Curiously I just went to The Bartle Test and it shows 8 of the last 10 are "Explorers".

I'd admit that that doesn't mean a whole lot, but I do think there are many gamers who do indeed want interesting game worlds and travel.

Disclaimer: my use of the term "travel" does not mean many minutes of nothing else, just empty movement. I only make this disclaimer because SOME posters here like to tell everyone else what I mean by the words I choose, causing many of threads to be derailed.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

"Players clearly aren't after that."

Prove that statement.

If they didn't want interaction, they wouldn't be playing games obviously!

Hate to say it but the ppls have a point. No one even wanted to admit swtor would go F2P in less than a year, seem to be all the same ppl saying that the genre isn't dead.

I'm pretty sure, while Bioware made have made an RPG, they forgot the MMO, and other games forget the RPG and only have half an MMO. This is just in general, there are some games around that are gems. Do not forget though, there is a real possibility that asain interests will dominiate, if they don't already, the multiplayer market space and leave us with nothin but korean grindfest MU online level 1-465 kill kill kills.

There are a lot of issues with MMORPG's, some that cannot be fixed through design. Players these days have less time to spend gaming. People in general gave less time to spend on anything other than work. Forcing game makers to consider the more accessible gaming route.

I don't think the genre is dead, maybe dying, and maybe it can make a comback but I don't know if the direction it's going is leading to the light or to the void.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

That is a shockingly poor comeback. You are simply arguing for arguings sake at this point (well for the past few pages in all honesty). 

I have "patched that gameplay" by making the movement through the game world interesting in the most natural and most intuitive way. As opposed to tacking on some crappy minigame.

When you are engaging with the game world (which is what I have been constantly advocating and have demonstrated how) then no, it is not "shallow". Travelling through interesting terrain, making you jump, sprint and dodge through it, making that matter. Travelling through dynamic areas with dynamic encounters. No, that is not "shallow". Not having ten extra buttons to press in order to move along does not make the system shallow.

 Frankly, thinking that ladling on extraneous hotbar movement "skills" or a minigame on top of the usual movement abilities will add more depth to a virtual world than actually improving said virtual world, is a bit of a #laughinggirls.jpg moment. 

Btw, saying the player should be actively engaged with the game world, saying that travel through it should matter as opposed to adding superflous button pressing minigames is quite, quite different from suggesting that "people do nothing for 15 minutes". 

I notice you are speaking for all players again. Good work.

If your suggestion involves gameplay on its own, without the outside world encounters, then it is a minigame. Whether or not it involves a hotbar is irrelevant, if it involves depth and mastery it's a minigame.  It's still not clear whether that actually was your suggestion, because you diluted it with the idea that dynamic world encounters would also help things -- and they'll help, but the gameplay of traveling itself is what the focus of the discussion is on because that's the giant hole in gameplay.

In fact the hotbar was never critical to what I'm suggesting, only that AFK traveling is solved, one way or another.  If travel becomes optional (fast travel) that's one solution.  If travel becomes deep, interesting gameplay, that's the other solution.  But allowing it to be this dead space of non-gameplay doesn't appeal to players because it forces them to deal with an uninteresting system at length (bad game design.)

So yeah...if you're fixated on my calling it a "minigame" or having a hotbar, you're arguing irrelevant points.  All that matters is the game doesnt' force significant periods of non-gameplay on players.  What matters is either limiting shallow gameplay (fast travel), or making gameplay deeper (deep travel.)  Anything else is an argument for shallow gameplay.

The only way I'm speaking for all players is by making the assumption that they're playing an interactive form of entertainment because they want interaction.  Not only a safe assumption, but an obvious conclusion.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Razeekster

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

I always thought it would be neat if they made the mob vs. player experience feel more real. Like say running from mobs. You can do that now, but there's something unreal about it in most MMOs. You know that there's a way to do it to get away and you're not really worried. It would be nice to somehow add a more sense of realism to it by making you scared of that said mob's ability to catch you. Something to do with the AI maybe? I am not sure, I'm just throwing out an idea really,

Improving the AI would certainly be the best bet, not just ramping up things like hit points etc.  But I think the key thing is not to have static spawns, if you know the area and you know exactly where a mob will always be, then you can learn easy ways of killing them safely.

