Slashdot Mirror


Koster's Laws Of Online Gaming Revisited

Thanks to F13.net for its article attempting a re-appraisal of the original 'laws of online gaming' document, as first posted by Raph Koster and others starting on October 9, 1998. The curmudgeonly analysis includes rebuttals of original laws such as "No matter what you do, someone is going to automate the process of playing your world" ("There's a very simple fix for this. Dump the treadmill, dump the numbers, and make gameplay fun"), and there's an equally tetchy rebuttal of the rebuttal at F13, suggesting: "Any amount of development time spent making the game more realistic or lifelike is wasted development time, stolen from useful tasks like making the game fun."

74 comments

  1. Couldn't agree more! by Apreche · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I used to be able to play games like Final Fantasy 6. And I still think that FF6 is the best one of them all. I love the plot and the music and everything. But I just can't go back and play it anymore. The game has no intellectual stimulation for me. It's just a leveling treadmill. Push buttons to continue the plot. Imagine if you went to see LOTR and they made you figure out a correct button sequence to make the movie continue playing?

    I'm tired of fancy graphics. I'm tired of treadmills. Nowadays I live only for the kind of action that a zelda game or a quality fps can provide. Either skill based gameplay where the best gamer wins. Or lots and lots of riddles and puzzles to solve, by thinking.

    I wrote about this awhile ago in my /journal.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Couldn't agree more! by jocmaff · · Score: 1

      I think you have valid points except for the tired of fancy graphics thing. That kind of goes hand in hand with FPS games.

    2. Re:Couldn't agree more! by JVert · · Score: 1

      You should go try puzzle pirates. I subscribed for a while but didn't have enough time to justify the monthly. No headache trial signup, go try it.

    3. Re:Couldn't agree more! by Apreche · · Score: 1

      WAAAAY ahead of you. I've been in since the beta, look for me, same names as on slashdot. And everywhere else on the net for that matter.

      --
      The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  2. My rules of online-gaming by byolinux · · Score: 0, Troll

    a) At any one time, you'll be playing against at least three, and likely five stinking thirteen year old kids, who talk in l33tsp33k and haven't seen the outside for a while.

    2) No matter what speed your connection, the game will be slow and laggy and therefore, annoying.

    d) All the real games players are playing LAN games anyway.

    1. Re:My rules of online-gaming by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      The rules of online game were written by a developer of Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies, and nearly all the rules apply only to MMORPGs with persistent worlds and rpg character development.

      Thus this if you'd read the link you'd see it has absolutely nothing to do with FPSs or RTSs, or anything else that can be played over a LAN. And depending on the game, you probably spend little to no time on PvP against anyone, stinking or otherwise.

    2. Re:My rules of online-gaming by JasdonLe · · Score: 1
      Um... The parent wasn't talking about LAN games. He just said that all the "real" gamers were playing games over LANs (i.e. instead of the MMORPGs he was refering to in numbers one and two)!

      Pay attention!

      --
      ** A Sketch a Week **
      http://www.sketchplease.com
    3. Re:My rules of online-gaming by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      He talked about playing against 3 kids and said your connection will be laggy. Both of those statements are far more applicable to FPSs, which is only confirmed by his reference to LAN as an alternative to online.

  3. Money for Time by Synkronos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So long as there is a point in the game that it is 'cooler' to be at than the starting point (eg. level whatever as opposed to level 1), people will trade money for the time taken, no matter how fun the intervening time is. They want to have more fun now, which to them means being 'cooler' and hence higher level. Basically this is a form of automated grinding, except that you are getting another person to do it rather than arbitrary code.

    The same situation applies for coded grinders. Now, instead of paying money, you are paying with idle computer time... leave your machine grinding while you go to work. Again, irrespective of how fun the time ground might have been. So basically this kind of thing will never be eliminated.

    --
    Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    1. Re:Money for Time by Slyght · · Score: 1

      It will be elimated when the games are designed so that you're playing for the journey, not the destination, so to speak.

    2. Re:Money for Time by coldtone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason that people pay for stuff isn't just to be cooler, (But I admit it is part of it) it's to be able to enjoy the game.

      Take EQ for example, as you gain levels the games becomes easier and more fun to play, you start off in the games weak, poor and slow. Little snakes kick your ass. You can't really travel outside your zone (Without encountering certain death) and you don't even have a fraction of your classes true abilities. And since the vast majority of players are high level you can't even find people to play with. This sucks.

      Compare that with a high level character. You can travel wherever you want, only the highest level mobs are a problem, and even then you can almost always escape death. You can travel anywhere, there are tons of people you can group with, you can easily afford to buy stuff from other players (Since its easy to make 100pp + an hour compared with a couple of silver when you start out.) Its simply more fun! Much of the tedium is removed.

      I just wish all the levels where like that, and not have to invest 100+ hours that I don't have.

  4. Terrible Rebuttal by Singletoned · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The guy doing the rebuttal makes a terrible job of it. When he agrees with the original rule, he uses clever arguements such as "Well, duh". When he disagrees, he does so just for the sake of it, and generally entirely misses the point, or picks up on some minor point and makes his entire rebuttal about that. For example:

    You're trying to provide as many modes of expression as possible in your online world. Character classes are just modes of expression, after all.
    Say it with me: "MMORPGs require more time and effort to create than pen and paper games."
    This law is flawed - heavily. It doesn't matter how many different classes you have - because there are only four base classes - fighter, spellcaster, rogue, and crafter....(continues)

    He misses the point about about having differant forms of expression and instead picks up on the secondary point that classes are modes of expression. Koster never mentioned that you should have lots and lots of clasess, but instead the rebutter rambles on for a very long and tedious paragraph about how you don't need lots of classes, when he's actually agreeing with the guy. He even says "It's about time we left the character design up to the player". What's that you say, increase the amounts of expression available to the player? You're agreeing with him, you idiot!

    To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish the article. Koster's laws are very interesting, but the rebuttal is just pointless and annoying. maybe it finishes well, but I really, really doubt it.

    1. Re:Terrible Rebuttal by Lynxara · · Score: 1

      I found the rebuttal to the rebuttal a lot more interesting than the rebuttal itself. It's definitely a lot easier to read and written more smoothly, if "tetchy" as hell.

    2. Re:Terrible Rebuttal by Slyght · · Score: 1

      I agree, it feels like the author of the rebuttal was just using the laws as an excuse to whine about problems in Massive games, rather than re-evaluate the laws themselves. He'll agree with a law, and then complain how the law isn't properly implemented in current Massive games. That has nothing to do with the laws themselves. Maybe his arguments would have been more appropriate if he had made his article about evaluating Massive games and seeing if they followed the laws.

