I think if the game was developed as part of the Dark Demon/Souls series, it could do OK. Assuming the same production values at a minimum (i.e. you don't die to glitches, lag, etc.), you could pull in a sizable crowd.
If you started from scratch, with a brand new IP, I think you'd have trouble. Too many flops, too many FFA PvP focused games looking to harsh things up, etc. What you'd want to do is attract people who are already playing the harsh games, but not MMORPG. You don't really want existing MMORPG players en mass coming to this game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I haven't actually played the game, but its funny how similar Vindictus looks to the Souls series. Has anyone played both and can comment on the differences? I assume Vindictus is not as... vindictive as Souls is ironically.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
I think I see what you're getting at, but I disagree that designing your game to suit the lowest common denominator is always the best idea. Just for the simple reason of market segmentation.
If instead, you target a specific market segment (like "casuals" or "challenege seekers") then your game has a better chance of winning those players from WoW. For the simple reason that it is more tailored to their tastes.
I am just saying the MMOs are FAR more complex then a specific feature.
You can target a game towards people seeking a much more stinging Death Penalty, but what else do you do?
It's not about designing a game to the lowest common denominator, I am instead saying that the more specific of taste you try and appeal to, the smaller and smaller the market segment becomes.
More unforgiving death penalty is one thing, but death penalty + FFA PvP + open loot + long grind etc. is something totally different.
Each "step" narrows you even further.
If the "lesson" MMOs can learn from Dark Souls is that "some people rather enjoy a very challenging/difficult game" then you really have to analyze what makes it challenging and decide if those feature changes are enough to sell your game or not...
but what other feature changes do you make?
MMO feature design is not something that happens in a vacuum.
All systems interact and the relationship between game systems is what makes a game successful or not.
Feature lists between two games can match PERFECTLY but they can be TOTALLY different games because of HOW those features are implemented and how they interact.
I haven't actually played the game, but its funny how similar Vindictus looks to the Souls series. Has anyone played both and can comment on the differences? I assume Vindictus is not as... vindictive as Souls is ironically.
Hmmm Vindictus is more like Monster Hunter the Dark Souls is. Dark Souls in some ways is like Monster Hunter in terms of combat and some of the boss monsters you have to kill but the exploration part of Dark Souls is far beyond it.
I haven't actually played the game, but its funny how similar Vindictus looks to the Souls series. Has anyone played both and can comment on the differences? I assume Vindictus is not as... vindictive as Souls is ironically.
I'd imagine Vindictus pulls from it's predeccesor, Mabinogi, and it's own inspiration more than either Souls games. There's a little bit of overlap, but not much, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Warmaker
Originally posted by uohaloran
I'm not discrediting Dark Souls (or Demon's Souls) but both games are only difficult because it's entirely foreign to the player on purpose. There is no other way to play and win at the game other than to lose (unless you like to spoil things by reading walkthroughs and strategy guides). Unavoidable or unknowable difficulties aren't my cup of tea any more - those games went out with the systems of the 90s as far as I'm concerned.
Though I'm all for challenge but there are better ways to present it, I think.
Completely wrong about Demon's / Dark Souls. They're not hard because they're trial and error based games. They're hard because it's very unforgiving for recklesness and mistakes. An ounce of caution, patience, and situational awareness (particularly new areas to you - egress points if things get really hairy) will carry you very far. Charging in headlong will usually get you killed in terrible ways. The big, nasty bosses have patterns for you to notice and exploit, but you have to defend / evade against some horrendous attacks to notice them. As a player and a fan of the predecessor, Demon's Souls also, they're games that make you actually consider, "Is it worth it right now to try this?" Risk and Reward are big themes of the titles, and they throw great heaps of both onto the player.
The developers for Demon's / Dark Souls are among those that, thankfully, haven't bought into the overly simplistic gaming of today: The "Press 'F' for action!!!" era of gaming.
You say you're into challenge, but you're just spamming the "F" key.
Those games are trial and error. That's why they're difficult or at least seen as such. The game's unforgiveness is compounded by the fact that you cannot anticipate, not even slightly, really, what is going to happen because the games have been made that way. Sure, you might evade or block a single attack but only on a few of the easier bosses are you given enough reactionary time to notice patterns in a boss attack.
The previous game is more punishing than Dark Souls with the advent of campfires. The only real thing you stand to lose in Dark Souls are your souls and that's not a big deal, really, unless you're close to leveling and in that case you need to just kill familiar things to roll over back to low souls. Demon's Souls meant up to an hour of progress lost along with your souls. Still, though, the risk vs reward thing is shattered in my opinion if the risk is only percieved as a risk. Dying sucks in any game, but once you've lost souls, you really have zero risk afterwards which really isn't that different from any other current day games.
