Trending Games | Cabal 2 | Guild Wars 2 | Hex | Wizard101

  Network:  RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,975,381 Users Online:0
Games:818  Posts:6,418,522
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Setting:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search
83 posts found
  User Deleted
3/26/13 10:03:48 PM#21


Originally posted by GGrimm
I prefer the word consequence. Who wouldn't rather play a game where your actions had a consequence rather than a game where your actions had none?

Kill 1000 rats and "saved" the city? 10 minutes later... time to clear out those pesky rats again.

Kill the Lich-King in an epic struggle. Can you take up residence in his awesome castle of awesomeness? Nope, respawn just occurred....

Wouldn't you prefer your actions to have an ACTUAL effect on an MMO rather than just be told by your quest-giver that your heroic actions had a huge impact, to see a moment later they haven't?

The risk of loss (of XP, of skills, of gold/money, or time) is one kind of consequence that can create a sense of danger, but not all consequences need be of the dangerious variety.



That's the downside to MMOs. So you want 1 person out of millions to experience killing the Lich King? Only 1 player can kill those 1000 rats to save the city?

From a business standpoint, that is bad design. From a player standpoint, why should I race others to experience content we all paid the same for?

This is why there are single player games where actions change the game.

  maplestone

Novice Member

Joined: 12/10/08
Posts: 3109

3/26/13 10:23:10 PM#22
Originally posted by AlBQuirky

From a business standpoint, that is bad design. From a player standpoint, why should I race others to experience content we all paid the same for?

Because someone should get to experience it.

In current themepark MMOs, only the writers get to actually play the game.  The rest of us are just acting out a writeup of their adventures.

Even the idea that something, anything at all, in the game is actually shaped by player actions and player choices is a powerful concept.  It doesn't have to be perfectly symmetrical.  There is danger in knowing that one one person in your community will soon have the power to influence the fate of the entire community..

  GGrimm

Novice Member

Joined: 3/12/13
Posts: 50

3/26/13 10:35:11 PM#23
Originally posted by AlBQuirky

Originally posted by GGrimm
I prefer the word consequence. Who wouldn't rather play a game where your actions had a consequence rather than a game where your actions had none?

 

Kill 1000 rats and "saved" the city? 10 minutes later... time to clear out those pesky rats again.

Kill the Lich-King in an epic struggle. Can you take up residence in his awesome castle of awesomeness? Nope, respawn just occurred....

Wouldn't you prefer your actions to have an ACTUAL effect on an MMO rather than just be told by your quest-giver that your heroic actions had a huge impact, to see a moment later they haven't?

The risk of loss (of XP, of skills, of gold/money, or time) is one kind of consequence that can create a sense of danger, but not all consequences need be of the dangerious variety.


That's the downside to MMOs. So you want 1 person out of millions to experience killing the Lich King? Only 1 player can kill those 1000 rats to save the city?

From a business standpoint, that is bad design. From a player standpoint, why should I race others to experience content we all paid the same for?

This is why there are single player games where actions change the game.

But imagine how much better the MMO would be if you COULD claim or move in to the residence of the Lich King. Perhaps you could improve his dingy castle. Perhaps there are timed events where spawns would attack that castle or invade it's passages or rampage through the castle. If you could not properly defend it or did not have guards in the castle you could lose "possession" of it. Or perhaps other opportunitistic players would attack it and you would be forced to defend your hard fought possession or lose it. Perhaps if the castle remains uninhabited for long enough, it would gain new residents. There are no rules that say MMOs have to be quest driven. It's just a convention.

Gameplay with consequence doesn't need to, nor should it be relegated to single player games. The concept of player impact within an MMO should be an experience that all good MMOs should be aiming for.

My main point, however, was simply to explain that beyond just danger, what we really seek is consequence. You do something bad or good - there is a potential consequence for you within the game. Those consequences could be from other players or follow from a programmed series of options within the game.

  User Deleted
3/26/13 10:56:35 PM#24


Originally posted by GGrimm
My main point, however, was simply to explain that beyond just danger, what we really seek is consequence. You do something bad or good - there is a potential consequence for you within the game. Those consequences could be from other players or follow from a programmed series of options within the game.

I don't know if my affect on the game world factors into my idea of "danger" for me. I think I feel danger from threats to my character, not his affect on the world. The consequence to my character, not the world, creates that feeling of danger for me.