    3. Re:Terrible Rebuttal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      See, Schild is a retard. People who have known him for longer than a month already know that and we stopped reading his stupidity.

  5. City of Heroes by Winterblink · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There's a very simple fix for this. Dump the treadmill, dump the numbers, and make gameplay fun

    City of Heroes is an interesting case for MMOs, because it literally is nothing but a treadmill. There's no other style of gameplay in the game other than combat for levels, yet somehow it's ridiculous fun and addictive, moreso than many other MMOs on the market today.

    Personally, I think this can be attributed to the fact that they focused on this singular gameplay element and refined it so well that you never really notice that you're only ever doing one thing during your entire time playing. With a good group of strangers or good friends the hours can fly by like nothing, all the while everyone's having a pretty darn good time of things. I think that the level treadmill, when done right, can be a respectable tool for advancement in the game if the situations involved are balanced and challenging.
    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:City of Heroes by glowimperial · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is true that City of Heroes does this one thing well, but as a MMO player, I have never seen so many of my pals try out a game and be so dissatisfied immediately after launch. I know lots of folks who didn't make it past their first week of gameplay, due to total boredom and the pathetic chat system. IMHO the chat system is one of the key building blocks of any online game, since basically online games do 2 things. 1) allow people to manipulate objects in a database via an interesting interface. 2) allow people to talk to each other.

    2. Re:City of Heroes by Winterblink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I played CoH mostly with real life friends, and we all set up a Ventrilo server for voice comms. The chat system never was an issue for us, but yes it ended up being an issue when I was grouping with strangers. A very valid point!

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    3. Re:City of Heroes by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 1

      City of Heroes is only fun and addicting for the first couple weeks.

      On the third week I was finally admitting that despite my great hopes, there just wasn't anything new coming. On the fourth week, I didn't play at all. And, right before the start of the first 'for-pay' month I cancelled.

      City of Heroes did a LOT of things right that other games totally dropped the ball on...but they also forgot about 75% of their game, and there's no chance I'm going to pay a HIGHER premium for a reduced game.

      --
      --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    4. Re:City of Heroes by CaptMonkeyDLuffy · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain CoH is any more of a 'pure treadmill' than other MMORPG's... Or, at the very least, I think it really comes down to the preferences and point of view of the individual. From what I've seen, the one thing that really sets CoH apart from the typical MMORPG is the lack of the 'normal' equipment system and the various effects of that(tradeskill systems, camping particular mobs for loot, the MMORPG economy in general). Yes, some people enjoy those aspects of MMORPG's, however other people find those aspects of MMORPG's to be a grind. If you enjoy the combat, and what you play for is the combat then a game that strips out the 'unnecessary'(from your perspective) economy system would be essentially without a treadmill. However, if you enjoy and play MMORPG's for the economy aspect... well, in that case you're flat out playing the wrong game. Only other category of player I can think of is the 'achievement' focused player, but when it comes down to it, the achievement based player will consider any route to the destination a grind/treadmill simply because of the focus upon the destination. This is a bit of an oversimplification(for example, I didn't even bring up the actual role players), but I think it gets my general point across. From a certain perspective, CoH borders on not even having a treadmill, while at the same time from other perspectives is nothing but a treadmill...

    5. Re:City of Heroes by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Admittedly I've cancelled my CoH account a couple of weeks ago, for partially those reasons. Mostly though it was the fact that their last patch completely destroyed any group fun I was having with the group of friends I was playing with. It's interesting you use the phrase "reduced game". That's definitely a relative term to each person as an individual.

      For instance, content is usually a decent indicator overall for MMOs. CoH doesn't really have a LOT of content, but is decently fun overall. Fun enough to warrant paying monthly for it, for a lot of people. EVE Online has an insane amount of content and detail in it, but doesn't instantly reward the player as games such as CoH do. For me, I've played EVE since beta, and already cancelled my CoH subscription, because I prefer a more hardcore detailed experience that games like EVE offer me.

      Definitely sounds like you and I had the same overall experience with CoH (I had less than 24 hours to go before my first official monthly payment).

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    6. Re:City of Heroes by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 1

      I don't look for 'content' in the terms of different monsters, I look for 'content' in the terms of different activities.

      With CoH, if you closed your eyes and played the game, you'd notice that you were always hitting the exact same keystrokes. I had nice patterns, "jab, punch, swing" then again, "jab, punch, swing". Occasionaly I'd throw in a 'brawl' if my jab wasn't back yet.

      There's nothing else to do...find monster, (missions were good because it was easier to find a monster). Run through your attack sequence till it was dead. Find another monster.

      A 'non-reduced' MMOG would have other option. I could find a monster to beat up. I could try some lucrative money making activity (run errands?). I could make something to sell. (crafting).

      And the funny thing, it's not so much WHAT you're doing, just that you have another option. (Of course..if it's completely stupid it doesn't count.)

      That's why I called it 'reduced.' There's only one option for gameplay.

      It's funny that you mention Eve. I read some of the beta diaries, and I was amazed to hear nothing but talking about their trade empire, and the hierachal structure of the corporations, and fleet management, and bulk orders of supplies and ships.. It seemed to be more of an economical simulation than your typical MMORPG.

      I personally didn't play EVE very much. I didn't care for the fact that I was a ship and not a person. They needed more 'first-person' walk around the space-dock time. (But not the cheesy excuse for it that EnB was.)

      But anyway..yes...EVE is a full-fledged game..non-reduced at all. COH is reduced..and they admit it.

      --
      --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    7. Re:City of Heroes by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      However, if you enjoy and play MMORPG's for the economy aspect...

      That would be EVE Online... basically a giant space stock market and trading simulation.

    8. Re:City of Heroes by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      A bit off-topic, but pertinent to your comments about EVE. Check out this link. It's a list of items due to come out in the next major game *patch* in Q3. If you thought the level of detail was high before, this will blow your airlock open. Personally though, I'm not too concerned with the lack of a person-type character present. I'm fine with being just a ship, since that's what the entire game has been designed around, conceptually. However I do remember EnB's character representation, and as horribly underdeveloped as it was, it was still kind of neat to get out of the ship, stretch the legs and chat with guild-mates on the station.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    9. Re:City of Heroes by jocmaff · · Score: 1
      I'll agree with this. I am currenly still playing CoH (6 weeks now) but have seen then end of my playing since the first week.

      It is a great game and surprisingly fun. Partly because the leveling is soooooo fast and game play is easy and simple. I can come home and play for 30 minutes before or while cooking dinner.

