I am one of those people that will never be happy playing a game where the whole premise is about territory control. They give you a world and say you are fighting for the control of the real estate. There you now have a reason to kill each other. Reminds me of most PvP games, sorry if I insulted them .
I need story, lore and a reason to fight. I need interesting and clever NPCs with dialogue so I can care about them enough to go out and fight for them. Sounds awfully stupid does it not that I would actually care for an NPC , I don't mean that I am weeping when they die although I think I did cry in FF7 when you know who died but moving on I mean that the NPC has enough character that comes through with the way the story is written for me to feel engaged enough to stay and play.
This is why story is something I look for and why I may leave a game although if my friends are playing I will continue playing because they can also motivate me to stay. By and large though a game has to have a good story to pull me in.
I have never actually looked at the structure of the story or what parts of it intrigue me but overall it can fail in some ways and still be engaging enough to warrant my interest.
Those are all good points. Caring for an NPC and identifying with them does not sound stupid at all, for the same reason it should not sound stupid caring about a movie character or a character in a book. Characters that stand out (either for loving them or hating them) are an essential element of any good story.
Personally I found that lore can be equally good in giving context for factional/territory warfare and for building up faction loyalty, even if you do not actually meet the NPCs or follow a particular storyline (example: Foxhole, Lore - Official Foxhole Wiki (fandom.com)).
The other allure of territory control is simply either personal gain (rewards, resources) or immediate feedback of doing well in-game and "winning".
Yeah. Territory control and story/lore are two separate things IMO.
Like @kitarad, I also need good reasons to participate in territory control with that reason embedded in all parts of the game... stories and quests leading to it or at least referring to it.
ESO did a great job with that at launch with their original stories and zone PvE quests. It was all about the 3-sided fight for control of Cyrodiil while Molag Bal used the chaos of the conflict as an opportunity to take over the continent.
You had two things pulling you in opposite directions: need to cooperate to get rid of the Molag Bal threat and the need to keep fighting in Cyrodiil to become the ruling alliance.
Almost every single main or side quest in the original game fed into those two main themes.
Some more "sandboxy" games really skimp on stories and lore and just throw you out there to fight over stuff for no good reason. I hate that and stay away from those games because the whole fighting over territory part just seems too gamey, too e-sports for my taste in RPGs.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I am one of those people that will never be happy playing a game where the whole premise is about territory control. They give you a world and say you are fighting for the control of the real estate. There you now have a reason to kill each other. Reminds me of most PvP games, sorry if I insulted them .
I need story, lore and a reason to fight. I need interesting and clever NPCs with dialogue so I can care about them enough to go out and fight for them. Sounds awfully stupid does it not that I would actually care for an NPC , I don't mean that I am weeping when they die although I think I did cry in FF7 when you know who died but moving on I mean that the NPC has enough character that comes through with the way the story is written for me to feel engaged enough to stay and play.
This is why story is something I look for and why I may leave a game although if my friends are playing I will continue playing because they can also motivate me to stay. By and large though a game has to have a good story to pull me in.
I have never actually looked at the structure of the story or what parts of it intrigue me but overall it can fail in some ways and still be engaging enough to warrant my interest.
Those are all good points. Caring for an NPC and identifying with them does not sound stupid at all, for the same reason it should not sound stupid caring about a movie character or a character in a book. Characters that stand out (either for loving them or hating them) are an essential element of any good story.
NPCs are the meat of a good game for me. They are the "lore keepers" of the world I inhabit. They can give players the lowdown of their area and maybe info on possible troubles. If an NPC is just spews "lines of text or speech", there is zero connection for me to care without some kin of "personality" conveyed.
I like single player RPGs with good "companion stories" to unravel over time adventuring. Little tidbits that help me like or dislike them and pursue their story further. In the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games, it was fun and interesting delving into each NPCs back story. Neverwinter Nights had "interesting" NPCs players could invite into their party and they had personalities
"Romances" I dislike, though. I find it is just a huge guessing game trying to figure out what the devolpers/writers are trying to convey. Bastilla in SW: KotOR was an "insufferable romance" where to advance the romance the player had to choose NOT to kiss her after a particular exchange. That was unnatural to me.
Good literature is littered with good characters that the writers give personalities, like 'em or loathe 'em. 2 of my favorites are Paksennarion, a Paladin in the making, and Tinker, a "5 foot nothing" girl genius, who steps in more poo than her big brain neglects to incorporate into her, often times, spurious plans.
MMORPGs just can't duplicate this character aspect well, in my opinion. Players simply don't spend enough time with the NPCs to get to know them. Too many of their stories are just "chores disguised as quests." Personal stories that some MMORPGs try to incorporate simply take away my own ideas for my character, taking away my own creativity.
