Alternatively, if you feel a bit more grown up, you could read the article by Helen Longino in journal Philosophy of Science , Vol. 46 March 1979. pp. 37–42.
Maybe I should just say that my point was to illustrate how un-effective the "Can you prove X with some data" tactic is in an argument. If you want to disagree with someone's theory, that's fine. But to insult them by implying: "you're just blowing this out your ass, so I demand you come up with some evidence" is just as immature as actually stating it explicitly.
Having evidence is fine and great, but the moment you say "why don't you prove it," it can easily be turned against you in the very same argument. And we all know that nobody here is going to spend hours coming up with the statistical data, or waste analytic skills on some fail troll forum thread... So why bother asking it at all? Would you prove your argument with statistical objective data if someone pulled the same stunt on you?
And that's why I think "why don't you prove it with objective data" is a pointless argument tactic. Why not get to the point and say "I don't believe you and I never will unless there is hard data, but since the hard data is unknowable, I'm happy right where I am."
PS: back on topic: I personally believe combat/crafting/exploring are all equally fun.
Sometimes I think people don't want RPGs they just want Simple Simon with loot drops, prss the coloured buttons in the right order, nothing else must get in the way.
I actually like this idea a lot. I'd like to see you take a hit to your stats if you become too cold, or even too hot. And i want penalties for carrying too much weight around.
I want these and a thousand other little touches of realism to be added over time and become standards that are just expected in new titles.
I said a little realism. Within the context of what the OP is talking about it makes sense. I'm not advocating turning anything into a simulation. You're arguing an extreme position I didn't take.
I also never said I disliked combat. I just want there to be more to the game than combat. Why have different terrians and weather effects if they mean nothing other than aesthetics. Let them impact the game world in some way.
Players predominantly seek realism when it's aligned with good, interesting gameplay.
It's hard to say any gameplay upkeep (wearing warm clothes) added purely to be more realistic is "a little realism" because at that point it's actually intruding upon gameplay.
That's completely subjective. I think it would be interesting game play and would not intrude at all. Judging by the other responses in this this thread, I'm not alone either.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
I said a little realism. Within the context of what the OP is talking about it makes sense. I'm not advocating turning anything into a simulation. You're arguing an extreme position I didn't take.
I also never said I disliked combat. I just want there to be more to the game than combat. Why have different terrians and weather effects if they mean nothing other than aesthetics. Let them impact the game world in some way.
Players predominantly seek realism when it's aligned with good, interesting gameplay.
It's hard to say any gameplay upkeep (wearing warm clothes) added purely to be more realistic is "a little realism" because at that point it's actually intruding upon gameplay.
That's completely subjective. I think it would be interesting game play and would not intrude at all. Judging by the other responses in this this thread, I'm not alone either.
In a way it's like having to stack gear that prevents only fire damage before you can go take on a big dragon-bitch. You're requiring your character to gear up to the current sitation. I love it.
Sometimes I think people don't want RPGs they just want Simple Simon with loot drops, prss the coloured buttons in the right order, nothing else must get in the way.
thats already what they are. but since they aren't just 4 buttons, but 36-48 buttons, people think they have "depth".
Sometimes I think people don't want RPGs they just want Simple Simon with loot drops, prss the coloured buttons in the right order, nothing else must get in the way.
thats already what they are. but since they aren't just 4 buttons, but 36-48 buttons, people think they have "depth".
wow! all those buttons! that's deep!
All computer games are button presses but having numerous sequences for numerous visual and mathematical stimulus does increase depth, obviously nowhere near as much depth as the real world, but certainly more depth than the Simple Simon combat only games some people seem to want.
Question is, where to draw a line, where the difference is, locked doors (need to carry keys), mountains (flying), oceans (waterwalk/breathing) vs something like cold weather (clothes) or desert (water bottle).
If there isnt, it just a whatisitcalled, appeal to status quo, we dont have it now, so it is bad.