      That said I am only playing because other games have not got my interest. FarCry is done and loved it. Waiting for EQII Beta... then I'll drop CoH or if something better comes along first that really interests me.

  6. sorry for the flame by truffle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The original laws as stated are interesting and mostly hold true today, the commentary is uninspired, poor, and mostly incorrect. I'm now going to give one example, but I could easily come up with 30 such examples from this article.

    For example:
    Law: someone is going to automate your gameplay
    Reponse: only if you make your gameplay tedious!

    That is simply not true. To prove this is not true, I just have to come up with one automation scenario not rooted in relief of tedium. Consider a theoretical RTS in which a player controls many units. Skill is required to issue commands to those units (there are many units, each unit's state has to be evaluted and the appropriate command selected, in real time). Now enter a tool that will give commands to units under conditions you identify, for example if you fall below 25% health, run to the back of the formation. Now we have an automation tool thats purpose is to increase effective skill, not relieve tedious gameplay.

    All the reasons for automation I can think of off the top of my head are:
    - Increase power (generate money, skill points, experience)
    - Increase effective skill (previously discussed)
    - Relieve tedium
    - Break the system - in this case, a person automates the system just to prove he can

    In general the article is strong on attacks, and weak on solutions. For example, there is lots of "get rid of the treadmill" commentary with 0 solutions posted explaining how this is done. Love the original laws, hate the commentary.

    --

    ---
    I support spreading santorum
    1. Re:sorry for the flame by Slyght · · Score: 1

      Using your example about the RTS game, if it's a single-player game, then I agree that there's no harm in using automated tools, if that's your playing style. However, if you're playing in a multi-player environment against another person, I think it's unfair to use automated tools to increase your efficiency if the other player isn't.

    2. Re:sorry for the flame by Soukyan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To some, micromanagement in a RTS game is tedium. I am one of those people. Consequently, I don't bother playing the game at all. But those who may automate the task do so to alleviate that bit of tedium so they can concentrate on the fun portions (or so that they can win, although using an external tool to alleviate tedium is actually just cheating to increase the odds of winning, but I digress).

      A fun game lacks tedium. I do not automate my moves in a chess match because I am having fun when I play. Mind you, this is just in comparing a game (chess) to a game (a computer-based RTS), and I understand that it's apples to oranges if we start to involve elements of each game. But in a RTS computer game, shouldn't the gameplay be fun and engaging enough that the player will want or need to be involved in every aspect? Does chess not involve strategy? Just some thoughts on that.

      As to the lack of solutions in that rebuttal, I can probably guess why that is the case. Raph Koster is the CCO (Chief Creative Officer) of SOE (Sony Online Entertainment) these days. He's making plenty of money and he busted his ass to earn that position. In terms of creativity though,some people are hesitant to share their ideas for solutions not because they may come under equal criticism, but because there is money to be made from good ideas. Koster did not share his money-making ideas until after he had earned his money from them. I wouldn't expect free solutions from anyone, especially not in the capitalist societies of today. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    3. Re:sorry for the flame by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you need a proof:
      Aiming can't be that tedious!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:sorry for the flame by truffle · · Score: 1

      You may find giving commands to individual units tedious, and you could use a tool like the one I described to relieve tedium.

      But, my original point is that a player who did not find giving commands tedious, could automate for the purpose of obtaining a competitive advantage.

      Anything can be called tedious, but that is not always the motivation for automation of gameplay.

      --

      ---
      I support spreading santorum
    5. Re:sorry for the flame by *weasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah... and we get back to my favorite Mulligan quote:
      "would-be game designers take note: Ideas are a dime a dozen and worth what they cost"

      People don't tend share their 'solutions' to gameplay problems because they either don't have them, aren't confident in them, or are deluding themselves into thinking that their idea is original, and carries some sort of value locked away in their head. (right up there with everyone's big movie idea, and unwritten great american novel)

      The simple truth is that it's easier to point out problems than to fix them. Constructivie criticism takes time and thought. Bitching can be done on the fly.

      While I wouldn't expect, for example, Brad McQuaid to bother sharing what he thinks about a thorny design issue (although on more than one occassion, he has joined such discussions), there's no reasonable excuse for unfunded critics to keep quiet.

      And you're dead wrong about Koster sharing only after he started getting paid. He was sharing his ideas on Mud-Dev well before he started 'making plenty of money'. The guy honestly cares about sharing information to advance the state of virtual world design ... or at least spends a hell of a lot of time and effort into making legitimate contributions as his front. He gets paid, not for thinking of things that other people haven't, but by seeing them through.

      An Idea is to an Implmentation as Criticism is to Constructive Criticism.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    6. Re:sorry for the flame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your example is completely flawed because he is responding to LAWS OF VIRTUAL WORLD DESIGN. Not RTS games, which have nothing to do with it. The only reason people make bots in MMOGs is to get to the end game without having to run on the treadmill, and to make more money. Take out the treadmill and half the problem is solved.

    7. Re:sorry for the flame by IndigoDarkwolf · · Score: 1
      Good example, but I think I have a better example of automation that breaks the rebuttal:

      Counter-Strike is hardly "tedious." How many flavors of cheats were made for that? How many other really, really fun FPS games have been made, and how many more aimbots have been made for each of them?

    8. Re:sorry for the flame by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Ah... and we get back to my favorite Mulligan quote:
      "would-be game designers take note: Ideas are a dime a dozen and worth what they cost"


      And with that, you have earned a fan.

      Coming up with ideas is easy. Coming up with the simplest idea that most minimally impacts the development schedule but will greatly improve gameplay is a little harder. And, of course, pushing it through to the point of implementation, testing, adjusting, re-invisioning, re-implementing, and tweaking is where the meat of design lies.

      You're only going to get paid for ideas if you have enough to give away.

    9. Re:sorry for the flame by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      You don't automate your chess moves, but if you incorporated a chess game into an MMORPG and gave winning any kind of reward, then some moron would use a chess game to tell them what moves to make to increase their odds of winning. If there was a way to play against NPCs for cash or rewards, someone would design a chess bot to get those rewards while they were offline. The point is perfectly valid. People will automate just about anything they can get away with if its technically and logistically feasible.

    10. Re:sorry for the flame by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      You may find giving commands to individual units tedious,
      Giving commands to individual units is not tedious - it's micromanaging, but not tedious. While there may be tedium from micromanagement, there is no causation between the two inspite of the strong correlation.

