Despite some of your best efforts, I still don't agree that combat defines the MMORPG.
Combat doesn't even have to happen all that often and many times I find myself spending more time talking to real life people or reading quests, lore, and running or exploring, checking out my character and arranging my bank. These kinds of activities have nothing to do with combat.. and many MMORPGs have crafting, harvesting, and some have many other features. This makes the game an RPG.. and combat is only part of it so claiming that all MMORPGs are combat-centric feels off. I thought that we have evolved beyond that already.
The only game that I played for primarily the combat was Guild Wars.. in other games I have many more reasons to play. I've played a lot of games.
For the most part I feel that combat is not done very well in MMORPGs when compared to single-player games but that is the price that I pay so that I can play with other people..
Fact is that most of the time that people are engaged in combat is because they want experience points or loot. People don't just do it for the fun of it most of the time.
When I think combat-centric or combat defining a game, I think Street Fighter 2.
I don't even remember how the combat was played in most RPGs.. but I do remember exploring and things that I would discover or epic loot that I found... I'm thinking oldschool games though. I'd have to play them again to remember how the combat was... so why don't I remember the combat first?
The truth is not contingent on your agreeing with what I've said. The truth is that videogame RPGs have been strongly characterized by combat since the very beginning, and that continues to be the case (whether the RPG is MMO or not.)
Citing your subjective anecdotal experience or preference doesn't change truth. The broader objective reality is that combat is the most common activity in virtually every videogame RPG.
Is "people don't just do it for the fun of it most of the time" worded like you meant? If so it sounds like you admit that fun is always a factor. Any additional motivations beyond that wouldn't conflict with what I've said. While I'm sure there are handfuls of unwise players playing games that they don't think are fun purely to chase XP and loot, for the vast majority of players when the game isn't fun they quit (because there's a huge list of other games that offer XP and loot which are fun.) Besides, the main purpose of XP and loot tends to be combat; meaning there's not much motivation for me to get either of them if I dislike combat.
Street Fighter is also combat-centric, but that doesn't magically make combat stop being the most common single activity in RPGs (and therefore games which are defined in large part due to combat.)
And lastly, having a selective memory also doesn't change the truth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A meaningless argument is effectively the same as having no argument at all, save you have wasted more words.
wow ..
That exactly is technical accuracy, next time try using English properly. Meaningless means "having no purpose or reason", which is exactly the nature of having no argument. IE, a meaningless argument is the equivalent of no argument. This is why the term "meaningless" is synonymous with empty, blank, nothing, etc. It's a null-value same as "no X" as a phrase is.
This is where for example your own question breaks down. You are linking situations and phrases that are non synonymous or are missing key defining terms in order to try and create an argument. This makes your question fundamentally flawed.
Even though it's entirely unrelated and as meaningless as your last question, it's at least easy to answer and explain without excessive corrections, so the simple answer is "no it's not". A ton of people logging into a game does not qualify it as an MMO as the basis of an MMO is the fact that they are all participant on a shared server, which your statement is lacking in that detail. If we were to amend your statement to this instead;
Do you now agree that as long as a few hundred people can log on to the same server concurrently (at the same time) ... a game qualifies as a MMO?
Suddenly the answer becomes "yes". And yet I even threw you a bone by lowering the player prerequisite.
Fact is, "massive" is still a bit of a fudged term, but the reality is that anything above a couple hundred people in the same general environment is a massive amount of people. Scaling up from there the interactions between individuals becomes a blur, but so long as you can readily interact with at least over a couple hundred users on the same server, then you've passed the threshold to be talking about a massive user experience even if you're on the far low end of that spectrum. This does not inherently include chat servers unless they are the core mechanic of gameplay such as in some MUD games.
And as I've just detailed, that is also why your question is fundamentally flawed. You are basically asking what is known as a "fruitless question" whereby one is asking what is essentially the "wrong" question. Also sometimes known as a complex question fallacy, though not entirely the same as it's not necessarily intentional on your part.
Seeing as English lessons are not the point of this thread, if you have any further inquiry on this please send me a PM.
Aside from that, you have persisted in creating derailing and off topic arguments to which I can once again only repeat my previous statement.
Post edited by Deivos on
"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 would say MMORPG are more defined by achievements at least in WoW clones/themepark types. Combat is a big part but whether crafting, killing, questing are all about getting achievements in the form of progressions.
Actually, if there's any invalid points to be made, it's what you just said.
Progress is not made by stagnation and regression. As our technology gets better and AI gets more complex, the variety of challenges and interactivity in computer RPGs can grow to challenge it's original tabletop counterpart as well as books and stories they source from.