I have nothing to add to the "territory control" discussion as I have zero interest in it, no matter how it's presented
I hope I didn't ramble on too much
- 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
Scaling is a boon for roleplaying and grouping, you don't have issues being together it can create story problems though, if that sort of thing bothers you it would me. On the balance though I have to go with scaling as I see so little in MMOs that helps role-players or indeed grouping.
Yes, that's true. But once again, as is almost always on these forums, this is thinking that fits in with a SP game with small groupings. The problem is that the content is tailored to you, at whatever level you are presently at. "The world be damned."
Of course the story, as supplied by the Devs, was like any game and led the Players. But that wasn't the end of the whole story, where in modern games it is. Now, as I say this, I know that people here won't get it. I know that's because they don't want to get it.
But in UO, it was all in an open World (this in particular you people won't understand, such is your stickiness to SP game design), where modern games have it all in an instance or quest or otherwise totally unrelated to the open World, or the Payer's personal Story within and throughout. Why? Because in modern games they make them with the huge Power Gaps that separate players, or they try to fix that with Scaling, and bring the same old problems, but in a disguised form, back in along with it.
It's not true for any game, just story led ones. Some games simply provide a backdrop for the players to create stories of their own against, by giving those players the ability to have lasting and substantial impact on the world. Taking part in a story no matter how grand isn't the same as players coming up with their own grand designs and bringing them to fruition.
They didn't "try" to fix disparate level when grouping by scaling, at least in ESO, as I've done it without issue.
"It's not true for any game, just story led ones." Those games don't have "story", so they aren't part of that part of discussion.
But wouldn't a game be much better if it had both a provided story to follow as well as the ability to create one's own within said World? And even better if the game story can be affected by the Player's actions, and the more ways the better. That's something that we've seen little advancement in over the years.
The problems with Scaling have been well documented. If you don't see it yourself, then it's just not important to you. And maybe your play style renders it so. But in the bigger picture, it's still important. It's a "gamey" fix. It still has problems, and adds a new one that you won't notice if you're playing the SP with Group style that modern games are built around. Scaling is like having your own personal "Instance Bubble", in some ways.
How do you feel like your advancing in a game when either your character or the content is literally changed for you, and everyone else at the same time?
Why do Scaling when they could build the game without the Scaling, and it would play the same, without the issues? I know the answer. It's all for the "BIG NUMBERS, Wow !", the shallowest of sugary incentives known to gaming.
The ability for players to change the world as I described could not coexist with a story led game. It is in direct opposition to such.
Developing according to player actions could work in a story led game as the range of options the players can choose between is directly controlled.
I know what the problems with scaling are. I also know the problems without scaling. They both have their benefits and costs. That I may prefer a different combination of such than you doesn't somehow blind me to the other.
In ESO, scaling is each person having their own personal instance bubble that seamlessly melds with every other personal instance bubble it collides with and separates in like manner when each goes their own way.
You feel you are advancing because you are. At the beginning you start out with a few abilities on one bar, and a few pieces of gear.
You end up with more abilities than you can fit on both bars, giving you a pool to draw on depending on what you expect to encounter. You have a plethora of active end/or passive benefits based on your race, class, equipped weapons and armour, and whatever optional skill lines you choose to advance. If you choose to become a vampire or werewolf you have their abilities and limitations in the mix as well. You also have the CP system available to customize further once you have a level 50 character on your account. Further, you have a wide assortment of gear sets available to further customize your build that is always growing as expansion added gear doesn't replace the previous but instead adds to the pool of options to draw from.
It's an advancement buffet compared to the value meal menu some games provide, and it doesn't happen as if by magic. It's all by deliberate player choice.
So, no... it's not all for the big numbers and it isn't shallow.
I'm just addressing the Big Numbers here.
If a game has big numbers in advancement gains, then Scales the content in order to REMOVE THE EFFECTS of those big numbers... Then Why Do They Have Them?! For no other reason than to give that shallowest of feelings of more power. Period!
If a game has big numbers in advancement gains, then Scales the content in order to REMOVE THE EFFECTS of those big numbers... Then Why Do They Have Them?! For no other reason than to give that shallowest of feelings of more power. Period!
It also gives the effect of unlocking content and expanding the accessible world, if it is downscaling like in GW2. So it is a viable form of progression.
If some people see it as big numbers, and to me it still works as a form of progression (unlocking areas that were inaccessible before) why should I care if the numbers illusion works for them?
Are you saying that you really don't want a Massively Multiplayer game? I mean, I'm trying to understand why you'd want an "illusion" at all, in a MM game. It kind of ruins the whole concept of a game "World" full of many people.