      More often than not, the tedium from RTS games comes from flaws with how units act or behave when given orders. You know the very classic example - you order a unit to attack a target, and when it's destroyed, it stops in its tracks. The unit stops regardless of his or her position on the battlefiels, resulting in you having to reissue a move or attack order to advance further. (In the case of the move command, such units are vulnerable as they don't engage. In case of attack, some games treat clicking a point on the map to be force fire and therefore are vulnerable when they are just attacking one point.) This example is present in every single game other than ones based on the later C&C engines (Tiberiun Sun or later.)

      A second classic example of micormanagement resulting in tedium would be focused fire. When you order a group of units to attack a target, they all fire their cannon at the one unit - they all hit, but 35 or so of those attacks would have been better spent damaging the other units rather than inflicting damage on an already destroyed unit. (Present in every RTS that I know of.)

      Another example would be requiring to select exactly one unit to perform a special ability or "spell". Some games have made changes to counter this in one way or another - as a result, the game is slightly better in allowing players to use an attack that must be used very quickly.

      Poor pathfinding is the most extreme example of tedium. The most obvious example would be Dominant Species, where units appear to want to run through buildings and other units to reach their destination (and therefore, requires you to slow the game down to manually navigate your units to attack from more than one side.)

      Do you have trouble isolating one particular unit, and trying to move the camera to your base so that you can order him to a repar pad? Star Trek: Armada fixed this by implementing a repair command. Star Trek: Armada II improved on this by implementing Priority Repair where the unit ignores all other commands until it is fully repaired. (This feature is rare - I've seen it in only one other game, and even then it wasn't optimal.)

      More often than not, the tedium in micromanagement is caused by a bad or obsolete game design. If you fix those problems, the tedium goes away. However, doing so will make the older RTS games harder to play, since they will lack an important feature that allows you to cleanly manage your units without having to do fancy camera work.
  7. The Automated Online Role-Player by ksiddique · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is definitely a fun read about a bot that plays Star Wars Galaxies.

    1. Re:The Automated Online Role-Player by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Funny

      > about a bot that plays Star Wars Galaxies.

      I thought they didn't serve his kind in there.

      Wait a minute, no, that's droids.

      Chris Mattern

  8. Soooo these games suck - got a better idea? by fallingdown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Both of these guys have specific axes to grind. Schild is clearly responding to the mess that is SWG. He continually calls for the removal of "treadmills," etc. without offering clear alternatives. Rather than adding additional insight to the discussion, his entire rant could have been cut-n-pasted from any one of a thousand message boards.

    Snowspinner is a bit more interesting and his statement that "Stories aren't the fun parts about games any more than worlds are. Play is" should become the marquee screensaver for game developers every where.

    F13.net, Corp News, et.al. continue to try and fill the shoes of the original rant sites like Lum the Mad and they constantly come up short. I'm sure these guys are all clever and smart people but it's all pretty much been said - and said better - when the MMORPG genre was a little more fresh.

    On a side note: I think the player base should expand their definition of what "roleplay" is. Lots of people "roleplay" in these games, its just not the sort that was intended or expected. Look at PvP in any form - FPS or MMORPG - and you'll see people acting and talking in ways they would never dream of in real life. Alliances are formed. Arch enemies are made. Roleplay driven by the environment rather than some hackneyed back story. It's much more interesting and you never hear a thee or a thou uttered once. That's the sort of roleplay that these games should encourage.

    1. Re:Soooo these games suck - got a better idea? by glowimperial · · Score: 1

      I think that the illusion of anonymity that maves folks, especially in PvP, act differently than they would in real life is a two edged sword. On one hand it creates personal and group dynamics that are vastly different thatn the ones that people form in the real world. But, on the other hand it encourages a kind of Sociopathic behavior in which players fail to realise that the other people playing with them are actual people and instead, objectify them. This allows some players, who may not be in the best mental health, to essentially ignore that other people are not objects. This cannot be good in the long term for either a MMO or for the player who has essentially become a Sociopath. The behavior of these players is often the most disruptive to other players, as they are incapable of being aware of the consequences of their actions. In my experience, these folks tend to band together, as they become socially ostracised from groups of "normal, non-sociopathic people", and form groups and alliances of players who's sole function is to inconvenience/annoy/grief other people.

    2. Re:Soooo these games suck - got a better idea? by fallingdown · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that all PvPers are Sociopaths. I think it's possible to seperate griefers from PvPers.

      I think Eve Online does a pretty good job of encouraging the kind of dynamic that I'm trying to illustrate. The game is incredibly dull taken at face value - the worst of the "treadmill grind" that these games have to offer. However, if you choose to throw caution to the wind and take a few pot shots at people, the game changes drastically. It suddenly has all the aspects of MMORPGs that gamers claim to hope for. Players develop personal reputations, form alliances, create enemies, become heros or villians and actually affect their environment. Is it the game's back story or universe? No but their actions affect the parts of the game that really matter.

      That being said - I'd have a hard time recommeding Eve to anyone because you have to do a lot of really boring work to get to the fun stuff. The game systems also give players many opportunities to cause grief. It's far from perfect but it does promote "roleplay" by my definition.

      Griefing is another problem altogther. Any game mechanic you develop to stop it seems to hinder the rest of the game. Dark Age of Camelot and Anarchy Online come to mind - they place so many anti-griefing rules on top of PvP that you almost need a lawyer to navigate them all. It would be nice if you could remove a few of them but as you've pointed out, human nature won't allow it.

    3. Re:Soooo these games suck - got a better idea? by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't believe that all PvPers are Sociopaths. I think it's possible to seperate griefers from PvPers.

      I agree, but it's often a matter of perspective as to what separates the two.

      To a typical MMORPG player, the game is the kind of thing where "everybody wins" -- the game is about getting levels and phat loot, triumphing over the computer-controlled adversaries and the environment. If there's a sense of "beating" another player, it's in doing more (being higher level, having phatter loot, etc.) or doing it faster (being the first to kill the Pseudonatural Diremongoosaurus and steal its magic pants). Your achievement doesn't inherently disallow the achievement of others.

      Your typical PvPer is cut from a different mold. To them, for someone to win the game, someone else must lose. I'll laugh at anyone who says this is a juvenile or abberant thought pattern -- chess, basketball, poker, and a million other familiar games are built in this mindset.

      Let's say a PvPer, on a game in which it's possible, playerkills your typical MMORPGer and takes his magic pants. It's unlikely that you'd find the truly archetypal examples of both types of players playing the same game, at least for very long, but let's pretend.

      From the MMORPGer's perspective, the PvPer is an immature griefer. Why, he didn't earn those magic pants the proper way by killing the Pseudonatural Diremongoosaur! He just took someone else's! That isn't fair. Griefer!

