EQ Never

A

a_skeleton_02

<Banned>
8,130
14,248
Draegan_sl said:
You can break anything down to just pressing buttons and getting some kind of feedback. The issue here is you are glancing over all the nuance and design of different attempts. Before WOW came out, you could of just said "aren't you just grinding mobs anyway? Want's the whole point of quests?" Obviously disguising mob grinding with a task oriented system made the game a million times more successful. That's not debatable at all. Obviously it's not the only reason, but it is a core point.


So let's take that a step further. Every single game out there now (with the exception of TSW but they still do it anyway in a different fashion) starts you off at level 1. SWTOR, Rift, EQ1&2, WOW, GW2, TERA, Archeage, Wildstar. They all do it. The game, from a design point of view, is broken into two halves. We all know this, but let's break it down for argument sake.

The first half is a linear quest path that generally consists of collecting tasks and finishing them. Each of the games above does this in different ways. EQ1 has you going from spot to spot in a linear fashion grinding mobs. GW2 has you going through a progression of completing zones and doing hearts. SWTOR and Wildstar have you following a plot line through a zone, completing tasks along the way. However, in each case you have a zone specifically designed for a tight level range, content is gated inside that range by a specific level restriction. Once you finish that level range, you are done with that area forever. The lower the level, the faster it's consumed.

Obviously each game has other activities that you can pepper in to make it less monotonous. Some games you can grind mobs instead where it's more efficient, or dungeons, or battlegrounds. But in the end, the vast majority of players that play the game, follow the designed quest route.

The second half is a game where your level is based on the totality of your gear. The game then becomes you running through various dungeons, instanced or otherwise, with various amounts of people.

A Tiered system breaks down that dichotomy. Everyone here basically rushes through the first half (which consists of 90% of the developed content) in a few days of playing and spends the rest of the time playing the game in the second half. So why create a game that caters to the portion of the game you spend the least amount of time on? Why not create a game where each tier is essentially "the end game". Do you not have the most amount of fun collecting gear and beating big bad guys? Why not make a game solely based on that?

So you take away the grind of leveling up, and just stick everyone in that first tier of end game. Just hope the people designing the game are smart enough and good enough to make sure there is a path to follow in the game that isn't rigid like a linear quest path. Unfortunately I don't think there is enough creative people in the industry to do that. The majority of MMO devs aren't smart enough to create a complicated system, and just default to what they've seen for 15 years. We just need people who can create open world maps and dungeons like Zelda (any of them but 2) or any of the Dark Souls, or any of the GTA maps.
Click to expand...
Pretty much agree with all of this.

The people making MMO's now need to be kicked out of the industry all they are doing is stifling creativity and stopping new blood from getting a hold.

also,

So you're saying I can put you down as a potential backer for a Dark Souls MMO?
 
Jysin

Jysin

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,286
4,051
Draegan_sl said:
You can break anything down to just pressing buttons and getting some kind of feedback. The issue here is you are glancing over all the nuance and design of different attempts. Before WOW came out, you could of just said "aren't you just grinding mobs anyway? Want's the whole point of quests?" Obviously disguising mob grinding with a task oriented system made the game a million times more successful. That's not debatable at all. Obviously it's not the only reason, but it is a core point.

So let's take that a step further. Every single game out there now (with the exception of TSW but they still do it anyway in a different fashion) starts you off at level 1. SWTOR, Rift, EQ1&2, WOW, GW2, TERA, Archeage, Wildstar. They all do it. The game, from a design point of view, is broken into two halves. We all know this, but let's break it down for argument sake.

The first half is a linear quest path that generally consists of collecting tasks and finishing them. Each of the games above does this in different ways. EQ1 has you going from spot to spot in a linear fashion grinding mobs. GW2 has you going through a progression of completing zones and doing hearts. SWTOR and Wildstar have you following a plot line through a zone, completing tasks along the way. However, in each case you have a zone specifically designed for a tight level range, content is gated inside that range by a specific level restriction. Once you finish that level range, you are done with that area forever. The lower the level, the faster it's consumed.

Obviously each game has other activities that you can pepper in to make it less monotonous. Some games you can grind mobs instead where it's more efficient, or dungeons, or battlegrounds. But in the end, the vast majority of players that play the game, follow the designed quest route.

The second half is a game where your level is based on the totality of your gear. The game then becomes you running through various dungeons, instanced or otherwise, with various amounts of people.

A Tiered system breaks down that dichotomy. Everyone here basically rushes through the first half (which consists of 90% of the developed content) in a few days of playing and spends the rest of the time playing the game in the second half. So why create a game that caters to the portion of the game you spend the least amount of time on? Why not create a game where each tier is essentially "the end game". Do you not have the most amount of fun collecting gear and beating big bad guys? Why not make a game solely based on that?

So you take away the grind of leveling up, and just stick everyone in that first tier of end game. Just hope the people designing the game are smart enough and good enough to make sure there is a path to follow in the game that isn't rigid like a linear quest path. Unfortunately I don't think there is enough creative people in the industry to do that. The majority of MMO devs aren't smart enough to create a complicated system, and just default to what they've seen for 15 years. We just need people who can create open world maps and dungeons like Zelda (any of them but 2) or any of the Dark Souls, or any of the GTA maps.
Click to expand...
I am actually agreement with you. What I was trying to say was that their new intended Tier system seems more or less the same. Yes, you are not grinding levels, but you are grinding whatever gear advancement requirements there are to get to the T5 content. Again, agreeing with you that the majority of the content is rushed through to get as quickly to T5 (max "level") as possible and making T1-T4 irrelevant. As soon as a new player joins, they will still be wanting to join friends in the end content as soon as possible. You have just replaced levels with tiered gear grinds. Seems more or less the same.
 
