Originally posted by Banaghran

Yes and no, yes because there are certainly more skills and mechanics involved, especially in combat, no because their IMPACT is rather small (especially in crafting) , most of the time you just need to mindlessly mash your memorized primary rotation (or craft the latest thing in your list) and have some situational awareness, and you end up performing at 80-90% of your maximum possible output, which is sufficient for everything besides some hardmodes, compared to older systems, where you would either die or do no output.

While I don't actually agree with it, I accept this point of view as entirely valid.

However, the point still stands that there is more work going into today's gameplay mechanics than ever was in the past. This is not a situation of developers being lazy, either from a design or content perspective, and they are not simply leaving things out and dumbing down games.

They are just intentionally making games in a way you don't like, which is a lot different than just being lazy and stealing children's money.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

In the end, though, I still think its a shame that some people treat reading like leprosy. I really think its a sign of the falling literacy rate in North America.

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Certainly NOT true. Just compare EQ mage combat mechanics (at least till Kunark while i was playing) to WOW mage combat mecahnics. There is no CDs, no procs, no rotation, no mana management (like arcane mage), and only DD. Just on the DPS mechanics side, WOW is 10x mroe complex.

Resource is another example. How many type of resources are used in EQ? How many are used in WOW (each with its own mechanics).

 

 

Yes and no, yes because there are certainly more skills and mechanics involved, especially in combat, no because their IMPACT is rather small (especially in crafting) , most of the time you just need to mindlessly mash your memorized primary rotation (or craft the latest thing in your list) and have some situational awareness, and you end up performing at 80-90% of your maximum possible output, which is sufficient for everything besides some hardmodes, compared to older systems, where you would either die or do no output.

In a way it is like saying this particular white wall is more complex just because you painted it with a 1 inch brush instead of a roller.

Complexity is complexity. The statement that "WOW is more complex than EQ in combat mechanics" is true. HOW you use the complexity and what it leads to .. is another story. Personally, I would MUCH rather have a rotation, then spamming ONE DD spell, as in EQ mage.

Side note on the arcane mage, the ab stacking and so on is a nice mechanic, but unfortunately within the game system it is nothing more than pacing yourself, because even "burn phases" are few and their impact is small and you have actually no way of capitalizing on the possibility of increased damage output due to very strict mana input restrictions (no more potion spamming, for example) in pve and the overall fragility of the arcane mage in pvp (paranoia doesnt help either, there were times when i casted slow on someone and in 2 seconds i had three pets and a rogue on me, regularly).

You are wrong on the arcane mage.

1) You need to go read theorycrafting. The burn phase is MOST of your DPS. In fact, a burn phase last roughly 20-25 sec, and you can do one roughly every 2 min. Time-wise, it is about 1/6 of the fight. Damage-wise, it is a lot higher (don't believe me, go look for a combat log on many websites).

2) TIMING the burn-phase is very important. If you can time it to coincide with boss mechanics, it can have a HUGE effect. EXAMPLE, the <span npclink"="">Warlord Zon'ozz fight. I have done that fight many times. If i burn from beginning, my average fight dps is roughly 30k. If i time the burns during the "black fight", my average DPS goes up to around 40k. That is a 33% increase. Similarly, if you use the burn phase well in the madness of Deathwing fight, your DPS can double.

3) You are ignoring mini-burn phase, particularly with the 4-piece mage tier-13 bonus. You can use AP *between* the main burn phase. There are  A LOT OF strategy in how to manage all these well. Now, i do admit that in LFR fights, you will prob win anyway. However, it is satisfying to see the difference DPS between a well play Arcane mage, and one who don't understand how to optimize the mechanics.

 

Originally posted by JimyHumuHumu

Originally posted by Kyleran

Doesn't mean we're stagnant at all, if we're going to use analogies it would be better to imagine what would it be like if smart phones didn't actually make phone calls anymore because more people prefer to text/facebook/twitter instead.

Modern MMO's are more like that example, lots of flash and style, but a bit short on depth and features.

 

pretty much this.

It's more like if you had a hardcore following of land-line phone owners who were outraged at land-line phone technologies failing to innovate.

...and meanwhile cellphones and smartphones (new "genres" of phones) have been out for years and the hardcore following demands innovation but refuses to participate in it because they refuse to switch "genres".

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by JimyHumuHumu

Originally posted by Kyleran

Doesn't mean we're stagnant at all, if we're going to use analogies it would be better to imagine what would it be like if smart phones didn't actually make phone calls anymore because more people prefer to text/facebook/twitter instead.

