In Skyrim, for example, I found the world to be dull and boring and there was nothing to motivate me to explore. If Skyrim didn't have fast travel, then I'd have played it once and then never played it again.
Talk about difference in taste!
Last week I was playing skyrim, walking through it and thinking "my god, how beautiful this world is they did such an amazing job."
Oh, I'm not denying they did a great job creating that world! It is beautiful, and well crafted, and feels like a proper world (rather than a patchwork quilt of zones).
I'm just not a fan of the bleak, low-fantasy setting and found the world to be very monotonous. There's only so much snow and straggly grass I can take!
Well... To be fair, Skyrim is not a "world", but rather 1 province in the land of Tamriel, just 1 continent in said world. There's not going to be loads of variety
Skyrim, to me, was a one-time playthrough. The game is shallow as all get out. Mods have kept me playing the game almost yearly since 2012 when I bought the game. Without mods,vanilla Skyrim is mediocre at best as an RPG, in my opinion.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
In Skyrim, for example, I found the world to be dull and boring and there was nothing to motivate me to explore. If Skyrim didn't have fast travel, then I'd have played it once and then never played it again.
Talk about difference in taste!
Last week I was playing skyrim, walking through it and thinking "my god, how beautiful this world is they did such an amazing job."
Oh, I'm not denying they did a great job creating that world! It is beautiful, and well crafted, and feels like a proper world (rather than a patchwork quilt of zones).
I'm just not a fan of the bleak, low-fantasy setting and found the world to be very monotonous. There's only so much snow and straggly grass I can take!
I think I get what your saying. You might be more partial to a Morrowind game world or you might want something more high fantasy like floating islands or perhaps giant statues.
I remember, on this forum and years ago, someone responded when Skryim launched and (paraphrased) said something to the effect of "dirty nordic warriors and snow everywhere ... no."
I tend to prefer more realistic biomes and can enjoy some more outlandish landscapes but If I see a game that has basically had a development approach like "now we have a fire area, now we have a forest area, now a desert, now purple vegetation" it seems a bit ADD to me.
But I get why people wouldn't want a full world of ice and snow with little to differentiate the areas.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
In Skyrim, for example, I found the world to be dull and boring and there was nothing to motivate me to explore. If Skyrim didn't have fast travel, then I'd have played it once and then never played it again.
Talk about difference in taste!
Last week I was playing skyrim, walking through it and thinking "my god, how beautiful this world is they did such an amazing job."
Oh, I'm not denying they did a great job creating that world! It is beautiful, and well crafted, and feels like a proper world (rather than a patchwork quilt of zones).
I'm just not a fan of the bleak, low-fantasy setting and found the world to be very monotonous. There's only so much snow and straggly grass I can take!
I so get this vibe.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I get your point about sleeping in a single-player game (with or without day & night cycles) as opposed to a massively multi-player game (with or without day & night cycles*). It could just be that your character runs out of stamina/energy occasionally while you're playing and needs to rest in a tavern/inn or at home. Or even just at a campsite. Then you can assign your character to sleep while you're offline. Which means you need to camp out in location where it's possible to safely rest. But sleeping wouldn't take that much of game time, so you could also assign your character (& the NPC subordinates or hirelings under his or her command) to train a skill or any number of things while you're offline.
*Note - I much prefer day & night cycles. I also like how some games (like Dragon Warrior/Knight & I think Final Fantasy II/IV) would have different things you could during the night as opposed to during the day. Different building open or closed, different mobs active or inactive, NPCs you could only talk to during the day or night, or who would have different things to say/different quests/options available during the night as opposed to day, etc.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I'm not sure I said that players could whatever they want. However, players could be given a certain amount of choices and decisions that could change the world (within limits) without giving them the ability to totally destroy the game world and everyone in it.
Killing - Getting killed is only catastrophic in a game with permadeath.
Stealing - Getting robbed is only catastrophic in a game which is overly dependent on gear for power.