Am I reading you right?

  GGrimm

Novice Member

Joined: 3/12/13
Posts: 50

3/26/13 11:12:45 PM#25
Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 


Originally posted by GGrimm
My main point, however, was simply to explain that beyond just danger, what we really seek is consequence. You do something bad or good - there is a potential consequence for you within the game. Those consequences could be from other players or follow from a programmed series of options within the game.


I don't know if my affect on the game world factors into my idea of "danger" for me. I think I feel danger from threats to my character, not his affect on the world. The consequence to my character, not the world, creates that feeling of danger for me.

Am I reading you right?

Not entirely. I am saying one kind of consequence in a game is the element of danger (with the potential of loss of some kind to your character) and that can be very engaging and potentially satisfying. However, another kind of consequence is not necessarily danger, but simply making an impact within the game and that can also be very engaging and potentially satisfying. So I prefer to refer to consequence as being important to engaging gameplay, rather than just danger.

  Rossboss

Novice Member

Joined: 10/26/10
Posts: 241

3/26/13 11:34:13 PM#26

If I've never been there, killed it, or watched a strategy video on youtube for it, it's scary after the first attack takes more than 10% of my health.

If you've ever been the first to "clear a dungeon", it's pretty scary. You don't know what you are walking into nor do you know how to defeat the thing.

I challenge those of you who say, "you can't scare me" to play an MMORPG that you haven't played before, without the help of friends/other players, not to look up strategy videos/database information and never ask for advice. You will find that simple dungeons won't let you just spam potions to make up for your lack of level, skill, and gear. You will also find that certain things, like a group of mobs with a stun ability or a world boss, will lead to your inevitable death.

Danger is a pretty vague term, it entails any kind of situation where you may be injured. That being said, jumping off a cliff in game is dangerous, because of fall damage. Also, attacking that chicken is dangerous because there is a chance you might get mobbed by chickens. Entering the game is also regarded as danger as you might encounter a foe. You get the point by now I hope.

The scariest thing to me is becoming so callous to danger that I end up not being afraid to adventure into the unknown in a game. I can't imagine playing a game and saying, "No, I don't want to run that dungeon. We'd be the first ones to actually do something in there." or "No, I don't play that class. Nobody has liked it so far so I'm going to write it off." I don't want to be upset because I was defeated. I want to be upset because I died before we could kill the other guys. I want to feel like I can do better than I have in the past. I want to be afraid of something I can see coming from a mile away, but I can get prepared to take it down.

Perma-death and One-shot skills are probably the worst ideas to ever happen to MMORPGs in my opinion. They not only instill a fear of failure but they quite honestly reward players for playing it safe and not making any risks. If your character dies permanently, you've just told that player that they failed on a massive scale to the point where all of their progress is completely lost. This quite honestly is like taking away a person's driver's license because they got in an accident, whether or not they caused the accident, and gives the person literally no option to improve upon their failures. If you can kill another player in one hit, you've just let the player get the idea in their head that combat consists of one command and that they took literally no risk.

I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.

  LoganKonlan

Novice Member

Joined: 8/20/09
Posts: 27

3/26/13 11:47:52 PM#27

I have always thought an MMORPG where a player who had surmounted "obstacle here" could control a BOSS mob - with a arsenal of powerful abilities. As a player, how fun would it be to rampage across the countryside destroying capital cities as a giant monster? You would have a meter (as the boss) that would tell you which player was causing the most damage at that moment.

Players would band together to defeat the BOSS. I think the "fear" would be in knowing that the monster was beiing controlled by a real player and at any moment it would zero in on you and all the running in the world wouldn't cause it to lose aggro. Seems like it would be fun for all.

If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand.

  redcapp

Novice Member

Joined: 5/13/11
Posts: 733

3/26/13 11:59:40 PM#28
I felt danger today when I got jumped by reds on my bard playing UO forever.
  redcapp

Novice Member

Joined: 5/13/11
Posts: 733

3/27/13 12:01:53 AM#29
dupe
  kjempff

Elite Member

Joined: 10/12/04
Posts: 857

Make worlds not stories

3/27/13 12:38:25 AM#30

Consequence = danger, everyone knows it, no one wants it given the choice.

