Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
To me the gameplay in MMOs today is fairly boring. I've gone over this before. It's usually the same and there is a thread covering what is the same.
You have a linear progression based on following quest NPCs with exclamation points (!) over their heads. The story for these quests is becoming more and more narrow minded. Once you would have had to talk to different people to find the quests and then follow various instructions to complete said quest. Now you just click on the NPC with the (!), click accept, follow the GPS to the mob/mobs, kill them, and follow the GPS back to the NPC. This process becomes quite boring rapidly. There is limited challenge in it as all you had to do is kill mobs that are made to be easily beaten with no risk to losing anything if you do happen to lose.
Some of the best parts of old games were that they had things happen that were unintended. People were able to do things the developers didn't intend to happen in their games. It gave the game more flavor.
Abilities have become very generic/bland. Each class feels almost the same. Usually this is due to some form of class balance for PvP. Sadly PvP isn't even done by a lot of people who play these games.
Tools like the auction house and look for group tool have taken away from the interaction between people in games.
Instances have taken away from the interaction/competition of people in these games.
It does feel a bit like everyone is using the same game engine. Perhaps companies are to cheap to develop their own engines these days. Maybe they just buy one that has had some success and stick to the basic structure that it comes with.
MMOExposed: Could you give some clear example's of what you mean with game design flaws?
Or is it just some personal view on how you think or feel game X might be better?
I have encountered plenty of MMO's with none working feature's, bugs or other type of issue's, but most of the time they didn't bother me in the way I play these games as often the majority of rush players have encountered those issue's long before I might even reach their level or area they are in and most likely those issue's are resolved once I get there. Even more often it's PVP related and since I don't play MMO/rpg's for PVP again I am not bothered with it. Doesn't mean I don't care, cause I do if a game has PVP feature's implimented they really need to make sure it works. So I can see that a PVP player might get more frustrated with the options they are given by today's games (I am just more of a FPS pvp player but occasionaly enjoy PVP in some MMORPG's aswell)
Perhaps I am much more forgiving when it comes to MMO/rpg released games compared to what I expect from a singleplayer game. To me it's still one of the most complexed game genre's to develop.
Flaws in design. you know. Example, in GW2, the way WvW is Designed, leads to Zerging becoming the best tactic for battles.
Or how Champ Train was formed from the design decisions of the developers.
Also the way their combat trinity idea was designed but limited to a DPS>All role, which lead to a damage focused PvE gameplay that doesnt reward other methods of play. Thats a bad design right there.
Or how about in Rift/WoW, in which they add new levels to the game, but have a few new zones, which are tiered by level ranges up to the new max level, making all the previous new zones obsolete. Thats Flawed/bad game design, not a bug/glitch.
Those are not flaws. Those are just game design decisions you do not like.
With regards to GW2 - you are flat out wrong. One big zerg might win all the battles but it can lose the war because smaller groups can run around and cap everything while the dumb zerg stumbles around deciding where to go next.
Software development is difficult - Arenanet is one of the best in the business - along with Blizzard in developing polished software, IMHO.
They can call themselves "alpha and omega" for all I care. If it's fun I'll play, if it has potential and is being updated regularly I may even test or have a look at a later date. Bottom line is I don't give a shit what "stage of development" they say they are in for the most part. I'm trying to entertain myself now or in lesser circumstances I may be willing to dedicate some time to help a potentially good game.
All betas aren't the same either. Hell I've even played in some decent alpha's and finished or 1.0 versions of the game aren't always at a similar level of quality either. Not only that but the support and updates a game receives aren't always in accordance to their supposed place in the development cycle, I'm played in alphas where the base game barely changed over a long period of time and I've played in games post launch with excellent followthrough.
At the end of the day call it what you like and the proof will be in the pudding even if not immediately.
Making an artificial construct like gamma testing is rather pointless. Some games are coded well and others are not. The SWG launch was a complete mess. Many professions didn't work, mounts, housing etc. When RIFT launched it was pretty solid and all the features worked properly for the most part. Granted SWG was rushed out but having a "gamma" wouldn't have helped if they were pushing the game out by a certain date. At that point you're just slicing up beta into more parts but within the same time frame.
Flawed design issues should be caught long before beta. Especially with the pattern where modern beta is more like release candidate evaluation and public promotional event.
I think what happens might be* that design issues aren't allowed to be addressed during alpha. Or perhaps things are addressed and an executive decision is made to leave things as-is... "working as intended" and all that.
* I'm not game industry experienced
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Actually, alpha and beta testing have real meanings in the software development profession. Here is the typical process as I see it:
- requirements document -- this sets out what the product is going to be, what it has to do. This is the easiest and best place to make any real changes in how it works
- implementation specification -- this describes how the product will be developed.
- unit test -- this happens when some part of the product is ready to test, normally in isolation
- alpha test -- the first time all the pieces are put together and tested. It is expected to be full of bugs and problems, and probably won't really work at all.
- beta test -- the first time all the pieces are put together and you expect them to actually work, mostly. Still probably full of bugs, but it might work.
During beta test is the first time any customer of ours gets to test the code, and we only provide it to "friendly" customers, since we expect it to have failures. We would then provide:
- early access -- this means some privileged customers get early access to the product, that is supposed to work. This is what is normally called "beta" in MMO's.