But that's fine if you want to shoehorn me into thinking that if it can't be like Dark Souls or Demon's Souls, it must be quick time events only. You can keep touting this game as a herald of difficulty when it's really just a throwback to twenty years ago, too. In my opinion, this type of difficulty is a gimmick.
With all of that said, you guys have fun. It's what games are for. Just because I don't agree with you on a few things doesn't mean anything. If you're having fun, that's all that really matters.
I think I see what you're getting at, but I disagree that designing your game to suit the lowest common denominator is always the best idea. Just for the simple reason of market segmentation.
If instead, you target a specific market segment (like "casuals" or "challenege seekers") then your game has a better chance of winning those players from WoW. For the simple reason that it is more tailored to their tastes.
I am just saying the MMOs are FAR more complex then a specific feature.
You can target a game towards people seeking a much more stinging Death Penalty, but what else do you do?
It's not about designing a game to the lowest common denominator, I am instead saying that the more specific of taste you try and appeal to, the smaller and smaller the market segment becomes.
More unforgiving death penalty is one thing, but death penalty + FFA PvP + open loot + long grind etc. is something totally different.
Each "step" narrows you even further.
If the "lesson" MMOs can learn from Dark Souls is that "some people rather enjoy a very challenging/difficult game" then you really have to analyze what makes it challenging and decide if those feature changes are enough to sell your game or not...
but what other feature changes do you make?
MMO feature design is not something that happens in a vacuum.
All systems interact and the relationship between game systems is what makes a game successful or not.
Feature lists between two games can match PERFECTLY but they can be TOTALLY different games because of HOW those features are implemented and how they interact.
Make more sense?
Exactly Spock. I've said that for years, I think it falls on deaf ears for the most part.
I do believe there are enough people to support a A triple A sandbox game. However I'm not sure if there are enough people to support that particular AAA sandbox (whichever that one is) because every design decision will limit your audience.
E..g (just pulling numbers out of the air for reference)
Say the potential market of people who like and would play a sandbox is 1 million.
But you decide no FFA pvp - now the market is 800,000.
Now you put a skill cap on - now the market is 500,000
Housing - will it be instanced like in Ryzom of EQ2 - yes? now the market is limited even more 400,000 or not instanced and there are plots - market is limited -
Flight- will there or won't there be - again the answer will limit the population
Mounts / fast travel / subscription / cash shop... all limit the total people that would try the game.
Now after everything is done you have potential market of 400,000. What is the likelihood of all 400,000 people playing and subscribing to you game - nothing. People have stated EQ had a 10% retention, WoW has stated it has a 30% retention. So lets be really optimistic and say a 30% retention.
120,000 will try and play your game. Is that enough to justify spending tens of millions of dollars for a AAA sandbox. IMO no it isn't. The developers would have to put some themepark features in to expand their audience or scale back there development which would shrink their user base even more.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The thing is, with most games, its scaleability. For example, playing Gears of War on normal instead of hardcore, or tougher. Yeah, if you play it middle of the road, of course it will be easy. Even on the harder settings its more forgiving then Dark Souls.
But heres the catch. You can't focus an MMO around a game, built around harsh death penalties, and content that requires repetition over the same content for completion without the game being heavily instanced, and much less multiplayer.
For example, again, I haven't played Dark Souls, but, from what I hear, the grouping system - very unforgiving - you can't choose your partners or who you play with, and from what I'm to understand, you can't even talk to the ones that do group with you. This creates a substantially tougher experience than necessary, and its all part of what makes Dark Souls unique.
In an MMO (built on todays "standards") the more instanced the game is, the less "MMO" it is. End game is usually instanced for the most part, and that is also the toughest content these types of games have to offer, but raids - while being popular - are not always favored by many.
Can we make MMOs tougher? Yes, of course, but theres a difference between having a tough game, and having a brutal, soul crushing, totally unforgiving game. One that wouldn't likely be worth the money spent on it. We're talking permadeath, hours of gear acquisition, full loot, No skills transferring over, loss of XP on death for weapon skills or player levels, content that requires grouping where you can't pick your members, and a host of other systems that would put increasingly tougher challenges on players.
Consider all of this in an open world where you have hundreds ( because thousands are honestly unlikely) of players, all doing these same things, trying to complete content, and consistently losing to the environment, and for those that actually don't get killed by the environment, they still lose stats and gear to a gank from a group waiting for them on the other side.
Its just not prudent. More challenging content. Fine. Scalability, even better. Completely unforgiving gameplay? Very, very niche, and unlikely any game that would create an MMO based around that type of play will likely be mediocre in its success.
I haven't actually played the game, but its funny how similar Vindictus looks to the Souls series. Has anyone played both and can comment on the differences? I assume Vindictus is not as... vindictive as Souls is ironically.
