imagremlin said:
Loonyyy said:
We have different definitions of depth and fun, you and I. I don't think searching is depth or fun.
We differ on fun, something I acknowledged. But the navigation system in Morrowind was comparatively deeper. It had greater rewards for learning to understand it, and different playstyles would have different approaches to it. It may not have been fun for everyone, but again, everyone's going to think things have differing amounts of fun.
Lets say I make a game where to walk, you have to continually press two buttons, left foot, right foot. In my eyes, this game is no deeper than a game where you just push a stick or press a button to move forward; it's simply more tedious.
Or, let's make a game where all the player input is removed, and it's all a cutscene, eh? Come on, these false analogies are silly at best. The travel and navigation in Morrowind is not at all analogous to the system you described. In the system you described, the action is simply complicated. In Morrowind, the navigation is not only complicated by the mechanics. It requires additional thought and input.
A game where I have to search for the locations is tedious to me, not deep.
Tedious, not fun. Tedious is not an opposite of deep. And, if you think the system is not deep, sorry, but you're flat out wrong.
Depth comes from the combination of rich mechanics IMHO, how you choose/combine your resources to overcome challenges.
Agreed.
In Morrowind for example, you can use spells to teleport, or join the Mages Guild to travel to other Guild Halls, use Silt Striders, gain magical skills to teleport without buying scrolls, try to master the Boots of Blinding speed, whether through obstinancy or through magic, etc. That's a deep system, which has different implications for different playthroughs and playstyles. You're entitled not to enjoy it, but it's not a shallow system. It fulfills your definition of deep to the letter.
Even then, Elder Scroll/Fallout games do offer a modicum of searching with a few waypoint-less missions when they want to make the search part of the challenge. Small doses are OK in my book.
I'm totally cool with that.
I do agree with your argument that it can be more immersive, after all, we don't get glowing arrows in real life to tell us where to go (well, actually we kind of do these days, Google Maps, anyone? but I digress). But not all types of immersion are fun, at least to me.
Sure, but it's not the lack of the glowing arrow that makes it more immersive. It's the interpreting of instructions, the looking for signs and landmarks, and solving the minor puzzle. As opposed to opening the magic map and teleporting. The teleporting doesn't even have to kill immersion-a handwaving of it by saying that everyone has now the ability to perform complex teleports, whether by cheap scrolls, or some other handwave. That way, they can keep the integrity of the setting, and have the mechanic. Presto, a solution that doesn't kill the immersion half as much!
Hey, you could argue that my press foot button to walk is more immersive, but I suspect not much fun.
I wouldn't. It wouldn't. Immersion is about getting lost in a game, and things which make you think about how it's a game destroy immersion. Cutting to the map to fast travel kills immersion, especially when your horse spawns next to you, despite you being nowhere near him when you fast travelled. If you have to think about pressing the foot button to walk, or left and right feet, that's going to hurt immersion. Minimising the interferance the controls have maximises immersion. Immersion is not simply complexity. Very simple games can be highly immersive.
Fun is subjective, as I said. I don't find searching fun, and I reckon most people don't find it fun either or games would not have waypoints.
I've no idea. I don't know whether Bethesda focus tested it, or did any kind of research. Oblivion happened because Morrowind was a success, so I wouldn't be inclined to dismiss the influence Morrowind would have had.
Each to its own, but you people who enjoys this kind of thing is in the minority,
Prove it, or just stop saying that. And, even if it is a minority, that doesn't mean that it can't be made for the minority.
so yes it's an appeal to popularity. Take it as you will.
I will. Appealing to popularity doesn't make things the most fun for each player, and if we try to make the most popular game, we'll end up with something generic and woeful. What's the most popular game at the moment? CoD? LoL? Something like that. If they try to appeal to the largest market, rather than making something which has appeal to the niche it's aimed for, it'll just be a mess. That's the problem with only going from popularity. It's lazy, and it doesn't bring about true satisfaction. There's much to be said for you personally liking the waypoint system more, but that it may or may not be more popular is not one of those things.
Sure, there are games with permadeath these days to cater for people that miss that kind of stuff. It is still a niche from what I'm standing though, 99.9% of games out there are not doing this. If they do, I may be proved wrong, but I suspect I won't.
I'm not saying they will, or even should. Just that games are made mostly in niches, and there's nothing wrong with appealing to those niches. Indeed, most games do.
V8 Ninja said:
Loonyyy said:
imagremlin said:
Once upon a time you could not save your progress. People still played and praised those games. Do you think its reasonable for a modern game not to implement any form of save?
See: Roguelikes.
People do still like those sorts of games, because of these very elements. Regardless, the introduction of these features is more akin to the removal of content, than the adding of it.
And I present a counter-argument;
Hardcore Mode [http://www.diablowiki.net/Hardcore]. Also, if you aren't playing a no-saving run of a game for the fun/personal challenge of it, then why are you playing the game in that fashion at all?
I don't see that as a counter-argument. Again, they've added a feature which you can toggle, which adds something new. You see, I could put up with all the fast travel in Oblivion and Skyrim and just not use it if they'd still keep the old style journals and detailed directions. Then adding the fast travel
would be adding a feature. But adding in the shallower feature of fast travel, and leaving out the other stuff is trading depth for simplicity, and leaves no room for the original playstyle.
And for that matter, why are you pissed/angry/upset that other games are giving users those options? Neither the players nor the other games don't affect your tastes, personal choices, or status on any scale. In a way, you're almost being a homophobe; you're complaining about/condoning things and people that really don't alter your lifestyle in any tangible aspect.
I'm very glad you crossed this out. It's disgusting. I never said that I was pissed, angry, or upset, and it's not about other gamers being given options, it's about the removal of them. For instance, if fast travel was added to Morrowind, I would not care a jot. It wouldn't need to change how I played the game.
The bit about homophobia is flat out wrong, and I'm disgusted to see that posted. It's a complete misunderstanding of my position. To go with your inane analogy: It's like if gay marriage were allowed, and at the same time, they removed straight marriage. (And before someone takes that out of context, know that if you do, you'll simply get a spot on my ignore list) I have no problem with a feature being given to someone else, that I will not use. I've said this numerous times. I've a problem with the removal of features I do use. There's a big difference.
EDIT: That crossed-out section of text is in its current state because I realized that I may have been assuming too many things about your stance on Dark Souls and it having an easy mode, Mr. Loonyyy. Also, I got slightly emotional.
Good. My stance on DS and an easy mode is actually quite different to what you assumed. I actually think that an easy mode for that is a good thing.