Example: eq progression servers with 99% old players who played back when you had to run back and get corpse within 6? hours or your gear were lost. There was a vote to use that old system or the new system where you could only gain xp by running back, but never loose gear - The vote went against the old death penalty system. It is funny how that works, everyone knew the old system would give the real feeling they wanted from re-playing eq, but they took the easy way out, and thus never got what they came back for.

 

For a game company it is just a question of numbers, consequence = x number of hardcore players staying in the game, no consequence = y number of players staying in the game; y > x, game = business = y is the choice.

 

Hardcore in ARPGs or some mmorpgs pvp servers would be the closest you come to consequence at the moment, but it sure would be nice to see some mmorpgs have some kind of consequence design build in, maybe optional to reach both the hardcore and the casual customer segment.

"I am my connectome" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0

  maplestone

Novice Member

Joined: 12/10/08
Posts: 3109

3/27/13 12:48:41 AM#31
Originally posted by kjempff

Consequence = danger, everyone knows it, no one wants it given the choice.

Small point of order: there exists a category of griefers who don't care at all what happens to their character so long as they get to harvest tears from other players.  They feel empowered, not endangered by a game with consequences.

  treelo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 5/04/09
Posts: 70

3/27/13 12:49:59 AM#32

Tension is the correct term here, not fear.  A good game will continually build suspense, in the case of many MMOs this is something as simple as watching your HP fall ever closer to zero as a fight continues until the moment of release where you or your enemy drops dead.  Hauling cargo in EVE it stems from never knowing who is watching, or what is waiting for you on the other side of that gate. 

Killing ten rats in a basement is an exercise in tedium, until you give those rats the ability to inflict a crippling (and I'm not talking "you got rat aids, -1 constitution") disease.  Suddenly each hit acquires new meaning as you wait for that inevitable moment when you contract whatever unpleasantness they're carrying.  In an effort to appeal to a wider, younger audience games ignore these basic rules in favour of streamlined content with little to no consequence for failure.  Most people don't like losing, believe it or not.  We're expected to suffer mediocre gameplay for their sake.

As for an example of it done right, counting shadows in FFXI gave me most of my "oh shit" moments in gaming.  Mis-clicks wiping out timers,AoEs or double/triple attacks tearing down your shadows in seconds, or a timer coming up as you're on your last legs.  It remains one of the most engaging and rewarding tanking mechanics I have seen in nearly a decade.

  GGrimm

Novice Member

Joined: 3/12/13
Posts: 50

3/27/13 10:17:01 AM#33
Originally posted by kjempff

Consequence = danger, everyone knows it, no one wants it given the choice.

Example: eq progression servers with 99% old players who played back when you had to run back and get corpse within 6? hours or your gear were lost. There was a vote to use that old system or the new system where you could only gain xp by running back, but never loose gear - The vote went against the old death penalty system. It is funny how that works, everyone knew the old system would give the real feeling they wanted from re-playing eq, but they took the easy way out, and thus never got what they came back for.

For a game company it is just a question of numbers, consequence = x number of hardcore players staying in the game, no consequence = y number of players staying in the game; y > x, game = business = y is the choice.

Hardcore in ARPGs or some mmorpgs pvp servers would be the closest you come to consequence at the moment, but it sure would be nice to see some mmorpgs have some kind of consequence design build in, maybe optional to reach both the hardcore and the casual customer segment.

Consequence does not simply mean danger. Consequence can mean that your actions have an impact within the game mileu itself. I remember how in Warhammer Online, the top RvR players were rewarded with a statue which was placed in their main city. The statue is a consequence of how they played in the game. The physical environment of the game was changed as a result of the actions of those players. The statues were not dangerious, they just sat there.

  GGrimm

Novice Member

Joined: 3/12/13
Posts: 50

3/27/13 10:24:29 AM#34
I think everyone wants to have there be consequences in an MMO, without them any achievement is hollow. The issue seems to be that different people have different thresholds for the severity of consequence they are ready to assume. Some people like severe consequences because they find it exciting, others prefer less severe consequences because they don't want to have to rebuild what they have lost. There is room for games to incorporate both of these kind of players. Serious benefits for people willing to tolerate serious consequences, Less serious, but more reliable, benefits for those willing to tolerate less sersious consequences.
  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 21894

3/27/13 10:35:10 AM#35
Originally posted by BigHatLogan

Does anyone else feal that lack of danger makes MMORPGs and sRPGs feel stale?  Are their any games out there that I am missing that have successfully caused terror in players?  I'd especially love to hear about MMORPGs that pull it off.  To be clear I dont't mean dark theme or scary graphics, those may scare a 5 year old.  When I talk about fear and terror I mean that a player will be scared or upset when they are defeated.  I don't care how scary a boss looks when it jumps out at me, if i can just hop back up and fight him again when I die that is not scary in my book.