I'd imagine Vindictus pulls from it's predeccesor, Mabinogi, and it's own inspiration more than either Souls games. There's a little bit of overlap, but not much, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Warmaker
Originally posted by uohaloran
I'm not discrediting Dark Souls (or Demon's Souls) but both games are only difficult because it's entirely foreign to the player on purpose. There is no other way to play and win at the game other than to lose (unless you like to spoil things by reading walkthroughs and strategy guides). Unavoidable or unknowable difficulties aren't my cup of tea any more - those games went out with the systems of the 90s as far as I'm concerned.
Though I'm all for challenge but there are better ways to present it, I think.
Completely wrong about Demon's / Dark Souls. They're not hard because they're trial and error based games. They're hard because it's very unforgiving for recklesness and mistakes. An ounce of caution, patience, and situational awareness (particularly new areas to you - egress points if things get really hairy) will carry you very far. Charging in headlong will usually get you killed in terrible ways. The big, nasty bosses have patterns for you to notice and exploit, but you have to defend / evade against some horrendous attacks to notice them. As a player and a fan of the predecessor, Demon's Souls also, they're games that make you actually consider, "Is it worth it right now to try this?" Risk and Reward are big themes of the titles, and they throw great heaps of both onto the player.
The developers for Demon's / Dark Souls are among those that, thankfully, haven't bought into the overly simplistic gaming of today: The "Press 'F' for action!!!" era of gaming.
You say you're into challenge, but you're just spamming the "F" key.
Those games are trial and error. That's why they're difficult or at least seen as such. The game's unforgiveness is compounded by the fact that you cannot anticipate, not even slightly, really, what is going to happen because the games have been made that way. Sure, you might evade or block a single attack but only on a few of the easier bosses are you given enough reactionary time to notice patterns in a boss attack.
The previous game is more punishing than Dark Souls with the advent of campfires. The only real thing you stand to lose in Dark Souls are your souls and that's not a big deal, really, unless you're close to leveling and in that case you need to just kill familiar things to roll over back to low souls. Demon's Souls meant up to an hour of progress lost along with your souls. Still, though, the risk vs reward thing is shattered in my opinion if the risk is only percieved as a risk. Dying sucks in any game, but once you've lost souls, you really have zero risk afterwards which really isn't that different from any other current day games.
But that's fine if you want to shoehorn me into thinking that if it can't be like Dark Souls or Demon's Souls, it must be quick time events only. You can keep touting this game as a herald of difficulty when it's really just a throwback to twenty years ago, too. In my opinion, this type of difficulty is a gimmick.
With all of that said, you guys have fun. It's what games are for. Just because I don't agree with you on a few things doesn't mean anything. If you're having fun, that's all that really matters.
A player having to prepare for something unknown in something new? New monsters, new areas, different attacks, etc.? That's a bad thing?
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
I haven't actually played the game, but its funny how similar Vindictus looks to the Souls series. Has anyone played both and can comment on the differences? I assume Vindictus is not as... vindictive as Souls is ironically.
I'd imagine Vindictus pulls from it's predeccesor, Mabinogi, and it's own inspiration more than either Souls games. There's a little bit of overlap, but not much, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Warmaker
Originally posted by uohaloran
I'm not discrediting Dark Souls (or Demon's Souls) but both games are only difficult because it's entirely foreign to the player on purpose. There is no other way to play and win at the game other than to lose (unless you like to spoil things by reading walkthroughs and strategy guides). Unavoidable or unknowable difficulties aren't my cup of tea any more - those games went out with the systems of the 90s as far as I'm concerned.
Though I'm all for challenge but there are better ways to present it, I think.
Completely wrong about Demon's / Dark Souls. They're not hard because they're trial and error based games. They're hard because it's very unforgiving for recklesness and mistakes. An ounce of caution, patience, and situational awareness (particularly new areas to you - egress points if things get really hairy) will carry you very far. Charging in headlong will usually get you killed in terrible ways. The big, nasty bosses have patterns for you to notice and exploit, but you have to defend / evade against some horrendous attacks to notice them. As a player and a fan of the predecessor, Demon's Souls also, they're games that make you actually consider, "Is it worth it right now to try this?" Risk and Reward are big themes of the titles, and they throw great heaps of both onto the player.
The developers for Demon's / Dark Souls are among those that, thankfully, haven't bought into the overly simplistic gaming of today: The "Press 'F' for action!!!" era of gaming.
You say you're into challenge, but you're just spamming the "F" key.
Those games are trial and error. That's why they're difficult or at least seen as such. The game's unforgiveness is compounded by the fact that you cannot anticipate, not even slightly, really, what is going to happen because the games have been made that way. Sure, you might evade or block a single attack but only on a few of the easier bosses are you given enough reactionary time to notice patterns in a boss attack.