Modern MMO's are more like that example, lots of flash and style, but a bit short on depth and features.

 

pretty much this.

It's more like if you had a hardcore following of land-line phone owners who were outraged at land-line phone technologies failing to innovate.

...and meanwhile cellphones and smartphones (new "genres" of phones) have been out for years and the hardcore following demands innovation but refuses to participate in it because they refuse to switch "genres".

Naw, my analogy was much better.

 My answer would be when you cannot enjoy something you don't think you'll like.  It's a stubborness issue IMO.  I've certainly done it: "I remember when most of the content was group based" lol.  I've had to play many titles without this and still managed to get by a while.  I try to always look at each game differently and break them down into functions.  This will help only so long however and until a game comes along that has a main feature or two you're bound to hop.  At least this was me.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Complexity is complexity. The statement that "WOW is more complex than EQ in combat mechanics" is true. HOW you use the complexity and what it leads to .. is another story. Personally, I would MUCH rather have a rotation, then spamming ONE DD spell, as in EQ mage.

You are wrong on the arcane mage.

1) You need to go read theorycrafting. The burn phase is MOST of your DPS. In fact, a burn phase last roughly 20-25 sec, and you can do one roughly every 2 min. Time-wise, it is about 1/6 of the fight. Damage-wise, it is a lot higher (don't believe me, go look for a combat log on many websites).

2) TIMING the burn-phase is very important. If you can time it to coincide with boss mechanics, it can have a HUGE effect. EXAMPLE, the <span npclink"="">Warlord Zon'ozz fight. I have done that fight many times. If i burn from beginning, my average fight dps is roughly 30k. If i time the burns during the "black fight", my average DPS goes up to around 40k. That is a 33% increase. Similarly, if you use the burn phase well in the madness of Deathwing fight, your DPS can double.

3) You are ignoring mini-burn phase, particularly with the 4-piece mage tier-13 bonus. You can use AP *between* the main burn phase. There are  A LOT OF strategy in how to manage all these well. Now, i do admit that in LFR fights, you will prob win anyway. However, it is satisfying to see the difference DPS between a well play Arcane mage, and one who don't understand how to optimize the mechanics.

 

 

The question is not HOW, the question is IF, that is why i wrote "YES and NO", there was this issue with only 5% of players "experiencing" hard raids, but somehow 5% of players experiencing the mechanics is ok, especially in a world where unfortunately those mechanics have become a HUGE part of the game.

As for arcane mage, you are free to convince me otherwise, because i had my hopes up for a while, until i looked at parses and statistics and found out that nothing has changed much since i had played, fire is still better and all the mechanics you speak so fond of do not really seem to make you shine in any way, maybe just for you, painting the wall with the small brush...

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by JimyHumuHumu

Originally posted by Kyleran

Doesn't mean we're stagnant at all, if we're going to use analogies it would be better to imagine what would it be like if smart phones didn't actually make phone calls anymore because more people prefer to text/facebook/twitter instead.

Modern MMO's are more like that example, lots of flash and style, but a bit short on depth and features.

 

pretty much this.

It's more like if you had a hardcore following of land-line phone owners who were outraged at land-line phone technologies failing to innovate.

...and meanwhile cellphones and smartphones (new "genres" of phones) have been out for years and the hardcore following demands innovation but refuses to participate in it because they refuse to switch "genres".

Maybe from your point of view, from mine the "genre change" looks like a fancy land-line phone with a video camera, failing when the power goes down, constantly loosing connection and transferring nearly unintelligible sounds due to the need to share the line with the video.

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Banaghran

The question is not HOW, the question is IF, that is why i wrote "YES and NO", there was this issue with only 5% of players "experiencing" hard raids, but somehow 5% of players experiencing the mechanics is ok, especially in a world where unfortunately those mechanics have become a HUGE part of the game.

Hmm .. the complex mechanics is in EVERY level of the game. Even the easy part (questing). Complex is not necessarily difficult because you do not need to play optimally to advance.

As for arcane mage, you are free to convince me otherwise, because i had my hopes up for a while, until i looked at parses and statistics and found out that nothing has changed much since i had played, fire is still better and all the mechanics you speak so fond of do not really seem to make you shine in any way, maybe just for you, painting the wall with the small brush...

I was merely pointing out that mechanics matters. Otherwise, you won't have theorycrafters doing so much work on it.

I was NOT comparing arcane to fire. Fire has as MUCH complexity in mechanics.

Plus, it was well known that who comes on top changes. In 4.2, Arcane is way ahead of fire and it is calibration, not the mecahnics.