 

I quite like the idea of randomly spawn x mobs in an rough area (that makes sense, not just dumping any old spawn anywhere). When they spawn the mobs have a mob "rating". This group of mobs then dynamically roams about within a set radius. If within that set radius they encounter players, other "good npcs" or villages, they will attack them. Should the mobs defeat the "goodies" then the mobs rating increases. When this happens one of two things can occur:

 

Either other mobs within a set radius migrate to the higher score mobs and join forces.

Or the mob simply gets more mobs spawned in.

Either way the power and the size of the group increases as does their roam range. This carries on until they either wipe everything out or the players get together and wipe them out. Interestingly this means in the more dangerous, wilderness areas, you may get massively dangerous groups coming together and essentially launching attacks on safer land etc.

 

That or have GM lead monster run events, even allowing other players to jump into the role of the monsters for a bit within these events and have a bit of a rampage around.

I agree with the idea of AI. MOBs should have at least a basic ability to recognize some basic tacical circumstances like "losing this battle" and react by fleeing, or a tactical retreat.

I think this situation can also be greatly enhanced by the design of the MOBs, game world, and player capabilities. It would get too involved to try to spell it out, but basically I think evade maneuvers against faster MOBs while being chased could add a lot to game play and excitement. Also tactical choices like paralizing spells or special attacks or poisons, things that give a player a little bit of time to make some distance.

In this sense, I've always felt that "Escape Tactics" in all forms and circumstances should be given much more game play than simply Hit Button = Kill = Loot = Guaranteed Win.

I also am a strong proponent of randon encounters and wondering MOBs. There's a lot of leeway here, depending on the rest of the game and financing and all that.

Originally posted by Amaranthar 
We're talking about interaction with the game world.

Don't see how the type of interaction matters.  Players could've chosen non-interactive entertainment, but didn't.  They want interaction.

Travel gameplay can involve any sort of interaction.  Interaction with the world (rough terrain slowing movement), interaction with the game (a hotbar to maximize speed), or interaction with other players (roads/rough terrain can be setup by other players.)

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar 
We're talking about interaction with the game world.

Don't see how the type of interaction matters.  Players could've chosen non-interactive entertainment, but didn't.  They want interaction.

Travel gameplay can involve any sort of interaction.  Interaction with the world (rough terrain slowing movement), interaction with the game (a hotbar to maximize speed), or interaction with other players (roads/rough terrain can be setup by other players.)

And diversity is critical, in my opinion. Diversity and random possibilities.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

If your suggestion involves gameplay on its own, without the outside world encounters, then it is a minigame. Whether or not it involves a hotbar is irrelevant, if it involves depth and mastery it's a minigame.  It's still not clear whether that actually was your suggestion, because you diluted it with the idea that dynamic world encounters would also help things -- and they'll help, but the gameplay of traveling itself is what the focus of the discussion is on because that's the giant hole in gameplay.

In fact the hotbar was never critical to what I'm suggesting, only that AFK traveling is solved, one way or another.  If travel becomes optional (fast travel) that's one solution.  If travel becomes deep, interesting gameplay, that's the other solution.  But allowing it to be this dead space of non-gameplay doesn't appeal to players because it forces them to deal with an uninteresting system at length (bad game design.)

So yeah...if you're fixated on my calling it a "minigame" or having a hotbar, you're arguing irrelevant points.  All that matters is the game doesnt' force significant periods of non-gameplay on players.  What matters is either limiting shallow gameplay (fast travel), or making gameplay deeper (deep travel.)  Anything else is an argument for shallow gameplay.

The only way I'm speaking for all players is by making the assumption that they're playing an interactive form of entertainment because they want interaction.  Not only a safe assumption, but an obvious conclusion.