The previous game is more punishing than Dark Souls with the advent of campfires. The only real thing you stand to lose in Dark Souls are your souls and that's not a big deal, really, unless you're close to leveling and in that case you need to just kill familiar things to roll over back to low souls. Demon's Souls meant up to an hour of progress lost along with your souls. Still, though, the risk vs reward thing is shattered in my opinion if the risk is only percieved as a risk. Dying sucks in any game, but once you've lost souls, you really have zero risk afterwards which really isn't that different from any other current day games.
But that's fine if you want to shoehorn me into thinking that if it can't be like Dark Souls or Demon's Souls, it must be quick time events only. You can keep touting this game as a herald of difficulty when it's really just a throwback to twenty years ago, too. In my opinion, this type of difficulty is a gimmick.
With all of that said, you guys have fun. It's what games are for. Just because I don't agree with you on a few things doesn't mean anything. If you're having fun, that's all that really matters.
A player having to prepare for something unknown in something new? New monsters, new areas, different attacks, etc.? That's a bad thing?
I just want to add that calling anything in Dark Souls or Demon's Souls a Gimmick as if it were some kind of angle is a bit off. The guy that made these games made purely the game he wanted to make with out giving a crap what the suits thought. It's one of the few games released today that I would consider to be a work of art rather than just pure entertainment.
Originally posted by Warmaker A player having to prepare for something unknown in something new? New monsters, new areas, different attacks, etc.? That's a bad thing?
When the only way through is to die first, then yes.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Last night after work I went and picked up a copy of Dark Souls. I must say it is the most fun and most challenging game I have ever played. You die alot int his game but what keeps me motivated to play is the challenge. You see, this is what mmos lack alot of today, challenge. Today's mmos, everything is dumbed down so that even a caveman can do it for the sake of a sale. This idea completely ruins the fun aspect of mmos. Why would I want to keep playing a game that has no challenge and no fun ? We need to have mmos that are challenging and fun to play. Making mmos that aren't fun and challenging just totally hurts the mmo genre as a whole.
You can take Vanguard off your list of MMOs that have not challenge or concquent.
Special Olympics That is what MMOs are today you see, everyone whants to be a winner with little effort as possible needed.
That was just wrong. Matter of fact, it makes no sense considering special needs individuals in those Special Olympics have to work doubly hard at the things you and I take for granted. They are an inspiration not a target for someone's bad analogy/joke.
A player having to prepare for something unknown in something new? New monsters, new areas, different attacks, etc.? That's a bad thing?
When the only way through is to die first, then yes.
I don't think there's a single part I've been through in Dark Souls where you literally HAVE to die to get through.
Example...
Once I walked into a room and almost instantly died and three arrows shot of the wall and killed me. "WTF!!" I said at first, but then when I went back into the room after rezzing I noticed a pressure plate on the floor. If I had been more cautious, I may have seen this the first time and not died.
Another time...I'm running up a narrow bridge thing while being fired on by two archers. As I run, a wall separates me from an archer and I think "whew! Now only one to worry about." As I near the archer and prepare to kill him, the wall separating me from the other archer terminates giving him a line of sight to me and I get shot in the back and die. Once again...if I had been more cautious.
Dark Souls is full of things like this, and I don't know how many times lack of prudence has got me killed.
The point is that if you play Dark Souls you WILL die, but almost all the time it will be preventable somehow. It is very hard to know HOW to prevent your death(s) the first time through a new area and that is why you die, but it is NOT impossible to prevent your death(s).
Special Olympics That is what MMOs are today you see, everyone whants to be a winner with little effort as possible needed.
That was just wrong. Matter of fact, it makes no sense considering special needs individuals in those Special Olympics have to work doubly hard at the things you and I take for granted. They are an inspiration not a target for someone's bad analogy/joke.
They could always start a "Hard" type of server I guess, would probably be the easiest way... and they can get a hunch about how popular it would be by starting with very few of those servers and see how the population end up.
The game everybody loves to hate had a "hard" mode to it. When you entered an area you could choose normal or epic. That was Age of Conan. Normal would be the normal mobs and epic would be elite and boss mobs all over the place. It was hard and it was fun to get a small group and try to level up through it.
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
"Last night after work I went and picked up a copy of Dark Souls. I must say it is the most fun and most challenging game I have ever played. You die alot int his game but what keeps me motivated to play is the challenge. You see, this is what mmos lack alot of today, challenge. Today's mmos, everything is dumbed down so that even a caveman can do it for the sake of a sale. This idea completely ruins the fun aspect of mmos. Why would I want to keep playing a game that has no challenge and no fun ? We need to have mmos that are challenging and fun to play. Making mmos that aren't fun and challenging just totally hurts the mmo genre as a whole."
