Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

A 20 min boat ride is still boring, trivial, lack of challenge, and inconvenient.

Lots of hoopla with no substance. It boils down to very simple gameplay choices. Tell me, will anyone with a sane mind consider a 20 min boat ride a challenge?

No matter how you design it, a 20 min boat ride .. has very little gameplay .. at most interesting things to look at .. and very far from what a normal person will call a challenge.

5% dps? How about the difference between able to stun-lock a boss, or burn him down before he reaches you? Is that what depth is? Finding different ways to defeat your enemies.

Don't tell me you think depth is sitting on a boat for 20 min doing nothing.

Since when you can stunlock wow bosses? :)

Anyways, the boat ride itself is not challenging, avoiding it is, or , the other possibility, managing your time around 20minute boat rides since you refuse to participate in pve or some other content, OR have chosen to have a dps increase instead of "friendly with ferry faction".

Which is another argument which sounds so outlandish in the age of "how can i make my toddler eat later in the evening so i can raid?".

Flame on!

:)

You can stunlock D3 bosses. I consider D3 fights more interesting, and more in depth than WOW.

What do you think fast travel is? To enable players to avoid things like 20 min boat ride. When EQ was first released, there were  boat rides (and staring at spell book) that you cannot avoid. And if it can be avoided, the inconvience no longer applies, right?

 

Originally posted by Scot

Easymode and Easytravel = Early Endgame.

So if that's what you want then by all means argue for the least "inconvenience". Oh and you do know that only about 10% of the development cycle of a MMO is spent on end game?

Welcome to the endgame Schmitt Box we made for you content locusts with 10% of our time:

 

[ You Are Here ]

 

Enjoy! :)

Easy gameplay and easy travel are independent. There is little inconvience in a game like D3, but the end game (inferno) is challenging.

And there is obviously no easy mode for pvp. So it is perfect possible to have a challenging game without much inconvenience.

I don't think MMOs are being built around this mindset anymore.  

I mean, when older MMOs were targetting the thousands of nerds you had to fight to keep every sub you got for years on end to cover your expenses.  Now, with tens of millions of potential subs, if your nerds and geeks finish the content and quit, four casuals are more than willing to take their place.

Now, you develop an MMO for a massive audience with limited content to keep production cost low so you can turn massive profit over a short term before the playerbase realizes the game has an expected lifetime of months to a year.  Then change the sub model to eek out what money you can while you work on the next short-term project.

I just don't see any MMO being a niche target game today unless its backed by a large IP that will pull in curious fans.  The inconvenience model you're all discussing is by and large a niche idea.  The new MMO audience has spoken and as of this moment casual, easy, solo friendly games are the hot thing.

Best bet is to hope some indie dev group puts out a title worth clinging to, I think it may be your last bastion of hope.

 

 

Call me lazy if you want but I don't have time to grind through the same content over and over again in any MMO.  The only thing that gives me a sense of accomplishment and makes me feel like I belong is player created player driven content and social gameplay.  If bigger grinds make you feel like you 'belong' and sitting at the computer playing monotonous video game gives you a sense of accomplishment then you may be lying to yourself.

Originally posted by Popori

I don't think MMOs are being built around this mindset anymore.  

I mean, when older MMOs were targetting the thousands of nerds you had to fight to keep every sub you got for years on end to cover your expenses.  Now, with tens of millions of potential subs, if your nerds and geeks finish the content and quit, four casuals are more than willing to take their place.

Now, you develop an MMO for a massive audience with limited content to keep production cost low so you can turn massive profit over a short term before the playerbase realizes the game has an expected lifetime of months to a year.  Then change the sub model to eek out what money you can while you work on the next short-term project.

I just don't see any MMO being a niche target game today unless its backed by a large IP that will pull in curious fans.  The inconvenience model you're all discussing is by and large a niche idea.  The new MMO audience has spoken and as of this moment casual, easy, solo friendly games are the hot thing.

Best bet is to hope some indie dev group puts out a title worth clinging to, I think it may be your last bastion of hope.

 

 

Pretty funny to see you single out the older group as nerds, when the newer crowd is doing the same things they do. Anyone who plays online games can pretty much be labeled so if you really want to go there.

And they didn't have to fight to keep subs back then. People stayed for years, not week or months because they had the content to keep you enthrawled, and the social climate. It was pretty consistent for years.

This is actually kind of true. I felt more drive to play a game when there was content that was hard and I knew there was very little chance of actually getting it all done. It was overall just more exciting when you finally get the chance to step into a dungeon that is very hard, that not many people have completed before, if anyone had ever completed it. The suspense and mystery was nice.

Unfortunately, at the same time, when things are too hard, it creates fucking ASSHOLES.  I remember back in vanilla WoW, I ran Molten Core with two different raid leaders of two different guilds, and we absolutely had to use vent or teamspeak or whatever, and the entire time, the raid leaders just kept telling everyone to "shut the fuck up and listen", and even if we had a follow up question, they'd be like, "I said you're not allowed to speak" or some shit.

