the neutrall centrall faction... which is a free choice, tough having extreme axis numbers also has consequences here... because your allignment makes how the world reacts to you...
Anyway, creating a system where choice and actions matter isnt that hard... its been a central part of Roleplaying for all my life... but somehow it got lost in MMO's..
Same for character building... Have a system witouth classes that allows freedom to create whatever you want, tough also allow people to choose Class templates.. that assign advancement points to certain stats/skills so you build a more typicall MMO class (actually this was the way Daggerfall and other Elder scroll games worked)...if you advance in the game, you can allways step away from the template and make your own choices further on...
If you keep the spec system based on stats and skilltrees, even a system where you need to discover new skills out in the world (good old GW1 did something like this) would be possible, and part of the endgame...
why does no game dare to give players more freedom in creating their stories and rulign their own ingame lifes...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I believe some people just don't understand what an RPG is. A lot of these people who claim they are developers and have read lots of books have little passion for the origin of storytelling (the root of RPGS). They only care about bringing in the most customers and providing a quick game that can be gotten into without to much investment of oneself. Most of their talk is about combat and how to make it more interesting. They rarely talk about the the world, the adventure, the story, the environment, the NPCs, interacting with the world, and many other things. To them the game experience is simply about making combat challenging. To me such a game as described by Axehilt is not even an RPG. I just tire of fighting with him about it as he just repeats the same thing like it is proof that this is the way things should be. The truth is things change and they will change again. Some game mechanics are likely to come back into style again at some point. They just are out of style right now. The masses are fickle and may leave gaming all together at some point. Those who really love gaming and RPGs will still be around.
When someone points out a RPG mechanic (vertical progression) creates objectively shallower PVP, that doesn't mean they've failed to understand what RPGs are.
Keep in mind that until MMORPGs PVP wasn't even a major element -- in either videogame or tabletop RPGs. So pointing out how that mechanic of RPGs doesn't create good PVP is actually very much consistent with the history of RPGs (which is maybe something you should catch up on before chiming in and implying others don't understand what RPGs are.)
I frequently talk about the story of MMORPGs, when that's the topic at hand and there's something to discuss. The current sub-topic you're replying to is about PVP, so naturally the posts are about PVP (funny how that works.)
The core pillars of videogame RPGs have been story, progression, and stats-driven combat since almost the very beginning*, so it's only when someone implies story doesn't fit (including its implementation in the form of quests) that there's much to discuss on that particular pillar. (* The earliest RPGs were even lighter on story, and therefore just about combat and progression. But this phase was pretty short-lived as even by Ultima you had some story presence -- it just was pretty limited compared with what you get in better modern RPGs.)
Just keep in mind you always have the option to post rational, well-thought out posts instead of making baseless jabs at me.
If you note the game mechanics were made in fun (not to be perfect) in old games. That's why there were imbalances in combat.
You basically avoid the topic of story in MMOs. You say it's not what the silent masses want.
When broaching topics of things like virtual worlds, immersion, removing certain mechanics that make up an RPG it's basically it's not what the masses want. It's proven that the masses want interesting decisions which is balance in combat and combat. Then you will go into large paragraphs about how x developer said this is the way to make games or y developer said to make games. Perhaps instead quoting others ideas you can come up with your own, but that is a non logical process that requires some measure of creativity.
I may not be a game creator, but I know when something has emotion to it and today's games do not and your game designs do not. As I said it's in the way you talk about it. You talk about it like it's a mathematical formula to get correct. That is not how games were designed originally and where the RPG aspect comes from.
The human race has agreed that words have meaning, and that we share that meaning so we can communicate.
When did the human race do that? MMO clearly don't have much meaning anymore .. if you look at the classification on websites, or superdata.
Not everyone cares as much as you do about "some" websites and that joke of a production called Superdata.
You're free to look at it as gospel but don't be surprised if others just laugh.
"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
The human race has agreed that words have meaning, and that we share that meaning so we can communicate.
When did the human race do that? MMO clearly don't have much meaning anymore .. if you look at the classification on websites, or superdata.
Not everyone cares as much as you do about "some" websites and that joke of a production called Superdata.
Not everyone cares as much as you do about definitions of MMOs. Otherwise, why would websites and reviewers be able to call anything MMOs without much backlash (aside from some unhappy people here).
I believe some people just don't understand what an RPG is. A lot of these people who claim they are developers and have read lots of books have little passion for the origin of storytelling (the root of RPGS). They only care about bringing in the most customers and providing a quick game that can be gotten into without to much investment of oneself. Most of their talk is about combat and how to make it more interesting. They rarely talk about the the world, the adventure, the story, the environment, the NPCs, interacting with the world, and many other things. To them the game experience is simply about making combat challenging. To me such a game as described by Axehilt is not even an RPG. I just tire of fighting with him about it as he just repeats the same thing like it is proof that this is the way things should be. The truth is things change and they will change again. Some game mechanics are likely to come back into style again at some point. They just are out of style right now. The masses are fickle and may leave gaming all together at some point. Those who really love gaming and RPGs will still be around.
Roleplaying is about far more then just gaining power as you play.
As for making combat more interesting that do make sense since you spend a large proportion of your gametime fighting. If you would have some kind of intrigue based MMO that could ude very basic combat since it isn't a major point of the game.
Overpowered players ganking through loads of noobs is not RPG, part of RPGs have always been about tough fights, Gygax made it so in the early 70s.
RPG games should have some kind of progression, I agree with you there but PvP RPGs can't have so large powergap that combat becomes boring. If you want to make a PvE MMO with a huge powergap and the usual gear treadmill you should just skip the PvP altogether instead of adding bad gameplay.
Seriously, there is no actual reason for RPGs to only work against bots instead of other players, you just need mechanics that actually works for that.
Personally do I think most devs just should go for either PvP or PvE, getting both right is indredible hard since they usually get one part horrible and the other part less then what it would have been alone. That doesn't mean the right devs can't do it, just that it is hard and demands special mechanics for it.