Hello, I recently starting playing Perfect World International and find it challenging to make coins to buy gold on a pvp server. So some games have different challenges. Also bosses are difficult to take down without a healer and party. Basically depends what mmo game one plays.
A player having to prepare for something unknown in something new? New monsters, new areas, different attacks, etc.? That's a bad thing?
When the only way through is to die first, then yes.
I don't think there's a single part I've been through in Dark Souls where you literally HAVE to die to get through.
Example...
Once I walked into a room and almost instantly died and three arrows shot of the wall and killed me. "WTF!!" I said at first, but then when I went back into the room after rezzing I noticed a pressure plate on the floor. If I had been more cautious, I may have seen this the first time and not died.
Another time...I'm running up a narrow bridge thing while being fired on by two archers. As I run, a wall separates me from an archer and I think "whew! Now only one to worry about." As I near the archer and prepare to kill him, the wall separating me from the other archer terminates giving him a line of sight to me and I get shot in the back and die. Once again...if I had been more cautious.
Dark Souls is full of things like this, and I don't know how many times lack of prudence has got me killed.
The point is that if you play Dark Souls you WILL die, but almost all the time it will be preventable somehow. It is very hard to know HOW to prevent your death(s) the first time through a new area and that is why you die, but it is NOT impossible to prevent your death(s).
Thats the point of games like this though, its trial and error. You never know what to expect until you experience it. Then you try, try again until you beat it without dying. If all you do is die then you won't progress in the game.
While you don't have to die if you take extra caution and are more aware of what to expect (for instance you know you've dealt with pressure plates before, now you know to look for them) its more common for most who are playing the game to die, and die again before getting it right.
They could always start a "Hard" type of server I guess, would probably be the easiest way... and they can get a hunch about how popular it would be by starting with very few of those servers and see how the population end up.
The game everybody loves to hate had a "hard" mode to it. When you entered an area you could choose normal or epic. That was Age of Conan. Normal would be the normal mobs and epic would be elite and boss mobs all over the place. It was hard and it was fun to get a small group and try to level up through it.
I would personally love to see the metrics on people that actually used the hard mode areas for killing mobs, not just grabbing resource nodes. In all my time playing that game I think I heard a call 1 time to do hard mode version of a zone. People say they want challenge, but nine times our of ten people will always pick the path of least resistance.
I think I see what you're getting at, but I disagree that designing your game to suit the lowest common denominator is always the best idea. Just for the simple reason of market segmentation.
If instead, you target a specific market segment (like "casuals" or "challenege seekers") then your game has a better chance of winning those players from WoW. For the simple reason that it is more tailored to their tastes.
I am just saying the MMOs are FAR more complex then a specific feature.
You can target a game towards people seeking a much more stinging Death Penalty, but what else do you do?
It's not about designing a game to the lowest common denominator, I am instead saying that the more specific of taste you try and appeal to, the smaller and smaller the market segment becomes.
More unforgiving death penalty is one thing, but death penalty + FFA PvP + open loot + long grind etc. is something totally different.
Each "step" narrows you even further.
If the "lesson" MMOs can learn from Dark Souls is that "some people rather enjoy a very challenging/difficult game" then you really have to analyze what makes it challenging and decide if those feature changes are enough to sell your game or not...
but what other feature changes do you make?
MMO feature design is not something that happens in a vacuum.
All systems interact and the relationship between game systems is what makes a game successful or not.
Feature lists between two games can match PERFECTLY but they can be TOTALLY different games because of HOW those features are implemented and how they interact.
Make more sense?
Exactly Spock. I've said that for years, I think it falls on deaf ears for the most part.
I do believe there are enough people to support a A triple A sandbox game. However I'm not sure if there are enough people to support that particular AAA sandbox (whichever that one is) because every design decision will limit your audience.
E..g (just pulling numbers out of the air for reference)
Say the potential market of people who like and would play a sandbox is 1 million.
But you decide no FFA pvp - now the market is 800,000.
Now you put a skill cap on - now the market is 500,000
Housing - will it be instanced like in Ryzom of EQ2 - yes? now the market is limited even more 400,000 or not instanced and there are plots - market is limited -
Flight- will there or won't there be - again the answer will limit the population
Mounts / fast travel / subscription / cash shop... all limit the total people that would try the game.
Now after everything is done you have potential market of 400,000. What is the likelihood of all 400,000 people playing and subscribing to you game - nothing. People have stated EQ had a 10% retention, WoW has stated it has a 30% retention. So lets be really optimistic and say a 30% retention.