Just saying, i dont care much one way or the other, but "annoyances" can be a interesting gameplay dimension, crafted bottles with greater capacity, we all know explosive charges to open locks, stacking regen gear so you can walk around in the desert infinitely without the annoyance of having to drink...
It is funny these threads popped up right after i watched videos of GC and that other doofus on youtube, talking now, after 4 years of dismantling them, about quests and preparation (consumables and so on), and that some players like those...
Again, realism isn't bad if it's an intentional element which provides gameplay (ideally by fitting in with the other game mechanics to create a depth which is greater than the individual systems provided on their own.)
But if we want things to be real for realism's sake (or for the sake of avoiding the status quo, or any of a hundred other poor reasons,) then that's when realism not only fails to improve a game but actually detracts from the experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sometimes I think people don't want RPGs they just want Simple Simon with loot drops, prss the coloured buttons in the right order, nothing else must get in the way.
thats already what they are. but since they aren't just 4 buttons, but 36-48 buttons, people think they have "depth".
wow! all those buttons! that's deep!
All computer games are button presses but having numerous sequences for numerous visual and mathematical stimulus does increase depth, obviously nowhere near as much depth as the real world, but certainly more depth than the Simple Simon combat only games some people seem to want.
not inherently. only if the different abilities are meaningfully different. and you know in most cases they aren't.
Question is, where to draw a line, where the difference is, locked doors (need to carry keys), mountains (flying), oceans (waterwalk/breathing) vs something like cold weather (clothes) or desert (water bottle).
If there isnt, it just a whatisitcalled, appeal to status quo, we dont have it now, so it is bad.
Just saying, i dont care much one way or the other, but "annoyances" can be a interesting gameplay dimension, crafted bottles with greater capacity, we all know explosive charges to open locks, stacking regen gear so you can walk around in the desert infinitely without the annoyance of having to drink...
It is funny these threads popped up right after i watched videos of GC and that other doofus on youtube, talking now, after 4 years of dismantling them, about quests and preparation (consumables and so on), and that some players like those...
Again, realism isn't bad if it's an intentional element which provides gameplay (ideally by fitting in with the other game mechanics to create a depth which is greater than the individual systems provided on their own.)
But if we want things to be real for realism's sake (or for the sake of avoiding the status quo, or any of a hundred other poor reasons,) then that's when realism not only fails to improve a game but actually detracts from the experience.
Nobody is arguing that with you, why do you keep repeating it. The posters here (myself included) are saying we would enjoy certain realistic elements in a game. Therefore it would not detract from the experience (just the opposite).
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
It is funny these threads popped up right after i watched videos of GC and that other doofus on youtube, talking now, after 4 years of dismantling them, about quests and preparation (consumables and so on), and that some players like those...
Alternatively, if you feel a bit more grown up, you could read the article by Helen Longino in journal Philosophy of Science , Vol. 46 March 1979. pp. 37–42.
Maybe I should just say that my point was to illustrate how un-effective the "Can you prove X with some data" tactic is in an argument. If you want to disagree with someone's theory, that's fine. But to insult them by implying: "you're just blowing this out your ass, so I demand you come up with some evidence" is just as immature as actually stating it explicitly.
Having evidence is fine and great, but the moment you say "why don't you prove it," it can easily be turned against you in the very same argument. And we all know that nobody here is going to spend hours coming up with the statistical data, or waste analytic skills on some fail troll forum thread... So why bother asking it at all? Would you prove your argument with statistical objective data if someone pulled the same stunt on you?
And that's why I think "why don't you prove it with objective data" is a pointless argument tactic. Why not get to the point and say "I don't believe you and I never will unless there is hard data, but since the hard data is unknowable, I'm happy right where I am."
PS: back on topic: I personally believe combat/crafting/exploring are all equally fun.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Politics would be a great career given that statement. Please stay away from science or math.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
That's completely subjective. I think it would be interesting game play and would not intrude at all. Judging by the other responses in this this thread, I'm not alone either.