      From the PvPer's perspective it looks very different. If he wants magic pants and it's easier to PK for them, he certainly will. If he wants to establish himself as king of the game, he's going to do that by going out and beating people, not by trying to out-catass them. If they complain, call him names, and generally give him a bad reputation, that's not a sign that he's doing something wrong... it's a sign he's doing something right.

      I guess you could call that mindset sociopathic, but then, basically everyone in the real world who is successful at anything is a sociopath.

    4. Re:Soooo these games suck - got a better idea? by Teppy · · Score: 1

      I'm the designer of A Tale in the Desert. I read about 100 "I hate X" posts for every "I love Y, do more stuff like that" post.

      Consequently, I tend to give those "I love Y, do more stuff like that" posts a lot more consideration than the rants. They're much harder to come up with, and infinitely more useful.

      In fact, of all the people reading this post, I wonder if three can pick a game they've played recently, and name an activity in the game that they enjoyed doing.

    5. Re:Soooo these games suck - got a better idea? by fallingdown · · Score: 1
      Hmmmm, that's tough, you're right. You're probably asking this question retorically but I'll give it a shot.

      I'm currently playing City of Heroes and like many people I enjoyed the character creation process. It offers lots of choices - enough so that if you have a particular idea for a hero in mind, you can come pretty close to making it happen.

      Combat in CoH has also been a positive. While it still relies on the turn based mechanic required by most MMORPGs, they've tuned it in a way that makes it seem "live" - like a first person shooter.

      I'm also a fan of Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates and a big part of it's charm is the pixel art/Lego- people production design

      How did I do?
    6. Re:Soooo these games suck - got a better idea? by Teppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's good! No, wasn't a rhetorical question at all. I often ask people that, and I try to identify the parts of games that I like. Usually when I ask they'll ignore the question and tell me that travel takes too long, or they're sick of glassblowing, or whatever's frustrating them at the moment. (All examples from ATITD, and true) But occasionally I'll hear something like "seeing what comes up when I crossbreed two roses", and so I'll go and code something that sort of has the same feel, but maybe from a different angle.

    7. Re:Soooo these games suck - got a better idea? by glowimperial · · Score: 1

      I didn't want to suggest that all PvP players are Sociopaths. I play SWG am the leader of a large guildm and I PvP most of the time I am online. I think that PvP, is the best part of any online game, at any level, from the competition for resources and guild influence on a server to one on one fights between high end players. I have observed, however, over the past few years of online gaming, that there is a small portion of the PvP population that behaves in a manner analagous to a sociopath. That is other players, even their guildmates, don't exist for them in a real sense anymore, they become pieces on a chessboard to manipulate and use for your own enjoyment/advancement. I am not concerned about greifing. The guild I helped found and run has a no greifing/exploiting policy, and I still comfortably rank in the top 20 of my server's PvP players. I manage to be incredibly successful in the PvP arena by being smarter, better prepared, and cooler under pressure than some 13 year old L33T kiddie. I manage to do this without forgetting that the people I play with and against are actual people, sitting at keyboards. Unfortunately for MMO's there are people who may have problems in their regular life. They may be helpless fat kids who only have power in an online world. They may be unsuccessful in their jobs or personal life. I just know that there is a small but vocal and influental portion of any PvP oriented MMO who seem to be absolutely out of control, who have left all social responsibilities behind when they log on. And online worlds suffer for it.

  9. Case in semi-point by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Planetside: mega treadmill

    But not dreadfully boring since it's an FPS and there are perks such as interchangeable "licenses" to for vehicles/weapons, and the heart of its fun factor revolves around the team aspect. There is a sense of heroism in gathering 150 soldiers scattered across a dozen squads, and coordinating a full-scale invasion on an enemy continent. Even the carrier pilot gets a kick out of assisting a successful airdrop.

    I think where it shines is that you don't have to be Level 50 to see all the cool things, you can do more cool things simultaneously when you're that high. But if you're a green level 5 you can try all the same equipment as the old timers, because of the exchangeable license system. Don't like the sniper rifle ? trade your papers for a rocket license and blast away. It allows for a nice variety of playing styles and this diversity is the most valuable aspect of any team.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  10. I'd just like to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That I hate Koster for what he did to SWG. If any game could have been the dawn of a new era in MMOGs, this was it. The amount of non MMOG gamers it drew in because of the liscence *was* staggering.

    Now, it's gone from fun to bad to worse. They're banking on JTL saving it, but unless it plays like Microsoft's old Allegiance game it will get stale just as fast as the ground game. The mass exodus to the next crop of MMOGs will begin (Matrix, ME Online, EQ2, WOW, etc...).

    I find it a continual amazement that Lucasarts doesn't step in and say "What the hell are you doing to our franchise?". They've done more damage to the idea of Star Wars games than Republic, Force Commander, and Obi-Wan combined.

    1. Re:I'd just like to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this flamebait? The guy is entitled to his opinion... one which I happen to share. It's not like he just came out and said "OMG SWG IS TEH SUX" and didn't give any reason for it.

  11. tetchy by eudas · · Score: 1

    how do you define 'tetchy'?

    eudas

    --
    Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
    1. Re:tetchy by Lynxara · · Score: 1

      Dictionary.com offers up "peevish; testy", which sounds about right for the author's tone in the rebuttal of the rebuttal.

  12. What isn't a treadmill? by Hegemony+Cricket · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No really...someone tell me.

    A game that requires you to complete challenges in order to gain a reward is, in effect, a treadmill.

    Tetris is a treadmill - stack shapes, clear, new level, repeat
    Doom is a treadmill - Kill enemies, find widget, proceed to next level, repeat.
    The Sims is a treadmill - Manage daily activities, increase abilities, make money, buy stuff, repeat.
    Ico is a treadmill - Lead the girl, find widget, kill enemies, solve puzzles, unlock next level, repeat.
    Metal Slug is a treadmill - Go forward, kill enemies, rescue hostages, find vehicles, find weapons, repeat.

    I only point this out because the gaming community has a tendency to grasp on to handy derisive phrases and then repeat them without digging into the meaning.

    Anywho...the overall perception of the treadmill is what breeds discontent. It always exists, it is the foundation of just about every reward over time based game play system.

    But, if the gameplay is bad or mundane, then the treadmill sticks out. There isn't any gameplay aspect compelling enough to distanciate you (i.e suspension of disbelief and all) from the fourth wall of the underlying mechanics.

    However, if the game is good, the treadmill recedes from the forefront of your consciousness, and the decent gameplay it enables takes over.

    The real issue here isn't the treadmill concept, but how many times the exact same treadmill has been cloned.