Your argument that combat is commonplace is pointless because the question never was "what is most common", it was "can we do better". To which the answer is yes we can.
My examples are exactly of that. Developers smarter than the monkeys that think the only thing they can make is a combat game, and subsequently an example of how things can be better, using titles that already exist.
You can join the monkeys if you want, but I'm more interested in progress, and that is a very valid point for me to be making.
"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
Actually, if there's any invalid points to be made, it's what you just said.
Progress is not made by stagnation and regression. As our technology gets better and AI gets more complex, the variety of challenges and interactivity in computer RPGs can grow to challenge it's original tabletop counterpart as well as books and stories they source from.
Your argument that combat is commonplace is pointless because the question never was "what is most common", it was "why shouldn't we have more options". To which the answer is we should have more choices.
My cited examples are exactly of that. Developers smarter than the monkeys that think the only thing they can make is a combat game, and subsequently an example of how things can be better, using titles that already exist.
You can join the monkeys if you want, but I'm more interested in progress, and that is a very valid point for me to be making.
If you want to look rational you should try disproving my argument next time instead of calling names though. Saying it's invalid yet not being even capable of giving half an excuse as to why you claim that is not a valid argument in itself. For example I just gave a clear point how your argument highlights that you didn't even address the core question of the OP/thread. You, however, couldn't even do that in response to my comment you quoted.
More invalid points.
Historically the word "red" has been associated with one specific color.
Currently the word red is still associated with that color.
Feel free to ask the question "why shouldn't things be other colors?"
Feel free to paint something blue.
Just realize that when you paint something blue, it's no longer red.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Actually, if there's any invalid points to be made, it's what you just said.
Progress is not made by stagnation and regression. As our technology gets better and AI gets more complex, the variety of challenges and interactivity in computer RPGs can grow to challenge it's original tabletop counterpart as well as books and stories they source from.
Your argument that combat is commonplace is pointless because the question never was "what is most common", it was "why shouldn't we have more options". To which the answer is we should have more choices.
My cited examples are exactly of that. Developers smarter than the monkeys that think the only thing they can make is a combat game, and subsequently an example of how things can be better, using titles that already exist.
You can join the monkeys if you want, but I'm more interested in progress, and that is a very valid point for me to be making.
If you want to look rational you should try disproving my argument next time instead of calling names though. Saying it's invalid yet not being even capable of giving half an excuse as to why you claim that is not a valid argument in itself. For example I just gave a clear point how your argument highlights that you didn't even address the core question of the OP/thread. You, however, couldn't even do that in response to my comment you quoted.
More invalid points.
Historically the word "red" has been associated with one specific color.
Currently the word red is still associated with that color.
Feel free to ask the question "why shouldn't things be other colors?"
Feel free to paint something blue.
Just realize that when you paint something blue, it's no longer red.
See, that doesn't even apply to the thread or what you're responding to.
No one has asked to make anything other than an RPG. Fundamentally if you are operating a narrative adventure with character skill challenges and some for of progression, you are creating at least a rudimentary RPG.
That's already where your analogy breaks down. No one is sitting there going "red should be blue", they are going "How much more can we do with red?" So to give a proper analogy...
Historically "red" has been associated with a color spectrum.
When trying to define red using a simple device that doesn't let them get exceptionally detailed, the simplified it to signify a particular example of that spectrum.
Now, people are looking back at the actual spectrum of color that is "red" and asking why those other shades and tones of red shouldn't be used.
Consequently, some have chosen to broaden the spectrum that their devices can now handle and adopt a much more complete use of the "red" spectrum.
It's all still "red", it's just no longer one shade/tone.
The flaw of your argument fundamentally is what was already addressed in a prior link. As we also already went over the historical factor of what an RPG is, we can already see that your analogy is wrong.
Again, we have games that are RPGs, yet are not single-minded about combat, or even more so do not utilize it. Your argument that RPGs require combat as such, is false.
"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
You can join the monkeys if you want, but I'm more interested in progress, and that is a very valid point for me to be making.
nah .. that is just a fake point that has no argument.
You're going to have to give an explanation on that one or I'll have to assume you're simply trolling as usual.
That is also a fake point that has no argument. You are just making false assumptions left and right. And calling your own non-point "valid" does not make it so.
You can join the monkeys if you want, but I'm more interested in progress, and that is a very valid point for me to be making.
nah .. that is just a fake point that has no argument.
You're going to have to give an explanation on that one or I'll have to assume you're simply trolling as usual.