How is it interesting? As presented, it's merely another form of upkeep. Players don't play games for upkeep and penalty. They play games to (a) interact (make interesting decisions), (b) express themselves, and/or (c) as a zen-like relaxation activity.
None of those things are benefitted by arbitrarily adding extra rules unless those rules are crafted in a way which allows for a certain level of skillful mastery. As presented, equipping cold weather gear is just what you do. There's no mastery, it's just a requirement to avoid suffering a penalty.
So again, the way for this feature to sound reasonable is when you tie it to other parts of the game, like saying players end up making a choice between cold weather gear or gear which improves some solitary aspect of their character so that in some cold conditions the cold weather gear is better and in others it's better to suffer the cold penalties to pursue the other benefit.
Until that happens, it's realism for realism's sake (or some other poor reason) and therefore bad game design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And what about awkward ingame erections when addressing scantily clad female characters when you play a male character? (or whatever you give in as your preference in character generation).
A high willpower stat can aleviate the effect somewhat. But low willpower characters will often be pointed to and laughed at.
This would be hilarious.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
It is funny these threads popped up right after i watched videos of GC and that other doofus on youtube, talking now, after 4 years of dismantling them, about quests and preparation (consumables and so on), and that some players like those...
Nobody is arguing that with you, why do you keep repeating it. The posters here (myself included) are saying we would enjoy certain realistic elements in a game. Therefore it would not detract from the experience (just the opposite).
If you happen to like cardboard should restaurants indulge you?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Nobody is arguing that with you, why do you keep repeating it. The posters here (myself included) are saying we would enjoy certain realistic elements in a game. Therefore it would not detract from the experience (just the opposite).
If you happen to like cardboard should restaurants indulge you?
If a few people a day started ordering cardboard, I'd start stocking it.
In all seriousness, there should be some gameplay value tied to attrition since attrition itself makes a bad game. If you have ever played Sims the characters have multiple needs which need to be taken care of in order for that game character to "succeed" in that gameworld. It is essentially a whack-a-mole game - nicely hidden with a pretty wrap but very simple. It is not a game in the same sense others are. Sims' purpose is to be a virtual dollhouse. You are deceiving yourself if you think otherwise.
An example of an attrition mechanics that has gameplay value would be ammo, fuel etc. They bring a new aspect to the game. Tactics could be based upon those. They can (but not always do) add depth to the game.
Attrition can also be used as an immersive way to limit players. A MMORPG could demand that horses need to graze from time to time (or constantly) and this mechanics could be used to create areas which are barren and therefore barred from mounts. Players would have to make do without horses in that area. Again this would create varying gameplay and need to adapt.
Keeping your character fed is merely an inconvenience if you cannot present a gameplay value it could bring. Playing a whack-a-mole is dull and boring when all there is is just that. I say no to attrition mechanics that bring no additional gameplay.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Some people are really so brain washed by the modern mmo developers that want to put nothing in there game for whatever stupid and pathetic reasons they came to explain it, its just amazing how sure they are in themselves.
Realism is bad in rpg game?, what a stupid nonsense those games are based on fantasy world that obviously came from legend of our real world, be it JRR Tolkien work or any work made in fantasy which are manly based on middle age, iron age legends. Does anyone of you actually ever read a fantasy book, or anything fantasy related? You people claim reality is bad seam to have pretty much no knowledge to begin with (Wow isn"t knowledge right?). So mmorpg are the exception and reality which is one of their main source of inspiration is "bad", what a bunch of bs.