120,000 will try and play your game. Is that enough to justify spending tens of millions of dollars for a AAA sandbox. IMO no it isn't. The developers would have to put some themepark features in to expand their audience or scale back there development which would shrink their user base even more.
Venge
I get what you guys are saying, and I know it's difficult to get that "perfect" mix of features that will satisfy the most people. Still, I don't think this thread is about people asking for "AAA Sandbox game X," it's about people that want more challenge in MMORPGs...and our part of the discussion is specifically about a harsher death penalty.
This could really be applied to ANY game, not just sandboxes.
Personally, I think a harsher death penalty could work but you really have to make the game so that success of failure is entirely up to the player, so they don't feel "robbed" when they die.
EQ and UO had harsh death penalties, but they also had systems in place to screw players over which was annoying. In UO, you could get attacked by three PKs and basically be screwed...nothing you can do, you are going to die and lose your stuff. And EQ specifically had high level "grief" NPCs that had no purpose but to kill players in lower level areas.
Systems like these (IMO) don't mix with harsh death penalties...they just serve to frustrate players because they never have a chance to prevent their deaths when something bad happens. If an MMORPG were to come out that has a harsher death penalty, then I think it would be important to make the MMORPG a game where the player had a lot of control over whether they live or die. Make it difficult, yes, but don't put "impossible" situations in the game where you just die.
Most people who insist MMOs have no challenge have never finished (or even tried) that content.
It's a law of message boards; you can say "omg2ez" about anything and get at least a dozen "me toos" chiming in. The temptation to grab a chance to verbally /pose and /flex is irresistable.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
So its ok because end-game is challenging (for some) and the rest of the game is mindless for the most part? I'm sorry but for games that rely on long-term subscriptions and having a good "hook" to keep people paying and playing this doesn't seem to make much sense. If we like "difficult" content we shouldn't play a game for months before seeing anything more difficult than "hit F to get 0.000001% of your level".
A challenging and rewarding RPG... that's all I'm asking for.
**edit**
To build on the Dark Souls comments here, the Bosses are MORE difficult but the regular run of the mill monsters in these games are VERY capable of killing you even after you are 10-20 hours into the game. Content never become trivial if you are wreckless.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
So its ok because end-game is challenging (for some) and the rest of the game is mindless for the most part?
I guess that depends on how much time you spend in the leveling content.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Comments
{mod edit} That is what MMOs are today you see, everyone whants to be a winner with little effort as possible needed.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
I think if the game was developed as part of the Dark Demon/Souls series, it could do OK. Assuming the same production values at a minimum (i.e. you don't die to glitches, lag, etc.), you could pull in a sizable crowd.
If you started from scratch, with a brand new IP, I think you'd have trouble. Too many flops, too many FFA PvP focused games looking to harsh things up, etc. What you'd want to do is attract people who are already playing the harsh games, but not MMORPG. You don't really want existing MMORPG players en mass coming to this game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I haven't actually played the game, but its funny how similar Vindictus looks to the Souls series. Has anyone played both and can comment on the differences? I assume Vindictus is not as... vindictive as Souls is ironically.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
I am just saying the MMOs are FAR more complex then a specific feature.
You can target a game towards people seeking a much more stinging Death Penalty, but what else do you do?
It's not about designing a game to the lowest common denominator, I am instead saying that the more specific of taste you try and appeal to, the smaller and smaller the market segment becomes.
More unforgiving death penalty is one thing, but death penalty + FFA PvP + open loot + long grind etc. is something totally different.
Each "step" narrows you even further.
If the "lesson" MMOs can learn from Dark Souls is that "some people rather enjoy a very challenging/difficult game" then you really have to analyze what makes it challenging and decide if those feature changes are enough to sell your game or not...
but what other feature changes do you make?
MMO feature design is not something that happens in a vacuum.
All systems interact and the relationship between game systems is what makes a game successful or not.
Feature lists between two games can match PERFECTLY but they can be TOTALLY different games because of HOW those features are implemented and how they interact.
Make more sense?
Hmmm Vindictus is more like Monster Hunter the Dark Souls is. Dark Souls in some ways is like Monster Hunter in terms of combat and some of the boss monsters you have to kill but the exploration part of Dark Souls is far beyond it.
My theme song.
I'd imagine Vindictus pulls from it's predeccesor, Mabinogi, and it's own inspiration more than either Souls games. There's a little bit of overlap, but not much, in my opinion.
Those games are trial and error. That's why they're difficult or at least seen as such. The game's unforgiveness is compounded by the fact that you cannot anticipate, not even slightly, really, what is going to happen because the games have been made that way. Sure, you might evade or block a single attack but only on a few of the easier bosses are you given enough reactionary time to notice patterns in a boss attack.