The interaction comes via engagement with the gaming world. Whether that is purely down to the player engaging with the game space, or via the player engaging with dynamic encounters and other players (or using the terrain to avoid said encounters). A good virtual world interlinks the two, makes the player think about and interact with the game world.

That is not a "minigame", nor does it require extraneous movement abilities or hotbar skills.

You can AFK travel if you like, but you will more then likely end up dead, either via falling foul of the game world (dropping off a cliff, slipping off an icy slope or drowning etc). Or by falling foul of dynamic npcs or players.

"Deeper travel" is best generated by engaging the player with the game world and the agents within it. Not by adding what will essentially be superfluous extra movement skills, or by skipping sections of the game world. That is what I have been repeatedly positing after orignally pointing out what a game world and travel through it can offer.

---

Originally posted by kartool

---

Originally posted by Foomerang  

---

Originally posted by bhug giant graphs and pie charts showing massive profit

---

  Thanks for that. However, this is about the genre in regards to the games themselves, not the money they generate. There is a difference. There are countless examples of things that have lost their soul and make crap tons of money.

---

So in other words it's about personal opinion and not any actual facts or data. Surprising.

---

I agree with the OP.

Developers have basically turned single player games into multiplayer games and are the ones driving all of the content held within. 8-10 years ago when the community was much better than it is today content was made by the players (See sandbox MMOs) with minor content being put in by developers, this was the golden age of the concept.

Bring in the society of instant gratification and you have people who instead of being social require LFG/LFD tools so they don't have to talk to anybody, they can just press a button and go.

The problem is this is a society problem with entitlements etc and nobody wants to use their imagination or do any work themsleves. Its pathetic.

---

Originally posted by Dominisi
The problem is this is a society problem with entitlements etc and nobody wants to use their imagination or do any work themsleves. Its pathetic.

---

Its a double standard that exists not just in mmorpgs, but in social interaction in general these days.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

That is a shockingly poor comeback. You are simply arguing for arguings sake at this point (well for the past few pages in all honesty). 

I have "patched that gameplay" by making the movement through the game world interesting in the most natural and most intuitive way. As opposed to tacking on some crappy minigame.

When you are engaging with the game world (which is what I have been constantly advocating and have demonstrated how) then no, it is not "shallow". Travelling through interesting terrain, making you jump, sprint and dodge through it, making that matter. Travelling through dynamic areas with dynamic encounters. No, that is not "shallow". Not having ten extra buttons to press in order to move along does not make the system shallow.

 Frankly, thinking that ladling on extraneous hotbar movement "skills" or a minigame on top of the usual movement abilities will add more depth to a virtual world than actually improving said virtual world, is a bit of a #laughinggirls.jpg moment. 

Btw, saying the player should be actively engaged with the game world, saying that travel through it should matter as opposed to adding superflous button pressing minigames is quite, quite different from suggesting that "people do nothing for 15 minutes". 

I notice you are speaking for all players again. Good work.

If your suggestion involves gameplay on its own, without the outside world encounters, then it is a minigame. Whether or not it involves a hotbar is irrelevant, if it involves depth and mastery it's a minigame.  It's still not clear whether that actually was your suggestion, because you diluted it with the idea that dynamic world encounters would also help things -- and they'll help, but the gameplay of traveling itself is what the focus of the discussion is on because that's the giant hole in gameplay.

In fact the hotbar was never critical to what I'm suggesting, only that AFK traveling is solved, one way or another.  If travel becomes optional (fast travel) that's one solution.  If travel becomes deep, interesting gameplay, that's the other solution.  But allowing it to be this dead space of non-gameplay doesn't appeal to players because it forces them to deal with an uninteresting system at length (bad game design.)

So yeah...if you're fixated on my calling it a "minigame" or having a hotbar, you're arguing irrelevant points.  All that matters is the game doesnt' force significant periods of non-gameplay on players.  What matters is either limiting shallow gameplay (fast travel), or making gameplay deeper (deep travel.)  Anything else is an argument for shallow gameplay.

The only way I'm speaking for all players is by making the assumption that they're playing an interactive form of entertainment because they want interaction.  Not only a safe assumption, but an obvious conclusion.