So, in the end, inconvenient and hard content is fine, but other players are almost 100% guaranteed to ruin any situation. Hmm. I think I need to take a break from MMO's for a while.

Originally posted by Goatgod76

Purple - This is a fundemental problem with the playerbase of today's MMORPG's. You have to have the best gear, you have to have particular stats, you have to have a particular build or you are passed over and not even considered....or rarely are. And personally, I think it's BS. I have seen players with green gear outperform those that hardcore raid and feed off others help to have the top tier gear. It's not always the gear, but the player. Just most people now consider what a player is wearing or wielding their resume of worth. What a load of garbage.

But the reality is, that's what the majority of people who play these games today, the people who pay for the genre to exist, want.  I think it's stupid too, but if 98% of the market wants that, that's the way games are going to be made, you can't support a game on 2% of the market.

Red -  Yes, not everyone is greedy...but be realistic...a large majority are. Especially the hardcores that will milk an item in an AH for all they can get. No one is promoting greed, it's a natural occurance,. In games and in reality.

I do think people and games are promoting greed.  If the best  gear, even mob drops, is absurdly expensive in the AH, then people have to work harder to either grind for gold or sell their own loot for ever-increasing amounts to raise the money to buy the things they want to buy.  The whole system is  designed to drive prices up.

White - I started with old school MMORPG's yes...but that doesn't mean I constantly want long journies. But 9 times out of 10 I still do it. Why? Because I am not in a hurry for the next shiney. I want to relax and enjoy the scenery and content between quests, dungeons, etc. Sure, once in awhile I will take the faster route...but believe it or not...there are people who still like to take the long way at times instead of the fastest and easiest way everytime. Some enjoy it, I am certain I am not the only one. I am saying that for those like me, it's still there to enjoy, but they can add portals for those who want to bypass this. No reason they can't have both.

I'm not in a hurry to get the next shiney either but I want to have fun and wandering around a wilderness that I've been through a hundred times is just not fun.  If I want to relax, I'll turn off the computer and go do something relaxing.  I'm playing a game because I want to be entertained.

Yellow - Sigh. Again...I know this...but at least this way it varies it from having just one same old tired way of doing it. They could also add different mobs upon changes, different loot tables, possible random treasure chests. I am just saying there are ways to make it not quite as cookie cutter. And where did I ever say I wanted inconveinience? What one person finds inconveinient, another may be able to find the fun. It's only inconveinient to those who don't like a given feature.

This whole thread is about inconvenience?  I do agree with you though, I don't want inconvenience in a game for the sake of it being inconvenient or slowing me down.  That's not challenge, that's frustration.

Green - Right. This is what I am getting at. Crafted gear, created by a player, SHOULD be different in looks and stats. And yep...Could have it where depending on what "extra" ingredients, or amounts of ingredients you added to weapons and/or armor recipies...it could alter the stats, and weapon integrity. Would also make crafting much deeper and interesting to experiment with.

Of course, the more of that you put in, the more strain you put on people's computers and Internet connections to keep up.  That's a lot of data you have to shove down when everyone's armor and weapons are unique.  Then, how do you stop people from building penis-swords and obscene things on the back of their armor?  Hire a whole bunch of GMs to run around and check?  As much as I'd like to think players would be responsible (HA!) and do the right thing, I'm trying to be practical as well.  It's a nice idea but just totally unworkable.

Pink - But they DID start as P&P style games because that is who they were targeting in the beginning. But yes...sadly now they are catered to the WoW/console  generation. And I know some will jump in and say I am slandering and name calling, blah blah...but I am not...it's what I see has happened since 2004. HOWEVER...probably a bit more so than that, they cater to.....waaaaaaait fooooor it....the old school crowd who want to hold onto playing MMORPG's, but don't have the time for them based on their RL obligations. So of course they don't mind them being turned into fast paced single playerish RPG's and lobby games.

But that's the reality.  The old  school crowd need to move on and deal with the reality that actually is, not the reality they wish was.  It's like saying the old school car crowd who still want  to crank-start their engines.  Sorry, that's gone now, it's never coming back and they have to deal with it.  Old school MMO players have to deal with it too.  What existed in 2004 is gone, it's never coming back, deal with it.

But also...once they were commercialized to the populace...they went the way of speed and fast rewards. It's like watching a LotR movie where everyone is on crack and the movie lasts 10 minutes and they save the world. Ho-hum and lack luster IMO.

All games have always been commercialized to the populace.  Back in the old days, when most players were tabletop D&D nerds, games were designed to appeal to them.  Now that only a minuscule percentage of gamers are that, games no longer take their wishes into account.  That's how business works.