Plus, you care about DPS numbers and which class comes on top on the chart? I though you only care about if the mechanics is fun .. and arcane *is* .. because doing it differently makes a huge difference (within the same arcane spec).

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Hmm .. the complex mechanics is in EVERY level of the game. Even the easy part (questing). Complex is not necessarily difficult because you do not need to play optimally to advance.

I was merely pointing out that mechanics matters. Otherwise, you won't have theorycrafters doing so much work on it.

I was NOT comparing arcane to fire. Fire has as MUCH complexity in mechanics.

Plus, it was well known that who comes on top changes. In 4.2, Arcane is way ahead of fire and it is calibration, not the mecahnics.

Plus, you care about DPS numbers and which class comes on top on the chart? I though you only care about if the mechanics is fun .. and arcane *is* .. because doing it differently makes a huge difference (within the same arcane spec).

 

Complex mechanics, that was my original point, can you really say, that XXX has more complex combat mechanics than YYY, when the overwhelming majority playing XXX never uses them, and, more importantly, never feels the NEED to use them? And i was talking about mechanics the player has to be involved in, not complex backend calculations therorycrafters love so much.

As for arcane mage, the diferrence for me between fire and arcane is that one has to manage mana, has a super costly high dps option the other does not, in fire you still spam fireball, wait for hot streaks, cast combustion when the damage is big enough and so on. Now what i have a problem with is, that it does not matter, one would assume the spec with the option to frontload the damage in specific situations would atleast be on par with (if not better than) the spec that hasnt this option on fights with burn phases, the boss having greater damage done to him and so on, but it does not look like it.

I guess it is the same old "should someone having to mash just 2 buttons without any though have the same output than someone having a complex rotation with decisions?" (and i am talking in general, not mages), a result of the devs trying to make everyone the same for raids, but different for flavor.

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Sythion

While I don't actually agree with it, I accept this point of view as entirely valid.

However, the point still stands that there is more work going into today's gameplay mechanics than ever was in the past. This is not a situation of developers being lazy, either from a design or content perspective, and they are not simply leaving things out and dumbing down games.

They are just intentionally making games in a way you don't like, which is a lot different than just being lazy and stealing children's money.

 

More work into mechanics, probably yes, and it was mentioned on the wow forums way back, that if you make everyone the same and even WANT everyone to perform the same, you will probably spend much more time fine tuning the classes between each other than you have ever spent on making them "viable" in the past. Which i think is happening. So more work yes, more output, no. :)

As for devs making games the way i dont like, well, and dont take it too seriosly, problem is, as long as they are not super successfull with them, there is always the lingering thought that "my" way was the better, isnt there? :)

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Sythion

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

In the end, though, I still think its a shame that some people treat reading like leprosy. I really think its a sign of the falling literacy rate in North America.

As much of a shame as you think it is, claiming that you can only appreciate a game style because others are too stupid usually speaks to elitism more than realism.

 

First of all, I never called anyone stupid. Literacy is not a measure of intelligence, or lack thereof.

Literacy should, however, be the norm. It has been for a long time now. Knowing how to read doesn't make me an elitist, it make me normal. A lot of the people who look at reading as a chore often do so because they're poor at it. Rather than becoming better readers (which, like anything comes with practice), they just try to avoid it.

Games used to be good practice, whether intentionally or not. Some games still are, but most these days are not. My intention here was only to point out the correlation between changing trends. If that causes some people to get defensive, maybe it means they're insecure about their own literacy.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

 

First of all, I never called anyone stupid. Literacy is not a measure of intelligence, or lack thereof.

Literacy should, however, be the norm. It has been for a long time now. Knowing how to read doesn't make me an elitist, it make me normal. A lot of the people who look at reading as a chore often do so because they're poor at it. Rather than becoming better readers (which, like anything comes with practice), they just try to avoid it.

 

Text, after all, is just ONE method of communication. It is useful, and highly efficient in many context but NOT all. For example, academic and scientific knowledge capture is best done in text because it can contain a lot of information within a relative small amount of text (academic style writing) and let the reader to absorb the knowledge in their own pace.

However, I would maintain that text is NOT the best medium for VIDEO games. First, it conveys LESS emotional information than voice. Second, there is a much wider variation in the audience ability in decoding text, than decoding audio, and thus the experience is not well controlled.

People do need to become good reader (and writer) if they want to be successful in a knoweldge economy. However, video game is NOT the place to do it.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

 

First of all, I never called anyone stupid. Literacy is not a measure of intelligence, or lack thereof.