Traveling IS game play. To forsake it because some find it boring or tediaus is rediculous. Insta porting to places are killing these game worlds by taking people out of it plain and simple. If you cant spare  5 - 10 mins of travle time to get to a location then MMOs arent what you should be playing.

Dont care if you like what i have to say or not. Getting tired of these "give you everything now now now" MMOs. These games have be come nothing but pieces of shit lobby based co - op single player games. There not MMOs anymore. There not even RPGs anymore. If iv pissed you off oh well.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

And diversity is critical, in my opinion. Diversity and random possibilities. 

Sure but even if travel is only deep in one of those ways it's not like the game isn't going to be deep in the other ways.  Travel's not the only game feature, it's just the shallowest one most in need of help.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

The interaction comes via engagement with the gaming world. Whether that is purely down to the player engaging with the game space, or via the player engaging with dynamic encounters and other players (or using the terrain to avoid said encounters). A good virtual world interlinks the two, makes the player think about and interact with the game world.

That is not a "minigame", nor does it require extraneous movement abilities or hotbar skills.

You can AFK travel if you like, but you will more then likely end up dead, either via falling foul of the game world (dropping off a cliff, slipping off an icy slope or drowning etc). Or by falling foul of dynamic npcs or players.

"Deeper travel" is best generated by engaging the player with the game world and the agents within it. Not by adding what will essentially be superfluous extra movement skills, or by skipping sections of the game world. That is what I have been repeatedly positing after orignally pointing out what a game world and travel through it can offer.

Ironically it's not a step in the right direction to point out that travel isn't actually AFKable.  It's psuedo-AFKable.  And that makes things worse.  Because you can't simply step away from the game and do something else.  No, you don't have that player freedom.  You're instead forced to sit there making virtually no interesting decisions.  It's even worse than if the activity was actually AFKable.

As long as the "engagement via the gaming world" you're talking about solves that psuedo-AFK situation, then that's a real solution.  Otherwise we end up with an EVE, DF, etc game where sure 1% of the time something dynamic happens, but the overwhelming majority of your travel time is utterly shallow non-gameplay.

So the engagement via the gaming world would need to be consistently deep/engaging system to actually address the problem.

Originally posted by kantseeme

Traveling IS game play. To forsake it because some find it boring or tediaus is rediculous. Insta porting to places are killing these game worlds by taking people out of it plain and simple. If you cant spare  5 - 10 mins of travle time to get to a location then MMOs arent what you should be playing.

Dont care if you like what i have to say or not. Getting tired of these "give you everything now now now" MMOs. These games have be come nothing but pieces of shit lobby based co - op single player games. There not MMOs anymore. There not even RPGs anymore. If iv pissed you off oh well.

Gameplay is interesting decisions.

Watching your character's run animation while steering around mobs is only interesting to very new gamers, and quickly becomes old.  Because it's a very shallow game mechanic.  It's the Tic Tac Toe of MMORPGs.

You can pretend MMOs aren't what I should be playing, but the desires of players to engage in gameplay and not have their time thrown away by game developers are overwhelmingly changing how these games work to the way I prefer.

So you of all people should be in favor of the gameplay-in-travel idea I'm suggesting here -- because the inevitable alternative is instant travel everwhere!

Games which completely waste players' time with non-gameplay simply don't fly, and they'll always lose out in the end to games which are dense experiences involving deep, interesting decisions.  You'll still need optional downtime or "zen" activities, but none of those should be required activities unless you're building something super casual like FarmVille where the only point is to be a relaxation activity.

Hip hop is dead.. Classic action movies are dead.. Sidescrolling beat em ups are dead.. Michael Jackson, the king of pop, is dead.. 

MMORPG's, however, are not dead.. They have simply evolved.. Just like everything else in life that follows evolution cycles, you either adapt or perish..

The sad part is not that the original post is correct.

The sad part is that companies tried to make MMOs like this from 2000-2004 and they all failed, taking most of the actually good game concepts and licenses with them.  (Motor City Online, Auto Assault.)