And still arguing over 1 v 1 pvp balance... @ OP Although your vid was articulate, I differ on 2 points: - The future of RPG will be better served by a hybrid mmo, that is its not worth the problems of adventuring groups dealing with other players outside of hubs. So towns to group and trade and when they leave, more isolated though not necessarily entirely (eg provision for some pvp, just stage managed to fit within the desires of the players). - The idea of pvp being a problem is based on the idea that ai behaves better than players. When ai is smart enough to gank and run and do every other ass hat behaviour players do, will this shift your perception? If AI was smart enough to choose their profession based on whats OP, and all the mobs you face are clerics or when AI discovers some abuse of mechanics and exploits it like any player would... do you see where this is headed? I don't think we should be trying to eliminate pvp as though thats the cause of all mmorpg problems. Rather the problems with pvp today are the inability of the software to emulate life better. For example AI sheriffs that hunt down and deal with criminals. It's been mentioned in games like AA but that's a retarded parody of what is required.
And still arguing over 1 v 1 pvp balance... @ OP Although your vid was articulate, I differ on 2 points: - The future of RPG will be better served by a hybrid mmo, that is its not worth the problems of adventuring groups dealing with other players outside of hubs. So towns to group and trade and when they leave, more isolated though not necessarily entirely (eg provision for some pvp, just stage managed to fit within the desires of the players). - The idea of pvp being a problem is based on the idea that ai behaves better than players. When ai is smart enough to gank and run and do every other ass hat behaviour players do, will this shift your perception? If AI was smart enough to choose their profession based on whats OP, and all the mobs you face are clerics or when AI discovers some abuse of mechanics and exploits it like any player would... do you see where this is headed? I don't think we should be trying to eliminate pvp as though thats the cause of all mmorpg problems. Rather the problems with pvp today are the inability of the software to emulate life better. For example AI sheriffs that hunt down and deal with criminals. It's been mentioned in games like AA but that's a retarded parody of what is required.
On the hybrid MMO... I agree.
Regarding PVP... griefers, gankers, and asshats are not what I'm trying to eliminate. They're not a big problem in open world PVP games because you can kill them back. The problem works itself out.
Nor do I believe PVP is the "cause of all mmorpg problems". I'm all for PVP games. I play a few myself. My argument is that trying to balance skills and abilities to even the playing field for PVP combat is limiting character development options.
Back in the late 90s, some of my dyed-in-the-wool RPG friends would scoff at tagging Ultima Online and EverQuest with the "RPG" label. The sad thing is MMORPGs have gotten even less RPGish as the years have gone by. Nowadays, they're more accurately called MMO-Brawlers.
Rather than paste in a wall of text, I created a video (no ads, not monetized).
I completely agree with you, your 100 percent accurate in this and anyone who argues is simply wrong period. The damage control is obvious in this thread.
- The idea of pvp being a problem is based on the idea that ai behaves better than players. When ai is smart enough to gank and run and do every other ass hat behaviour players do, will this shift your perception?
No. Because you can control the AI, and make sure that it does NOT spoil the fun of players.
You do not have the same control over other players.
So whats the choices right now for people that want some character building RPG?
Man, I realized that I have no idea, but I suspect it's not an MMORPG. I'm hoping to see some risk-taking in future online RPGs, whether they be massively multiplayer or simply multiplayer.
I'm also going to branch out a little and try some games that I wouldn't normally try, such as Pantheon. I've even got on my schedule to try Tree of Savior starting in May, but I can tell you what the problem with ToS will be (aside from the art style).
More choices for character development is great, but we also need gameplay mechanics to make those choices meaningful (or even just useful). I have a feeling ToS lack those mechanics, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Anyway, I wish I had a better answer for you.
I am doing some research... On my list of favorite MMO's there seem to be five with above average character progression....
-EQ2 -ESO -RIFT -GW2 -LOTRO
now inam interesting if the character progression on those games is a reason why people are still playing those games...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
If you note the game mechanics were made in fun (not to be perfect) in old games. That's why there were imbalances in combat.
You basically avoid the topic of story in MMOs. You say it's not what the silent masses want.
When broaching topics of things like virtual worlds, immersion, removing certain mechanics that make up an RPG it's basically it's not what the masses want. It's proven that the masses want interesting decisions which is balance in combat and combat. Then you will go into large paragraphs about how x developer said this is the way to make games or y developer said to make games. Perhaps instead quoting others ideas you can come up with your own, but that is a non logical process that requires some measure of creativity.
I may not be a game creator, but I know when something has emotion to it and today's games do not and your game designs do not. As I said it's in the way you talk about it. You talk about it like it's a mathematical formula to get correct. That is not how games were designed originally and where the RPG aspect comes from.
1st paragraph: What exactly did you intend to say here? You didn't say it.
2nd/3rd paragraph: Do you realize you're replying to a post where I directly mention story and call it one of the core pillars of RPGs?
3rd paragraph: Do you realize there is value in learning from experienced people? Society has this illogical and frankly scary negative association with knowledge.
4th paragraph: First, 80% of everything is crap so I'm certainly not saying everything produced is packed with emotion. Second, "mathematical formulas" is just more nonsensical knowledge-rejection. Complimentary colors exist in art. Art which uses complimentary colors is enjoyed more than art where the colors don't compliment one another. Game design has similar traits, and ignoring game designers when they try to explain these traits is literal ignorance (keep in mind that it's not just me, but far more well-known designers all telling you the same thing.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you note the game mechanics were made in fun (not to be perfect) in old games. That's why there were imbalances in combat.
You basically avoid the topic of story in MMOs. You say it's not what the silent masses want.
When broaching topics of things like virtual worlds, immersion, removing certain mechanics that make up an RPG it's basically it's not what the masses want. It's proven that the masses want interesting decisions which is balance in combat and combat. Then you will go into large paragraphs about how x developer said this is the way to make games or y developer said to make games. Perhaps instead quoting others ideas you can come up with your own, but that is a non logical process that requires some measure of creativity.