That is also a fake point that has no argument. You are just making false assumptions left and right. And calling your own non-point "valid" does not make it so.
Ok, so you trolling it is.
"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'd be interested to know what players would want in a MMORPG for non combat experience and roles in the game. Many point to crafters and a deep crafting system but besides that could we come up with anything meaningful to the over all game play/story line that wouldn't be easily abused/exploitable by players that'd ruin the experience of the game in general? Something regarding the political life of the MMORPG's perhaps?
There are many who would crave for something more out of MMORPG's besides generic questing or PvP to obtain uber items and awesome combat abilities, but I've not really seen a widely detailed, fleshed out idea of what kind of experience and system that would be (perhaps I've not read in theright places!).
Combat and conflict will always be a large part of most MMORPG's and I think we all understand and accept that. But it seems the growing trend of players want to see more other stuff to do in game that is meaningful to the community and over all game play. Sometimes we just need a break from fighting (either PvE or PvP), but want to further out characters development and contribute to the game. I can see developers being interested in knowing what type of things people might want that to be.
Despite some of your best efforts, I still don't agree that combat defines the MMORPG.
Combat doesn't even have to happen all that often and many times I find myself spending more time talking to real life people or reading quests, lore, and running or exploring, checking out my character and arranging my bank. These kinds of activities have nothing to do with combat.. and many MMORPGs have crafting, harvesting, and some have many other features. This makes the game an RPG.. and combat is only part of it so claiming that all MMORPGs are combat-centric feels off. I thought that we have evolved beyond that already.
The only game that I played for primarily the combat was Guild Wars.. in other games I have many more reasons to play. I've played a lot of games.
For the most part I feel that combat is not done very well in MMORPGs when compared to single-player games but that is the price that I pay so that I can play with other people..
Fact is that most of the time that people are engaged in combat is because they want experience points or loot. People don't just do it for the fun of it most of the time.
When I think combat-centric or combat defining a game, I think Street Fighter 2.
I don't even remember how the combat was played in most RPGs.. but I do remember exploring and things that I would discover or epic loot that I found... I'm thinking oldschool games though. I'd have to play them again to remember how the combat was... so why don't I remember the combat first?
The truth is not contingent on your agreeing with what I've said. The truth is that videogame RPGs have been strongly characterized by combat since the very beginning, and that continues to be the case (whether the RPG is MMO or not.)
Citing your subjective anecdotal experience or preference doesn't change truth. The broader objective reality is that combat is the most common activity in virtually every videogame RPG.
Is "people don't just do it for the fun of it most of the time" worded like you meant? If so it sounds like you admit that fun is always a factor. Any additional motivations beyond that wouldn't conflict with what I've said. While I'm sure there are handfuls of unwise players playing games that they don't think are fun purely to chase XP and loot, for the vast majority of players when the game isn't fun they quit (because there's a huge list of other games that offer XP and loot which are fun.) Besides, the main purpose of XP and loot tends to be combat; meaning there's not much motivation for me to get either of them if I dislike combat.
Street Fighter is also combat-centric, but that doesn't magically make combat stop being the most common single activity in RPGs (and therefore games which are defined in large part due to combat.)
And lastly, having a selective memory also doesn't change the truth.
Strongly characterized by combat is much different than saying that combat defines an MMORPG... but I admit that some games are centered around combat mostly, but it feels like only a small percentage, and even those games have people who play it for other reasons besides the combat.
Combat is not the most common activity in every videogame RPG, are you kidding me? Thinking of oldschool RPGs like Buck Rogers, Rings of Power, Shadowrun, Warriors of the Eternal Sun (this one more combat than the others but exploring just as much), .. . the combat was somewhat horrific in RPGs but it didn't matter because what made the games so good was the exploration and building up a character and solving puzzles or following a storyline.. combat did not happen most of the time. Even games like Final Fantasy where combat was thrown at you every few paces in the wild, you still spend half of the time following the storyline and preparing in towns or what not.. in every RPG I can think of, most of it was trying to figure out things by talking to townspeople and stuff like that.
Thinking of MMORPGs, I'll give two examples of the games that I played the most.. one themepark and one sandbox... saying that combat defined these games is well off because I think that people still would have played it even if the combat was done entirely differently. So long as it works, that is what matters most. I do not think the combat is fun all of the time and sometimes get bored with it easily but luckily there are dangling carrots to chase and other reasons to play the game.