The previous game is more punishing than Dark Souls with the advent of campfires. The only real thing you stand to lose in Dark Souls are your souls and that's not a big deal, really, unless you're close to leveling and in that case you need to just kill familiar things to roll over back to low souls. Demon's Souls meant up to an hour of progress lost along with your souls. Still, though, the risk vs reward thing is shattered in my opinion if the risk is only percieved as a risk. Dying sucks in any game, but once you've lost souls, you really have zero risk afterwards which really isn't that different from any other current day games.
But that's fine if you want to shoehorn me into thinking that if it can't be like Dark Souls or Demon's Souls, it must be quick time events only. You can keep touting this game as a herald of difficulty when it's really just a throwback to twenty years ago, too. In my opinion, this type of difficulty is a gimmick.
With all of that said, you guys have fun. It's what games are for. Just because I don't agree with you on a few things doesn't mean anything. If you're having fun, that's all that really matters.
Exactly Spock. I've said that for years, I think it falls on deaf ears for the most part.
I do believe there are enough people to support a A triple A sandbox game. However I'm not sure if there are enough people to support that particular AAA sandbox (whichever that one is) because every design decision will limit your audience.
E..g (just pulling numbers out of the air for reference)
Say the potential market of people who like and would play a sandbox is 1 million.
But you decide no FFA pvp - now the market is 800,000.
Now you put a skill cap on - now the market is 500,000
Housing - will it be instanced like in Ryzom of EQ2 - yes? now the market is limited even more 400,000 or not instanced and there are plots - market is limited -
Flight- will there or won't there be - again the answer will limit the population
Mounts / fast travel / subscription / cash shop... all limit the total people that would try the game.
Now after everything is done you have potential market of 400,000. What is the likelihood of all 400,000 people playing and subscribing to you game - nothing. People have stated EQ had a 10% retention, WoW has stated it has a 30% retention. So lets be really optimistic and say a 30% retention.
120,000 will try and play your game. Is that enough to justify spending tens of millions of dollars for a AAA sandbox. IMO no it isn't. The developers would have to put some themepark features in to expand their audience or scale back there development which would shrink their user base even more.
Venge
The thing is, with most games, its scaleability. For example, playing Gears of War on normal instead of hardcore, or tougher. Yeah, if you play it middle of the road, of course it will be easy. Even on the harder settings its more forgiving then Dark Souls.
But heres the catch. You can't focus an MMO around a game, built around harsh death penalties, and content that requires repetition over the same content for completion without the game being heavily instanced, and much less multiplayer.
For example, again, I haven't played Dark Souls, but, from what I hear, the grouping system - very unforgiving - you can't choose your partners or who you play with, and from what I'm to understand, you can't even talk to the ones that do group with you. This creates a substantially tougher experience than necessary, and its all part of what makes Dark Souls unique.
In an MMO (built on todays "standards") the more instanced the game is, the less "MMO" it is. End game is usually instanced for the most part, and that is also the toughest content these types of games have to offer, but raids - while being popular - are not always favored by many.
Can we make MMOs tougher? Yes, of course, but theres a difference between having a tough game, and having a brutal, soul crushing, totally unforgiving game. One that wouldn't likely be worth the money spent on it. We're talking permadeath, hours of gear acquisition, full loot, No skills transferring over, loss of XP on death for weapon skills or player levels, content that requires grouping where you can't pick your members, and a host of other systems that would put increasingly tougher challenges on players.
Consider all of this in an open world where you have hundreds ( because thousands are honestly unlikely) of players, all doing these same things, trying to complete content, and consistently losing to the environment, and for those that actually don't get killed by the environment, they still lose stats and gear to a gank from a group waiting for them on the other side.
Its just not prudent. More challenging content. Fine. Scalability, even better. Completely unforgiving gameplay? Very, very niche, and unlikely any game that would create an MMO based around that type of play will likely be mediocre in its success.
A player having to prepare for something unknown in something new? New monsters, new areas, different attacks, etc.? That's a bad thing?
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
I just want to add that calling anything in Dark Souls or Demon's Souls a Gimmick as if it were some kind of angle is a bit off. The guy that made these games made purely the game he wanted to make with out giving a crap what the suits thought. It's one of the few games released today that I would consider to be a work of art rather than just pure entertainment.
My theme song.
When the only way through is to die first, then yes.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You can take Vanguard off your list of MMOs that have not challenge or concquent.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Jesus/Jesus.htm
Yep been working with them for over 10 years, so I know what I'm talking about when I say everyone is a winner.
Have you?
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
This game is like trying to say that turning a bolt on a factory line is "challenging and difficult."
It's not.
It's just monotonous.
I guess there is challenge and difficulty in accepting monotony?
