---

Originally posted by nariusseldon No more arguing about my points about travel? Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one. I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features? Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".  

---

I haven't seen a travel arguement in a while. I tend not to debate these, since it's almost purely subjective. Using 'interesting' doesn't seem very descriptive, though. I'll assume that 'interesting' travel is how long a player will be traveling before he reaches content. I'm not going to throw my vote one way or the other, however I will say that there are certain game types that mesh with long travel times better than others. Games that have a lot of structured content and developer-set goals aren't very conducive (basically theme parks). It's more appropriate in a sandbox environment. Some people just like to see something off in the distance, and go there. That's the goal, not to get a piece of gear, or complete some quest, and the time it takes to get the is crucial to the experience. Sure, 'interesting' stuff can happen along the way, but it's not demanded.

I've played games where I really enjoyed having a long travel time, but I never really enjoyed the travel in WoW. If people said to get rid of travel all together in WoW, I'd probably agree. Don't get me wrong, Blizzard did a great job with the atmosphere, but the format doesn't really support it.

I think there is room in the market for both types of game. It seems silly to try and establish the perfect game for everyone, or some standard that needs to act as a template for future games. That would be boring.

Originally posted by blognorg

 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon No more arguing about my points about travel? Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one. I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features? Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".  

---

 

I haven't seen a travel arguement in a while. I tend not to debate these, since it's almost purely subjective. Using 'interesting' doesn't seem very descriptive, though. I'll assume that 'interesting' travel is how long a player will be traveling before he reaches content. I'm not going to throw my vote one way or the other, however I will say that there are certain game types that mesh with long travel times better than others. Games that have a lot of structured content and developer-set goals aren't very conducive (basically theme parks). It's more appropriate in a sandbox environment. Some people just like to see something off in the distance, and go there. That's the goal, not to get a piece of gear, or complete some quest, and the time it takes to get the is crucial to the experience. Sure, 'interesting' stuff can happen along the way, but it's not demanded.

I've played games where I really enjoyed having a long travel time, but I never really enjoyed the travel in WoW. If people said to get rid of travel all together in WoW, I'd probably agree. Don't get me wrong, Blizzard did a great job with the atmosphere, but the format doesn't really support it.

I think there is room in the market for both types of game. It seems silly to try and establish the perfect game for everyone, or some standard that needs to act as a template for future games. That would be boring.

Did you read all the arguments going back and forth in this thread?

It boils down to this. There are players who like a "commute" in their games ... but please count me out. First time, going from point A to B may be fun, but the 3rd time stops being fun for me, and i want a instance travel option.

Still calling these games MMORPG’s is to pretend they are of the same genre. They have changed their nature, they need a new name.

Game genres do change you know, adventures became point and click adventures to distinguish them from the new 3D ones. Gem collecting games were originally called puzzle games or even adventure games!

Also we used to call these games MMORPG’s right? Now it is MMO’s. That change was for abbreviation as much as anything, but it came into use as RPG became a small budget area of MMORPG’s.

ezMMO’s are what we have today, but any negative change of name would be fought against by an industry that wants to sell, sell, sell!

Eventually I think MMO’s will get a new name, but it will be a very positive mega hype one. How about Next Gen (NG)? that will make this easy MMO theme parks sound sexy.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by blognorg  

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon No more arguing about my points about travel? Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one. I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features? Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".  

---

  I haven't seen a travel arguement in a while. I tend not to debate these, since it's almost purely subjective. Using 'interesting' doesn't seem very descriptive, though. I'll assume that 'interesting' travel is how long a player will be traveling before he reaches content. I'm not going to throw my vote one way or the other, however I will say that there are certain game types that mesh with long travel times better than others. Games that have a lot of structured content and developer-set goals aren't very conducive (basically theme parks). It's more appropriate in a sandbox environment. Some people just like to see something off in the distance, and go there. That's the goal, not to get a piece of gear, or complete some quest, and the time it takes to get the is crucial to the experience. Sure, 'interesting' stuff can happen along the way, but it's not demanded. I've played games where I really enjoyed having a long travel time, but I never really enjoyed the travel in WoW. If people said to get rid of travel all together in WoW, I'd probably agree. Don't get me wrong, Blizzard did a great job with the atmosphere, but the format doesn't really support it. I think there is room in the market for both types of game. It seems silly to try and establish the perfect game for everyone, or some standard that needs to act as a template for future games. That would be boring.

---

Did you read all the arguments going back and forth in this thread? It boils down to this. There are players who like a "commute" in their games ... but please count me out. First time, going from point A to B may be fun, but the 3rd time stops being fun for me, and i want a instance travel option.  

---

I did, and my point was that it can also have something to do with the game, itself. I'm not saying that should prefer one over the other; I was only adding that it depends on the game for me. If you want instant teleportation , then I can't say that I blame you if you don't like a game that neglects to have that feature. 

I think something that could make travel more fun is something like random spawning loot bags, some of them have like mob ambushes attached to em though.

Traditional travelling is hella boring. Need something to spice it up.

Originally posted by jusomdude

I think something that could make travel more fun is something like random spawning loot bags, some of them have like mob ambushes attached to em though.

Traditional travelling is hella boring. Need something to spice it up.

ambushers reminds me of the Earth and Beyond.  When you were doing the fast travel/auto travel there was a chance that space pirates would set up a gravity well which would disrupt the flight and ambush you.  You either pay them the toll or they kill you.  Other options if you were high enough level was kill them

Originally posted by Scot

Still calling these games MMORPG’s is to pretend they are of the same genre. They have changed their nature, they need a new name.

Game genres do change you know, adventures became point and click adventures to distinguish them from the new 3D ones. Gem collecting games were originally called puzzle games or even adventure games!

Also we used to call these games MMORPG’s right? Now it is MMO’s. That change was for abbreviation as much as anything, but it came into use as RPG became a small budget area of MMORPG’s.

ezMMO’s are what we have today, but any negative change of name would be fought against by an industry that wants to sell, sell, sell!

Eventually I think MMO’s will get a new name, but it will be a very positive mega hype one. How about Next Gen (NG)? that will make this easy MMO theme parks sound sexy.

In any case "easy MMO" or "ezMMO" is not a very good term since older games weren't exactly challenging, just more complicated, inaccessible and they required a lot more time. Thats pretty much it. Whats been said over and over is that having more options does not automatically increase depth and pressing 3 buttons instead of just one to achieve the same goal makes the game hard the wrong way.

You use the term ezMMO in a derogatory meaning and it gives you the same type of credibility as if you used terms such as "WoW-clone", "instant gratification" and "console-generation". If we'd be face to face I'd be rolling my eyes.

Originally posted by jusomdude

I think something that could make travel more fun is something like random spawning loot bags, some of them have like mob ambushes attached to em though.

Traditional travelling is hella boring. Need something to spice it up.

One problem is to make such system invisible. For example, I picked up fairly quickly how the random encounters worked in Skyrim - and by quickly I mean about 1-2 hours into the game. I ended up anticipating when and where such encounters "emerged" and actually farmed them/abused them a little. Sure, if you are new to gaming such things may entertain you for a long time, but for me atleast, it would have to be quite elaborate to hide all the nuts and bolts.

I'm not saying I'm anythings special, I'm saying veteran players will learn all the mechanics quite quickly and, to some degree, ruin them for others - especially when we are talking about multiplayer games. There is no mystique about a dungeon or a boss monster's behavior if someone explains it to you.

Well this thread is a clusterfuck.

Personally I couldn't give a toss if a game is called MMORPG/MMOFPS/MOBA whatever, it is what the game actually does that matters. The worry is that genres become homogenized and lose aspects that are unique to them in the process. Then apsects can certainly be seen to be "dead". Not whether or not a game is called an MMORPG or not.

As for travel, in the specific case of virtual world type mmos. It has already been pointed out that it can be improved upon and methods of this improvement (or at the very least the key aspects for this) have also been demonstated. Whether such things ever actually get done is another matter.

If a developer can spend less time and effort, whilst at the same time developing a game which will generate more profit from short term player churn. Then it is questionable as to whether or not they are going to bother building an intricate game world, regardless as to it's merits. Especially if it affords the company the luxury of then simply creating another game, with which to churn again, much like the sequel model seen in offline games.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by kantseeme

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by kantseeme

 

Are you saying that travel must be interesting 100% of the time then? If so then thats just ridiculous. How interesting is your ride to work in the morning?

 Of course travel must be interesting 100% of the time IN A GAME. If i can push a button and instantly teleport to work, don't you think i will do that and skip the commute?

Travel is travel is travel. Sometimes its interesting and sometimes its not. I dont get this travel HAS to be interesting all the time otherwise its worthless and we needz insta ports thinking.

 If it is not interesting, or fun, why would i want to do it in a GAME? There should be an option to skip.

Travel is what you make of it. If you want to make it interesting then find ways to make it interesting.

 No. Boring is boring. If i am walking in a desert seeing nothing but sand ... there is pretty much nothing i can do to make it interesting.

Plus, a game is an ENTERTAINMENT product. It is the dev's job to make it interesting for me, it is not my job to find ways to make it interesting.

Travel IS game play. Make it interesting yourself. Dont rely on the devs to make it interesting.

 No. Bad gameplay is bad gameplay (for me). It is dev's job to entertain me. If i can do that (like sing a song when i walk), why do i have to play a GAME.

 

 

Your posts should be sent to game companys as prof of the reasons why games last for 1 month. Everything you spew Is evadence to it.

 

I will say it again. The type of game YOU want to play are not MMOs. There Single player lobby co-op games like D3 / black ops. The only reason your playing MMOs are because a horde of your kind crept into MMOs and started crying for features found in the games i pointed out.

 

Bad gameplay are features like insta porting. Why make a gameworld at all if you dont want to travel through it. Just stick to D3.

No more arguing about my points about travel?

Whats to argue? You dont like travel AT ALL. You dont travel. You insta port your way through games. Thats not travel.

Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one.

This is the mentality of a console gamer. 4 weeks is what it takes to beat games like Metal Gear, Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Dex. Not MMOs. MMOs use to have a shelf life of 2 years but now people like you have reduced them to these throw-a-way games we have today. Shame really the industry caved in to your ADHD approach to MMOs.

I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features?

Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".

 

Everything you justed described is the opposite of what a MMO should be. Your not even desribing MMOs anymore. There is a whole genre out there for you to play in. GameStop carries thousands of titles of single player console games for you to loose yourself in for 10 mins. ( if you can muster up the stamina to play that long)

By now if no one can see WHY this genre is in the state its in now, just refer yourself to every post nariusseldon has ever posted and read them. HE and his kind ARE the majority now and is the reason why the genre is the way it is.

Originally posted by SoulSurfer
Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

Its a tender topic for some of us.

I've been playing MMOs for a long time now and watched the genre move away from what it was always meant to be (a virtual world). It always started good, but then people complained and the developers tried to accomodate. The problem was that the people who were complaining were jump in jump out types of gamers. Meaning that they  jump in to a game, complain they have no time to play or this persons over powered, etc. then quit as soon as the devs fixed the game for them leaving a former shell of a game in the process. 

I'd say SWG was THE right path to what MMORPGs should have been. All they should have done was fix the memory leaks, balance the doctor buffs and continue developing items and content. Instead, they listen to people complaining about the difficulty and tried to make it easier. Well those people only play games for a short while anyways and conforming to them was the wrong thing to do. I don't think MMORPG developers realized these gamers are used to 8 hour action games. The quick jump in jump out instant gratification; finish the game and on to the next one. Maybe if they knew those types of gamers would come and go so quickly in their games they wouldn't have listened to their complaints. Now since WoW they tried MAKING the games out of the complaints from those earlier times. That's what caused these newer MMORPGs to be so throwaway.

I've been away from the scene for a while but still tried to play the games. I've yet to last the 30 days. Lately I've been on a retro kick and yearning for those games of yor. Unfortunately they've all becomee jokes and ghosts of what they used to be. I'm still trying to find a game that's out that is what SWG used to be.

Originally posted by Foomerang

The irony is that console games today are actually more open and diverse than these so called mmorpgs.

for example?

---

Originally posted by Sagasaint

---

Originally posted by Foomerang The irony is that console games today are actually more open and diverse than these so called mmorpgs.

---

for example?

---

Yakuza series, Sleeping Dogs, Deadly Premonition, LA Noire, Heavy Rain...

Originally posted by SoulSurfer
Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

Yeah, unfortunately for the gaming companies old gamers did not die when the decided to redesign MMO's for console and now social network players.

Once we do everyone can live in the la la land that modern MMO's are the best ever! Pre-order your copy of the one that is going to be this months five minute wonder today!

i agree ...i have to admit that everything out there is just lolly pops / rainbows / glitter ...the same product being released over n over n over again ..sure with a lil tweaking hear n there but not enuff to make a huge diff between them the only thing that catches my pvpness every once in awhile is LoL and even then thats a meh* ..the genra has been throw into a sewer drain like a dead body for everyone to see and the only ones that stop by to take a look are the kiddies pokeing it with sticks

Originally posted by kantseeme

Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one.

This is the mentality of a console gamer. 4 weeks is what it takes to beat games like Metal Gear, Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Dex. Not MMOs. MMOs use to have a shelf life of 2 years but now people like you have reduced them to these throw-a-way games we have today. Shame really the industry caved in to your ADHD approach to MMOs.

More like a gamer. I play more PC games than console. I do NOT apologize for my preference. So what if i am a "console gamer". Games are entertainment products and i use them as i see fit. Many console games, such as Dead Space, are much better games than MMOs.

I go to fun games, not specific genre. And if this style of MMO fits my play style, i do not see why i should/would not play & support them.

If you want so-so long term repetitive games, it is your perogative. I do not see having to stick to a GAME for 2 years as a virtue.

I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features?

Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".

 

Everything you justed described is the opposite of what a MMO should be. Your not even desribing MMOs anymore. There is a whole genre out there for you to play in. GameStop carries thousands of titles of single player console games for you to loose yourself in for 10 mins. ( if you can muster up the stamina to play that long)

"should be"? You decide that? News flash .. MMOs are more and more like that now, and I like it. And i will actively participate. Why even travel to gamestop? I can get many games, INCLUDING f2p mmos, on STEAM, which is a click away.

By now if no one can see WHY this genre is in the state its in now, just refer yourself to every post nariusseldon has ever posted and read them. HE and his kind ARE the majority now and is the reason why the genre is the way it is.

Thank you for boosting my readership. This genre is just progressing nicely. The next one i am watching out for, Marvel Heroes, will be like a Marvel Ultimate Alliance with MMO features. Definitely a must-play for me, particularly it is F2P.

Originally posted by Scot

Originally posted by SoulSurfer
Well this thread certainly isn't dead....

Yeah, unfortunately for the gaming companies old gamers did not die when the decided to redesign MMO's for console and now social network players.

Once we do everyone can live in the la la land that modern MMO's are the best ever! Pre-order your copy of the one that is going to be this months five minute wonder today!

"Pre-order"? YOu are kidding me. MMOs are going F2P. Just click on STEAM and download.

And you don't have to exaggerate .... good fun f2p MMOs can last a few weeks.

Originally posted by Axehilt

@Bunnyhopper: So if psuedo-AFKable travel requires maybe 1-3 decisions in 5-15 minutes, you think that's enough decisions for travel itself to be interesting?

The frequency of decisions isn't some absolute "more is always better" metric.

However a baseline of decisions is required to achieve the desired amount of game depth.

That baseline is greater than 1 decision every 5 minutes.

Well, what if travel could be tied into the game of playing the market?  Rather than a global AH, you have a lot of local markets where people can up a items to sell.  Someone could take items from one market travel a long ways away to another market to resell at a higher price. That makes it more a virtual world.   With the got to have it now crowd, you teleport everywhere making that game play meaningless.