Vanguard.. I can easily say that I spent my time 25% crafting 25% exploring (looking for people to kill) %15 harvesting 15% socializing (I was leader of major guild) 10% reading quest content (crafting/adventuring) 10% engaged in combat... oops I forgot diplomacy, but probably was engaged in combat more. PVE combat for the most part bored me to tears, but it was okay. The PVP combat was pretty broken but it worked good enough.
Darkfall... kind of sad how little people were engaged in combat in this game but it was fun as hell when it did happen.. I spent my time 25% harvesting 20% socializing (waiting for some reason much of the time, whether its on a boat or at a siege) 20% traveling / exploring (looking for people to kill) 15% dueling / engaged in combat 10% arranging my bank 10% crafting .. . I spent very little time killing mobs in this game but I PVPed more often than most people. Everyone crafted in this game for the most part.. I played it with my girlfriend who for the most part avoided combat at all costs besides some occasional PVE, she mostly would craft/harvest/socialize.. my brother spent most of his time grinding his character, not by using combat either, he would cast on stuck mobs or macro (I was engaged in combat more often than him!). I used to colead a large clan in this game with someone who did not do combat at all.. he did not farm mobs and did not PVP (unless it was giving orders in a siege and managing the strategy so that kind of counts?).. some people did not farm mobs and harvested instead, and right from the beginning people would grind in other ways outside of combat like using 'blood walls' etc. The combat in this game was pretty epic but I think most player were pretty inexperienced with it.
So tell me again how combat defines an MMORPG?
Think of another game.. like EVE.. many people have multiple accounts in this game. What do you think they are engaged in combat in each one at the same time? lol
Post edited by Sid_Vicious on
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
I'd be interested to know what players would want in a MMORPG for non combat experience and roles in the game. Many point to crafters and a deep crafting system but besides that could we come up with anything meaningful to the over all game play/story line that wouldn't be easily abused/exploitable by players that'd ruin the experience of the game in general? Something regarding the political life of the MMORPG's perhaps?
There are many who would crave for something more out of MMORPG's besides generic questing or PvP to obtain uber items and awesome combat abilities, but I've not really seen a widely detailed, fleshed out idea of what kind of experience and system that would be (perhaps I've not read in theright places!).
Combat and conflict will always be a large part of most MMORPG's and I think we all understand and accept that. But it seems the growing trend of players want to see more other stuff to do in game that is meaningful to the community and over all game play. Sometimes we just need a break from fighting (either PvE or PvP), but want to further out characters development and contribute to the game. I can see developers being interested in knowing what type of things people might want that to be.
First let me state that combat is my favourite activity, so I'm personally not advocating removal of combat. However, I like my games well rounded. If I'm going to be devoting years of my life to an MMO, I want to know that it can suit my changing moods and needs. Few have managed it and modern MMOs are also screwing the pooch on combat.
So, I always come back to SWG as a starting point for non-combat roles
Crafting - This is the most obvious non-combat role. Make the equipment in games 99% crafted and making the crafting system deep. Allows people to specialise as crafters, gain a reputation etc. I know many people from my SWG guild that only crafted. They'd spend their days harvesting the best materials, running batch orders of components, experimenting with new stuff, crafting to order etc. People would travel from all over the server to visit specific crafter's shops for the best gear.
Entertainer / Musician - The gameplay for these professions was really basic so loads of room for improvement on this one, but both professions were needed by others (to remove wounds and buff mind stats) so it was very social. I can imagine some future dev implementing guitar-hero type gameplay into an MMO or something similar.
Ranger / Scout - I guess this is sort of combat-related, but this profession increased the groups movement ability, could set up camps anywhere (to let entertainers do their thing) as well as some other buffy type things.
Image Designer - So, character creation was ok in SWG, but image designers could do so much more. Tons of new hairstyles, tattoos, colours etc. Basically a crafting role, just without mats, so was much more social.
Other sorts of things I'd like to see:
Resource Production - things like farmers, fishermen, hunters etc. Rather than a chef having to roam about harvesting onions from nodes, put in a farming profession. Add micro-management type gameplay and let players actually create a farm that produces raw materials for other types of crafters. Fishermen could have their own minigames, hunters could have theirs (like Trevor's hunting in GTA5).
Card Games - Its non-combat, but still "conflict". I loved the card games in some of the final fantasy series as well as pazaak in kotor. Why not add them to the game, let players play each other etc. allow betting and stuff. While we're at it, why not other types of mini-games like chess and draughts? I can imagine the devs putting a load of chess tables outside a tavern and certain players becoming known server wide as great chess players.