I may not be a game creator, but I know when something has emotion to it and today's games do not and your game designs do not. As I said it's in the way you talk about it. You talk about it like it's a mathematical formula to get correct. That is not how games were designed originally and where the RPG aspect comes from.
1st paragraph: What exactly did you intend to say here? You didn't say it.
2nd/3rd paragraph: Do you realize you're replying to a post where I directly mention story and call it one of the core pillars of RPGs?
3rd paragraph: Do you realize there is value in learning from experienced people? Society has this illogical and frankly scary negative association with knowledge.
4th paragraph: First, 80% of everything is crap so I'm certainly not saying everything produced is packed with emotion. Second, "mathematical formulas" is just more nonsensical knowledge-rejection. Complimentary colors exist in art. Art which uses complimentary colors is enjoyed more than art where the colors don't compliment one another. Game design has similar traits, and ignoring game designers when they try to explain these traits is literal ignorance (keep in mind that it's not just me, but far more well-known designers all telling you the same thing.)
I understand all your points. You point on knowledge is valid. I understand how knowledge makes our lives better in many ways weather it be eating healthier or finding ways to live a better life.
I feel that games and especially adventure games (the staple of RPGs) has little to do with it. Adventures about about escaping reality and invoking emotions. That is not much different from good art or music. Most games are made in a much too mechanical way and is stripped of fun things in the name of knowledge and logic. A good game like a piece of art just flows out of you. You don't sit and discuss what is best. It's your emotions coming out and forming something you feel strongly about.
One point I discussed in this and other threads like this topic is races. You dismiss the idea of restricted races and classes because this is 2016 and in the real world many societies are not segregated and unique. Especially with the internet. This is escapism though and I would like to have unique and interesting cultures that are very different and have their own specializations like Elves living in a forest will likely be Rangers or Druids that work with nature. Due to their slenderness and the way they live they are very quick and agile. Having different unique cultures is not racist. It is what makes each culture interesting. If you want to play as a certain type of character you choose that race/class combination. You don't bastardize each cultures uniqueness and mystic in the name of some realistic idealism that has nothing to do with the game IMO.
I understand all your points. You point on knowledge is valid. I understand how knowledge makes our lives better in many ways weather it be eating healthier or finding ways to live a better life.
I feel that games and especially adventure games (the staple of RPGs) has little to do with it. Adventures about about escaping reality and invoking emotions. That is not much different from good art or music. Most games are made in a much too mechanical way and is stripped of fun things in the name of knowledge and logic. A good game like a piece of art just flows out of you. You don't sit and discuss what is best. It's your emotions coming out and forming something you feel strongly about.
One point I discussed in this and other threads like this topic is races. You dismiss the idea of restricted races and classes because this is 2016 and in the real world many societies are not segregated and unique. Especially with the internet. This is escapism though and I would like to have unique and interesting cultures that are very different and have their own specializations like Elves living in a forest will likely be Rangers or Druids that work with nature. Due to their slenderness and the way they live they are very quick and agile. Having different unique cultures is not racist. It is what makes each culture interesting. If you want to play as a certain type of character you choose that race/class combination. You don't bastardize each cultures uniqueness and mystic in the name of some realistic idealism that has nothing to do with the game IMO.
How can this be your response when my example was just about the most emotion-evoking thing possible?
There isn't magically some difference with gaming. Gaming has its own set of "complimentary color" type rules, which are used to evoke emotions just as complimentary colors were part of Starry Night (the artwork linked in the previous post.)
Let's avoid "adventure games", unless you're talking about adventure games, which are quite distinct from RPGs. "Games about adventure" is a better phrase to use.
But I led off with the reason that it doesn't matter what you call them, bad design is bad design.
Starry Night follows known 'rules' of art design, and that helps it to be more evocative! If it broke those rules, it would be less evocative.
Game design is the same. Failing to follow the rules will just result in a worse game that evokes less emotion (apart from perhaps rage and disappointment -- but good game design never seeks to accidentally cause those emotions.)
It is okay to break these rules on occasion, but you really have to understand what you're doing when you break a known rule of this type.
You're just wrong on the racism thing. It's 2016 and persisting the idea that race limits what you can do is just wrong. Meanwhile the elf city, culture, and zone(s) will still be vastly different from the human city/culture/zone(s) so you've fielded no rational argument why race should be a limiter. And then on top of that it's just better gameplay to have fewer critical decisions made in the early game (when the player knows the least about the game) and more offloaded to the later game (when the player knows more.) So you can still have those +dex bonuses, you just don't get them from being an elf is all.
Based on the above, my rationale should be crystal clear. The point is to create better gameplay and to avoid persisting racism, and neither of those things means cultures can't be distinct. But apparently in the last thread you walked away with some insane straw man interpretation where you think I feel "many societies are not segregated and unique". It's specifically because segregation/racism is a current, real issue that our art and games should strive to help eliminate it!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I understand all your points. You point on knowledge is valid. I understand how knowledge makes our lives better in many ways weather it be eating healthier or finding ways to live a better life.
I feel that games and especially adventure games (the staple of RPGs) has little to do with it. Adventures about about escaping reality and invoking emotions. That is not much different from good art or music. Most games are made in a much too mechanical way and is stripped of fun things in the name of knowledge and logic. A good game like a piece of art just flows out of you. You don't sit and discuss what is best. It's your emotions coming out and forming something you feel strongly about.
One point I discussed in this and other threads like this topic is races. You dismiss the idea of restricted races and classes because this is 2016 and in the real world many societies are not segregated and unique. Especially with the internet. This is escapism though and I would like to have unique and interesting cultures that are very different and have their own specializations like Elves living in a forest will likely be Rangers or Druids that work with nature. Due to their slenderness and the way they live they are very quick and agile. Having different unique cultures is not racist. It is what makes each culture interesting. If you want to play as a certain type of character you choose that race/class combination. You don't bastardize each cultures uniqueness and mystic in the name of some realistic idealism that has nothing to do with the game IMO.
How can this be your response when my example was just about the most emotion-evoking thing possible?