Destroying - Having your settlement destroyed is only catastrophic if you have no possibility of fleeing to the province of another friendly faction and using it as base wherein to rebuild/regain your wealth, property, power, and influence.
Getting abused by other players is only catastrophic if you have no chance or possibility of fighting back or getting revenge. Even eventually destroying them in turn. In the kind of game I want to play, no players will have god-like powers in comparison to your character. Unless, of course, that player character ascends to godhood. But in that case, their character will no longer be playable OR the player will have the option of being hired as a GM (Gamemaster).
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
If the Devs make PVP restrictions/penalties/limitations/consequences with loopholes and easy-outs for their friends, whales, griefers, no-lifers, professional gamers, what-have-you, then they must be smoking crack. Sure they might make a few quick bucks upon the game's initial release. Maybe even for a couple years thereafter. But as soon as the majority of players realize that their game sucks, it's back to ye old drawing board.
If a PVP game is not fair and fun for everyone, then it is DOA (Dead on Arrival).
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
"Definition of immersive : providing, involving, or characterized by deep absorption or immersion in something (such as an activity or a real or artificial environment)"
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Yes, having to drink water every 5 minutes (of real time or game time) would be lame.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
If the Devs make PVP restrictions/penalties/limitations/consequences with loopholes and easy-outs for their friends, whales, griefers, no-lifers, professional gamers, what-have-you, then they must be smoking crack. Sure they might make a few quick bucks upon the game's initial release. Maybe even for a couple years thereafter. But as soon as the majority of players realize that their game sucks, it's back to ye old drawing board.
If a PVP game is not fair and fun for everyone, then it is DOA (Dead on Arrival).
Well... MMO devs really aren't known for their "foresight." LOL
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Perhaps you're right. I don't personally know any MMO devs.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Are you saying that Game Developers and Game Masters have no power or ability to subtly change the course of a game world (and even individual player actions) through built-in penalties, limitations, and consequences, as well as periodic events? NPCs, mobs, and Game Master-controlled characters (such as deities perhaps) can also be used to maintain balance and keep an online world from spiraling totally out of control.
Not only that, Game Developers can actually <gasp> hire professional gamers and role-players to help maintain order and balance in a persistent, dynamic, virtual world.
Well, I see you are passionate about this idea you have.
But Here is a Catch 22 for you to ponder.
What is the point of giving players the ability to affect the future of the game if I (The Game Developer) have to continually go and change things to keep the game going in the direction I wanted it to go in to start with.
Ideally, with the game system you want, where players control the future, a Developer would need to be hands off, having no script or direction planned, and ultimately giving players a blanket environment and the tools to work from there.
They would be free to make their own Heaven or Hell as were.
That is really the only real way to make it so that players actions affect the game both large and small.
See, ideally, if things can't spiral out of control by the actions of players, then the players really had no control to start with.
That is the Catch 22.
Now if Gamers were given the chance to make their own Cesspool or Utopia.. what do you think would really happen ?
I think there is a middle ground. One where the GMs maintain control but allow the players to make change, sort of rolling with the flow.... but within reason.
Edit: I do see your point on PvP though. Wide open PvP games will always have this problem unless there are solid rules supporting the "innocents." We've seen how PvPers take over game worlds by driving others away.
I've always been a supporter of a Justice system that has no work-arounds or escape clauses, something we have never seen in any game. Such things like "prison, with escapes" don't work.
Why do you say that? I've been playtesting a prision system for the past weeks and it works pretty well.
It's quite simple and basic but does the trick to deter griefing/criminal play because it breaks the flow of the criminal/griefer play by secluding him from "the rest of the world" and forces him to "work" to get out.
Basically if you are caught doing something "bad" in a lawfull area you get a crime stat and npc's in lawfull cities become hostile to you with guards/turrets firing on sight.
If you get killed while having a crime stat you are sent to a prison in the middle of nowhere to do time that you can cut short by doing work in the prison mines (basically a mini-game).