Racing - I think lotro did this for some of their festivals (4 player horse races around a course). I always wished that swg or swtor had podracing in it. I'm sure TSW could have some awesome futuristic races. WoW could have flying races or whatever.
The problem with this sort of gameplay is it all adds entirely new, additional systems for the developers to create and integrate with their "core" game. For something like mini-games its not too bad as they can be completely standalone, but anything that has to integrate with core gameplay will add serious stress to the developers! Something like racing would be awesome, but I'm basically asking for MMO devs to build entire games within the game they are already building which is sadly unrealistic. A lot of these non-combat things also lack the "massively-multiplayer" aspect. Why put pod-racing in your MMO when you could just make a new pod-racing game for much cheaper? Its not as if the MMO would allow 200-odd player races (tho..... ) so you're basically just putting in a glorified lobby (the rest of the game) for the racing part.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
You are just describing different types/genre of games. Why bother to put of them into a single mmorpg?
If I want to play a racing game, or a card game, i would much rather just play an online racing/card game because the devs would not be stretch thin, and can focus on producing the best racing or card game.
Strongly characterized by combat is much different than saying that combat defines an MMORPG... but I admit that some games are centered around combat mostly, but it feels like only a small percentage, and even those games have people who play it for other reasons besides the combat.
Combat is not the most common activity in every videogame RPG, are you kidding me? Thinking of oldschool RPGs like Buck Rogers, Rings of Power, Shadowrun, Warriors of the Eternal Sun (this one more combat than the others but exploring just as much), .. . the combat was somewhat horrific in RPGs but it didn't matter because what made the games so good was the exploration and building up a character and solving puzzles or following a storyline.. combat did not happen most of the time. Even games like Final Fantasy where combat was thrown at you every few paces in the wild, you still spend half of the time following the storyline and preparing in towns or what not.. in every RPG I can think of, most of it was trying to figure out things by talking to townspeople and stuff like that.
Thinking of MMORPGs, I'll give two examples of the games that I played the most.. one themepark and one sandbox... saying that combat defined these games is well off because I think that people still would have played it even if the combat was done entirely differently. So long as it works, that is what matters most. I do not think the combat is fun all of the time and sometimes get bored with it easily but luckily there are dangling carrots to chase and other reasons to play the game.
Vanguard.. I can easily say that I spent my time 25% crafting 25% exploring (looking for people to kill) %15 harvesting 15% socializing (I was leader of major guild) 10% reading quest content (crafting/adventuring) 10% engaged in combat... oops I forgot diplomacy, but probably was engaged in combat more. PVE combat for the most part bored me to tears, but it was okay. The PVP combat was pretty broken but it worked good enough.
Darkfall... kind of sad how little people were engaged in combat in this game but it was fun as hell when it did happen.. I spent my time 25% harvesting 20% socializing (waiting for some reason much of the time, whether its on a boat or at a siege) 20% traveling / exploring (looking for people to kill) 15% dueling / engaged in combat 15% arranging my bank 5% crafting .. . I spent very little time killing mobs in this game but I PVPed more often than most people. Everyone crafted in this game for the most part.. I played it with my girlfriend who for the most part avoided combat at all costs besides some occasional PVE, she mostly would craft/harvest/socialize.. my brother spent most of his time grinding his character, not by using combat either, he would cast on stuck mobs or macro (I was engaged in combat more often than him!). I used to colead a large clan in this game with someone who did not do combat at all.. he did not farm mobs and did not PVP (unless it was giving orders in a siege and managing the strategy so that kind of counts?).. some people did not farm mobs and harvested instead, and right from the beginning people would grind in other ways outside of combat like using 'blood walls' etc. The combat in this game was pretty epic but I think most player were pretty inexperienced with it.
So tell me again how combat defines an MMORPG?
Think of another game.. like EVE.. many people have multiple accounts in this game. What do you think they are engaged in combat in each one at the same time? lol
Games are defined by the typical experience. Naming a handful of "people who play it for reasons apart from combat" doesn't change the typical experience of typical players.
If you can show that the typical experience of a typical player in a given game spent more time in a non-combat activity than in combat, then that would establish a solid point that combat isn't defining that particular game. If you try to show this -- even casually without hard evidence, since none is likely to exist -- you'll find that in the history of RPG games almost none of them won't be combat-centric (and those which aren't frequently ended up as RPGs because no other category fit.)