For anyone that played Muds back then, they probably recall all those amazing aspects each of them had, be it illness, poisoning feature, amazing inventory i recall from a german mud with pockets in garments, and belts for drawing weapons and hiding stuff from looters, some had magic that came from shamanism rather than dragon ball Z pewpew fire ball kind of magic, and so on and so on, the list is endless. But ye, those are bad for rpg, *slam head in the wall*. Ye sure guys... LOL
The thing is most devs are totally unable to implement those aspects in a meaningful and interesting manner in their game, in fact they don't even try, so its not hard. They used to had them years ago, so, its not as if they can't do it now is it? They just don't do it, that's all it is about, and the reason given just aren't even a factor as some seam to tell, they are no reasons, not spoken at least. For example the only rpg i know which have interesting eating/drinking feature, and they are quiet fun whatever some will claim, is in H&H and URW rpg, and actually the first took his inspiration from the second. So its bad? nha they just have no fucking clue, that is all it is about, they come telling you lesson putting ahead their fore judging based on nothing but rumors they hear on the net, that is all it is about, they have no clue.
But for any old school player, its pretty obvious why all those features aren't in rpg anymore, its just because its so much easier to just make a mainstream combat system (fps & tab targeting), and slap it a nice but shallow 3D world to it, and run baby run. The problem with those games today is that they are made for the sole purpose of commerce, nobody give a crap about the gaming aspect they used to had, not even the brainwashed player because they never actually played any of those meaningful games, and those that did probably forgot it all. It is as if car constructor made bicycle car for a generation slamming in people head motor car are actually bad, do you think the new drivers would even want to try them? they most certainly wouldn't, and would tell you with so much insurance how bad motor in a car is. But one thing is sure those feature were amazing back then because they actually used all the power and possibility computer was expected to give compared to pen&paper, now they don't exist anymore, period.
Since we're going for 'realism' we should add 'force on force' to this as well. I mean it's completely unrealistic that 1 person - no matter how skilled - can farm 20 of anything at once - even rats. You face that many alone - I don't care how skilled you are - you're going down.
It sounds like a really interesting concept to work with.
I imagined some sort of weather / disaster survival sandbox pve game where the environment is deadlier than the wildlife.
A tiny radio that isn't completely effective. Little to no weapon proficiency, emphasis on community / sharing limited resources to effectively 'fight' the weather.
Limited terrain deformation could dynamically force players to pursue new projects. For example building a shelter designed for the cold during a heatwave would be a bad investment. Bridges or buildings could collapse creating new paths / obstacles.
Player made buildings should decay as a type of upkeep / maintenence. Maybe have 'repaired' and 'broken' models for various npc buildings for players to occupy temporarily.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
Alternatively, if you feel a bit more grown up, you could read the article by Helen Longino in journal Philosophy of Science , Vol. 46 March 1979. pp. 37–42.
Maybe I should just say that my point was to illustrate how un-effective the "Can you prove X with some data" tactic is in an argument. If you want to disagree with someone's theory, that's fine. But to insult them by implying: "you're just blowing this out your ass, so I demand you come up with some evidence" is just as immature as actually stating it explicitly.
Having evidence is fine and great, but the moment you say "why don't you prove it," it can easily be turned against you in the very same argument. And we all know that nobody here is going to spend hours coming up with the statistical data, or waste analytic skills on some fail troll forum thread... So why bother asking it at all? Would you prove your argument with statistical objective data if someone pulled the same stunt on you?
And that's why I think "why don't you prove it with objective data" is a pointless argument tactic. Why not get to the point and say "I don't believe you and I never will unless there is hard data, but since the hard data is unknowable, I'm happy right where I am."
PS: back on topic: I personally believe combat/crafting/exploring are all equally fun.
I enjoy taking things out of context to suit my arguments. I'm more like a politician than I can admit.
Comments
Maybe I should just say that my point was to illustrate how un-effective the "Can you prove X with some data" tactic is in an argument. If you want to disagree with someone's theory, that's fine. But to insult them by implying: "you're just blowing this out your ass, so I demand you come up with some evidence" is just as immature as actually stating it explicitly.
Having evidence is fine and great, but the moment you say "why don't you prove it," it can easily be turned against you in the very same argument. And we all know that nobody here is going to spend hours coming up with the statistical data, or waste analytic skills on some fail troll forum thread... So why bother asking it at all? Would you prove your argument with statistical objective data if someone pulled the same stunt on you?
