Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rodrigo Istalindir" data-source="post: 3088540" data-attributes="member: 2810">Not to derail this too much, but I'd argue that they've done little to reduce the time demand.&nbsp; But my rising dissatisfaction isn't with the time/reward equation, its with the reward.&nbsp; The best times I've had in MMORPGs are the very things that have been largely eliminated from the genre.&nbsp; I'll freely admit to being in the minority on this.Well, everything boils down to a preference -- we're talking about entertainment.&nbsp; The point, though, is that I can always do something 'interesting' from a playstyle perspective -- I can use witty repartee, I can perform feats of derring-do, come up with a cunning plan, etc.&nbsp; What's bugging me is the (real or not) trend towards having to have something 'mechanicly' cool every round; eg. if I'm a mage, I must be able to cast a spell every round, if I'm a fighter, I have to be able to use a different feat every round, etc.&nbsp; To me, it's the difference between a action movie and a thriller -- it's in the ebb and flow, the pacing, the drama.&nbsp; Not that you can't have that in 'resource-free' zones, but I've found that in the absence of resource management, it's a lot less likely.&nbsp; (See the many discussions on whether or not the warlock is boring, for example).Again, not in my experience.&nbsp; Or rather, the results are not to my taste.&nbsp; I've found that (relatively) fewer options and resource management is easier to accomodate from a game design perspective than many options/no resource management.&nbsp; (Although at the extreme of 'I get one type of attack I can use once per round' isn't much fun, either).&nbsp; I couldn't handle a warlock with as many invocations as a wizard got spells, for example.&nbsp; I think a decent sized pool of options from which a limited number are available at any given time is more enjoyable -- in other words, I'd rather play a wizard than a sorceror.&nbsp; Then again, I like the problem solving aspects of the game slightly&nbsp; more than the story-telling (not that I don't like that part, too).It's because tights make my butt look big?&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Because, in most cases, three times a day is likely to require some trade-offs.&nbsp; Once every six seconds does not.I've often stated that while the mantra for 3.x was 'options', I much preferred 'choices'.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rodrigo Istalindir, post: 3088540, member: 2810"] Not to derail this too much, but I'd argue that they've done little to reduce the time demand. But my rising dissatisfaction isn't with the time/reward equation, its with the reward. The best times I've had in MMORPGs are the very things that have been largely eliminated from the genre. I'll freely admit to being in the minority on this. Well, everything boils down to a preference -- we're talking about entertainment. The point, though, is that I can always do something 'interesting' from a playstyle perspective -- I can use witty repartee, I can perform feats of derring-do, come up with a cunning plan, etc. What's bugging me is the (real or not) trend towards having to have something 'mechanicly' cool every round; eg. if I'm a mage, I must be able to cast a spell every round, if I'm a fighter, I have to be able to use a different feat every round, etc. To me, it's the difference between a action movie and a thriller -- it's in the ebb and flow, the pacing, the drama. Not that you can't have that in 'resource-free' zones, but I've found that in the absence of resource management, it's a lot less likely. (See the many discussions on whether or not the warlock is boring, for example). Again, not in my experience. Or rather, the results are not to my taste. I've found that (relatively) fewer options and resource management is easier to accomodate from a game design perspective than many options/no resource management. (Although at the extreme of 'I get one type of attack I can use once per round' isn't much fun, either). I couldn't handle a warlock with as many invocations as a wizard got spells, for example. I think a decent sized pool of options from which a limited number are available at any given time is more enjoyable -- in other words, I'd rather play a wizard than a sorceror. Then again, I like the problem solving aspects of the game slightly more than the story-telling (not that I don't like that part, too). It's because tights make my butt look big? :lol: Because, in most cases, three times a day is likely to require some trade-offs. Once every six seconds does not. I've often stated that while the mantra for 3.x was 'options', I much preferred 'choices'. [/QUOTE]

Verification