Originally posted by Merilirem
While I personally prefer an immersive experience and long hours of play, this kind of thing is definitely where the companies and etc should be heading. I say so due to my own conclusion that they are incapable of making a deep game, so instead they should make casual games, which are great for those without time or focus. Not everyone can wrap themselves up in fantasy afterall, be it lack of ability, interest or other more worldly constraints.

I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants.  They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games.  How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want?  Just because you don't happen to be one of those  gamers, that's not their fault or their problem.  It just means you're irrelevant.

Once a gamer, always a gamer.

As such, the gaming populace is growing older and has an increasing amount of responsibilities.  I am in that boat. 

At best, I have a couple of hours a night to enjoy whatever game I would like to play.  On the weekends, I can have a little more time.  Between friends and other tasks, gaming has to take a back seat.

Despite this, I play few single player games (dishonored being the last).  Right now, I only play GW2.

Here soon I will leave MMO's and play Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns.  Maybe some TESO.

---

Originally posted by Cephus404

---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I don't see why we can't have short gaming sessions. There is no reason why a game can't last years, but have whatever content broken up into smaller sections. Dungeon runs that take hours to complete but can be broken up into many sections.  Quests are the same.  I can't see any downsides to having a short session be part of a longer experience.

---

Yup, just like a SP game, have checkpoints within dungeons.  You should be able to reach checkpoints in 5-10 minutes so that if you only have a little while to play, you get to a checkpoint, your game is saved and you can log off.  If you log off before reaching a checkpoint, you go back to the last checkpoint you reached.

---

That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.

Originally posted by Nitth

 

---

Originally posted by Cephus404

---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I don't see why we can't have short gaming sessions. There is no reason why a game can't last years, but have whatever content broken up into smaller sections. Dungeon runs that take hours to complete but can be broken up into many sections.  Quests are the same.  I can't see any downsides to having a short session be part of a longer experience.

---

Yup, just like a SP game, have checkpoints within dungeons.  You should be able to reach checkpoints in 5-10 minutes so that if you only have a little while to play, you get to a checkpoint, your game is saved and you can log off.  If you log off before reaching a checkpoint, you go back to the last checkpoint you reached.

---

 

That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.

Why not.  I think it's just fine.  A dungeon with multiple levels.  When you finish a level you can leave and do something else, then come back and start at that level again.  It would work just fine. 

Originally posted by pacov
Wait why is everyone saying neverwinter will be lobby based like DDO was? It clearly has some content designed in traditional sense where it is 'persistent'.

Only "some" content. That is why.

Originally posted by Nitth

 

---

That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.

Any reason at all?

I say savepoints are fine for MMO dungeons.

Originally posted by ShakyMo

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Sovrath

I don't see why someone couldn't make a game that had more in depth, longer game play experiences and the demographic for those experiences would then play that game provided they did a good job.

I don't see what depth has to do with the option of short game sessions.

Break up a dungeon of 4 bosses into 4 independent part do NOT change the depth of the combat experience with each of them. Think about a dungeon with 4 boss that takes you 2 hours to go through. What if now there is a save point after each boss, so you can kill one, go have dinner, and come back for the next one.

There is no change in terms of depth, challenge, except it is more convenient.

In fact, play-time has nothing to do with challenge. A 5 min encounter with an elite or ubder boss on MP10 in D3 (which can be played in 15 min) is more challenging than 3 hours dungeon runs.

well 5 minutes is a bit short, but say 30 mins, i kinda agree with you here.

It is a matter of degree. 5 min a bit short for a gaming session but it is about the time (or even shorter) or kill an elite in D3. I am just using that as an example.

The point is that there is no reason a dungeon cannot be broken up into smaller chunks (15 min? 30 min?) .. i think we are on the same page.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Merilirem
While I personally prefer an immersive experience and long hours of play, this kind of thing is definitely where the companies and etc should be heading. I say so due to my own conclusion that they are incapable of making a deep game, so instead they should make casual games, which are great for those without time or focus. Not everyone can wrap themselves up in fantasy afterall, be it lack of ability, interest or other more worldly constraints.

I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants.  They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games.  How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want?  Just because you don't happen to be one of those  gamers, that's not their fault or their problem.  It just means you're irrelevant.

This ^^^

And how is "long hours of play" relevant to whether a game is deep? Both D3 and WOW have theorycrafters spending tons of time working out the mechanics, and optimizing it .. how is that not deep? And making combat deep has nothing to do with long hours of play.

You can break up acquiring the right gear, and testing builds in MANY short play sessions.

