Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Destiny's Sword on Creating a Healthier Gaming Environment - MMORPG.com
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
Destiny's Sword on Creating a Healthier Gaming Environment - MMORPG.com
One of the key hallmarks of Destiny's Sword is its emphasis on creating a gaming experience unlike any other. In a new developer diary, Ken Hall and Ramin Shokrizade sum up a recent presentation they gave during Nordic Game 2019 and how the team is working to create a healthier gaming environment. In the course of some studies, it's been found that the games that create the most positive experience for players are those that foster interdependence and offer a strong sense of community.
Comments
His analysis of "Fun Pain" is also of note, making players suffer who do not use a cash shop is not good gaming ethos.
Aloha Mr Hand !
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What on earth is a self-identified mmo? Also why is this tacticle card game mmo talking about changing the industry. That’s like a like an incel giving dating advice. They haven’t even launched an mmo yet.
yeah because if someone yell i'm a MMO I should belive him without consider anything.
the good thing is since the game at the very least will be a small niche that will hardly change anything, only thing i'm seeing is annoying mechs and possible abuse of mechs to make things boring and to negate such "new" mechs
For real, what the hell is a "self-identified MMO"?
Personally I believe that this particular game would benefit from replacing some of the psychologists (real or imagined) with more graphic artists.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Gaming is whatever people want it to be. If some people just want to play tetris all day, essentially "a game" then that's great. If developers wants to make those games then "great!"
But developers are also creative people and they want to make things that matter to them. So if they want to make games that are more than pastimes then "great" as long as there are people who want to buy them then there is no issue.
This comes down to not all games are for all people. Whether that's game play or "a message" it's pretty easy to just do one's research and buy according to what wants.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
While I think this game is doing some interesting things (and some ridiculously awful things like card game crap), I dislike this positive feelings bullshit.
Getting ganked and then my whole gaming night turning into a butthurt-fueled revenge quest, just stalking someone like a mad man, trying to set up some intricate plan to just kill them once, just once, are the memories I hold most dear. The arena is interdependent, but I'd hardly call it positive interactions nor positive emotionally. Nothing has caused me more rage or anger or joy and happiness. My brother-in-law and I would yell at each other like maniacs over whose fault it was we lost.
I don't think interdependency equals positive interaction. It often doesn't. Any attempt to manipulate a feelings based outcome is doomed to be gamed and fail. Positive interactions are subjective by nature. Shoot for enjoyable systems that are satisfying for most with no way to exploit it, and not subjective feelings based systems. Set up a system that can cause either extreme on the emotional range spectrum and you have a system worth engaging in.
here is the thing you need to have things people would line up to join and work together, building a guild hall when everymember need to send mats, making a siege when every member have a role and they work together, pvp drama works well for this, with non faction, only guilds and guilds alliances works the best, we know what make a goo retention on players, and most of it is not raids or gear grind.
but we see this "MMO" saying this will retain more people, I don't see it, I see people spending time on they team just to be pissed after sometime when said team member die and to replace him will be a damn chore, its the same with FFA full loot, and perma dead mechs, most people are turned down with it and don't get close
plus this game looks more like card collection game then a MMO
How many times have we heard this??
I'm an mmo Called John, i plan to launch in December this year. I'll have great group content and tons of minigames that are independent of pve content but rely on pve/group content for progression. My monetization will consist of players sending me money when my hunger/hydration meter runs low. I'm open to interviews but it has to be full audio and we have to whisper because im shy. But not shy enough to spare you a 2 hour autobiography of my life that has no bearing on the game. I expect an email correspondence within the next hour or so, thank you.
We know they get it wrong, they know they have it right. I can live with that, lets move on to what the games like.
That bit about "Fun Pain", using a stick on players who don't pay. Now I am all for new content and so on being paid for, but putting mechanisms in that push players into thinking they must pay is just not what gaming is about. Or should I say was not what gaming was about?
They propose promoting interdependence by making it so that each player can only do a small fraction of what the game offers. That means that players run out of content in a small fraction of the time it would take if one player could do everything. That's why MMORPGs have largely moved away from interdependence.
They want to minimize anonymity. If that means that someone who gets annoyed at you can come after you in real life, that's pretty much the opposite of good community. They could make reputation matter by having you tend to interact with the same players repeatedly, but that seems to mostly happen in games with very small playerbases.
They propose in several points to reward players for interacting with each other positively. The problem is how to measure that without making it easily gamed such that the optimal strategy is something other than click quickly and be done with it.
In my humble opinion, developing video games has always been about making money, like any other profession, craft, or industry. Of course different people and different companies do have their own methods and ways of doing so. But that doesn't change the story.
Remember Arcades? That's how video games got mainstreamed in the first place, and talk putting mechanisms to push players into thinking they must pay. And that was in the 70s.
Yes there was a time when we paid the box price and that was it. But there was no internet back then, or it was less common. So today's methods of monetization were just impossible before. Internet opened up new ways of charging the consumers, not corporate greed or the change of video games values or anything. If internet was just as common as it is today upon video games' inception, I bet we would have seen lootboxes and DLCs right from the get go.