There's secret passage's to escape the prision but even if you find the way to get out you still need someone to pick you up and bring you back to the "normal world" and that it's also risky because the place is well guarded and going there also gives you a crime stat.
I agree that it might be really hard to find the fine tuning between punishing a player hard enough for it's "crimes" but also keeping it engaging enough to don't make him quit playing by the 100th/1000th time it happens.
TLDR: It's not about what single feature you add but how it's implemented and how it connects with the rest of the game in the overall scheme of things.
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
In Skyrim, for example, I found the world to be dull and boring and there was nothing to motivate me to explore. If Skyrim didn't have fast travel, then I'd have played it once and then never played it again.
Talk about difference in taste!
Last week I was playing skyrim, walking through it and thinking "my god, how beautiful this world is they did such an amazing job."
Oh, I'm not denying they did a great job creating that world! It is beautiful, and well crafted, and feels like a proper world (rather than a patchwork quilt of zones).
I'm just not a fan of the bleak, low-fantasy setting and found the world to be very monotonous. There's only so much snow and straggly grass I can take!
I think I get what your saying. You might be more partial to a Morrowind game world or you might want something more high fantasy like floating islands or perhaps giant statues.
I remember, on this forum and years ago, someone responded when Skryim launched and (paraphrased) said something to the effect of "dirty nordic warriors and snow everywhere ... no."
I tend to prefer more realistic biomes and can enjoy some more outlandish landscapes but If I see a game that has basically had a development approach like "now we have a fire area, now we have a forest area, now a desert, now purple vegetation" it seems a bit ADD to me.
But I get why people wouldn't want a full world of ice and snow with little to differentiate the areas.
I definitely preferred Morrowind!
My experience of the Elder Scrolls games (from Morrowind onwards, didn't play the first 2) is that the world building has gotten progressively more boring whilst the mechanics have gotten progressively better. The world-problem is also made worse by the scaling implemented in Oblivion and Skyrim as it means at any given moment, the enemies in the world have much less variety.
I also agree with you about the way zones are designed. I want a seemless, well integrated world with great blending between zones, so whilst I do want exciting, high-fantasy zones, I don't want the map to look like some weird patch-work quilt.
Closest I have come tends to be in JRPGs (just in terms of world building). Usually very bright, colourful, interesting worlds with interesting enemies to fight, especially some of the Final Fantasy worlds.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
The Novelty of having people ruin your game time and destroy all you have worked for gets old fast.
If that is what you enjoy, more power to you.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Are you saying that Game Developers and Game Masters have no power or ability to subtly change the course of a game world (and even individual player actions) through built-in penalties, limitations, and consequences, as well as periodic events? NPCs, mobs, and Game Master-controlled characters (such as deities perhaps) can also be used to maintain balance and keep an online world from spiraling totally out of control.
Not only that, Game Developers can actually <gasp> hire professional gamers and role-players to help maintain order and balance in a persistent, dynamic, virtual world.
Well, I see you are passionate about this idea you have.
But Here is a Catch 22 for you to ponder.
What is the point of giving players the ability to affect the future of the game if I (The Game Developer) have to continually go and change things to keep the game going in the direction I wanted it to go in to start with.
Ideally, with the game system you want, where players control the future, a Developer would need to be hands off, having no script or direction planned, and ultimately giving players a blanket environment and the tools to work from there.
They would be free to make their own Heaven or Hell as were.
That is really the only real way to make it so that players actions affect the game both large and small.
See, ideally, if things can't spiral out of control by the actions of players, then the players really had no control to start with.
That is the Catch 22.
Now if Gamers were given the chance to make their own Cesspool or Utopia.. what do you think would really happen ?
I think there is a middle ground. One where the GMs maintain control but allow the players to make change, sort of rolling with the flow.... but within reason.
Edit: I do see your point on PvP though. Wide open PvP games will always have this problem unless there are solid rules supporting the "innocents." We've seen how PvPers take over game worlds by driving others away.