For every Harvest Moon (a non-combat farm simulation which awkwardly wears the RPG label), you'll have found maybe hundreds of combat-focused RPGs like Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Super Mario RPG, FF4, FF6, FFT Lufia1, Lufia 2, Illusion of Gaiai, Secret of Evermore, Breath of Fire, Breath of Fire 2, The 7th Saga, Ys III, Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Betrayal at Krondor, M&M4, M&M5, M&M6, Wizardry 5, Lunar:SSS, Ultima Underworld 1/2, etc.
For every one player spending their MMORPG time mining in EVE (a game which awkwardly wears the RPG label), there are many combat EVE players, and millions of combat-focused players in WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, EQ2, ESO, Wildstar, Archeage, FFXIV, Blade & Soul, GW2, TSW, DCUO, TERA, and other MMORPGs.
Story, progression, and stats-driven combat are the core pillars of RPG design, and the combat part is typically the element experienced the most by typical players. That's just the reality of how videogame RPGs are experienced overall. Whether your individual experience varied doesn't really matter, because we're talking about how these games are broadly defined, not how one individual might choose to experience them, or how the rare one game in a hundred might diverge from the typical experience offered by RPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Story, progression, and stats driven gameplay, if you feel you must define core "pillars" in RPG mechanics is the fundamental of RPG mechanics.
And lets not arbitrarily inflate game lists with titles released across multiple years while only providing one RPG from the opposite end. There are a lot of text and adventure based RPGs still and they seem to be regaining popularity. The only fair distinction you can make is that they aren't as strongly popular as combat-focused titles.
Yet there is that point already made as well. Most of the RPG s you listed, combat is only one mechanic of many built into the game utilizing stats driven gameplay to engage the players.
Of your list, 21 out of 26 mentioned either have entirely alternative solutions to combat or ortherwise a large amount of non-combat activities. Same can be noted for the MMOs you mentioned. Quite literally all of them have many alternative gameplay activities outside of combat that even as "combat centric" titles, we have seen progression towards more open-endedness.
It bears restating, the core principles of an RPG does not itself include combat as a necessity. Is it one of the most common means to creating engaging gameplay? Sure, but that has never been the subject of discussion.
Instead, the fact that character skill challenges and gameplay within RPGs has quite a wide swathe of options that can be used to engage players so long as the mechanics are there to support it.
IE, there is considerably more to RPGs than what mass-produced content tends to deliver.
"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
Citing your subjective anecdotal experience or preference doesn't change truth. The broader objective reality is that combat is the most common activity in virtually every videogame RPG.
Is "people don't just do it for the fun of it most of the time" worded like you meant? If so it sounds like you admit that fun is always a factor. Any additional motivations beyond that wouldn't conflict with what I've said. While I'm sure there are handfuls of unwise players playing games that they don't think are fun purely to chase XP and loot, for the vast majority of players when the game isn't fun they quit (because there's a huge list of other games that offer XP and loot which are fun.) Besides, the main purpose of XP and loot tends to be combat; meaning there's not much motivation for me to get either of them if I dislike combat.
Street Fighter is also combat-centric, but that doesn't magically make combat stop being the most common single activity in RPGs (and therefore games which are defined in large part due to combat.)
And lastly, having a selective memory also doesn't change the truth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Apparently this bears repeating.
"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
Are you now agree that as long as 1000 people can log on at the same time ... a game qualifies as a MMO?
I suppose whether you want to be accurate depending on whether it serves you. Way to be hypocritical.
"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
This is where for example your own question breaks down. You are linking situations and phrases that are non synonymous or are missing key defining terms in order to try and create an argument. This makes your question fundamentally flawed.
Even though it's entirely unrelated and as meaningless as your last question, it's at least easy to answer and explain without excessive corrections, so the simple answer is "no it's not". A ton of people logging into a game does not qualify it as an MMO as the basis of an MMO is the fact that they are all participant on a shared server, which your statement is lacking in that detail. If we were to amend your statement to this instead;
Do you now agree that as long as a few hundred people can log on to the same server concurrently (at the same time) ... a game qualifies as a MMO?
Suddenly the answer becomes "yes". And yet I even threw you a bone by lowering the player prerequisite.
Fact is, "massive" is still a bit of a fudged term, but the reality is that anything above a couple hundred people in the same general environment is a massive amount of people. Scaling up from there the interactions between individuals becomes a blur, but so long as you can readily interact with at least over a couple hundred users on the same server, then you've passed the threshold to be talking about a massive user experience even if you're on the far low end of that spectrum. This does not inherently include chat servers unless they are the core mechanic of gameplay such as in some MUD games.
And as I've just detailed, that is also why your question is fundamentally flawed. You are basically asking what is known as a "fruitless question" whereby one is asking what is essentially the "wrong" question. Also sometimes known as a complex question fallacy, though not entirely the same as it's not necessarily intentional on your part.