There isn't magically some difference with gaming. Gaming has its own set of "complimentary color" type rules, which are used to evoke emotions just as complimentary colors were part of Starry Night (the artwork linked in the previous post.)
Let's avoid "adventure games", unless you're talking about adventure games, which are quite distinct from RPGs. "Games about adventure" is a better phrase to use.
But I led off with the reason that it doesn't matter what you call them, bad design is bad design.
Starry Night follows known 'rules' of art design, and that helps it to be more evocative! If it broke those rules, it would be less evocative.
Game design is the same. Failing to follow the rules will just result in a worse game that evokes less emotion (apart from perhaps rage and disappointment -- but good game design never seeks to accidentally cause those emotions.)
It is okay to break these rules on occasion, but you really have to understand what you're doing when you break a known rule of this type.
You're just wrong on the racism thing. It's 2016 and persisting the idea that race limits what you can do is just wrong. Meanwhile the elf city, culture, and zone(s) will still be vastly different from the human city/culture/zone(s) so you've fielded no rational argument why race should be a limiter. And then on top of that it's just better gameplay to have fewer critical decisions made in the early game (when the player knows the least about the game) and more offloaded to the later game (when the player knows more.) So you can still have those +dex bonuses, you just don't get them from being an elf is all.
Based on the above, my rationale should be crystal clear. The point is to create better gameplay and to avoid persisting racism, and neither of those things means cultures can't be distinct. But apparently in the last thread you walked away with some insane straw man interpretation where you think I feel "many societies are not segregated and unique". It's specifically because segregation/racism is a current, real issue that our art and games should strive to help eliminate it!
Here is one for race, its a video game, its not real and your being oversenstitive about some fantasy race that lives in the trees, it creates conflicts for stories and gameplay its meant for entertainment, you dont understand anything about fantasy if you think its some race issue in real life lol.
And btw different races are different in real life and thats a fact.
There isn't magically some difference with gaming. Gaming has its own set of "complimentary color" type rules, which are used to evoke emotions just as complimentary colors were part of Starry Night (the artwork linked in the previous post.)
As I've pointed out in other threads the art is often destroyed by you constantly striving for non stop action while playing. There is not time to enjoy the scenery or get immersed. This is also destroyed by map indicators, GPS, and other intrusions from modern day real life. The games are also often missing music to set the mood and elements to provoke emotions like fog causing you to get lost or wondering if you will be able to find your way safely across a desert. Even if there is some passion in the art it is unable to be seen due to the way you want to make the games. This is one of the things sucking the RPG out of games. I know your going to say that movies and books don't have moments where they are slow. That is false as there are many moments where people are just talking or reflecting on something. If it's a book it's a thought in someone's mind. Its is rarely constant action unless it's an action movie.
Let's avoid "adventure games", unless you're talking about adventure games, which are quite distinct from RPGs. "Games about adventure" is a better phrase to use.
But I led off with the reason that it doesn't matter what you call them, bad design is bad design.
Starry Night follows known 'rules' of art design, and that helps it to be more evocative! If it broke those rules, it would be less evocative.
Game design is the same. Failing to follow the rules will just result in a worse game that evokes less emotion (apart from perhaps rage and disappointment -- but good game design never seeks to accidentally cause those emotions.)It is okay to break these rules on occasion, but you really have to understand what you're doing when you break a known rule of this type.
To me it sounds like you are still looking at things as a formula. If you are passionate about something then people will feel that in the artwork. If you design something to provoke passions through a formula that is much less likely to work. Either way we don't much that provokes emotions in games. This is due to the focus on action/combat as I pointed out above. If you look up most songs they were inspired by something someone was passionate about from real life. Many that is the case with good artwork too.
My point on adventure was that it is the basis for RPGs. All RPGs are about adventuring regardless of weather or not they are actually adventure games. I find this kind of interesting since you are happy to through out the concept that a MMORPG can be any type of game, but you think adventure is a distinct thing that doesn't exist in other games. When we look a books like the favorite one you like to point out (The Lord of the Rings) and especially it's predecessor (The Hobbit) they are both about going on adventures. Those books are the basis for most fantasy RPGs. "The greatest adventure is what lies ahead"
You're just wrong on the racism thing. It's 2016 and persisting the idea that race limits what you can do is just wrong. Meanwhile the elf city, culture, and zone(s) will still be vastly different from the human city/culture/zone(s) so you've fielded no rational argument why race should be a limiter. And then on top of that it's just better gameplay to have fewer critical decisions made in the early game (when the player knows the least about the game) and more offloaded to the later game (when the player knows more.) So you can still have those +dex bonuses, you just don't get them from being an elf is all.
Based on the above, my rationale should be crystal clear. The point is to create better gameplay and to avoid persisting racism, and neither of those things means cultures can't be distinct. But apparently in the last thread you walked away with some insane straw man interpretation where you think I feel "many societies are not segregated and unique". It's specifically because segregation/racism is a current, real issue that our art and games should strive to help eliminate it!
Unique cultures, classes, and even main characters provide for a more interesting story in most cases. Games that offer freedom of choice in terms of that often loose any sense of character they might have. This is seen in a lot of games today. You end up focusing on combat only (like you pointed out) because there is nothing else interesting to deliver. Having cultures that are unique and segregated makes them mysterious. As I pointed out the Wood Elves live deep in the woods, because of where they live and their physical makeup they end up only as specific classes. This makes them mysterious as they are a hidden culture deep in the woods and separated from the rest of society. This gives them a magical air that would not exist if other cultures were integrated into theirs. That would have an impact and changed the culture to something else. As I said there is still plenty of variety to choose what you want to play. There are many different cultures within the game world (or can be). Each as their own unique way of life that you can choose. There are even cities where everyone is accepted like Freeport in Everquest. The point is to keep certain races/cultures unique, magical, and mystical. That is not racism. Is it racist that the Asian culture is mostly made up of Asian people and live a different way of life?