No.

Obviously, how these save systems/little penalty are popular, danger is really not required to have fun, for many.

But there is a good example of terror.

D3 hard core. You can lose hundred of hours of progress if you make a small mistake. Many play that game mode VERY conservatively.

Danger is not conducive of trying things out, and experimenting. If i know i will lose my character, or just my 2B gold sword if i die, i am less likely to try a new build.

  Aelious

Elite Member

Joined: 9/27/11
Posts: 2753

World > Quest Progression

3/27/13 11:37:50 AM#36
I'm personally not swayed too much by a death penalty as I never like to die anyways. That said I've probably been the most invested in staying alive in EQ based upon a few things:

One, losing XP that took a while to build
Two, in a group it could be a chore to get to an XP spot so killing back to that spot took time.
Three, if you kept getting killed or were causing others to keep getting killed you could be asked to leave.

I can see why these things were taken out but I feel more can be done to make it interesting. Open dungeons is one and leaving corpses is another. Not that your corpes would despawn and you lose your stuff but that you would need to get back to it, fast travel or not. If you didn't want to and it was zapped back to you you could not use that gear for an hour. This wouldn't work for a lot of people but ideas are not just for the majority.

"Why?! What's the point of death penalties?!!"

It makes winning worth more than being expected.
  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 21894

3/27/13 1:39:10 PM#37
Originally posted by Aelious


I can see why these things were taken out but I feel more can be done to make it interesting. Open dungeons is one and leaving corpses is another. Not that your corpes would despawn and you lose your stuff but that you would need to get back to it, fast travel or not. If you didn't want to and it was zapped back to you you could not use that gear for an hour. This wouldn't work for a lot of people but ideas are not just for the majority.

"Why?! What's the point of death penalties?!!"

It makes winning worth more than being expected.

There is no "winning" in PvE, only progression. And DP does not make it harder to beat a boss, it only makes it take longer.

In PvP, you don't need DP to make winner worth anything. There are a lot of established e-sport methods for that .. ranking, ELO score .....

 

  waynejr2

Elite Member

Joined: 4/12/11
Posts: 4318

RIP City of Heroes!

3/27/13 1:47:20 PM#38
Originally posted by Eir_S
I don't think I've ever felt particularly in "Danger" in an MMO.  The last game that made me feel a sense of actual fear was Amnesia: The Dark Descent.  That is one awesome game, but I can't play through it again, it gave me gaming PTSD lol

 I have never felt fear in a video game.  I just don't see how people are fearful in a video game.

http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html

  znaiika

Novice Member

Joined: 1/31/12
Posts: 203

3/28/13 10:27:17 AM#39

So, you people want  mobs to one shot you, then what's the point of that, I want smart AI like in RAGE, that feel's alive, if I could manage to avoid geting hit by  moving around, using covers, that does not mean, it is an easy mode, in most games AI use aimbot system, which is not fun and you only need to find the right combination of protection and output damage, that is not challenge or danger.

I realy enjoy my skyrim, I hope that MMOs are like that.

Defince, does have everything you need, you have solo, with different challenges, and you have group content.

People afraid to have first person view in an MMOs, because they want to see what happens in 360% mode, that is part of easy mode as well.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 21894

3/28/13 11:48:49 AM#40
Originally posted by waynejr2
Originally posted by Eir_S
I don't think I've ever felt particularly in "Danger" in an MMO.  The last game that made me feel a sense of actual fear was Amnesia: The Dark Descent.  That is one awesome game, but I can't play through it again, it gave me gaming PTSD lol

 I have never felt fear in a video game.  I just don't see how people are fearful in a video game.

Some of the scripted scenes in the first FEAR game is pretty scary though .. not the kind that really scare me for long, but like the jump out and i go "holy shit" .. kind of sudden shock.

 

5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search