Originally posted by Nitth

 

---

Originally posted by Cephus404

---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I don't see why we can't have short gaming sessions. There is no reason why a game can't last years, but have whatever content broken up into smaller sections. Dungeon runs that take hours to complete but can be broken up into many sections.  Quests are the same.  I can't see any downsides to having a short session be part of a longer experience.

---

Yup, just like a SP game, have checkpoints within dungeons.  You should be able to reach checkpoints in 5-10 minutes so that if you only have a little while to play, you get to a checkpoint, your game is saved and you can log off.  If you log off before reaching a checkpoint, you go back to the last checkpoint you reached.

---

 

That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.

Why not?  It works perfectly fine in SP games and since most MMOs are soloable, why shouldn't it work equally well in an MMO?  Please note, we're not talking what you *WANT* to work, but what actually will work.

Originally posted by Cephus404

I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants.  They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games.  How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want?  Just because you don't happen to be one of those  gamers, that's not their fault or their problem.  It just means you're irrelevant.

Actually that segment of the gaming population does want deep games.  But first and foremost they want accessible games.

• Low-accessibility, high-depth: Hardcore niche following.
• High-accessibility, low-depth: Lots of casual players, but they leave quickly because the game doesn't last long.
• High-accessibility, high-depth: Optimal game design; attracts a ton of players and they stay for a long time.  (Except for a few hardcore niche players who immediately label the game casual due to its accessibility and walk away without exploring its true depth.)

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Cephus404

I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants.  They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games.  How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want?  Just because you don't happen to be one of those  gamers, that's not their fault or their problem.  It just means you're irrelevant.

Actually that segment of the gaming population does want deep games.  But first and foremost they want accessible games.

• Low-accessibility, high-depth: Hardcore niche following.
• High-accessibility, low-depth: Lots of casual players, but they leave quickly because the game doesn't last long.
• High-accessibility, high-depth: Optimal game design; attracts a ton of players and they stay for a long time.  (Except for a few hardcore niche players who immediately label the game casual due to its accessibility and walk away without exploring its true depth.)

The concepts of accessibility and depth aren't entirely in tension with one another

 

I'm amused by the notion of a time-traveling MMORPG player being present for the latest revision of what we now know as chess and saying, "Only 16 piece types!?  Clearly dumbed down for the masses!"

 

"Simple to learn, a lifetime to master" has been and still is the goal of good game design.  Optimizing your depth-to-complexity ratio, basically.  The lion's share of the most successful games on the market adhere quite closely to this rule.

Where did you get the idea that MMO players want deep games?  The industry is based on racing to end game as fast as possible, where can you get depth out of that?  Just because *YOU* want that doesn't mean that the majority of MMO players do.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Nitth

 

---

That doesnt and should not work in an mmorpg space.

Any reason at all?

I say savepoints are fine for MMO dungeons.

I recently saw that in Sword Girls and thought it would be a nice feature for an MMO. It would change the way dungeon content is made.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Where did you get the idea that MMO players want deep games?  The industry is based on racing to end game as fast as possible, where can you get depth out of that?  Just because *YOU* want that doesn't mean that the majority of MMO players do.

A. MMO tic-tac-toe hasn't taken off

B. Even the simplest MMORPG is incredibly deep compared to other genres of games.

The #1 way players enjoy games is pattern mastery (learning to be skilled at something.)  Game depth then becomes the measure of how long a game can hope to entertain someone before they feel like they've exhausted all the patterns a game has to offer.  This is also how long the player will continue playing the game (which is important, because we're discussing subscription-based games.)

So yeah MMO players want deep, accessible games.  The most successful games have always been deep, accessible games.  Every smash hit from go to chess to poker to TF2 to LoL to WOW has been a deep, accessible game.

Put another way:

• Marketing gets players to try your game.
• Accessibility avoids dumping them back out to the street (because they perceive the game as being too complex.)
• Depth keeps them playing (because the game still has a lot of patterns left to master; a lot of things left to try.)

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Cephus404

Where did you get the idea that MMO players want deep games?  The industry is based on racing to end game as fast as possible, where can you get depth out of that?  Just because *YOU* want that doesn't mean that the majority of MMO players do.

A. MMO tic-tac-toe hasn't taken off

B. Even the simplest MMORPG is incredibly deep compared to other genres of games.

The #1 way players enjoy games is pattern mastery (learning to be skilled at something.)  Game depth then becomes the measure of how long a game can hope to entertain someone before they feel like they've exhausted all the patterns a game has to offer.  This is also how long the player will continue playing the game (which is important, because we're discussing subscription-based games.)