I've always been a supporter of a Justice system that has no work-arounds or escape clauses, something we have never seen in any game. Such things like "prison, with escapes" don't work.
Why do you say that? I've been playtesting a prision system for the past weeks and it works pretty well.
It's quite simple and basic but does the trick to deter griefing/criminal play because it breaks the flow of the criminal/griefer play by secluding him from "the rest of the world" and forces him to "work" to get out.
Basically if you are caught doing something "bad" in a lawfull area you get a crime stat and npc's in lawfull cities become hostile to you with guards/turrets firing on sight.
If you get killed while having a crime stat you are sent to a prison in the middle of nowhere to do time that you can cut short by doing work in the prison mines (basically a mini-game).
There's secret passage's to escape the prision but even if you find the way to get out you still need someone to pick you up and bring you back to the "normal world" and that it's also risky because the place is well guarded and going there also gives you a crime stat.
I agree that it might be really hard to find the fine tuning between punishing a player hard enough for it's "crimes" but also keeping it engaging enough to don't make him quit playing by the 100th/1000th time it happens.
TLDR: It's not about what single feature you add but how it's implemented and how it connects with the rest of the game in the overall scheme of things.
I'm talking about PKing in games where it's a problem and driving players away. If you're talking about a pure PvP game, then it isn't a problem, non-PvPers won't be there playing. If you're talking about a prison system in PvE, again, that's not an issue, as players aren't being PKed and looted, and driven away from the game.
But if you are talking about PKers, causing other players to leave, then where is any incentive for the PKers to stop doing harm?
I did watch your video, posted in the follow-up. That's great stuff. But if you're talking about PKers who are killing their game, then what that's actually doing is rewarding them, rather than giving them any incentive to stop PKing. They will still be running around the game PKing and driving players away.
Thanks. I might check out the video later. Though I highly doubt I'll be playing Star Citizen. If and when it get released that is.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
It depends on how the game is designed and how easy/difficult it is for one player or a group of players to wreak havoc upon you and your allies.
One thing that can certainly make it more difficult for a zerg to steamroll is collision detection between players and the possibility of allies to hit each other during combat. Twenty players can't hit you at once in that case. Archers and wizards could kill their own teammates/party members if they weren't careful. Even melee fighters would have to be careful and time their attacks so as not to hit each other. @cameltosis always talks about wanting depth in combat. That's certainly something that would add a lot of depth. I think.
Also, large bands of players could not roam kingdoms, provinces, or even the countryside or wilderness with impunity. Pretty much every area, except perhaps for a desolate wasteland, is going to have some kind of dominant power or powers patrolling it, trying to keep the peace, or otherwise defending/enforcing their will in the territory. Humans, demi-humans, and even monster tribes would have scouts and patrols roaming their territory at intervals. Criminal and bandit gangs would have to be careful in order to avoid detection. (There could be PC & NPC bandit gangs, of course.) A large group of NPC or PC invaders into an opposing faction's territory is going to get noticed/detected sooner or later. The sound of many marchers and/or riders cannot be hidden without magic or divine power. And even then, factions might have wards set up to detect such powerful magic. Some might have griffon, wyvern, or even dragon riders making aerial patrols. Very, very few (if any) would have the ability to cast a spell powerful enough to make an army/zerg invisible, not to mention both absolutely silent and invisible. Peasant NPCs could also seek out guards/soldiers in order to sound the alarm if they saw invaders passing near or through their village. And, of course, PCs would able to do the same.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I think if a player managed to escape a certain faction's prison once, they should then be KOS. Basically a public execution.
It would be really cool if wanted posters for criminals could appear on walls in cities and towns. Bounties could even be placed on them. An NPC could hand out quests/missions to hunt down certain player characters.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
It depends on how the game is designed and how easy/difficult it is for one player or a group of players to wreak havoc upon you and your allies.