Here is one for race, its a video game, its not real and your being oversenstitive about some fantasy race that lives in the trees, it creates conflicts for stories and gameplay its meant for entertainment, you dont understand anything about fantasy if you think its some race issue in real life lol.
And btw different races are different in real life and thats a fact.
Really?
You can't think of any other reason a conflict might happen beside race?
And you think "their skin is green, so let's kill them" is the pinnacle of deep, nuanced story-telling?
I suppose you also believe Trump is the pinnacle of presidential candidates, yeah?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Here is one for race, its a video game, its not real and your being oversenstitive about some fantasy race that lives in the trees, it creates conflicts for stories and gameplay its meant for entertainment, you dont understand anything about fantasy if you think its some race issue in real life lol.
And btw different races are different in real life and thats a fact.
Really?
You can't think of any other reason a conflict might happen beside race?
And you think "their skin is green, so let's kill them" is the pinnacle of deep, nuanced story-telling?
I suppose you also believe Trump is the pinnacle of presidential candidates, yeah?
I think there is a place for racism in games as a story telling motive. The classical ones in fantasy such as Elves and humans not liking each other much because the humans are overtaking their lands and the cultures have a different philosophy on living.
It can also be used a a potent way to provoke emotions in people. For instance seeing people being enslaved because of race, ideology, or sex would provoke strong emotions of some kind in most people. Seeing a girl harassed would provoke strong emotions in most people. This is a story telling mechanic that can be used to get someone to feel strong dislike towards certain people similar to how you can do so with the right music being used at the right time. Removing these types of situations just makes things really boring in most cases. These are situations that trigger something within us. Not all games or adventures have to have this, but good stories that triggers emotions usually have something strong to provoke emotions. I find may games these days are lacking this. You don't even need a story for this.
Black and white conflicts often make for much stronger emotions in a story. If you feel that even the bad guy is just a misguided person then you aren't going to feel much emotion towards the story. This is because there it is not possible to hate someone unless you feel they are really evil and enjoy nothing more then inflicting pain on others in any way they can.
Here is one for race, its a video game, its not real and your being oversenstitive about some fantasy race that lives in the trees, it creates conflicts for stories and gameplay its meant for entertainment, you dont understand anything about fantasy if you think its some race issue in real life lol.
And btw different races are different in real life and thats a fact.
Really?
You can't think of any other reason a conflict might happen beside race?
And you think "their skin is green, so let's kill them" is the pinnacle of deep, nuanced story-telling?
I suppose you also believe Trump is the pinnacle of presidential candidates, yeah?
Well if you want an example of what they mean, WoW's storyline is pretty much built on rampant racism causing rifts and bias between different groups, leading to a good degree of misunderstanding alongside holdover grudges that have influenced the way the factions respond to other problems the game world has been posed with.
It also gives the players and leaders a problem they are able to work at absolving through these experiences and the narrative.
Similarly, it was an underlying plot of Inquisition where the humans and elves had a great deal of animosity for each other due to their past. Humans treating elves like they lesser beings was a narrative point that gave growth to the series as players had to butt up against those prejudices and challenge them.
You seem to be stuck thinking of it in only one way that fails to grasp quite a lot of why it can be a compelling narrative tool. Granted, you don't get a lot of things.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I think its about time, someone starts to create a game that is meant to pull the MMO veterans towards it.... with high end and intrigueing character development... classless systems...
why? Is MMO veterans who like that kind of games a huge market? Or even enough to support a small game?
As I've pointed out in other threads the art is often destroyed by you constantly striving for non stop action while playing. There is not time to enjoy the scenery or get immersed. This is also destroyed by map indicators, GPS, and other intrusions from modern day real life. The games are also often missing music to set the mood and elements to provoke emotions like fog causing you to get lost or wondering if you will be able to find your way safely across a desert. Even if there is some passion in the art it is unable to be seen due to the way you want to make the games. This is one of the things sucking the RPG out of games. I know your going to say that movies and books don't have moments where they are slow. That is false as there are many moments where people are just talking or reflecting on something. If it's a book it's a thought in someone's mind. Its is rarely constant action unless it's an action movie.
To me it sounds like you are still looking at things as a formula. If you are passionate about something then people will feel that in the artwork. If you design something to provoke passions through a formula that is much less likely to work. Either way we don't much that provokes emotions in games. This is due to the focus on action/combat as I pointed out above. If you look up most songs they were inspired by something someone was passionate about from real life. Many that is the case with good artwork too.
My point on adventure was that it is the basis for RPGs. All RPGs are about adventuring regardless of weather or not they are actually adventure games. I find this kind of interesting since you are happy to through out the concept that a MMORPG can be any type of game, but you think adventure is a distinct thing that doesn't exist in other games. When we look a books like the favorite one you like to point out (The Lord of the Rings) and especially it's predecessor (The Hobbit) they are both about going on adventures. Those books are the basis for most fantasy RPGs. "The greatest adventure is what lies ahead"
Unique cultures, classes, and even main characters provide for a more interesting story in most cases. Games that offer freedom of choice in terms of that often loose any sense of character they might have. This is seen in a lot of games today. You end up focusing on combat only (like you pointed out) because there is nothing else interesting to deliver. Having cultures that are unique and segregated makes them mysterious. As I pointed out the Wood Elves live deep in the woods, because of where they live and their physical makeup they end up only as specific classes. This makes them mysterious as they are a hidden culture deep in the woods and separated from the rest of society. This gives them a magical air that would not exist if other cultures were integrated into theirs. That would have an impact and changed the culture to something else. As I said there is still plenty of variety to choose what you want to play. There are many different cultures within the game world (or can be). Each as their own unique way of life that you can choose. There are even cities where everyone is accepted like Freeport in Everquest. The point is to keep certain races/cultures unique, magical, and mystical. That is not racism. Is it racist that the Asian culture is mostly made up of Asian people and live a different way of life?
Yes, you do commonly return to the straw man of "non-stop action". And every time you bring up that fallacy, I point out that it's about unlimited decision-making, and not action. Successful games like Civ4 are turn-based. They're not "non-stop action". But they're an unrestricted flow of decisions, and any pause in the flow of decisions is the result of you as a player deciding not to make decisions as fast.