It's just the way of society now. No one has patience, and people refuse to see fun in any other way than this...or even the possibilities of what can or could be done. I don't mind fast fun myself...but that is why I play console games or PC FPS games. I USE to play MMORPG's to get lost in a world, become my character, and relax and forget reality...but sadly....they no longer give that feeling. And it isn't because I've been there done that over and over again. It's because those types of MMORPG's are nearly, if not already completely extinct....and it's just sad. I feel if you can't find the time to enjoy an MMORPG in moderation.....you shouldn't be playing them. But again...just my own opinion.

Sorry, I really have very little sympathy or respect for people who try to escape from reality into a fantasy world.  Games are and have always been a means to have fun and waste free time.  That's all they are, that's all they've ever been, that's all they'll ever be.  If life sucks so bad that you have to escape into a video game, something tells me you need to spend less time playing and more time in therapy.

Originally posted by XAPGames

 

I'm not in the camp that MMORPGs should be changed from what they are.  I am in the camp that I don't like what they have become.

Then don't play them.  It's easy.  If you don't like it, go find something else to do.

 

I don't think that adding inconvenience will improve mass appeal games.  I do think that adding inconvenience would make the world feel more detailed for ME.

The problem is, you don't matter.  No individual does.  Individuals do not, on their own, keep these games running.  It is only as a collective, tens or hundreds of thousands, even millions of people who are willing to put down money to play a game and keep it alive, that matter.  If you fall outside of the wishes of the majority, you don't make any  difference at all and the sooner you accept that and move on, the better.

A niche game can add inconvenience as a feature.  I don't see it ever happening to mainstream if they continue in the current direction, which is expected.

 

The current direction, which is making them plenty of money?  No, why would they change?

Originally posted by nariusseldon

You can stunlock D3 bosses. I consider D3 fights more interesting, and more in depth than WOW.

What do you think fast travel is? To enable players to avoid things like 20 min boat ride. When EQ was first released, there were  boat rides (and staring at spell book) that you cannot avoid. And if it can be avoided, the inconvience no longer applies, right?

 

It can be avoided, but it will not always be.

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Quirhid

Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

Originally posted by Goatgod76

Yes, excuse me for not correcting my post fast enough. P&P players were also in mind, but yes...for MUDers as well, or mainly.

Actually, P&Pers weren't the primary market, it was geeks who had access to powerful computers and fast Internet connections that were the primary market.  Those were the only people who could play these games!  The people who tended to have those resources though were the geeks, the people who tended to play P&P roleplaying games, etc.  Therefore, companies tried to make games that would be reminiscent of those games and hopefully, bring in the geeks to play.

Nobody made MMOs to look like P&P, just for the sake of being P&P, but to draw in the crowd they were really after.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Quirhid

Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

Yeah ... i agree.

It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

Originally posted by Axxar
I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

 

Originally posted by LauraFrost

Current games forces you NOT to interact with other players. You're always doing tasks (quests) ALL the time from the very beginning of the game to the end. Developers want you distracted ALWAYS doing something pre-defined. You have no time to talk, you have to go to Point A to pick up the quests then point B, C, D, E then back to point A to turn in everything then move on to the next hub.

Sorry, I can interact with anyone I want in a game, any time I want.  No one is forcing me to do anything, I can stop and smell the roses any time I wish, I can hang out in population centers and chat with anyone I feel like it, I can join a guild and do nothing but talk to people in guild chat.  There's no way for a game to stop me from doing that, even if they wanted to.  It's not like an online FPS where people are constantly shooting at you, if you want to stop, you can stop.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Quirhid

Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

Yeah ... i agree.

It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

If there are not, then why do we always end up with the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better" ? (even if it not true apart of special cases)

From both (and sometimes all three) of you?

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Axxar
I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

 

Well, why do you think that this should work and/or be a viable argument and option, but the opposite, "go play a fps" should not?

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Quirhid

Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

Yeah ... i agree.

It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

If there are not, then why do we always end up with the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better" ? (even if it not true apart of special cases)

From both (and sometimes all three) of you?

Flame on!

:)

Who used the argument ""the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better"? Certainly not by me.

However, the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is financially viable" is another matter. Devs go where it makes money, not where it is "better".

The concept of "better" is ill-defined.

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Quirhid

Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

Yeah ... i agree.

It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

If there are not, then why do we always end up with the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better" ? (even if it not true apart of special cases)

From both (and sometimes all three) of you?

Flame on!

:)

Its not necessarily that the majority chooses it and its better, but that the majority chooses it and it makes the most money for the people making the calls in game development.  That makes it better for them.

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Axxar
I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

 

Well, why do you think that this should work and/or be a viable argument and option, but the opposite, "go play a fps" should not?

Flame on!

:)

Because it does not require anyone to change their game. If you say "go play a FPS" .. what if i want RPG combat?

The suggestion "If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper" does not require you to go to another form of gameplay, which you may not like.

In fact, it provides extra choices, which is good.