Seeing as English lessons are not the point of this thread, if you have any further inquiry on this please send me a PM.
Aside from that, you have persisted in creating derailing and off topic arguments to which I can once again only repeat my previous statement.
"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've presented the body of evidence of every RPG ever made, pointing to how the vast majority of them are strongly associated with combat.
You've presented something that occurs extremely infrequently. It's just not relevant.
Why are you so disinterested in raising valid points? What did valid points ever do to you? Did a valid point kill your parents or something?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Progress is not made by stagnation and regression. As our technology gets better and AI gets more complex, the variety of challenges and interactivity in computer RPGs can grow to challenge it's original tabletop counterpart as well as books and stories they source from.
Your argument that combat is commonplace is pointless because the question never was "what is most common", it was "can we do better". To which the answer is yes we can.
My examples are exactly of that. Developers smarter than the monkeys that think the only thing they can make is a combat game, and subsequently an example of how things can be better, using titles that already exist.
You can join the monkeys if you want, but I'm more interested in progress, and that is a very valid point for me to be making.
"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
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No one has asked to make anything other than an RPG. Fundamentally if you are operating a narrative adventure with character skill challenges and some for of progression, you are creating at least a rudimentary RPG.
That's already where your analogy breaks down. No one is sitting there going "red should be blue", they are going "How much more can we do with red?" So to give a proper analogy...
- Historically "red" has been associated with a color spectrum.
- When trying to define red using a simple device that doesn't let them get exceptionally detailed, the simplified it to signify a particular example of that spectrum.
- Now, people are looking back at the actual spectrum of color that is "red" and asking why those other shades and tones of red shouldn't be used.
- Consequently, some have chosen to broaden the spectrum that their devices can now handle and adopt a much more complete use of the "red" spectrum.
- It's all still "red", it's just no longer one shade/tone.
The flaw of your argument fundamentally is what was already addressed in a prior link. As we also already went over the historical factor of what an RPG is, we can already see that your analogy is wrong.Again, we have games that are RPGs, yet are not single-minded about combat, or even more so do not utilize it. Your argument that RPGs require combat as such, is false.
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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
There are many who would crave for something more out of MMORPG's besides generic questing or PvP to obtain uber items and awesome combat abilities, but I've not really seen a widely detailed, fleshed out idea of what kind of experience and system that would be (perhaps I've not read in theright places!).
Combat and conflict will always be a large part of most MMORPG's and I think we all understand and accept that. But it seems the growing trend of players want to see more other stuff to do in game that is meaningful to the community and over all game play. Sometimes we just need a break from fighting (either PvE or PvP), but want to further out characters development and contribute to the game. I can see developers being interested in knowing what type of things people might want that to be.
Combat is not the most common activity in every videogame RPG, are you kidding me? Thinking of oldschool RPGs like Buck Rogers, Rings of Power, Shadowrun, Warriors of the Eternal Sun (this one more combat than the others but exploring just as much), .. . the combat was somewhat horrific in RPGs but it didn't matter because what made the games so good was the exploration and building up a character and solving puzzles or following a storyline.. combat did not happen most of the time. Even games like Final Fantasy where combat was thrown at you every few paces in the wild, you still spend half of the time following the storyline and preparing in towns or what not.. in every RPG I can think of, most of it was trying to figure out things by talking to townspeople and stuff like that.
Thinking of MMORPGs, I'll give two examples of the games that I played the most.. one themepark and one sandbox... saying that combat defined these games is well off because I think that people still would have played it even if the combat was done entirely differently. So long as it works, that is what matters most. I do not think the combat is fun all of the time and sometimes get bored with it easily but luckily there are dangling carrots to chase and other reasons to play the game.
Vanguard.. I can easily say that I spent my time 25% crafting 25% exploring (looking for people to kill) %15 harvesting 15% socializing (I was leader of major guild) 10% reading quest content (crafting/adventuring) 10% engaged in combat... oops I forgot diplomacy, but probably was engaged in combat more. PVE combat for the most part bored me to tears, but it was okay. The PVP combat was pretty broken but it worked good enough.