Immersion is mostly about immersing the player in the experience. "Here enjoy this tedious travel with infrequent, shallow decisions" is not the path to an immersive game. The most immersive experiences in gaming and entertainment are those which focus on the most engaging situations.
The things you're implying are emotion-driven design decisions were in fact business-driven (excessive timesinks to sell subscriptions) or team size-driven ("well we just don't have a big enough team for basic minimap tech, let's just not do it"). Though personally I think it's equally likely that I'm giving those early teams too much benefit by assuming they thought about having minimap tech; it's equally possible they simply didn't know that it was an obviously superior way to design games that would prevent many players from falling through the cracks into a game system that has never been a significant source of fun for players.
I do look at things like a formula. Life is patterns. Glorifying the idea of being deliberately blind to those patterns is knowledge-rejection.
I said "adventure games" are a distinct thing from RPGs. If you wish to avoid poor communication, you'll avoid combining those two words as "adventure games". That's all I said. You made the jump to somehow assume I meant that adventure never happens except in adventure games.
A game's 'character' is not reliant on race-locked classes. Why would you possibly field that idea? Do you really not understand how wrong it is? Are you really going to ignore the fact that Wood Elves still live in the woods when all races can be Rangers? They still have a distinct culture. They still have character.
The fact is, you don't even need to have different races in a RPG for that RPG to ooze character, and for its characters to be distinct interesting individuals whose stories are interesting to follow.
"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 its about time, someone starts to create a game that is meant to pull the MMO veterans towards it.... with high end and intrigueing character development... classless systems...
why? Is MMO veterans who like that kind of games a huge market? Or even enough to support a small game?
I believe it is big enough.
Its a massive risk though. There are a few million people who used to play those old school MMOs, but I expect most of them no longer play MMOs. Then you've got the existing MMO players of old-school MMOs and their emulators. So, just from those 2 groups you could probably scrape together 100k - 300k players if the game was good.
Then, you've also got the new school breed of MMO players as a potential playerbase. There has never been a AAA sandbox MMORPG and most people have probably just never experienced some of the old school philosophies, so there is a massive opportunity to attract new players to an older style.
But, is it worth the risk? To take old school ideas / philosophies and apply modern tech and lessons is going to be massively expensive if you want AAA, at least $100m. So, if you built it for $100m but only got 100k subscribers (no f2p ofc) at $15 pm, you're only earning $1.5m per month. Lets assume devs receive $10 per box sold, it'd take 5.5 years to break even before you even take into account ongoing costs, expansions, bug fixes etc.
At 300k subscribers you earn $4.5m per month so only takes just under 2 years to break even, so not too bad.
At 500k subscribers you earn $7.5m per month so just over a year.
Now, for $100m budget you can create a AAA sandbox with a good IP and systems in place to keep it interesting for years. Assuming you made it accessible to the masses (like WoW was in comparison to its competitors at the time) then 500k subs is easily achievable.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Actually Axe, Civ 4 uses a disparity to generate interest between short term actions and long-term decision making. There are also clear gaps in gameplay moments with the turn-based system where players step back to watch things play out in rounds and see what ways in which they have been affected. The pacing of that game is notably slower than the likes of an RTS focusing on micromanagement, and uses that to allow the player to take a bit longer on their decision making processes for picking more complex strategic factors that they have to plot rather long-term.
The fallacy is yours for asserting there is only one manner and pace to a game's design.
Analytics certainly can help you, but you've also made the mistake of thinking they tell you everything about what the best game tools and implementations are, which is simply false as first of all, all analytics are incomplete data sets since there is a myriad of unknown game mechanics and uncalculated value. Second of all, it can only tell you the preformance of past tracked design elements and present ones, no other combinations, tweaks, alternate methods, etc.
Also, there are adventure RPGs just as there are action RPGs and other forms. The blending of adventure role and style in RPGs is a pretty classic mode of doing things, so your derision and division of the two is largely a pedantic tangent missing the point of what Flyte was saying.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
Keep in mind that until MMORPGs PVP wasn't even a major element -- in either videogame or tabletop RPGs. So pointing out how that mechanic of RPGs doesn't create good PVP is actually very much consistent with the history of RPGs (which is maybe something you should catch up on before chiming in and implying others don't understand what RPGs are.)
I frequently talk about the story of MMORPGs, when that's the topic at hand and there's something to discuss. The current sub-topic you're replying to is about PVP, so naturally the posts are about PVP (funny how that works.)
The core pillars of videogame RPGs have been story, progression, and stats-driven combat since almost the very beginning*, so it's only when someone implies story doesn't fit (including its implementation in the form of quests) that there's much to discuss on that particular pillar. (* The earliest RPGs were even lighter on story, and therefore just about combat and progression. But this phase was pretty short-lived as even by Ultima you had some story presence -- it just was pretty limited compared with what you get in better modern RPGs.)
Just keep in mind you always have the option to post rational, well-thought out posts instead of making baseless jabs at me.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
its so simple...... make a world with 9 factions... one center and 3 axisses...
Everyone starts in the centrall faction...
axis :
good-Evil
chaoss-order
Beleiver-NonBeleiver
every action you take, moves you over atleast one axis... and not just quest choices, but also what kind of Mobs and NPC's you kill... in the end you will end up in a faction based on your choices and actions... You will allways be at war with the opposing faction, unless you choose to stay a member of the neutrall centrall faction... which is a free choice, tough having extreme axis numbers also has consequences here... because your allignment makes how the world reacts to you...
Anyway, creating a system where choice and actions matter isnt that hard... its been a central part of Roleplaying for all my life... but somehow it got lost in MMO's..
Same for character building... Have a system witouth classes that allows freedom to create whatever you want, tough also allow people to choose Class templates.. that assign advancement points to certain stats/skills so you build a more typicall MMO class (actually this was the way Daggerfall and other Elder scroll games worked)...if you advance in the game, you can allways step away from the template and make your own choices further on...