Literacy should, however, be the norm. It has been for a long time now. Knowing how to read doesn't make me an elitist, it make me normal. A lot of the people who look at reading as a chore often do so because they're poor at it. Rather than becoming better readers (which, like anything comes with practice), they just try to avoid it.

 

Text, after all, is just ONE method of communication. It is useful, and highly efficient in many context but NOT all. For example, academic and scientific knowledge capture is best done in text because it can contain a lot of information within a relative small amount of text (academic style writing) and let the reader to absorb the knowledge in their own pace.

However, I would maintain that text is NOT the best medium for VIDEO games. First, it conveys LESS emotional information than voice. Second, there is a much wider variation in the audience ability in decoding text, than decoding audio, and thus the experience is not well controlled.

People do need to become good reader (and writer) if they want to be successful in a knoweldge economy. However, video game is NOT the place to do it.

Its a matter of preference, really. One could argue that it leaves more to the imagination. Any given individual may have his or her own interperetation of how a cahracter's voice may sound, or of the nuances of their tone.

Take a look at the disaster that was Metroid Other M. They decided to give Samus a voice, and fans of the series damn-near revolted. Everyone had their own image of the voiceless heroine that they've enjoyed for near 2 decades, suddenly to have that shattered by something so innocuous as voice acting.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

 

Its a matter of preference, really. One could argue that it leaves more to the imagination. Any given individual may have his or her own interperetation of how a cahracter's voice may sound, or of the nuances of their tone.

Take a look at the disaster that was Metroid Other M. They decided to give Samus a voice, and fans of the series damn-near revolted. Everyone had their own image of the voiceless heroine that they've enjoyed for near 2 decades, suddenly to have that shattered by something so innocuous as voice acting.

Having ONE bad example does not invalidate the technique. Is CGI a bad thing for movies, just because some movies mis-use it?

Can you imagine a SKYRIM with all text? A Deus Ex with all text?

And while there is some personal preference in this, there is also a predominant view. Think about movies. I am sure there are still a few out there that prefers silent films with text dialogue. But 99.99% of the movie viewers would NOT have that view.

In fact, your argument (about using imagination) is the same one that promote interactive fiction (i.e. text advantures) back in the 80s. And while a very small minority still play them, MOST gamers prefer a visual and audio environment, instead of a text one.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

 

Its a matter of preference, really. One could argue that it leaves more to the imagination. Any given individual may have his or her own interperetation of how a cahracter's voice may sound, or of the nuances of their tone.

Take a look at the disaster that was Metroid Other M. They decided to give Samus a voice, and fans of the series damn-near revolted. Everyone had their own image of the voiceless heroine that they've enjoyed for near 2 decades, suddenly to have that shattered by something so innocuous as voice acting.

Having ONE bad example does not invalidate the technique. Is CGI a bad thing for movies, just because some movies mis-use it?

Can you imagine a SKYRIM with all text? A Deus Ex with all text?

And while there is some personal preference in this, there is also a predominant view. Think about movies. I am sure there are still a few out there that prefers silent films with text dialogue. But 99.99% of the movie viewers would NOT have that view.

In fact, your argument (about using imagination) is the same one that promote interactive fiction (i.e. text advantures) back in the 80s. And while a very small minority still play them, MOST gamers prefer a visual and audio environment, instead of a text one.

 

Once again, you're trying to argue your opinion as absolute. Continuing this conversation would be pointless, therefor I'll stop here.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Its a matter of preference, really. One could argue that it leaves more to the imagination. Any given individual may have his or her own interperetation of how a cahracter's voice may sound, or of the nuances of their tone.

Take a look at the disaster that was Metroid Other M. They decided to give Samus a voice, and fans of the series damn-near revolted. Everyone had their own image of the voiceless heroine that they've enjoyed for near 2 decades, suddenly to have that shattered by something so innocuous as voice acting.

Having ONE bad example does not invalidate the technique. Is CGI a bad thing for movies, just because some movies mis-use it?

Can you imagine a SKYRIM with all text? A Deus Ex with all text?

And while there is some personal preference in this, there is also a predominant view. Think about movies. I am sure there are still a few out there that prefers silent films with text dialogue. But 99.99% of the movie viewers would NOT have that view.

In fact, your argument (about using imagination) is the same one that promote interactive fiction (i.e. text advantures) back in the 80s. And while a very small minority still play them, MOST gamers prefer a visual and audio environment, instead of a text one.

Once again, you're trying to argue your opinion as absolute. Continuing this conversation would be pointless, therefor I'll stop here.