    --
    "I ain't got no flyin' shoes."
    1. Re:What isn't a treadmill? by brandonY · · Score: 1

      Well, since you want to know, I'll tell you. The treadmill is gameplay so tedious and automatic that someone could write a fairly simple program with minimal AI that would do a pretty good job of it for them. Treadmills have very little change of pace or scenery and require very little thought. Indeed, it's like walking on a treadmill, thus the name. Tetris is not a treadmill -- Figuring out what to do with the blocks requires constant thought and planning. Writing a program to play a good game of Tetris is hard. Heck, it's NP-complete hard. Doom, Ico, and Metal Slug are not treadmills, the first time through. Sure, you could write a program to play them, but these are games meant to be skill-based and puzzle-based. You use quick reflexes or solve puzzles, neither of which are treadmills. The Sims isn't a treadmill -- if you're not trying to get anywhere, it doesn't matter that you're standing still.

    2. Re:What isn't a treadmill? by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Of course games are a treadmill; life's a fucking treadmill.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    3. Re:What isn't a treadmill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your definition of a treadmill is much more narrow than most people would define it. You're saying that the only thing that distinguishes a treadmill game from a non-treadmill game is the difficulty in writing an AI program to play it? That's a bit overly simplistic. In my experience, the scenario most often referred to a a treadmill is that of a MMORPG where a player fights monsters, gains levels, makes money, buys new equipment, fighs slightly harder monsters, etc., etc. That's a very tedious and repetitive process, yet I challenge you to write "a fairly simple program with minimal AI" to accomplish that task. Not that I've tried it, but I can envision writing a Tetris AI program much easier than I could write a program to efficiently execute the leveling treadmill of a typical MMORPG.

      I have to agree with the parent post, in that almost any game ever made could be considered a treadmill in some way. What really makes people think, "hey, this game is just a treadmill", is not the fact that they are performing similar action repeatedly; that occurs in any game. It's the fact that when the gameplay is boring, all you notice is the treadmill. When you're having fun, you either don't notice it or don't care.

    4. Re:What isn't a treadmill? by fallingdown · · Score: 1
      Arguing what the term "treadmill" really means I think, misses the point of the parent post. All games are treadmills sure, its when they're boring treadmills that we have a problem.

      Treadmill = = boring.

      Here's the thing about treadmills though - ANY game will get boring if you play it 40+ hours a week. You cannot create any form of activity that can hold up to that kind of attention.

      Heck even sex starts to chafe a bit if you do it often enough.

      Our expectations for the genre is too high. If the game gets boring after you've played it for 100 hours, it's not the game's fault. Go play something else.
    5. Re:What isn't a treadmill? by slasher+guy · · Score: 1

      The Sims is a treadmill - Manage daily activities, increase abilities, make money, buy stuff, repeat.

      I disagree- it's more like cheat, buy stuff, repeat.

    6. Re:What isn't a treadmill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a nitpick: "Level, kill bigger monsters, repeat" is not a level treadmill*. It's an example of a well balanced game with plenty of content. A game becomes a treadmill when you've already played all of the content but there's still room for the player to advance. Thus, you hop on the treadmill and go do all of the same old stuff over and over until you get bored.

      * - Unless the mob templates are the same (modulo hitpoints) and the zones have an identical layout.

  13. Here is where I stopped reading the rebuttal by Durindana · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'll go ahead and say that the right rule here comes from Kelly Flock, when he noted that players "just fuck us up." Players know shit. Especially not players who are bitching about the game on message boards. And Especially not players who are bitching about how they want PvP. Look, I know I'm going to get ripped by any PvP enthusiasts who are still here, but let's be honest. 95% of people who want PvP in a MMOG should be banned from MMOGs, and preferably from breeding.


    I don't care nearly enough about the whole meta-genre of MMOG design to go deep into this, but frankly I hold precisely the opposite view. The thrill that most MMORPG players get from leveling, crafting, exploring, etc., I find a symptom of a socially debilitated person. PvPers, on the other hand, I feel largely have their heads on straight in reality and merely seek a greater challenge and greater exhilaration than any PvE design can give them. Much as can be found in the real world.

    Griefers, on the other hand, are the fault not of the PvP playerbase but the game designers. Real unnacountable griefing shouldn't be possible. "Griefing" as in messing up your fun on a limited basis, on the other hand, is what comes from playing with people instead of playing with yourself, as in PvE.

    Example: I play Shadowbane. PvE is an afterthought (or more accurately, a mostly-brief pre-requisite to getting a character in shape to fight other players); the real fun to be had is fighting other people, either singly, in raiding parties or in enormous city sieges.

    There is really no unaccountable griefing in SB, because political dynamics hold players accountable for what they do. Some few players enjoy lurking in the shadows, with no group to defend them and nothing to lose, but they are the distinct minority. And "griefers" have no advantage in PvP, indeed they have the disadvantage of having no one to help them when you come to kill them.

    For my purposes, PvE treadmilling is brain-dead. So are the people who want to bake bread or whatever. Unless it involves engaging in combat or negotiations or meaningful dialogue with other human beings, why is it worth checking out of reality? One of the linked articles suggests to stop thinking about games as "working from 9-5 at Initech (nice Office Space namecheck) and working from 6-11 farming some rare form of copper." PvE games will always face this dilemma of uselessness, because your accomplishments and explorations are meaningless without any human context. That's fine, but why not play Civilization instead? Or better yet, re-engage with the human race in brutal combat.
    1. Re:Here is where I stopped reading the rebuttal by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      But what happens is, as a side effect, you lose the majority of the "casual" gamers who want nothing more then to spend 1-3 hours relaxing, maybe accomplishing some minor goal but nothing too stressful.

      What PvP does is reward the "hard-core" players who want to show-off their 'leet-skillz' in the most annoying and intrusive way possible -- ie, ruining someone else's day. It almost ruined UO, and it's the foremost barrier to anyone wanting to try Lineage II.

      If you want a PvP experience, fine. Go play Counterstrike, or Planetside, or Tribes, or UT or Q3 or any of a hundred other games designed for that function. It's not like you're being cheated out of something because an MMO doesn't allow you to waylay your fellow players.

      I am sick and tired of hearing every excuse imaginable for PKing. It's a pain in the ass to me, the guy down the street, and just about everyone else. The only people it rewards are the lowlifes who find pleasure in other people's misery, showing off their disgustingly wasted lives.

      I, for one, have managed to find pleasure in teaming up with my fellow players and working towards a common goal. Something about achieveing something without ruining someone else's day just leaves me a warm and fuzzy. Then, if I decide I want to frag some kiddies, I'll go play CS.