As you can see, the product design is basically set way back in the requirements document and spec. Beta test is not to see if the design is good, but to test if the design has been correctly implemented. It is much much too late to make any structural changes when you are in beta, and even in alpha test.
It looks like the beta test is enough. Maybe it depends on how long those alpha and beta are...? Or the pre-alpha period. And the bugs are another thing as well...
Also, MMOs have the regular maintenance to address the issues of the game. Unless those issues aren't fixed then yeah...it's not really going to do anything.
I remember that time when every maintenance, the bugs are fixed and new ones appear or the bugs don't get fixed and new ones appear or new bugs appear and old bugs reappear, and so on. >_<
Comments
Game "Design" is decided for the most part in preproduction before an Alpha is even released. Another testing phase wouldn't change anything.
I'm guessing you are referring to things like bugs from programming and balance issues.
Zulu Five Oscar
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
To me the gameplay in MMOs today is fairly boring. I've gone over this before. It's usually the same and there is a thread covering what is the same.
You have a linear progression based on following quest NPCs with exclamation points (!) over their heads. The story for these quests is becoming more and more narrow minded. Once you would have had to talk to different people to find the quests and then follow various instructions to complete said quest. Now you just click on the NPC with the (!), click accept, follow the GPS to the mob/mobs, kill them, and follow the GPS back to the NPC. This process becomes quite boring rapidly. There is limited challenge in it as all you had to do is kill mobs that are made to be easily beaten with no risk to losing anything if you do happen to lose.
Some of the best parts of old games were that they had things happen that were unintended. People were able to do things the developers didn't intend to happen in their games. It gave the game more flavor.
Abilities have become very generic/bland. Each class feels almost the same. Usually this is due to some form of class balance for PvP. Sadly PvP isn't even done by a lot of people who play these games.
Tools like the auction house and look for group tool have taken away from the interaction between people in games.
Instances have taken away from the interaction/competition of people in these games.
It does feel a bit like everyone is using the same game engine. Perhaps companies are to cheap to develop their own engines these days. Maybe they just buy one that has had some success and stick to the basic structure that it comes with.
Charlie don't surf.
Can't get my pen to write in this space.
Those are not flaws. Those are just game design decisions you do not like.
With regards to GW2 - you are flat out wrong. One big zerg might win all the battles but it can lose the war because smaller groups can run around and cap everything while the dumb zerg stumbles around deciding where to go next.
Software development is difficult - Arenanet is one of the best in the business - along with Blizzard in developing polished software, IMHO.
Qubec Foxtrot Tango
Zulu Five Oscar
Golf Tango Foxtrot Oscar.Also, I think there is enough "Charlie" in some mmo studios already
Cluck Cluck, Gibber Gibber, My Old Mans A Mushroom
They can call themselves "alpha and omega" for all I care. If it's fun I'll play, if it has potential and is being updated regularly I may even test or have a look at a later date. Bottom line is I don't give a shit what "stage of development" they say they are in for the most part. I'm trying to entertain myself now or in lesser circumstances I may be willing to dedicate some time to help a potentially good game.
All betas aren't the same either. Hell I've even played in some decent alpha's and finished or 1.0 versions of the game aren't always at a similar level of quality either. Not only that but the support and updates a game receives aren't always in accordance to their supposed place in the development cycle, I'm played in alphas where the base game barely changed over a long period of time and I've played in games post launch with excellent followthrough.
At the end of the day call it what you like and the proof will be in the pudding even if not immediately.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Flawed design issues should be caught long before beta. Especially with the pattern where modern beta is more like release candidate evaluation and public promotional event.
I think what happens might be* that design issues aren't allowed to be addressed during alpha. Or perhaps things are addressed and an executive decision is made to leave things as-is... "working as intended" and all that.
* I'm not game industry experienced
Actually, alpha and beta testing have real meanings in the software development profession. Here is the typical process as I see it:
- requirements document -- this sets out what the product is going to be, what it has to do. This is the easiest and best place to make any real changes in how it works
- implementation specification -- this describes how the product will be developed.
- unit test -- this happens when some part of the product is ready to test, normally in isolation
- alpha test -- the first time all the pieces are put together and tested. It is expected to be full of bugs and problems, and probably won't really work at all.
- beta test -- the first time all the pieces are put together and you expect them to actually work, mostly. Still probably full of bugs, but it might work.
During beta test is the first time any customer of ours gets to test the code, and we only provide it to "friendly" customers, since we expect it to have failures. We would then provide:
- early access -- this means some privileged customers get early access to the product, that is supposed to work. This is what is normally called "beta" in MMO's.
As you can see, the product design is basically set way back in the requirements document and spec. Beta test is not to see if the design is good, but to test if the design has been correctly implemented. It is much much too late to make any structural changes when you are in beta, and even in alpha test.
------------
2025: 48 years on the Net.
It looks like the beta test is enough. Maybe it depends on how long those alpha and beta are...? Or the pre-alpha period. And the bugs are another thing as well...
Also, MMOs have the regular maintenance to address the issues of the game. Unless those issues aren't fixed then yeah...it's not really going to do anything.
I remember that time when every maintenance, the bugs are fixed and new ones appear or the bugs don't get fixed and new ones appear or new bugs appear and old bugs reappear, and so on. >_<