It is not an opinion he is going on about, but rather a set of statistics.  Most people prefer to have voice for something that is emotional, rather than read it.  However, that does not make it absolute, and I can't really agree Nar thinks that all fiction should be audio only.  You both are arguing for the sake of arguing, really.

Another important piece of information is how text and voice are more adeptly handled in games.  Currently, MMO's do not have the same emotional appeal as movies, so having voiced cut scenes almost is kind of pointless, as many people will just skip them.  In a normal game, the possibility for attachment is greater, so you have more time invested in certain characters and care about their outcomes.  But the story is also largely predetermined as well, so that is a bit moot.

Of course, there are many situations in which technical details can be explained well by text.  Things like where to go for a quest, who to kill, and so on.  It can also be used to convey stories that are not being told at the present, much like when we read a fairy tale.

TLDR:  Text is useful in circumstances that require a reader to get the gist of what to do or general story, Audio is useful to convey emotion.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Can you imagine a SKYRIM with all text? A Deus Ex with all text?

Pretty sure Deus Ex did have all text, even any portions that were spoken had the text written as well.. I mean it was released 12 years ago...

Originally posted by OberanMiM

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Can you imagine a SKYRIM with all text? A Deus Ex with all text? 

Pretty sure Deus Ex did have all text, even any portions that were spoken had the text written as well.. I mean it was released 12 years ago...

The original Deus Ex had voiceacting, making it exactly like Skyrim (including the fact that both games have subtitles...which in no way makes them "all text" games.)

I remember, because after suffering through flat FPS mechanics it was the flat voice-acting and weak cutscenes that finally turned me away from the game (after just 1 mission.)

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

It's not just the games, it's the gamers.  I spent a while playing a Japanese game SMT: Imagine (aka mega-ten).  Even in the English language server, it was pretty clear that it wasn't your normal MMO crowd.  With very difficult combat and a strong death penalty, it is common for people to call out on chat needing a ressurection.

 

Can you imagine calling out on a US WoW server that you needed a rez and having some stranger stop what they're doing and make a several minute trek to help you out?

 

I guess what I'm saying is the good old days might not be just about good old games, but good old players as well.

 Reminds me of when I started playing Lineage 2.  I foolishly decided to take a short cut to get to town, and got myself killed.  Spent about a half hour looking for someone to rez me.  Not looking in the sense that I was trying to simply find someone to do it, but find someone who would actually do it and not someone that would steal all my gear.   After talking to a few people I settled on one individual who came across as being as honest as I could expect, I gave them my general location, and they rezed me. 

Laying around dead for half hour or more.  Begging someone to rez me and not rob me.  Then laying there waiting for them to show up and praying to god someone else didn't stumble onto my corpse and steal my stuff.  I really didn't mind any of it.  It was a part of the game; to be expected.  My blood was pumping, adrenaline was flowing, friends made, and a valuable lesson was learned. 

Of course the magority of people aren't going to enjoy that, nor would I expect them to.  However, there are enough people that enjoy challenging games that have a real sense of risk and reward, that the only reason to cater to the much larger masses is because you're trying to make as much as you can. 

Today devs are sinking astronomical amounts of money into MMO's in an effort to carve out a change of that playerbase that represents the magority, and can't seem to understand that it's pointless.  That magority has numerous options already available to them.  There are hundreds of stripped down, easy, feature light, MMO"s on the market.  Most people are only playing game version number 1000 because that's what gets pushed out, not neccisarilly becuase that's what they prefer. 

I don't think it's any coinsidence that MMO's used to have players who played for years, and today they have players that play for months.  A few months is about all you're going to get out of someone, if what you give them is just another version fo the game they already spent the last few years playing.  People don't wake up one day and suddenly decide that the MMO they play is bad, it's becasue they find they need something els, but something else is always what they already had because the developers only develop for money; not for gamers.

If they would start putting some of the game, back into the games, they may just find that there is a much larger market for their game then they expected. 

How could you know if an open world, free-form, fantasy based,  sandbox mmo, with a robust PvP feature won't work when it's never been done at a AAA level?  When 4 out of every 5 themepark that caters to the casual gamer, and is feature light releases and then massively underperforms, why wouldn't you come to the conclusion that it's the because people are waiting for something else?

Lineage 2, worldwide, was just as big as WoW.  In the US, it did just as well as any of the pve themeparks that have released, and better then most.  Yet, developers wouldn't dream of putting some of the features of L2 into an MMO today, because they think it wouldn't do well, even though all the game without those "hardcore"  features don't seem to be doing so well themselves.  It took 7 years for L2 to go F2P, how long did it take LoTRO again?