    2. Re:Here is where I stopped reading the rebuttal by Colazar · · Score: 1
      While your point of view is definitely valid, it's also kind of beside the point of the post you were replying to. Here's the argument chain:

      Article: PvP doesn't work in MMORPGs. People who engage in it are deranged.

      Original Poster: This is wrong, because PvP works very well in Shadowbane. It has systems that allow PvP with very little griefing.

      You: PvP is only fun in games that are designed for it. In other games, it ruins other people's fun.

      So, even if what you said is true, it doesn't affect what the poster said, because Shadowbane was designed for PvP, in such a way so that it doesn't ruin anybody's fun. The player justice system in Shadowbane works *fabulously well*, and should be a model for any game that does want to implement PvP. (Of course, plenty of other things in SB are broken, but that's a different discussion.)

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    3. Re:Here is where I stopped reading the rebuttal by JasdonLe · · Score: 1
      I don't disagree with your premise but somewhere along the line you lost me.
      For my purposes, PvE treadmilling is brain-dead. So are the people who want to bake bread or whatever. Unless it involves engaging in combat or negotiations or meaningful dialogue with other human beings, why is it worth checking out of reality?
      So...What about the entire HISTORY of single player videogames made before MMORPGs or MUDs were around (or popular, at least)? What about Zelda? What about Metal Gear? What about fucking Adventure? Hell... What about FreeCell? You need to refine your argument because essentially you just called everyone who enjoys playing a single player game insane! You mentioned that you feel those people who "bake bread or whatever" in MMORPGs are kooky. What about people who bake bread in r/l? Do those people seem insane to you? Sure, the rewards are of different sorts, but in the end, they are still only that: rewards.
      --
      ** A Sketch a Week **
      http://www.sketchplease.com
    4. Re:Here is where I stopped reading the rebuttal by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      My reply was in response to the insinuation that PvE wasn't nearly as satisfying as PvP and any MMO that didn't have PvP was just coddling it's stupid, timid users and thus was an inferior design.

      relevant quote: For my purposes, PvE treadmilling is brain-dead. So are the people who want to bake bread or whatever. Unless it involves engaging in combat or negotiations or meaningful dialogue with other human beings, why is it worth checking out of reality?

      It's bullshit like this that made me stop playing CS, cancel my Planetside subscription, and never try X-Box Live. Having to deal with the mindset that, if it isn't human it's not worth fighting, and if you're not fighting you should be getting ready to only goes so far. Sometimes, I *don't* want fighting. I'd rather be able to interact with a virtual world on a wide scale of levels rather than be shoehorned into one gamestyle due to lack of developer's imagination and their rabid teenage fanbase's raging hormones.

      As a design philosophy, just because Deathmatch can be fun and exciting doesn't mean every 3D FPS needs to include it. And yet, any time we see a game come out without those extra Multiplayer options, some critics immediately regard it as inferior, even if the game was clearly not designed to be played as such.

      PvP isn't for everyone. Hell, I'd go so far as to say it's not even for the majority. In Shadowbane it was obviously an important feature and thus developed and done well. But that doesn't make games such as FFXI any less legitimate of an alternative if it doesn't allow a level 60 uberninja to backstab the poor level 2 ranger just because he dared to leave the city gates. In FFXI's case, it's a better game because it *doesn't.*

    5. Re:Here is where I stopped reading the rebuttal by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      "...but frankly I hold precisely the opposite view. The thrill that most MMORPG players get from leveling, crafting, exploring, etc., I find a symptom of a socially debilitated person. PvPers, on the other hand, I feel largely have their heads on straight in reality and merely seek a greater challenge and greater exhilaration..."

      I agree with this entirely. Competition with others is by definition a social activity. So we can choose between PvE'ers who try to constrain each other to fit certain molds and reduce the amount of interaction needed (you're the tank, you do this), or the PvP'ers who compete, take their lumps, and go back for more.

      As for 'griefers', I ran into far more of them in PvE than PvP. It's the people who take train others, kill steal, ninja loot, and so on that are the worse of the lot.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
  14. Agreed wholeheartedly, and... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Disclaimer: I'm tres biased, but I think I still have some interesting points. You've been warned.

    It's all just a side-effect of society, really. (Isn't everything, but...)

    We live in a society that praises the achiever/PvEer mindset, and, importantly, recognizes its goals as valid. For achievers to function, there must be others who recognize their achievements, and agree with the "rules" of the game in which they're achieved. That's not to say that everyone who wants a big house in a good neighborhood, trophy spouse, expensive car, prestigious job, etc. etc. etc. wants each of those things solely to impress others -- but an awful lot of people do, whether they admit it or not. If having a luxury car had the same functionality as it does in our world, but for some reason everyone thought they were dumb and that it was anything but cool to own one, they'd sure sell a lot less of them. This holds for any of the achiever goals.

    Society rewards the killer/PvPer mindset to a point, but it generally doesn't overtly encourage it. There are definitely rewards to be had by going out in business, life, etc. and simply just beating everyone else, but don't expect to make a lot of friends doing it. Expect to hear a lot of complaints about being mercenary or unfair. Especially expect people to hate you if you fuck up their proverbial achiever cabbage patch.

    In a lot of ways, I think the people who fall deeply into MMORPGS or other achiever games are people who are, at their heart, achievers but are unable to succeed in the traditional achiever rat races. If you can't be a captain of industry or marry a supermodel, well, maybe you can be the leetest guy on EverQuest. Maybe in your success of nightly level-grinding and monster farming will serve as a nepenthe to ease the dull ache of your failures in the great achiever contest that is life.

    1. Re:Agreed wholeheartedly, and... by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      "Society rewards the killer/PvPer mindset to a point, but it generally doesn't overtly encourage it."

      For every winner in most elections there is one or more losers. The path to political power is built on the backs of those you defeat. As politics is an integral part or our society, and the rewards of power are great, I have to fundamentally disagree with this.

      PK'ers rule our society.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
  15. tin men! by eudas · · Score: 1

    long live tintin++ bots! :)

    eudas

    --
    Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
  16. Four base classes? by evslin · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter how many different classes you have - because there are only four base classes - fighter, spellcaster, rogue, and crafter.

    I don't know what games this guy's been playing, but I've never seen a crafter as a "base class" - only as an option that one of the other three base classes can take, given that the time and money are available to pursue it.

  17. Did I miss something in the Desert? by zipwow · · Score: 1

    I played Tale in the Desert for a good long while, but never managed to get to the fun part.