So yeah MMO players want deep, accessible games.  The most successful games have always been deep, accessible games.  Every smash hit from go to chess to poker to TF2 to LoL to WOW has been a deep, accessible game.

Put another way:

• Marketing gets players to try your game.
• Accessibility avoids dumping them back out to the street (because they perceive the game as being too complex.)
• Depth keeps them playing (because the game still has a lot of patterns left to master; a lot of things left to try.)

So if you want to claim that you can score high first-month numbers without depth, you're totally right.  But if you want a truly successful game you need depth to keep players around.

 

(This isn't absolutely true of every genre, but we're talking about MMORPGs.)

It depends on what depth means.

If you are talking about combat system & progression system depth .. there is plenty. If a player needs a tool to optimize, and people on forums are asking for gear & tactics advice day in and day out, then the game has combat depth.

I am not sure people want all kind of depth though. For example, i doubt many people want to play cartographer, and needs to map out terrain themselves.

Originally posted by Anthur
McDonalds, jump in and eat something in seconds. Great food ? Not really.

Just because it caters to the masses does not mean it is good, it means it is profitable.

Just because something caters to the masses and is profitable doesn't mean it is bad.

McDonalds also has salads, water, juice, milk...

Originally posted by nariusseldon

It depends on what depth means.

If you are talking about combat system & progression system depth .. there is plenty. If a player needs a tool to optimize, and people on forums are asking for gear & tactics advice day in and day out, then the game has combat depth.

I am not sure people want all kind of depth though. For example, i doubt many people want to play cartographer, and needs to map out terrain themselves.

Well shallow things which are labelled deep mistakenly aren't depth (being forced to map out terrain doesn't really involve any creative decision-making; it's mostly just a lot of busywork.)

And it's true that players aren't interested in all depth equally.  I'm not interested in the depth of a sports game, for example.

But we're talking about a demographic which has already expressed interest in the theme -- it's not a sports game, it's a game about being a hero in a fantasy world.  The subject matter got the player interested, but it's the game itself which is responsible for being deep enough to want to keep playing for a long time.

I mean a secondary role games can provide is not as a game but a relaxation activity, which is one of the core reasons Facebook games have succeeded.  And MMORPGs take advantage of this to some degree (daily quests tend not to involve elaborate mechanics.)  But it's only going to have limited effectiveness with the MMORPG audience, who would be playing Facebook games if that was all they wanted.

Originally posted by Anthur
McDonalds, jump in and eat something in seconds. Great food ? Not really.

Conversely if it takes a restaurant longer than an hour to get me my food, that's not a gaurantee of great food either.

Meanwhile the hippie place I get my groceries from has high-quality ready-made food that takes seconds to order and is both tasty and nutritional.

Jeebus jumped up Christ!

Reading most of the comments here it seems some want to make MMORPG's games that already exist. Console games. Quick fun, save points?!....Yep...sounds like console games. You guys know PS4 is due out near the end of the year right?

I don't get it. If you don't have time to dedicate to them, WHY play them? Why not just play console games. They allow for everything you ask for. Just sayin.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Cephus404

I'm sure they're capable of making a deep game, but that's not what the largest, most financially viable segment of the gaming population wants.  They want fast, low-effort, on-rails games.  How is it a bad thing that the marketplace is giving the gamers who pay their paychecks what they want?  Just because you don't happen to be one of those  gamers, that's not their fault or their problem.  It just means you're irrelevant.

Actually that segment of the gaming population does want deep games.  But first and foremost they want accessible games.

• Low-accessibility, high-depth: Hardcore niche following.
• High-accessibility, low-depth: Lots of casual players, but they leave quickly because the game doesn't last long.
• High-accessibility, high-depth: Optimal game design; attracts a ton of players and they stay for a long time.  (Except for a few hardcore niche players who immediately label the game casual due to its accessibility and walk away without exploring its true depth.)

The concepts of accessibility and depth aren't entirely in tension with one another

 

I'm amused by the notion of a time-traveling MMORPG player being present for the latest revision of what we now know as chess and saying, "Only 16 piece types!?  Clearly dumbed down for the masses!"

 

"Simple to learn, a lifetime to master" has been and still is the goal of good game design.  Optimizing your depth-to-complexity ratio, basically.  The lion's share of the most successful games on the market adhere quite closely to this rule.

I agree with this generalization and assessment. Depth and accessiblity are not in combat with one another. If you truly understood what both meant, you'd see that.

"Easy to learn, hard to master" is the holy grail every game designer should strive for.