One thing that can certainly make it more difficult for a zerg to steamroll is collision detection between players and the possibility of allies to hit each other during combat. Twenty players can't hit you at once in that case. Archers and wizards could kill their own teammates/party members if they weren't careful. Even melee fighters would have to be careful and time their attacks so as not to hit each other. @cameltosis always talks about wanting depth in combat. That's certainly something that would add a lot of depth. I think.
Not really, I mean, WH40K has team-kill, does not stop people from out manning you, just becomes more a question of skill at that point if they can shoot between their friends, or feel that hitting their team is a viable cost for victory.
Look, unless the game is built from the ground up to be a PvP game, then the PvP is gonna suck balls, like big fat ugly balls, and make the game a shit show that less and less people will play, that is why all these Open World PvP games tank harder than a Truck full shit on icy road downhill.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Also, large bands of players could not roam kingdoms, provinces, or even the countryside or wilderness with impunity. Pretty much every area, except perhaps for a desolate wasteland, is going to have some kind of dominant power or powers patrolling it, trying to keep the peace, or otherwise defending/enforcing their will in the territory. Humans, demi-humans, and even monster tribes would have scouts and patrols roaming their territory at intervals. Criminal and bandit gangs would have to be careful in order to avoid detection. (There could be PC & NPC bandit gangs, of course.) A large group of NPC or PC invaders into an opposing faction's territory is going to get noticed/detected sooner or later. The sound of many marchers and/or riders cannot be hidden without magic or divine power. And even then, factions might have wards set up to detect such powerful magic. Some might have griffon, wyvern, or even dragon riders making aerial patrols. Very, very few (if any) would have the ability to cast a spell powerful enough to make an army/zerg invisible, not to mention both absolutely silent and invisible. Peasant NPCs could also seek out guards/soldiers in order to sound the alarm if they saw invaders passing near or through their village. And, of course, PCs would able to do the same.
This would never happen. Patrolling it? With players ? You think players are going to log into an MMO to play a city guard?
LOL.. ok.. that was some funny.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Are you saying that Game Developers and Game Masters have no power or ability to subtly change the course of a game world (and even individual player actions) through built-in penalties, limitations, and consequences, as well as periodic events? NPCs, mobs, and Game Master-controlled characters (such as deities perhaps) can also be used to maintain balance and keep an online world from spiraling totally out of control.
Not only that, Game Developers can actually <gasp> hire professional gamers and role-players to help maintain order and balance in a persistent, dynamic, virtual world.
Well, I see you are passionate about this idea you have.
But Here is a Catch 22 for you to ponder.
What is the point of giving players the ability to affect the future of the game if I (The Game Developer) have to continually go and change things to keep the game going in the direction I wanted it to go in to start with.
Ideally, with the game system you want, where players control the future, a Developer would need to be hands off, having no script or direction planned, and ultimately giving players a blanket environment and the tools to work from there.
They would be free to make their own Heaven or Hell as were.
That is really the only real way to make it so that players actions affect the game both large and small.
See, ideally, if things can't spiral out of control by the actions of players, then the players really had no control to start with.
That is the Catch 22.
Now if Gamers were given the chance to make their own Cesspool or Utopia.. what do you think would really happen ?
I think there is a middle ground. One where the GMs maintain control but allow the players to make change, sort of rolling with the flow.... but within reason.
Edit: I do see your point on PvP though. Wide open PvP games will always have this problem unless there are solid rules supporting the "innocents." We've seen how PvPers take over game worlds by driving others away.
I've always been a supporter of a Justice system that has no work-arounds or escape clauses, something we have never seen in any game. Such things like "prison, with escapes" don't work.
Why do you say that? I've been playtesting a prision system for the past weeks and it works pretty well.
It's quite simple and basic but does the trick to deter griefing/criminal play because it breaks the flow of the criminal/griefer play by secluding him from "the rest of the world" and forces him to "work" to get out.
Basically if you are caught doing something "bad" in a lawfull area you get a crime stat and npc's in lawfull cities become hostile to you with guards/turrets firing on sight.