    I made a lot of bricks, picked up a lot of flint, and ... some other spinning machines and whatnot, but I never seemed to get to anything that was interesting. Everything I did, while interesting, had been done by every other inhabitant, and what's more, it really had very little to do with me. I could maybe arrange my distaffs in a pattern that nobody else had done, but that was about all I could come up with. And, all I could do was climb that crafting ladder. Why did I *want* bricks? To build a better oven. What do I do with a better oven? Make more bricks. What do I do with more bricks? Build a better (some other thing). It sounds a lot like "kill beast A to get sword B to kill beast B. Rename B to A, repeat" but somehow it was different. Ultimately, killing beasties requires some interaction around swinging the sword, using some kind of blasty magic perhaps, and running away to heal. Making bricks was just running around for materials, then clicking "make bricks".

    I can forgive some of that (a lot of that, actually: I made a smith in UO back in the day), but the day I quit was when I found out that my character-long dream to be an architect and create beautiful buildings was stupid. Could I design elaborate frescoes? Record the history of my group in hieroglyphics? Architect new building designs? Nope. I could plop down a pre-designed, unchangeable "camp" then build it up from there to look like everybody else's first pyramid.

    I know there's an "artist" track, but I was rather unimpressed there as well. The most public part of it seemed to be making "sculptures" out of stuff that has no business being sculpted. It reminded me more of an eight-year-old's mural of popsicle sticks and elmer's glue.

    I sound bitter because I was disappointed. The pitch I heard was great. "There's no combat... but that doesn't mean there's no conflict!" Maybe the wife would play this one with me. And there were real brand new ideas: Voting in new laws seems interesting, and as far as I could tell it was well implemented. The Pharoh election seemed like it was well done, too, from what I read.

    But in the end, what was the fun thing I was supposed to be doing, other than roleplaying an Egyptian slave making bricks?

    -Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    1. Re:Did I miss something in the Desert? by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      The art discipline in atitd, like the other 6 disciplines, has 7 tests that you compete in. The sculpture you refer to isn't even one of those. Its just the initiation to allow you to sign up for the tests. The tests are all much more in-depth and challenging than the initiations. The initiations are necessarily easy so as not to discourage newbies.

      The architecture discipline is really full of tests of resource management, not "architecture", and its only suitable for die-hard players. But every new player starts out thinking that its their calling, since it ties into the very early stages of the game where all you do is build and gather resources.

      The fact that you're even talking about bricks and flint shows that you did not in fact play for very long as you claimed. Those are stone age technologies, and there is little reason to spend much time worrying about them. Building your own camp (and they're hardly interchangeable after the very earliest technologies) is entirely optional, and if its not your thing, then any guild would gladly invite you to use their buildings, most asking nothing in return. If you wanted, you could bootstrap yourself to modern technology levels in a matter of days, and get started on any aspect of the game that interests you. And there are dozens of things to do in game that have nothing to do with building.

    2. Re:Did I miss something in the Desert? by JasdonLe · · Score: 1
      Interesting.

      I've been thinking of trying out Tale for awhile now, but just really haven't gotten off my ass to do so, though it does sound promising. Now reading your post I feel a bit disheartened.

      Are you sure you're just not creative?

      --
      ** A Sketch a Week **
      http://www.sketchplease.com
    3. Re:Did I miss something in the Desert? by zipwow · · Score: 1

      "And there are dozens of things to do in game that have nothing to do with building."

      Can you elaborate on some of those? I played for about two weeks, but didn't see where it was I should be going other than camp-building and resource-gathering.

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    4. Re:Did I miss something in the Desert? by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      Breed a pretty new strain of beetles or flowers. Learn to brew your own unique blend of beer or wine or spirits and experiment with the local microclimates, hold festivals and max out your tasting skill. Perfect your fireworks displays until they are impressive enough to compete, and get them immortalized to pass some out to others for special events. Campaign for demipharaoh, win the test of patronage, write a ridiculous law, be a mentor. Design some puzzles, solve everyone elses puzzles. Go to the plane of wepwawet and climb the tournament ladders for all the games there. Specialize and master a trade like alchemy, paints, wood treating, glass making, or be a pure trader and profit by buying low and selling high and bringing supply to demand. Volunteer for the Nileside Cafe and help others improve their gastronomy. Run your own radio station. Organize a social or special purpose guild to fill an unmet need or enhance coordination.

      Most of those activities require some buildings, but for all of them you can find several publicly accessible buildings all over the map that you can use for free, not even counting the buildings you'd have access to by joining any guild. They also require skills, but most of those skills can be freely learned at a university since others have already unlocked them for you.

      You could play for months or for your whole game career without ever building much of anything (once you get off welcome island at least), and some people do. If you take away the fighting aspect of most mmorpgs and compare it to atitd without building, atitd definitely comes out ahead in depth and choice of activities.

  18. Re: Alex, I'll take "MUDs" for 1000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is probably too late, but here goes:

    Alex: "The answer is: The part of a game that forces players to replay the same content in order to advance."
    Contestant: "What is a level treadmill?"
    Alex: "Correct."
    Alex: "The answer is: The part of a game that forces players to replay the same content in order to advance."
    Contestant: "I already said, 'What is a level treadmill?'"
    Alex: "Oh I'm sorry. Your response was not in the form of a question."
    Alex: "The answer is: The part of a game that forces players to replay the same content in order to advance."
    ...

    To illustrate with an example, let's assume you play a small MUD with only 40 zones (~2000-4000 rooms). Your typical mud requires O(N^2) experience to reach a given level and is designed for your character to reach "full power" at around level 21. For grins, let's define some bogus numbers: Level 1 = 0 xp. Level 2 = 1,000 xp, Level 3 = 4,000 xp, level 4 = 9,000 xp, ..., level 21 = 400,000 xp. So if each zone gives you 10,000 xp, then you only have to play each one once to reach level 21. In practice it works differently:

    • There are other people trying to get those same experience points, so you end up waiting for spawns, or you go "do" a zone again.
    • Some mobs only drop rare items at low percentage, so you have to do the mob 10-20x to get your ph4t l3wt.
    • Some zones require you to be a certain level in order to have a chance of survival. As a result, you're forced to go do other zones until you reach the right level.
    • Some games award less experience if you're not the "right level" for a certain mob.
    • Some games use the same mob template over and over, and they start awarding less XP when you kill a template too much. This forces you to go back and redo the zones with unique mobs.
    • Some games allow you to continue to earn practice points/fame beyond level 21. To make level 28, you've got to go clear the whole mud again! To be level 50, you've got to clear the game about 6 times.

    Diablo2 (which clearly has many things in common with a mud) is an example of a single player game with a level treadmill. If you don't go back and clear the zones a few times, you'll be too weak to defeat the act bosses.

    Doom is not an example of a level treadmill, because you do not gain power by repeating the same content.