Darkfall... kind of sad how little people were engaged in combat in this game but it was fun as hell when it did happen.. I spent my time 25% harvesting 20% socializing (waiting for some reason much of the time, whether its on a boat or at a siege) 20% traveling / exploring (looking for people to kill) 15% dueling / engaged in combat 10% arranging my bank 10% crafting .. . I spent very little time killing mobs in this game but I PVPed more often than most people. Everyone crafted in this game for the most part.. I played it with my girlfriend who for the most part avoided combat at all costs besides some occasional PVE, she mostly would craft/harvest/socialize.. my brother spent most of his time grinding his character, not by using combat either, he would cast on stuck mobs or macro (I was engaged in combat more often than him!). I used to colead a large clan in this game with someone who did not do combat at all.. he did not farm mobs and did not PVP (unless it was giving orders in a siege and managing the strategy so that kind of counts?).. some people did not farm mobs and harvested instead, and right from the beginning people would grind in other ways outside of combat like using 'blood walls' etc. The combat in this game was pretty epic but I think most player were pretty inexperienced with it.
So tell me again how combat defines an MMORPG?
Think of another game.. like EVE.. many people have multiple accounts in this game. What do you think they are engaged in combat in each one at the same time? lol
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
So, I always come back to SWG as a starting point for non-combat roles
Other sorts of things I'd like to see:
The problem with this sort of gameplay is it all adds entirely new, additional systems for the developers to create and integrate with their "core" game. For something like mini-games its not too bad as they can be completely standalone, but anything that has to integrate with core gameplay will add serious stress to the developers! Something like racing would be awesome, but I'm basically asking for MMO devs to build entire games within the game they are already building which is sadly unrealistic. A lot of these non-combat things also lack the "massively-multiplayer" aspect. Why put pod-racing in your MMO when you could just make a new pod-racing game for much cheaper? Its not as if the MMO would allow 200-odd player races (tho..... ) so you're basically just putting in a glorified lobby (the rest of the game) for the racing part.
If I want to play a racing game, or a card game, i would much rather just play an online racing/card game because the devs would not be stretch thin, and can focus on producing the best racing or card game.
If you can show that the typical experience of a typical player in a given game spent more time in a non-combat activity than in combat, then that would establish a solid point that combat isn't defining that particular game. If you try to show this -- even casually without hard evidence, since none is likely to exist -- you'll find that in the history of RPG games almost none of them won't be combat-centric (and those which aren't frequently ended up as RPGs because no other category fit.)
For every Harvest Moon (a non-combat farm simulation which awkwardly wears the RPG label), you'll have found maybe hundreds of combat-focused RPGs like Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Super Mario RPG, FF4, FF6, FFT Lufia1, Lufia 2, Illusion of Gaiai, Secret of Evermore, Breath of Fire, Breath of Fire 2, The 7th Saga, Ys III, Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Betrayal at Krondor, M&M4, M&M5, M&M6, Wizardry 5, Lunar:SSS, Ultima Underworld 1/2, etc.
For every one player spending their MMORPG time mining in EVE (a game which awkwardly wears the RPG label), there are many combat EVE players, and millions of combat-focused players in WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, EQ2, ESO, Wildstar, Archeage, FFXIV, Blade & Soul, GW2, TSW, DCUO, TERA, and other MMORPGs.
Story, progression, and stats-driven combat are the core pillars of RPG design, and the combat part is typically the element experienced the most by typical players. That's just the reality of how videogame RPGs are experienced overall. Whether your individual experience varied doesn't really matter, because we're talking about how these games are broadly defined, not how one individual might choose to experience them, or how the rare one game in a hundred might diverge from the typical experience offered by RPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Story, progression, and stats driven gameplay, if you feel you must define core "pillars" in RPG mechanics is the fundamental of RPG mechanics.
And lets not arbitrarily inflate game lists with titles released across multiple years while only providing one RPG from the opposite end. There are a lot of text and adventure based RPGs still and they seem to be regaining popularity. The only fair distinction you can make is that they aren't as strongly popular as combat-focused titles.
Yet there is that point already made as well. Most of the RPG s you listed, combat is only one mechanic of many built into the game utilizing stats driven gameplay to engage the players.
Of your list, 21 out of 26 mentioned either have entirely alternative solutions to combat or ortherwise a large amount of non-combat activities. Same can be noted for the MMOs you mentioned. Quite literally all of them have many alternative gameplay activities outside of combat that even as "combat centric" titles, we have seen progression towards more open-endedness.
It bears restating, the core principles of an RPG does not itself include combat as a necessity. Is it one of the most common means to creating engaging gameplay? Sure, but that has never been the subject of discussion.
Instead, the fact that character skill challenges and gameplay within RPGs has quite a wide swathe of options that can be used to engage players so long as the mechanics are there to support it.
IE, there is considerably more to RPGs than what mass-produced content tends to deliver.
"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