And that's why I think "why don't you prove it with objective data" is a pointless argument tactic. Why not get to the point and say "I don't believe you and I never will unless there is hard data, but since the hard data is unknowable, I'm happy right where I am."
PS: back on topic: I personally believe combat/crafting/exploring are all equally fun.
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
I actually like this idea a lot. I'd like to see you take a hit to your stats if you become too cold, or even too hot. And i want penalties for carrying too much weight around.
I want these and a thousand other little touches of realism to be added over time and become standards that are just expected in new titles.
That's completely subjective. I think it would be interesting game play and would not intrude at all. Judging by the other responses in this this thread, I'm not alone either.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
In a way it's like having to stack gear that prevents only fire damage before you can go take on a big dragon-bitch. You're requiring your character to gear up to the current sitation. I love it.
thats already what they are. but since they aren't just 4 buttons, but 36-48 buttons, people think they have "depth".
wow! all those buttons! that's deep!
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
thats already what they are. but since they aren't just 4 buttons, but 36-48 buttons, people think they have "depth".
wow! all those buttons! that's deep!
All computer games are button presses but having numerous sequences for numerous visual and mathematical stimulus does increase depth, obviously nowhere near as much depth as the real world, but certainly more depth than the Simple Simon combat only games some people seem to want.Again, realism isn't bad if it's an intentional element which provides gameplay (ideally by fitting in with the other game mechanics to create a depth which is greater than the individual systems provided on their own.)
But if we want things to be real for realism's sake (or for the sake of avoiding the status quo, or any of a hundred other poor reasons,) then that's when realism not only fails to improve a game but actually detracts from the experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
not inherently. only if the different abilities are meaningfully different. and you know in most cases they aren't.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
Nobody is arguing that with you, why do you keep repeating it. The posters here (myself included) are saying we would enjoy certain realistic elements in a game. Therefore it would not detract from the experience (just the opposite).
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
oh yeah, i meant to ask..... GC?
or even better....link to those videos?
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Politics would be a great career given that statement. Please stay away from science or math.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
How is it interesting? As presented, it's merely another form of upkeep. Players don't play games for upkeep and penalty. They play games to (a) interact (make interesting decisions), (b) express themselves, and/or (c) as a zen-like relaxation activity.
None of those things are benefitted by arbitrarily adding extra rules unless those rules are crafted in a way which allows for a certain level of skillful mastery. As presented, equipping cold weather gear is just what you do. There's no mastery, it's just a requirement to avoid suffering a penalty.
So again, the way for this feature to sound reasonable is when you tie it to other parts of the game, like saying players end up making a choice between cold weather gear or gear which improves some solitary aspect of their character so that in some cold conditions the cold weather gear is better and in others it's better to suffer the cold penalties to pursue the other benefit.
Until that happens, it's realism for realism's sake (or some other poor reason) and therefore bad game design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This would be hilarious.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
/watch?v=kGcsP0cgitE and related
Flame on!
If you happen to like cardboard should restaurants indulge you?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
If a few people a day started ordering cardboard, I'd start stocking it.
In all seriousness, there should be some gameplay value tied to attrition since attrition itself makes a bad game. If you have ever played Sims the characters have multiple needs which need to be taken care of in order for that game character to "succeed" in that gameworld. It is essentially a whack-a-mole game - nicely hidden with a pretty wrap but very simple. It is not a game in the same sense others are. Sims' purpose is to be a virtual dollhouse. You are deceiving yourself if you think otherwise.
An example of an attrition mechanics that has gameplay value would be ammo, fuel etc. They bring a new aspect to the game. Tactics could be based upon those. They can (but not always do) add depth to the game.
Attrition can also be used as an immersive way to limit players. A MMORPG could demand that horses need to graze from time to time (or constantly) and this mechanics could be used to create areas which are barren and therefore barred from mounts. Players would have to make do without horses in that area. Again this would create varying gameplay and need to adapt.