Siliconemelons

Siliconemelons

Avatar of War Slayer
10,991
15,473
Draegan_sl said:
...Zelda (any of them but 2)...
Click to expand...
wait just a moment... Zelda 2 had some of the best palace design of all Zelda games... for all its flaws the palaces where awesome- esp the final one... the only other one that I honestly enjoyed the dudgeons beyond "that one is just water palace difficult" was the 3ds link between worlds.

But I love Zelda 2 and Castlevania 2 and give them both props for pushing and changing the expected line up
 
Jimbolini

Jimbolini

Semi-pro Monopoly player
2,567
955
xadion_sl said:
wait just a moment... Zelda 2 had some of the best palace design of all Zelda games... for all its flaws the palaces where awesome- esp the final one... the only other one that I honestly enjoyed the dudgeons beyond "that one is just water palace difficult" was the 3ds link between worlds.

But I love Zelda 2 and Castlevania 2 and give them both props for pushing and changing the expected line up
Click to expand...
Zelda: A Link to the past ... I would consider it top 10 all time game.
 
G

gogojira_sl

shitlord
2,202
3
You're not alone, a lot of people see The Adventure of Link as the low point in the series. It's such a radical departure from the franchise it's jarring. There are things I love and hate about it, but it definitely doesn't hold a candle to the original, LTTP, OOT or Majora's Mask.

The actual low point for me is probably the DS games (the fucking Phantom Hourglass repeat dungeon is the WORST) and Skyward Sword which is about as hand holding as it gets.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,565
7,877
gogojira_sl said:
You're not alone, a lot of people see The Adventure of Link as the low point in the series. It's such a radical departure from the franchise it's jarring. There are things I love and hate about it, but it definitely doesn't hold a candle to the original, LTTP, OOT or Majora's Mask.

The actual low point for me is probably the DS games (the fucking Phantom Hourglass repeat dungeon is the WORST) and Skyward Sword which is about as hand holding as it gets.
Click to expand...
A lot of scrubs see it as a low point maybe.

TAOL is up there with SimCity, Super Mario 3, Final Fantasy and Mega Man 2 as the best games of the 80s.
 
Bruman

Bruman

Golden Squire
1,154
0
Draegan_sl said:
I remember it being fairly linear, I guess I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
It's one of my personal favorite games, and I love the Zelda franchise probably more than any other franchise - but yes, LTTP is linear. There's a set order you need to complete the dungeons in.

However, the new one 3DS may be my favorite ever. It is purposefully non-linear, and it is so much awesomer for it. They said they're looking to take that more open approach with the Wii-U one. Definitely psyched.
 
Miele

Miele

Lord Nagafen Raider
916
48
Archeiron_sl said:
My previous post is my observation that Landmark is currently more FUN for the type of game that it is meant to be than EQN has shown for the type of game that it is meant to be. The approach for building Landmark creates lots of opportunities for Landmark to be fun, but it isn't obvious how EQN is coming together to be fun.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that fun is quite subjective, I would like to point out that I'm playing Landmark and I know jack and shit of EQN, in fact I've yet to see a thing related to real gameplay. Saying that Next isn't fun now, is like saying the next world cup final will be boring. How the fuck do you know?
 
Ukerric

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,978
9,690
Draegan_sl said:
However, in each case you have a zone specifically designed for a tight level range, content is gated inside that range by a specific level restriction. Once you finish that level range, you are done with that area forever.
Click to expand...
It's different with GW2. GW2 took the opposite idea of having "low level content" become irrelevant to high level characters. You can entirely skip a newbie zone, and then come back at 80, do it, and you get reasonably good rewards from it. This is why, every two hours like clockwork, hordes of level 80 characters drop on a newbie zone to do the final event of that zone for relatively easy loot and unique skins, even if they completed that zone a year ago.
 
Ukerric

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,978
9,690
Draegan_sl said:
You my be right, but it is only mean the devs made another shitty linear game.
Click to expand...
It's linear, but in a 40-dimension space. You have 40 different classes that you can collect and improve to tier 5, each independently. Quite unlike WoW where there's exactly one direction for the one class you selected, and each talent for each spec is handed simultaneously.
 
D

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
Ukerric_sl said:
It's different with GW2. GW2 took the opposite idea of having "low level content" become irrelevant to high level characters. You can entirely skip a newbie zone, and then come back at 80, do it, and you get reasonably good rewards from it. This is why, every two hours like clockwork, hordes of level 80 characters drop on a newbie zone to do the final event of that zone for relatively easy loot and unique skins, even if they completed that zone a year ago.
Click to expand...
GW2 doesn't count because there is shit to do in that game other than level and watch some really bad story telling. If I had to play a leveling game, it would be GW2 for sure because they made an awesome world. But farming low level zones was as pointless as attempting to "gear up" at level 80.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.