If you get killed while having a crime stat you are sent to a prison in the middle of nowhere to do time that you can cut short by doing work in the prison mines (basically a mini-game).
There's secret passage's to escape the prision but even if you find the way to get out you still need someone to pick you up and bring you back to the "normal world" and that it's also risky because the place is well guarded and going there also gives you a crime stat.
I agree that it might be really hard to find the fine tuning between punishing a player hard enough for it's "crimes" but also keeping it engaging enough to don't make him quit playing by the 100th/1000th time it happens.
TLDR: It's not about what single feature you add but how it's implemented and how it connects with the rest of the game in the overall scheme of things.
I'm talking about PKing in games where it's a problem and driving players away. If you're talking about a pure PvP game, then it isn't a problem, non-PvPers won't be there playing. If you're talking about a prison system in PvE, again, that's not an issue, as players aren't being PKed and looted, and driven away from the game.
But if you are talking about PKers, causing other players to leave, then where is any incentive for the PKers to stop doing harm?
I did watch your video, posted in the follow-up. That's great stuff. But if you're talking about PKers who are killing their game, then what that's actually doing is rewarding them, rather than giving them any incentive to stop PKing. They will still be running around the game PKing and driving players away.
And that's why I say, it doesn't work.
Well it's both PVE and PVP game in this case, criminal gameplay is part of the game and supported and a viable way to play. That's why they are implementing ingame systems to accommodate that. Just like being a smuggler is a thing so is it Bounty Hunting.
Criminal record is a thing, players that kill other players or commit infractions (illegal parking, ship ramming, smuggling illegal goods) get a criminal record that can go up to 5 stages and take some effort and credits to "clean". The later stages put bounties on those criminals and besides them being shot on sight in lawfull areas other players get missions to kill them (criminals become visible with a tracker and a bounty hunting mission is autmaticaly created that can be picked up by other players.)
I'm saying it can work if the game systems are implemented correctly. Now "working" and being balanced and future proof is another thing, but that's something only time will tell.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
Since they are rarely, if ever successful his premise still holds true.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Skyrim, to me, was a one-time playthrough. The game is shallow as all get out. Mods have kept me playing the game almost yearly since 2012 when I bought the game. Without mods, vanilla Skyrim is mediocre at best as an RPG, in my opinion.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
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
"immersion
noun
a : absorbing involvement"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immersion
"immerse
transitive verb
1 : to plunge into something that surrounds or covers especially : to plunge or dip into a fluid"
2 : engross, absorb"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immerse
"Definition of immersive
: providing, involving, or characterized by deep absorption or immersion in something (such as an activity or a real or artificial environment)"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immersive
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
This is what currently "escaping the prision" involves if you don't care about spoilers:
The Novelty of having people ruin your game time and destroy all you have worked for gets old fast.
If that is what you enjoy, more power to you.
If you're talking about a pure PvP game, then it isn't a problem, non-PvPers won't be there playing.
If you're talking about a prison system in PvE, again, that's not an issue, as players aren't being PKed and looted, and driven away from the game.
But if you are talking about PKers, causing other players to leave, then where is any incentive for the PKers to stop doing harm?
I did watch your video, posted in the follow-up. That's great stuff. But if you're talking about PKers who are killing their game, then what that's actually doing is rewarding them, rather than giving them any incentive to stop PKing.
They will still be running around the game PKing and driving players away.
And that's why I say, it doesn't work.
Once upon a time....
Not really, I mean, WH40K has team-kill, does not stop people from out manning you, just becomes more a question of skill at that point if they can shoot between their friends, or feel that hitting their team is a viable cost for victory.
Look, unless the game is built from the ground up to be a PvP game, then the PvP is gonna suck balls, like big fat ugly balls, and make the game a shit show that less and less people will play, that is why all these Open World PvP games tank harder than a Truck full shit on icy road downhill.
This would never happen. Patrolling it? With players ? You think players are going to log into an MMO to play a city guard?
LOL.. ok.. that was some funny.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon