Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 It isn't though.  Not to me. Travel is boring, it's non gameplay.  Nothing exciting every happens there is no challenge, no depth, nothing interesting.  It is just waiting.  To me it's rediculout that to do something as dull as travel.

In chess we often do limit the time for the other perons actions.  The cutscenes in most games I find interesting for a short while, then it just gets annoying.  Spacebar through all that stuff because it is again just waiting. 

If travel had things happening, dynamic events, unexpected events, something engaging than it would be part of the game.  As it is, it is not, it is waiting to get back to the game. 

Whether it's lobby or an MMO doesn't matter to me.  I want interesting gameplay, challenge, decisions puzzles.  None of that happens in travel. 

Travel on a jetski, horse, flight is fun the first time.  Not the 700th - again nothing interesting is happening.

It isn't though. Not to me. Travel is exciting. It's a break from gameplay. Lots of exciting things can be stumbled upon, easter eggs, a great placement of scenery, the sun hitting the enviorment the right way. Its just thrilling. To me it's rediculout that to do something as monotonous as the same gameplay over and over without breaking it up with actually stopping to look at the world created for you is crazy.

In an example that does not apply, I am going to try to prove my point. As it is, it is not.

Whether it's lobby or an MMO doesnt matter to me. I want a game thats going to provide a great many different types of things to do...and that includes things that players that are not like me will enjoy. Because I am not every gamer...and I know not everyone likes what I like.

So in the end, im going to contradict myself and ask to limit my gameplay because apparently the thing I am arguing against is the only thing that becomes uninteresting the 700th time doing it.

 Again no real issues with that.  The first time for me it was exciting.  But I've seen that sunrise hundreds of times now, I've seen that tree, that easter egg, that landscape, that environment hundreds of times now.  It is no longer interesting.

I also would like many different things to do.  Which is why I would like interesting travel, however it isn't there.  It is the same travel over and over and over... again.  It is not a different thing to do.  Even EQ, going through kitchikor at night was interesting the first few times - not the 27th...

However maybe someday in the future, there will be enough varied events that travel will be interesting.

If the travel to point X is uninteresting the 700th time, how is it that whatever you are traveling to point X to do is not ?

Using repetition as the measuring stick for whether or not something is uninteresting compared to the rest of a game doesn't work when what you are comparing it to is just repetition of another sort.

Let me try to predict this thread. Ten pages of popular opinion with every reason imaginable other than 'base human instinct'. I'm right, you're wrong, no, I'M right, YOU'RE wrong. Black and white, black and white.

Why even present a reason to these people? I can see no point in doing so. I could give a well-founded argument but in terms of argument it would simply fall to 'I'm right, you're wrong' with some reason or another.

The simplest thing that can be said is that pre-industrial worlds are not believable in which people don't band together. You could solo in Everquest, but who did? The lone wolf. The masses grouped together. Sheep stick to their flock, cows stay to their herd. Once you violate this basic rule your world suffers. World of Warcraft was the Great Dupe, an amazing game that broke the rules. It succeeded because it was a new idea and very well-made game. All of its followers failed; it itself failed in subsequent expansions.

History would seem to show that it is much easier to make great games with group mechanics than solo mechanics. I would go back and play Shadowbane again, even though it was an Indie RPG by today's standards, because of the grouping; the same with Vanguard, the same with Everquest 2, the same with Everquest, the same with Final Fantasy XI. History has reflected poorly on single player RPGs, mostly as hack 'n' slash games, because the mechanics don't support much else. How do you make good RPG combat without a group dynamic? You don't, generally. Hence why Wizardry 1 was more popular than Ultima 1, why Dragon Slayer, Dragon Quest, and Hydlide were the only single player JRPGs, why even in the action RPG era many games (Secret of Mana, Eye of the Beholder) had groups.  Games like Daggerfall, Diablo and World of Warcraft stand out for obvious reasons, the last two because of their atmosphere more than anything else. World of Warcraft might even have had a more beautiful world than Everquest.

In terms of game design and virtual worlds, forced grouping wins in both areas. It makes for better combat and for greater realism. Of course I am just arguing for my own sake. I know about Wife-And-Career and No-Time-For-Games.  I like to explore Phobos Moon Base late at night with a vintage Roland sound scape pumping through my large room where I live on independent means, just finishing Phobos Anomaly right as dawn comes up.  Classic EQ, Classic FF XI, Classic EQ2 are connesuiers' games. I'd be a fool to think otherwise. But if you're talking about games that can captivate an intelligent adult and make games worth playing as a lifestyle in their own right, rather than just one of many ways that the masses choose to spend their hurried lives, I would stand by my taste.

I'm going to lay down the stright up truth.  Most people do NOT like forced grouping, I like to group up but if a game does not require it the whole time chances are I won't group up unless I have to.  If you can solo stuff why spend the time to gather a group right?

My fave game is still FFXI because to get levels at a decently quick level you have to group up.  I loved that game because parties would last 3 or so hours at the least, not just some 30 minute zerg through a dungeon.  Obviously there are enough people playing FFXI to keep  it from closing or going F2P, so why isn't there a company making more games like it.. Oh thats right everyone is trying to be the next WoW.

FFXIV should have just been an upgraded XI forced grouping and all, I would have been playing it still. Devs need to quit trying to be the next WoW and make a good forced grouping and or quality sandbox game. While they might not make milions upon billions but if they do it right they will make a game that is enjoyable for the few and still make money. 

FFXIV didn't fail because it was forced grouping, it failed because people thought it was gonna be like XI but better and it was nothing like XI. I really hope a realm reborn will be a step in the right direction, because I don't see my self playing anything else besides Neverwinter until ArcheAge comes out.