That was just wrong. Matter of fact, it makes no sense considering special needs individuals in those Special Olympics have to work doubly hard at the things you and I take for granted. They are an inspiration not a target for someone's bad analogy/joke.
I don't think there's a single part I've been through in Dark Souls where you literally HAVE to die to get through.
Example...
Once I walked into a room and almost instantly died and three arrows shot of the wall and killed me. "WTF!!" I said at first, but then when I went back into the room after rezzing I noticed a pressure plate on the floor. If I had been more cautious, I may have seen this the first time and not died.
Another time...I'm running up a narrow bridge thing while being fired on by two archers. As I run, a wall separates me from an archer and I think "whew! Now only one to worry about." As I near the archer and prepare to kill him, the wall separating me from the other archer terminates giving him a line of sight to me and I get shot in the back and die. Once again...if I had been more cautious.
Dark Souls is full of things like this, and I don't know how many times lack of prudence has got me killed.
The point is that if you play Dark Souls you WILL die, but almost all the time it will be preventable somehow. It is very hard to know HOW to prevent your death(s) the first time through a new area and that is why you die, but it is NOT impossible to prevent your death(s).
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
BAM, elocke nailed it.
The game everybody loves to hate had a "hard" mode to it. When you entered an area you could choose normal or epic. That was Age of Conan. Normal would be the normal mobs and epic would be elite and boss mobs all over the place. It was hard and it was fun to get a small group and try to level up through it.
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
"Last night after work I went and picked up a copy of Dark Souls. I must say it is the most fun and most challenging game I have ever played. You die alot int his game but what keeps me motivated to play is the challenge. You see, this is what mmos lack alot of today, challenge. Today's mmos, everything is dumbed down so that even a caveman can do it for the sake of a sale. This idea completely ruins the fun aspect of mmos. Why would I want to keep playing a game that has no challenge and no fun ? We need to have mmos that are challenging and fun to play. Making mmos that aren't fun and challenging just totally hurts the mmo genre as a whole."
Hello, I recently starting playing Perfect World International and find it challenging to make coins to buy gold on a pvp server. So some games have different challenges. Also bosses are difficult to take down without a healer and party. Basically depends what mmo game one plays.
Thats the point of games like this though, its trial and error. You never know what to expect until you experience it. Then you try, try again until you beat it without dying. If all you do is die then you won't progress in the game.
While you don't have to die if you take extra caution and are more aware of what to expect (for instance you know you've dealt with pressure plates before, now you know to look for them) its more common for most who are playing the game to die, and die again before getting it right.
I would personally love to see the metrics on people that actually used the hard mode areas for killing mobs, not just grabbing resource nodes. In all my time playing that game I think I heard a call 1 time to do hard mode version of a zone. People say they want challenge, but nine times our of ten people will always pick the path of least resistance.
I get what you guys are saying, and I know it's difficult to get that "perfect" mix of features that will satisfy the most people. Still, I don't think this thread is about people asking for "AAA Sandbox game X," it's about people that want more challenge in MMORPGs...and our part of the discussion is specifically about a harsher death penalty.
This could really be applied to ANY game, not just sandboxes.
Personally, I think a harsher death penalty could work but you really have to make the game so that success of failure is entirely up to the player, so they don't feel "robbed" when they die.
EQ and UO had harsh death penalties, but they also had systems in place to screw players over which was annoying. In UO, you could get attacked by three PKs and basically be screwed...nothing you can do, you are going to die and lose your stuff. And EQ specifically had high level "grief" NPCs that had no purpose but to kill players in lower level areas.
Systems like these (IMO) don't mix with harsh death penalties...they just serve to frustrate players because they never have a chance to prevent their deaths when something bad happens. If an MMORPG were to come out that has a harsher death penalty, then I think it would be important to make the MMORPG a game where the player had a lot of control over whether they live or die. Make it difficult, yes, but don't put "impossible" situations in the game where you just die.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Most people who insist MMOs have no challenge have never finished (or even tried) that content.
It's a law of message boards; you can say "omg2ez" about anything and get at least a dozen "me toos" chiming in. The temptation to grab a chance to verbally /pose and /flex is irresistable.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
So its ok because end-game is challenging (for some) and the rest of the game is mindless for the most part? I'm sorry but for games that rely on long-term subscriptions and having a good "hook" to keep people paying and playing this doesn't seem to make much sense. If we like "difficult" content we shouldn't play a game for months before seeing anything more difficult than "hit F to get 0.000001% of your level".
A challenging and rewarding RPG... that's all I'm asking for.
**edit**
To build on the Dark Souls comments here, the Bosses are MORE difficult but the regular run of the mill monsters in these games are VERY capable of killing you even after you are 10-20 hours into the game. Content never become trivial if you are wreckless.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
I guess that depends on how much time you spend in the leveling content.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.