Keeping your character fed is merely an inconvenience if you cannot present a gameplay value it could bring. Playing a whack-a-mole is dull and boring when all there is is just that. I say no to attrition mechanics that bring no additional gameplay.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Some people are really so brain washed by the modern mmo developers that want to put nothing in there game for whatever stupid and pathetic reasons they came to explain it, its just amazing how sure they are in themselves.
Realism is bad in rpg game?, what a stupid nonsense those games are based on fantasy world that obviously came from legend of our real world, be it JRR Tolkien work or any work made in fantasy which are manly based on middle age, iron age legends. Does anyone of you actually ever read a fantasy book, or anything fantasy related? You people claim reality is bad seam to have pretty much no knowledge to begin with (Wow isn"t knowledge right?). So mmorpg are the exception and reality which is one of their main source of inspiration is "bad", what a bunch of bs.
For anyone that played Muds back then, they probably recall all those amazing aspects each of them had, be it illness, poisoning feature, amazing inventory i recall from a german mud with pockets in garments, and belts for drawing weapons and hiding stuff from looters, some had magic that came from shamanism rather than dragon ball Z pewpew fire ball kind of magic, and so on and so on, the list is endless. But ye, those are bad for rpg, *slam head in the wall*. Ye sure guys... LOL
The thing is most devs are totally unable to implement those aspects in a meaningful and interesting manner in their game, in fact they don't even try, so its not hard. They used to had them years ago, so, its not as if they can't do it now is it? They just don't do it, that's all it is about, and the reason given just aren't even a factor as some seam to tell, they are no reasons, not spoken at least. For example the only rpg i know which have interesting eating/drinking feature, and they are quiet fun whatever some will claim, is in H&H and URW rpg, and actually the first took his inspiration from the second. So its bad? nha they just have no fucking clue, that is all it is about, they come telling you lesson putting ahead their fore judging based on nothing but rumors they hear on the net, that is all it is about, they have no clue.
But for any old school player, its pretty obvious why all those features aren't in rpg anymore, its just because its so much easier to just make a mainstream combat system (fps & tab targeting), and slap it a nice but shallow 3D world to it, and run baby run. The problem with those games today is that they are made for the sole purpose of commerce, nobody give a crap about the gaming aspect they used to had, not even the brainwashed player because they never actually played any of those meaningful games, and those that did probably forgot it all. It is as if car constructor made bicycle car for a generation slamming in people head motor car are actually bad, do you think the new drivers would even want to try them? they most certainly wouldn't, and would tell you with so much insurance how bad motor in a car is. But one thing is sure those feature were amazing back then because they actually used all the power and possibility computer was expected to give compared to pen&paper, now they don't exist anymore, period.
I was thinking about this a lot... Why no mmorpg has this little thing
I'd like it...
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
Or how about a game that doesn't treat a "metal bikini" as "armor".
Since we're going for 'realism' we should add 'force on force' to this as well. I mean it's completely unrealistic that 1 person - no matter how skilled - can farm 20 of anything at once - even rats. You face that many alone - I don't care how skilled you are - you're going down.
It sounds like a really interesting concept to work with.
I imagined some sort of weather / disaster survival sandbox pve game where the environment is deadlier than the wildlife.
A tiny radio that isn't completely effective. Little to no weapon proficiency, emphasis on community / sharing limited resources to effectively 'fight' the weather.
Limited terrain deformation could dynamically force players to pursue new projects. For example building a shelter designed for the cold during a heatwave would be a bad investment. Bridges or buildings could collapse creating new paths / obstacles.
Player made buildings should decay as a type of upkeep / maintenence. Maybe have 'repaired' and 'broken' models for various npc buildings for players to occupy temporarily.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
Here here!
I'm tired of "sex sells". I want good gaming, a good experience. Forget the cheap sugar.
Once upon a time....
Fixed it for you.
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent