Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Getting from point A to point B. You want to mash buttons to increase speed and ignore the game world. I want to see people moving through a dynamic game world in which they will come across unexpected encounters, meet new players, friends and enemies, come across challenging terrain. See new settlements and perhaps never reach point B in the end because they find something more interesting to do along the way. For those bits where instant travel will have zero impact on the interlinked gameplay features, have that as well. But sure, your case is "deeper" and i'm totally against depth me...

"see people moving through a dynamic game world" .... really ? you want to see other play games? Count me out. I want to play myself.

I know, actually seeing other players in a masively multiplayer online game. Weird right!

"meet new players, friends and enemies" ... travel is a very inefficient way to do so. Much prefer LFD (for friend), Battleground (for enemies), and chat channels.

Chance encounters and dynamic events are just so bad for virtual world games. It would be far better for a virtual world game if we all just queued in a lobby and jumped into instances all the time. Just got rid of the world entirely. Yep, more efficient and exactly befitting of a virtual world game right! Since when has a game world necessitated the complete removal of chat channels btw?

"come across challenging terrain" ... no don't want terrain mini-game. Challenging terrain is not fun for me. Remind me that in Superman Return, Superman's ultimate foe is a piece of rock. Not fun & not heroic. Give me a dragon, a prime evil, or just a horde of mobs to mow down instead.

What a very strange comment, challenging terrain does not mean you have to hit the terrain, it is not a boss fight, it doesn't replace dragons. All it means is that the terrain has an impact, that you have to use your mind and engage with it. Not simply numlock over all of it.

"perhaps never reach point B" ... if another 4 people are waiting for me at the dungeon, it would be a very bad thing ....

Wut?

 

I already have "counted you out". Given you constantly state you prefer instant action, play for a month and then quit type games and deplore virtual worlds. Why exactly would I be "counting you in"? If I look to develop an instanced e-sport game, I don't try and factor in people interested in player housing or crafting.

Originally posted by drake_hound

That you say he , he or she got something special , infact you run into more drama people and psycho´s .

So basically the market gives what the audience demands .
Basically , the Audience demands drama at the cost of the few good ones .
So yes the Audience has shifted definetly , it is not genre is dead .
It is that the audience is dead .
Put all nice people in one room , they get along fine .
Put all bastards into one room they are ready to kill one and other .

Guess what MMO nowadays reflects ?

Reading this website every day, you can become pretty easily convinced that the mmo-attending audience consists of entirely of drama llamas.

Do we blame that on the MMOs?  Doom!  Would that help, or is it just more of the same?

Snake eating its own tail.  Cause is the effect is the cause is the effect...

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

I am far from against adding movement functions, most games already have them, jumping, sidestepping and sprinting as well as class/skill specific movement functions most of which drain a stamina pool or the like. What I am against is adding them for the sake of it because someone can't go two seconds without mashing keys, or when they have a detrimental impact upon the game world and interlinked mechanics. Or the notion that adding in a few extra keys is more important than working on the dynamics of the game world itself and suddenly adds "depth".

If you are simply seeking to add more then it entirely depends on whether or not the added functions actually serve to increase depth without distracting the from dynamics of the game world and without impacting upon interlinked mechanics. Just setting off from A to get to B and jabbing away at a little minigame in between is shite, as is ending up in some random roll instance, compared to the option of making the space between A and B interesting. Eitherway these are really pure movement specific mechanics, they deal with specfic situations, they don't alleviate the tradional issues associated with longer term travel, those are clearly, obviously, best resovled by improvements to the game world.

Expert horseback riding (within a virtual world game context) and the like naturally come from the way you move through challenging terrain and/or avoid/chase down game world protagonists. Leaping from rock to rock, running down a very narrow track, darting through trees in a wood and picking a path out that is faster than those bandits chasing you. You "worry about your foot placement" by making the game world dangerous. You allow for the user to fall off the terrain, add in encounters that can force him off mountains and into lakes. Give ice a sliding effect, slow down players in mud and water. Or you make it so that if he steps on the wrong bit of ground, he makes more sound and alerts the nearby enemy. The way the player has to approach and change his methods of travel, or movement "skills" dependant upon the terrain.That is what makes for natural depth, complexity and challenge. You don't need an additional arbitrary minigame layer, you just need to allow the user the minimum number of functions to allow him to directly interact with said environment.

 

You are not "doing nothing" or "sitting idle" for five minutes, you are engaging with and interacting with the game world and it's protagonists should the game world be done well enough. If you want to numlock around you can, but you will take longer and/or more than likely end up dead. Regardless, most people don't feel the need to be constantly pressing loads of buttons in order to appease the sensibilities of some imaginary fellow sitting behind watching them.

Would've thought by now you'd understand the purpose isn't adding a button press "for the sake of a button press".  The purpose is gameplay!  Depth!  The purpose is playing a game to play a game, not to have large chunks of time where the game plays you.

The issue with all horseback gameplay coming from the terrain is it's exactly like exploration -- you learn it very quickly (maybe not the first trip, but not much longer than that) which causes that to become flat very quickly.  That's why other dynamic factors have to be involved.

If you want to pretend traveling a long way in EVE is "interacting with the game world", there's really nothing left to discuss.  The fact is, you're sitting there doing virtually nothing for 5-15 minutes straight and it's the dullest experience gaming has to offer.  You can defend that, but since you're probably the only person in the world who would I'm confident that if someone made a new EVE-like where travel was an interesting game (instead of a non-interactive waste of time), that new game would be considerably more enjoyable.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

I am far from against adding movement functions, most games already have them, jumping, sidestepping and sprinting as well as class/skill specific movement functions most of which drain a stamina pool or the like. What I am against is adding them for the sake of it because someone can't go two seconds without mashing keys, or when they have a detrimental impact upon the game world and interlinked mechanics. Or the notion that adding in a few extra keys is more important than working on the dynamics of the game world itself and suddenly adds "depth".

If you are simply seeking to add more then it entirely depends on whether or not the added functions actually serve to increase depth without distracting the from dynamics of the game world and without impacting upon interlinked mechanics. Just setting off from A to get to B and jabbing away at a little minigame in between is shite, as is ending up in some random roll instance, compared to the option of making the space between A and B interesting. Eitherway these are really pure movement specific mechanics, they deal with specfic situations, they don't alleviate the tradional issues associated with longer term travel, those are clearly, obviously, best resovled by improvements to the game world.

Expert horseback riding (within a virtual world game context) and the like naturally come from the way you move through challenging terrain and/or avoid/chase down game world protagonists. Leaping from rock to rock, running down a very narrow track, darting through trees in a wood and picking a path out that is faster than those bandits chasing you. You "worry about your foot placement" by making the game world dangerous. You allow for the user to fall off the terrain, add in encounters that can force him off mountains and into lakes. Give ice a sliding effect, slow down players in mud and water. Or you make it so that if he steps on the wrong bit of ground, he makes more sound and alerts the nearby enemy. The way the player has to approach and change his methods of travel, or movement "skills" dependant upon the terrain.That is what makes for natural depth, complexity and challenge. You don't need an additional arbitrary minigame layer, you just need to allow the user the minimum number of functions to allow him to directly interact with said environment.

 

You are not "doing nothing" or "sitting idle" for five minutes, you are engaging with and interacting with the game world and it's protagonists should the game world be done well enough. If you want to numlock around you can, but you will take longer and/or more than likely end up dead. Regardless, most people don't feel the need to be constantly pressing loads of buttons in order to appease the sensibilities of some imaginary fellow sitting behind watching them.

Would've thought by now you'd understand the purpose isn't adding a button press "for the sake of a button press".  The purpose is gameplay!  Depth!  The purpose is playing a game to play a game, not to have large chunks of time where the game plays you.

The issue with all horseback gameplay coming from the terrain is it's exactly like exploration -- you learn it very quickly (maybe not the first trip, but not much longer than that) which causes that to become flat very quickly.  That's why other dynamic factors have to be involved.

If you want to pretend traveling a long way in EVE is "interacting with the game world", there's really nothing left to discuss.  The fact is, you're sitting there doing virtually nothing for 5-15 minutes straight and it's the dullest experience gaming has to offer.  You can defend that, but since you're probably the only person in the world who would I'm confident that if someone made a new EVE-like where travel was an interesting game (instead of a non-interactive waste of time), that new game would be considerably more enjoyable.

"The fact is, you're sitting there doing virtually nothing for 5-15 minutes straight and it's the dullest experience gaming has to offer."

Has anyone said that? I don't believe so. You're mirepresenting what people said they want, and you do this all the time in your endless arguments against anything Sandbox. Why do you do that?

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Would've thought by now you'd understand the purpose isn't adding a button press "for the sake of a button press".  The purpose is gameplay!  Depth!  The purpose is playing a game to play a game, not to have large chunks of time where the game plays you.

The issue with all horseback gameplay coming from the terrain is it's exactly like exploration -- you learn it very quickly (maybe not the first trip, but not much longer than that) which causes that to become flat very quickly.  That's why other dynamic factors have to be involved.

If you want to pretend traveling a long way in EVE is "interacting with the game world", there's really nothing left to discuss.  The fact is, you're sitting there doing virtually nothing for 5-15 minutes straight and it's the dullest experience gaming has to offer.  You can defend that, but since you're probably the only person in the world who would I'm confident that if someone made a new EVE-like where travel was an interesting game (instead of a non-interactive waste of time), that new game would be considerably more enjoyable.

I would have thought by now that you would have understood the fact that you add far, far more depth by improving the game world and the characters interaction with it as he moves through it. As opposed to the alternatives that you have proffered up thus far. You don't need numerous buttons and hotbars to control movement to generate depth, in fact it can quite easily have a very detrimental effect.

How exactly is having to interact with an environment and take note of where you are, how fast you are moving and who else might be around (which is what I have been suggesting continually) "the game playing you"?

You learn how to press key combinations in minigames quickly too, which pretty much invalidates that argument.  Just because you know to slow down on an icy patch, does not mean you are travelling over the same icy terrain trying to move at the same speed or avoid the same people in all places within the game world. You may learn how to dodge and jump well, but you are not always going to be moving through the same terrain, not in an open virtual world. To say that you can learn how to master the core principals of a mechanic does not suddenly make it redundant. And yes there will be other dynamic factors involved, namely the dynamic agents and encounters within the game world interacting with you as you move through that terrain.

The only person banging on about EVE here is you. I may have pointed out the fact that removing the game world and travel through it clearly impacts upon interlinked dynamics (examples of which you can find in EVE), but I have never stipulated that it's method of movement is the paragon to be held above all others. I have also never stated that the game world of EVE cannot be improved upon, if anything I have constantly stated that loads can be done to improve upon the current game world dynamics we see. So not sure why you are bringing it up, aside from to get in your usual EVE bash again.

Having options like running, jumping, crawling, sprinting and the like, having them tied into a stamina drain and the like. Great. More often than not there are those options within a game already. You want to layer more on, but it simply isn't needed the vast majority of the time and would add very, very little. The main depth and interest function when travelling, comes from improving the dynamic interactions of the player with the game world and the players within it. Not by adding in a minigame layer. Movement is meant to be simple and intuitive, any depth and skill is displayed using it in conjunction with a dynamic environment.

Giving the option the the player to control their speed and course as well as to possibly have to manage stamina when performing action (such as jumping and sprinting) are all you need to take into account movement. Factors like gravity,  momentum and weight can come into play but the character makes use of them indirectly from his basic controls. Depth and interest then come for making the character move through the terrain (in the ways mentioned previously), whilst at the same time giving him the freedom to actually look out for and get invovled in the dynamic events within the game world.

You can have zero argument against improving the actual game world. If you have, then you are quite frankly mad.

Your case then seems to be that it is always better to add in extra layers of movement controls, that movement within itself needs to be some kind of endpoint game. I contest that, you only need basic controls to engage in a deep and interesting system and anything outside of that can have a detrimental impact upon the players direct gameplay and the longer term gameplay mechanics of a game.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

I would have thought by now that you would have understood the fact that you add far, far more depth by improving the game world and the characters interaction with it as he moves through it. As opposed to the alternatives that you have proffered up thus far. You don't need numerous buttons and hotbars to control movement to generate depth, in fact it can quite easily have a very detrimental effect.

 

How exactly is having to interact with an environment and take note of where you are, how fast you are moving and who else might be around (which is what I have been suggesting continually) "the game playing you"?

 

You learn how to press key combinations in minigames quickly too, which pretty much invalidates that argument.  Just because you know to slow down on an icy patch, does not mean you are travelling over the same icy terrain trying to move at the same speed or avoid the same people in all places within the game world. You may learn how to dodge and jump well, but you are not always going to be moving through the same terrain, not in an open virtual world. To say that you can learn how to master the core principals of a mechanic does not suddenly make it redundant. And yes there will be other dynamic factors involved, namely the dynamic agents and encounters within the game world interacting with you as you move through that terrain.

 

The only person banging on about EVE here is you. I may have pointed out the fact that removing the game world and travel through it clearly impacts upon interlinked dynamics (examples of which you can find in EVE), but I have never stipulated that it's method of movement is the paragon to be held above all others. I have also never stated that the game world of EVE cannot be improved upon, if anything I have constantly stated that loads can be done to improve upon the current game world dynamics we see. So not sure why you are bringing it up, aside from to get in your usual EVE bash again.

 

Having options like running, jumping, crawling, sprinting and the like, having them tied into a stamina drain and the like. Great. More often than not there are those options within a game already. You want to layer more on, but it simply isn't needed the vast majority of the time and would add very, very little. The main depth and interest function when travelling, comes from improving the dynamic interactions of the player with the game world and the players within it. Not by adding in a minigame layer. Movement is meant to be simple and intuitive, any depth and skill is displayed using it in conjunction with a dynamic environment.

 

Giving the option the the player to control their speed and course as well as to possibly have to manage stamina when performing action (such as jumping and sprinting) are all you need to take into account movement. Factors like gravity,  momentum and weight can come into play but the character makes use of them indirectly from his basic controls. Depth and interest then come for making the character move through the terrain (in the ways mentioned previously), whilst at the same time giving him the freedom to actually look out for and get invovled in the dynamic events within the game world.

 

You can have zero argument against improving the actual game world. If you have, then you are quite frankly mad.

Your case then seems to be that it is always better to add in extra layers of movement controls. I contest that, you only need basic controls to engage in a deep and interesting system and anything outside of that can have a detrimental impact upon the players direct gameplay and the longer term gameplay mechanics of a game. If you think that having to tap a load of keys in order to move about is a good thing. Then I can't say we are in agreement at all and it makes something of a mockery of your usual "simplicity is best" argument.

I have to say, I really like what you're saying here. To me, there's an "interaction" with the game world based on the player's capabilities and actions allowed that just grows. Just by adding a few things to what a character can do, and trying those actions to Stats (agility, strength, etc.) then building terrain and obstacles into the world and it's dungeons, ruins, this adds huge game play factors as well as just plain interesting game play.

It's sort of like a player escaping a predator by swimming when that predator doesn't swim. It's not a big thing at all, but it's a far better game world experience than if the player simply isn't able to swim in water.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

I have to say, I really like what you're saying here. To me, there's an "interaction" with the game world based on the player's capabilities and actions allowed that just grows. Just by adding a few things to what a character can do, and trying those actions to Stats (agility, strength, etc.) then building terrain and obstacles into the world and it's dungeons, ruins, this adds huge game play factors as well as just plain interesting game play.

It's sort of like a player escaping a predator by swimming when that predator doesn't swim. It's not a big thing at all, but it's a far better game world experience than if the player simply isn't able to swim in water.

There is so much you could do with todays tech and the lessons learned from previous mmos. You could make truly spectacular dynamic worlds, with roaming npcs mobs not static spawns and dynamic encounters with other players, both friend and foe. With terrain you have to engage with and traverse, with shifting weather dynamics which impact upon travel and combat. With physics which impact travel and combat. Player cities springing up and falling in player run wars, forests getting cleared and replanted. Herds which spawn on a seasonal basis and migrate, with hunters following them or having to master jumping and traversing mountain ranges in order to reach mountain goats etc in order to get skins for player crafters. That's all before you consider territory/resource control and player economy metrics. There is so much potential.

Sadly some seem to think that removing the game world and making everything instant A to B whack-a-mole should be the de facto model for all mmorpgs.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

I have to say, I really like what you're saying here. To me, there's an "interaction" with the game world based on the player's capabilities and actions allowed that just grows. Just by adding a few things to what a character can do, and trying those actions to Stats (agility, strength, etc.) then building terrain and obstacles into the world and it's dungeons, ruins, this adds huge game play factors as well as just plain interesting game play.

It's sort of like a player escaping a predator by swimming when that predator doesn't swim. It's not a big thing at all, but it's a far better game world experience than if the player simply isn't able to swim in water.

There is so much you could do with todays tech and the lessons learned from previous mmos. You could make truly spectacular dynamic worlds, with roaming npcs mobs not static spawns and dynamic encounters with other players, both friend and foe. With terrain you have to engage with and traverse, with shifting weather dynamics which impact upon travel and combat. With physics which impact travel and combat. Player cities springing up and falling in player run wars, forests getting cleared and replanted. Herds which spawn on a seasonal basis and migrate, with hunters following them or having to master jumping and traversing mountain ranges in order to reach mountain goats etc in order to get skins for player crafters. That's all before you consider territory/resource control and player economy metrics. There is so much potential.

 

Sadly some seem to think that removing the game world and making everything instant A to B whack-a-mole should be the de facto model for all mmorpgs.

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,

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.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Travel isn't meant to be a fucking minigame, what you are "currently engaged in" is moving through a game world. You know the walking bit, the actual mechanics of walking about. Yeah that's not meant to be some herculean task ffs. Make the game world interesting and dynamic and there you go, no more numlock and go for a cig unless you want to come back to a corpse. The act of travel is simple, that actual act of moving through the game world not so.

Perhaps your friend would act like that if he has missed his dose of ritalin.

Getting from point A to point B. You want to mash buttons to increase speed and ignore the game world. I want to see people moving through a dynamic game world in which they will come across unexpected encounters, meet new players, friends and enemies. See new settlements and perhaps never reach point B in the end because they find something more interesting to do along the way. For those bits where instant travel will have zero impact on the interlinked gameplay features, have that as well. But sure, your case is "deeper".......

 "The depth of the systems travel enables doesn't matter... why you are against deep games". In the same post, oh my sides. 

The "challenge" and "depth" comes from the interaction with the game world and the agents within it whilst travelling. Trying to make moving forwards and backwards a frigging endpoint game? Wut? 

Travel in a virtual world game is meant to be a simple mechanic that lets you interact with the game world, it is not meant to be an endpoint gameplay mechanic, it is an enabling, conduit, depth generation mechanic. Which makes it all the more funny when you keep stating "depth of the systems doesn't matter". Oh and do note there is a rather large difference between a simple and a shallow mechanic.

"Games are meant to be fun" takes precedence over any weakly supported idea that "travel isn't meant to be a minigame."  If there's depth to travel, the game will be better.  Clearly.  Obviously.  It's just a matter of developing travel in such a manner where that depth is there and feels natural.

It's obvious how that would work in a game like EVE where you try to squeeze every ounce of effectiveness out of your ship's engine, because it can piggyback onto the same sort of gameplay of the rest of EVE (using a travel hotbar.)  With a fantasy game, expert horseback riding could be challenging in mostly a similar way -- although with that and foot travel the depth would probably also involve terrain being complicated, where you have to worry about foot placement (avoiding slower portions of the terrain.)

None of which makes you "ignore the game world" (in fact the latter makes you pay closer attention to it!), although as several have noted earlier in the thread: after the first exploration trip you're ignoring the game world anyway because you've seen it before.

As for someone observing you doing nothing at your computer for 5 minutes while you claim to be "playing" a game, any normal, sane person is going to think you're a little crazy for playing a game like that.  Because you won't really be "playing" anything -- you're sitting idle for 5 minutes!

Your "splitting sides" comment is ridiculous.  It's simple.  There are two systems.  0, 1, or 2 systems can be deep.  You're against 2 systems being deep.  So you're against games being deeper.

Fun is very subjective. IMO, to much action all the time will just make the game boring. Travel is not intended to be some action packed experience in a virtual world game. Perhaps bandits will attack you when you travel or explore. If you are surprised and if it was unexpected it will be fun.  If it happens all the time every minute it will mean nothing. It will just be tedious to kill a million bandits when travelling from A to B. Its just like adding to much sugar when you cook... It can be to much.

I liked travelling in games like EQ. Before Luclin... Teleportation stones in PoK ruined the interesting travelling experience for me. And I needed that to feel that I was actually part of a virtual world.

Typically if you like games like that you are no action gamer... It means to much action and a streamlined gaming experience will be boring. A slower pace is better. The fun is not depending on action. It depends on being able to feel that you are part of the virtual world.

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.

Just a quick one here, because I have to go for a few, but in UO's early days they had MOBs that gained skill and HPs with combat. But you have to have reasonable caps and such. Ya see, there was this chicken that everyone feared greatly.

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.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

"The fact is, you're sitting there doing virtually nothing for 5-15 minutes straight and it's the dullest experience gaming has to offer."

Has anyone said that? I don't believe so. You're mirepresenting what people said they want, and you do this all the time in your endless arguments against anything Sandbox. Why do you do that?

The above situation exists in EVE and Darkfall.  I criticized it as clearly bad game design.  Bunnyhopper defended it.

Given that I've mentioned to you specifically that a gameplay-centric sandbox could be successful, I have no clue where you're getting this "endless arguments against anything Sandbox" thing.  I endlessly argue against bad game design, not sandboxes.  It's just that most sandboxes happen to also be poorly designed (see: discussion on travel), hence their mediocre success.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

I would have thought by now that you would have understood the fact that you add far, far more depth by improving the game world and the characters interaction with it as he moves through it. 

Travel is like 5-30% of your overall playtime, depending on the game and situation.  That is a ridiculously massive chunk of the overall game to allow to be shallow.

So no, while improving the game world is important, you're not going to get more depth by improving it in comparison to patching this significant hole of non-gameplay.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

"The fact is, you're sitting there doing virtually nothing for 5-15 minutes straight and it's the dullest experience gaming has to offer."

Has anyone said that? I don't believe so. You're mirepresenting what people said they want, and you do this all the time in your endless arguments against anything Sandbox. Why do you do that?

The above situation exists in EVE and Darkfall.  I criticized it as clearly bad game design.  Bunnyhopper defended it.

Given that I've mentioned to you specifically that a gameplay-centric sandbox could be successful, I have no clue where you're getting this "endless arguments against anything Sandbox" thing.  I endlessly argue against bad game design, not sandboxes.  It's just that most sandboxes happen to also be poorly designed (see: discussion on travel), hence their mediocre success.

And yet here we are talking about ways to make travel and the game worlds a better design, and here you are talking about how virtual nothingness (which we clearly are not after) is bad game design.

Every time people try to talk about some Sandbox design, you are there. Always with the circle around, argueing against shadows this same way.

Originally posted by Hurvart

Fun is very subjective. IMO, to much action all the time will just make the game boring. Travel is not intended to be some action packed experience in a virtual world game. Perhaps bandits will attack you when you travel or explore. If you are surprised and if it was unexpected it will be fun.  If it happens all the time every minute it will mean nothing. It will just be tedious to kill a million bandits when travelling from A to B. Its just like adding to much sugar when you cook... It can be to much.

I liked travelling in games like EQ. Before Luclin... Teleportation stones in PoK ruined the interesting travelling experience for me. And I needed that to feel that I was actually part of a virtual world.

Typically if you like games like that you are no action gamer... It means to much action and a streamlined gaming experience will be boring. A slower pace is better. The fun is not depending on action. It depends on being able to feel that you are part of the virtual world.

With the games in question, giving depth to travel by no means runs the risk of making them "too much action all the time".

Instead it ensures all the required systems are deep while you still have relaxing non-gameplay systems should you optionally desire them (gathering, crafting, AHing)

Originally posted by Amaranthar

And yet here we are talking about ways to make travel and the game worlds a better design, and here you are talking about how virtual nothingness (which we clearly are not after) is bad game design.

Every time people try to talk about some Sandbox design, you are there. Always with the circle around, argueing against shadows this same way. 

Players clearly aren't after that.

Bunnyhopper is.  So I was talking with him about how virtual nothingness is clearly undesirable.

Welcome to the discussion and thanks for helping support the point that obviously players don't want this sort of gameplay.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

And yet here we are talking about ways to make travel and the game worlds a better design, and here you are talking about how virtual nothingness (which we clearly are not after) is bad game design.

Every time people try to talk about some Sandbox design, you are there. Always with the circle around, argueing against shadows this same way. 

Players clearly aren't after that.

Bunnyhopper is.  So I was talking with him about how virtual nothingness is clearly undesirable.

Welcome to the discussion and thanks for helping support the point that obviously players don't want this sort of gameplay.

"Players clearly aren't after that."

Prove that statement.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

I would have thought by now that you would have understood the fact that you add far, far more depth by improving the game world and the characters interaction with it as he moves through it. 

Travel is like 5-30% of your overall playtime, depending on the game and situation.  That is a ridiculously massive chunk of the overall game to allow to be shallow.

So no, while improving the game world is important, you're not going to get more depth by improving it in comparison to patching this significant hole of non-gameplay.

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.

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!