If a game has big numbers in advancement gains, then Scales the content in order to REMOVE THE EFFECTS of those big numbers... Then Why Do They Have Them?! For no other reason than to give that shallowest of feelings of more power. Period!
It also gives the effect of unlocking content and expanding the accessible world, if it is downscaling like in GW2. So it is a viable form of progression.
If some people see it as big numbers, and to me it still works as a form of progression (unlocking areas that were inaccessible before) why should I care if the numbers illusion works for them?
Are you saying that you really don't want a Massively Multiplayer game? I mean, I'm trying to understand why you'd want an "illusion" at all, in a MM game. It kind of ruins the whole concept of a game "World" full of many people.
Never said any of this of course, as is obvious from the quotes. Smh...
The why do you want to separate yourself (your content) from so many other players, on such a grand scale, like that? (At least, until you and most players are all levelled up.)
1) your initial statement was that scaling/levels is just about shallow big numbers. My answer is no, it is about progression.
2) you saying that I said I do not want an MMO is "reductio ad absurdum" to fit your argument. I never said that. Bad form.
3) Irrelevant to your initial point that I answered, but your "separation" argument goes against any form of progression, which by definition puts content into brackets. Not just levels.
4) Having progression or levels is not mutually exclusive to having an MMO like you implied. Many examples for that.
5) Downscaling reduces that separation without nullifying progression. If you want zero separation you need to have zero progression.
*groan* I will get back for a reply, tomorrow or the next, when I get a chance. I do think this is a very good conversation to have, though.
Later impressions: consistency, wasted opportunities, what can be improved etc
Good to see you are still posting and with a new avatar no less.
Thank you. I was looking for something late summer / early autumn. Guess Pahuax will do. Xlan will do for the season of mists.
As for not posting, idk, my interests drifted off. Guess you'll see me later this month . Apart from that, don't have an MMO that even interests me. Next to Total Warhammer, Nioh etc...what's the point? Guess I should finally make up my mind about ESO, but that's that.
1) your initial statement was that scaling/levels is just about shallow big numbers. My answer is no, it is about progression.
2) you saying that I said I do not want an MMO is false "reductio ad absurdum" to fit your argument. I never said that. Bad form.
3) Irrelevant to your initial point that I answered, but your "separation" argument goes against any form of progression, which by definition puts content into brackets. Not just levels.
4) Having progression or levels is not mutually exclusive to having an MMO like you implied. Many examples for that.
5) Downscaling reduces that separation without nullifying progression. If you want zero separation you need to have zero progression.
I see it's been almost a month since I last came here. I remembered this conversation, but honestly, I've lost almost all interest in MMO's because of these issues. You are micharacterizing what I've been trying to say, or maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Scaling sucks in any form, to one degree or another. You version of downscaling is the best option. But it's still a slap in the face of "One World", at it's best possible version.
Anyways, I don't care enough to continue discussions. The MMO gaming sucks. There's no other way to put it.
Comments
Like @kitarad, I also need good reasons to participate in territory control with that reason embedded in all parts of the game... stories and quests leading to it or at least referring to it.
ESO did a great job with that at launch with their original stories and zone PvE quests. It was all about the 3-sided fight for control of Cyrodiil while Molag Bal used the chaos of the conflict as an opportunity to take over the continent.
You had two things pulling you in opposite directions: need to cooperate to get rid of the Molag Bal threat and the need to keep fighting in Cyrodiil to become the ruling alliance.
Almost every single main or side quest in the original game fed into those two main themes.
Some more "sandboxy" games really skimp on stories and lore and just throw you out there to fight over stuff for no good reason. I hate that and stay away from those games because the whole fighting over territory part just seems too gamey, too e-sports for my taste in RPGs.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
- 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
But once again, as is almost always on these forums, this is thinking that fits in with a SP game with small groupings.
The problem is that the content is tailored to you, at whatever level you are presently at.
"The world be damned."
Once upon a time....
If a game has big numbers in advancement gains, then Scales the content in order to REMOVE THE EFFECTS of those big numbers...
Then Why Do They Have Them?!
For no other reason than to give that shallowest of feelings of more power.
Period!
Once upon a time....
I mean, I'm trying to understand why you'd want an "illusion" at all, in a MM game. It kind of ruins the whole concept of a game "World" full of many people.
Once upon a time....
(At least, until you and most players are all levelled up.)
Once upon a time....
I will get back for a reply, tomorrow or the next, when I get a chance.
I do think this is a very good conversation to have, though.
Once upon a time....
You are micharacterizing what I've been trying to say, or maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
Scaling sucks in any form, to one degree or another.
You version of downscaling is the best option. But it's still a slap in the face of "One World", at it's best possible version.
Anyways, I don't care enough to continue discussions. The MMO gaming sucks. There's no other way to put it.
Once upon a time....