If you keep the spec system based on stats and skilltrees, even a system where you need to discover new skills out in the world (good old GW1 did something like this) would be possible, and part of the endgame...
why does no game dare to give players more freedom in creating their stories and rulign their own ingame lifes...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
You basically avoid the topic of story in MMOs. You say it's not what the silent masses want.
When broaching topics of things like virtual worlds, immersion, removing certain mechanics that make up an RPG it's basically it's not what the masses want. It's proven that the masses want interesting decisions which is balance in combat and combat. Then you will go into large paragraphs about how x developer said this is the way to make games or y developer said to make games. Perhaps instead quoting others ideas you can come up with your own, but that is a non logical process that requires some measure of creativity.
I may not be a game creator, but I know when something has emotion to it and today's games do not and your game designs do not. As I said it's in the way you talk about it. You talk about it like it's a mathematical formula to get correct. That is not how games were designed originally and where the RPG aspect comes from.
You're free to look at it as gospel but don't be surprised if others just laugh.
"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
As for making combat more interesting that do make sense since you spend a large proportion of your gametime fighting. If you would have some kind of intrigue based MMO that could ude very basic combat since it isn't a major point of the game.
Overpowered players ganking through loads of noobs is not RPG, part of RPGs have always been about tough fights, Gygax made it so in the early 70s.
RPG games should have some kind of progression, I agree with you there but PvP RPGs can't have so large powergap that combat becomes boring. If you want to make a PvE MMO with a huge powergap and the usual gear treadmill you should just skip the PvP altogether instead of adding bad gameplay.
Seriously, there is no actual reason for RPGs to only work against bots instead of other players, you just need mechanics that actually works for that.
Personally do I think most devs just should go for either PvP or PvE, getting both right is indredible hard since they usually get one part horrible and the other part less then what it would have been alone. That doesn't mean the right devs can't do it, just that it is hard and demands special mechanics for it.
@ OP Although your vid was articulate, I differ on 2 points:
- The future of RPG will be better served by a hybrid mmo, that is its not worth the problems of adventuring groups dealing with other players outside of hubs. So towns to group and trade and when they leave, more isolated though not necessarily entirely (eg provision for some pvp, just stage managed to fit within the desires of the players).
- The idea of pvp being a problem is based on the idea that ai behaves better than players. When ai is smart enough to gank and run and do every other ass hat behaviour players do, will this shift your perception? If AI was smart enough to choose their profession based on whats OP, and all the mobs you face are clerics or when AI discovers some abuse of mechanics and exploits it like any player would... do you see where this is headed? I don't think we should be trying to eliminate pvp as though thats the cause of all mmorpg problems. Rather the problems with pvp today are the inability of the software to emulate life better. For example AI sheriffs that hunt down and deal with criminals. It's been mentioned in games like AA but that's a retarded parody of what is required.
On the hybrid MMO... I agree.
Regarding PVP... griefers, gankers, and asshats are not what I'm trying to eliminate. They're not a big problem in open world PVP games because you can kill them back. The problem works itself out.
Nor do I believe PVP is the "cause of all mmorpg problems". I'm all for PVP games. I play a few myself. My argument is that trying to balance skills and abilities to even the playing field for PVP combat is limiting character development options.
I completely agree with you, your 100 percent accurate in this and anyone who argues is simply wrong period. The damage control is obvious in this thread.
You do not have the same control over other players.
-EQ2
-ESO
-RIFT
-GW2
-LOTRO
now inam interesting if the character progression on those games is a reason why people are still playing those games...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
2nd/3rd paragraph: Do you realize you're replying to a post where I directly mention story and call it one of the core pillars of RPGs?
3rd paragraph: Do you realize there is value in learning from experienced people? Society has this illogical and frankly scary negative association with knowledge.
4th paragraph: First, 80% of everything is crap so I'm certainly not saying everything produced is packed with emotion. Second, "mathematical formulas" is just more nonsensical knowledge-rejection. Complimentary colors exist in art. Art which uses complimentary colors is enjoyed more than art where the colors don't compliment one another. Game design has similar traits, and ignoring game designers when they try to explain these traits is literal ignorance (keep in mind that it's not just me, but far more well-known designers all telling you the same thing.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I feel that games and especially adventure games (the staple of RPGs) has little to do with it. Adventures about about escaping reality and invoking emotions. That is not much different from good art or music. Most games are made in a much too mechanical way and is stripped of fun things in the name of knowledge and logic. A good game like a piece of art just flows out of you. You don't sit and discuss what is best. It's your emotions coming out and forming something you feel strongly about.
One point I discussed in this and other threads like this topic is races. You dismiss the idea of restricted races and classes because this is 2016 and in the real world many societies are not segregated and unique. Especially with the internet. This is escapism though and I would like to have unique and interesting cultures that are very different and have their own specializations like Elves living in a forest will likely be Rangers or Druids that work with nature. Due to their slenderness and the way they live they are very quick and agile. Having different unique cultures is not racist. It is what makes each culture interesting. If you want to play as a certain type of character you choose that race/class combination. You don't bastardize each cultures uniqueness and mystic in the name of some realistic idealism that has nothing to do with the game IMO.
There isn't magically some difference with gaming. Gaming has its own set of "complimentary color" type rules, which are used to evoke emotions just as complimentary colors were part of Starry Night (the artwork linked in the previous post.)
Let's avoid "adventure games", unless you're talking about adventure games, which are quite distinct from RPGs. "Games about adventure" is a better phrase to use.
But I led off with the reason that it doesn't matter what you call them, bad design is bad design.
Starry Night follows known 'rules' of art design, and that helps it to be more evocative! If it broke those rules, it would be less evocative.
Game design is the same. Failing to follow the rules will just result in a worse game that evokes less emotion (apart from perhaps rage and disappointment -- but good game design never seeks to accidentally cause those emotions.)
It is okay to break these rules on occasion, but you really have to understand what you're doing when you break a known rule of this type.
You're just wrong on the racism thing. It's 2016 and persisting the idea that race limits what you can do is just wrong. Meanwhile the elf city, culture, and zone(s) will still be vastly different from the human city/culture/zone(s) so you've fielded no rational argument why race should be a limiter. And then on top of that it's just better gameplay to have fewer critical decisions made in the early game (when the player knows the least about the game) and more offloaded to the later game (when the player knows more.) So you can still have those +dex bonuses, you just don't get them from being an elf is all.
Based on the above, my rationale should be crystal clear. The point is to create better gameplay and to avoid persisting racism, and neither of those things means cultures can't be distinct. But apparently in the last thread you walked away with some insane straw man interpretation where you think I feel "many societies are not segregated and unique". It's specifically because segregation/racism is a current, real issue that our art and games should strive to help eliminate it!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And btw different races are different in real life and thats a fact.
You can't think of any other reason a conflict might happen beside race?
And you think "their skin is green, so let's kill them" is the pinnacle of deep, nuanced story-telling?
I suppose you also believe Trump is the pinnacle of presidential candidates, yeah?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It can also be used a a potent way to provoke emotions in people. For instance seeing people being enslaved because of race, ideology, or sex would provoke strong emotions of some kind in most people. Seeing a girl harassed would provoke strong emotions in most people. This is a story telling mechanic that can be used to get someone to feel strong dislike towards certain people similar to how you can do so with the right music being used at the right time. Removing these types of situations just makes things really boring in most cases. These are situations that trigger something within us. Not all games or adventures have to have this, but good stories that triggers emotions usually have something strong to provoke emotions. I find may games these days are lacking this. You don't even need a story for this.
Black and white conflicts often make for much stronger emotions in a story. If you feel that even the bad guy is just a misguided person then you aren't going to feel much emotion towards the story. This is because there it is not possible to hate someone unless you feel they are really evil and enjoy nothing more then inflicting pain on others in any way they can.
It also gives the players and leaders a problem they are able to work at absolving through these experiences and the narrative.
Similarly, it was an underlying plot of Inquisition where the humans and elves had a great deal of animosity for each other due to their past. Humans treating elves like they lesser beings was a narrative point that gave growth to the series as players had to butt up against those prejudices and challenge them.
You seem to be stuck thinking of it in only one way that fails to grasp quite a lot of why it can be a compelling narrative tool. Granted, you don't get a lot of things.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Yes, you do commonly return to the straw man of "non-stop action". And every time you bring up that fallacy, I point out that it's about unlimited decision-making, and not action. Successful games like Civ4 are turn-based. They're not "non-stop action". But they're an unrestricted flow of decisions, and any pause in the flow of decisions is the result of you as a player deciding not to make decisions as fast.
Immersion is mostly about immersing the player in the experience. "Here enjoy this tedious travel with infrequent, shallow decisions" is not the path to an immersive game. The most immersive experiences in gaming and entertainment are those which focus on the most engaging situations.
The things you're implying are emotion-driven design decisions were in fact business-driven (excessive timesinks to sell subscriptions) or team size-driven ("well we just don't have a big enough team for basic minimap tech, let's just not do it"). Though personally I think it's equally likely that I'm giving those early teams too much benefit by assuming they thought about having minimap tech; it's equally possible they simply didn't know that it was an obviously superior way to design games that would prevent many players from falling through the cracks into a game system that has never been a significant source of fun for players.
I do look at things like a formula. Life is patterns. Glorifying the idea of being deliberately blind to those patterns is knowledge-rejection.
I said "adventure games" are a distinct thing from RPGs. If you wish to avoid poor communication, you'll avoid combining those two words as "adventure games". That's all I said. You made the jump to somehow assume I meant that adventure never happens except in adventure games.
A game's 'character' is not reliant on race-locked classes. Why would you possibly field that idea? Do you really not understand how wrong it is? Are you really going to ignore the fact that Wood Elves still live in the woods when all races can be Rangers? They still have a distinct culture. They still have character.
The fact is, you don't even need to have different races in a RPG for that RPG to ooze character, and for its characters to be distinct interesting individuals whose stories are interesting to follow.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Its a massive risk though. There are a few million people who used to play those old school MMOs, but I expect most of them no longer play MMOs. Then you've got the existing MMO players of old-school MMOs and their emulators. So, just from those 2 groups you could probably scrape together 100k - 300k players if the game was good.
Then, you've also got the new school breed of MMO players as a potential playerbase. There has never been a AAA sandbox MMORPG and most people have probably just never experienced some of the old school philosophies, so there is a massive opportunity to attract new players to an older style.
But, is it worth the risk? To take old school ideas / philosophies and apply modern tech and lessons is going to be massively expensive if you want AAA, at least $100m. So, if you built it for $100m but only got 100k subscribers (no f2p ofc) at $15 pm, you're only earning $1.5m per month. Lets assume devs receive $10 per box sold, it'd take 5.5 years to break even before you even take into account ongoing costs, expansions, bug fixes etc.
At 300k subscribers you earn $4.5m per month so only takes just under 2 years to break even, so not too bad.
At 500k subscribers you earn $7.5m per month so just over a year.
Now, for $100m budget you can create a AAA sandbox with a good IP and systems in place to keep it interesting for years. Assuming you made it accessible to the masses (like WoW was in comparison to its competitors at the time) then 500k subs is easily achievable.
The fallacy is yours for asserting there is only one manner and pace to a game's design.
Analytics certainly can help you, but you've also made the mistake of thinking they tell you everything about what the best game tools and implementations are, which is simply false as first of all, all analytics are incomplete data sets since there is a myriad of unknown game mechanics and uncalculated value. Second of all, it can only tell you the preformance of past tracked design elements and present ones, no other combinations, tweaks, alternate methods, etc.
Also, there are adventure RPGs just as there are action RPGs and other forms. The blending of adventure role and style in RPGs is a pretty classic mode of doing things, so your derision and division of the two is largely a pedantic tangent missing the point of what Flyte was saying.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin